This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
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 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)[reply]
The current name isn't great. As far as I'm aware, it's not an attempt at a hostile takeover since the board approved the sale, but there still remains a shareholder vote and regulatory approval. As such, Musk hasn't actually bought out Twitter yet or completed the purchase. There also haven't been any other times that Twitter has been bought out outright, so "by Elon Musk" seems to be unnecessary in the title. Perhaps a title like Privatization of Twitter would work once the deal goes through and something like 2022 Twitter privatization bid would work until the deal is given final regulatory and shareholder approval. I'd support either of those titles (dependent on the status of the deal at the time that this move request is completed), but I oppose both the current title and the proposed title of "Buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk" along the lines of the WP:CRITERIA of concision and precision. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'''Support''' Title is a POV, and, although reflecting rhetoric used in media, reflects partisan viewpoints. Takeover is a real business word, but it has strong negative connotations. Also, per Mhawk10, it's not really a takeover. I believe that Buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk would be more appropriate than what the article currently features. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am not a fan of the proposed name of Buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk. Perhaps a better name is the Twitter acquisition by Elon Musk or just even Twitter acquisition, however I do like Mhawk10's suggestion of brandishing this article as the Privatization of Twitter. At this present moment, I believe this can be taken even further and to be concatenated and merged into the main Twitter article, instead of having its own separate article. Ifrenkel (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk", keeps in line with similar articles. Definitely agree the current title Takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk is too POVish even though it is somewhat business-lingo accurate.Yeoutie (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk - "takeover" sounds possibly hostile and is therefore POV. StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus for moving, I would support either Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk or Purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk. I believe including Elon Musk in the title is helpful for readers, and Privatization of Twitter sounds too technical to me. I disagree with the notion that Takeover is non-neutral, we have a plethora of sources calling it a takeover (read the article, it's not necessary hostile). I will note that as of now, "purchase" yields the most number of hits on Google News (4,110,000), followed by "takeover" (3,760,000), "acquisition" (369,000), "buyout" (97,900), and "privatization" (6,940). InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk" as suggested by Sir Beluga. MGJohn-117 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk" as that is what it is. Takeover is not neutral language with negative connotations, the company is being sold. Appears snow is falling here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for "Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk" as suggested by Sir Beluga. C43L (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. Simply because it’s more neutral and better conveys the meaning behind the actual event that is taking place. ‘Takeover’ in some instances means that something was taken by force I guess. Keivan.fTalk 03:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is about another topic, on Musk's use of Twitter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I see that, I propose that it be partially merged into this, because its biggest section is a duplicate, and the rest into Elon_Musk#Twitter to reduce duplication. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The matter on hand is Twitter's relationship to Elon Musk and how it impacts Twitter, not Elon. This would be more appropriate to place on the Twitter page, than Musk's page. Especially since now that Elon Musk and Twitter has been moved to Elon's page; this article should remain and be expanded upon, as it is the most definite documentary of the acquisition and should not be grouped with any other Musk or Twitter related dealings as to eliminate ambiguity. Now that I think of it, seeing the sheer length of Twitter page, a short blurb at most in regards to its ownership is obligatory, but I believe this expanded article, ideally named the Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk is the most logical way to document this acquisition. Think like a user! Ifrenkel (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, should we create redirects for Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk and Buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is a bit too premature. Let's hold off on it for now, as this article is quite literally reachable from the main page. Ifrenkel (talk) 07:55, 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.
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]
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.
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]
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]
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]
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)[reply]
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]
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]
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 : 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:UNDUEfor the first section, while it remains solely based on the claims of Seth Dillon, yes. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 conservativesatire 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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. 126.96.36.199 (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: