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)[reply]


Takeover of Twitter by Elon MuskBuyout 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)[reply]

+1 for Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk; sounds neutral. Nythar (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There are no citations because of WP:LEADCITE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Scoured the web for an explanation, but none found so far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

so called technologists in Washington Post

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

The so called technologists:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't see a need for a change. "Buyout" is synonymous with "acquisition". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
There was snow closed RFC on this. The consensus is to use acquisition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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.[reply]

Cannabis leaf.svg

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

NYT in depth

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
~~Made a WP:BOLD edit to this effect.~~ Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I never hit submit, but Firefangledfeathers had me covered. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted by Jtbobwaysf. Hi Jt, was my removal really unexplained? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: Please either strike your accusations, or take it to the admins. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Babylon Bee content

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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