Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

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.

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

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)

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)

• Notable? https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2022/11/12/fake-eli-lilly-twitter-account-claims-insulin-is-free-stock-falls-43 Ain92 (talk) 20:19, 14 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)

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)

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)

RFC on merging reactions/analysis sections

Shall we merge Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Reactions and Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Critical_analysis 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#Critical_analysis_vs._Reaction 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)

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)

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 @SteelersDiclonious: 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)

I don't perceive the edits you mention here as being outright removals.
— User:Bakkster Man

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 § Initial reforms. 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)

I also disagree with your unbalanced tag, I don't see any signs of bias.
— User:InfiniteNexus

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)

@Freoh: 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)

you didn't appear to address my concern above

Could you be more specific? I thought your concern was about finding a broader source about the wider trends in political censorship on the platform. 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 Jtbobwaysf 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 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?

I was trying to follow the WP:STRUCTURE guidelines, which recommend folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Freoh (talk) 23:05, 5 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 unsourced POV, lede summarizes not introduces new ideas. 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 greater free speech. 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)

User:Jtbobwaysf did not change anything the wording; he reverted

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)

You have sourced allegations of censorship

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)

a biased source whose statement should be attributed

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)

this criticism would need widespread coverage by non-biased (mainstream) WP:RS for it to be due in the lead.

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 editor consensus 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)

A single reliable source, considered biased by Wikipedia consensus, isn't enough for the lead.

It's not just one.

• "Activists accuse Elon Musk of banning "anti-fascist accounts" on Twitter". Newsweek. November 23, 2022.
• Mackey, Robert; Lee, Micah (November 29, 2022). "Left-Wing Voices Are Silenced on Twitter as Far-Right Trolls Advise Elon Musk". The Intercept. Retrieved November 29, 2022.
• "Elon Musk, "Free Speech Absolutist," Has Launched a Crackdown on Left-Wing Twitter Accounts". jacobin.com. Retrieved 2022-12-04.

And more are under discussion:

• "Twitter suspends Palestine Online account". Middle East Monitor. 2022-11-17. Retrieved 2022-11-17.
• O'Sullivan, Donie (2022-11-07). "Kathy Griffin suspended from Twitter for impersonating Elon Musk | CNN Business". CNN. Retrieved 2022-11-17.
• Murphy, Mike. "Kathy Griffin kicked off Twitter as 'free-speech absolutist' Elon Musk cracks down on parody accounts targeting him". MarketWatch. Retrieved 2022-12-05.
• Rahman, Abid (2022-11-07). "Twitter Cracks Down on Impersonators, Permanently Suspends Kathy Griffin". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2022-12-05.

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)

First, you cant just keep re-adding content to the lede that is under dispute saying it is an effort at compromise.

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)

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 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)