Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk#Requested move 24 May 2024

Merge this article with Twitter Ned1a Wanna talk? 18:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:@Nedia020415 Why? Maybe with Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, if anything. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

::Ah. That seems better to merge. Ned1a Wanna talk? 00:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::Merging with Criticism of Twitter makes the most sense to me as it already has a section dedicated to this. Averagecryptid (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe we can merge all of these articles into twitter. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 22:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I support a merge to deal with BLP issues, having the subject in the article name is UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While looking for material for the Criticism of Twitter, I ended up copying more than half of the content from here to there. Which also shows that this article is grossly unbalanced towards criticism of Twitter post-acquisition period. I suggest summarizing much of the criticism (it is now copied to a dedicated article where it is more WP:DUE); it would be also good to expand this article here with something "nice" to say about this topic (if possible). I presume some folks praise Twitter/X and its evolution under Musk - their views don't seem to be represented here in a due fashion (unless I am wrong and Twitter is being nearly universally criticized in the past few years...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:I was initially on the same track as you, but doing an overview of sources not on the page indicates that the coverage is almost universally negative. The best I can find is people praising Musk's acquisition of the platform but for the period where Twitter is actually under Elon Musk I'm drawing a pretty big blank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:Happy to include all of these "positive" aspects of X that you talk of, if they now exist from RS that is. Per above comment they don't though, so the WP:BALANCE is accurate. Also please don't overlook all the quote tweets from Musk based on secondary, as that's as NPOV as you can get, given X categorically don't engage with the media directly either (so no other rebuttals etc). It's ironic as not so long ago it was argued that these quote tweets weren't due, and now there are POV concerns. So I appreciate the compliment overall, as in the meantime the content hasn't changed all that much. If anything, there have been more positives/neutral content included :) CNC (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

:If anything, Criticism of Twitter strikes me as a textbook example of a POV fork. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::Agreed, breaking off Criticism of Twitter was a mistake. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

::Based on WP:ARTICLESIZE of Twitter (ie WP:TOOBIG), then I can understand how the split was legitimate rather than a WP:POVFORK. Personally I'd find it impossible to argue against a split of such an oversized article for this reason alone. However the irony being that the child was created but it wasn't a WP:PROPERSPLIT due to lack of summarising and attribution. CNC (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Attribution is in the edit history. As for lack of summarizing, this can be done by editors more familiar with the main articles; frankly, this on here strikes me as so bad (Wikipedia:ATTACKPAGE) I'd rather AFD this or just redirect this to the Critcism... which is perfectly in line with similar articles (Criticism of Facebook and like). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Or maybe you're just wrong about this being an attack page and "Twitter is being nearly universally criticized in the past few years." You haven't actually presented a strong argument that this is an attack page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::In which case the topic is Twitter, not Musk, and summarizing much content here which is not at Criticism of Twitter could be a solution. But if we shorten this page, does it even need to exist, given that it was split from Twitter's main history page/section as too long? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::According to the talk page history this page was split off from Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_under_Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1128559638][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_under_Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1128634477][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_under_Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1128638493] not Twitter or History of Twitter. It also wasn't split for length, it was split for context (at some point acquisition became post-acquisition) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::::You think this page {{tq|exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject}}? Can you provide examples of the content on this page that is so bad that it meets that criteria? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Actually, yes, I think this page is an undue criticism of Musk covered by ATTACKPAGE. I do however see the consensus here is against me, and I don't care about this topic that much; if all of you think it is fine, maybe you see something I don't. But if someone decides to AFD this, do ping me. A discussion at WP:BLPN could be a less nuclear option, perhaps. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::I'm just trying to understand what you think is so bad. Can you provide examples? Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Given A) no specific examples of problematic content were provided and B) a rough consensus among participants in this discussion (and the related one on Twitter's talk page) that coverage here was widely negative, and thus the page accurately reflects coverage, I have removed the NPOV maintenance template.

:::::::@Piotrus, I would personally encourage you to consider self-reverting the bold split you made to Criticism of Twitter and instead starting a clear split discussion here or at Talk:Twitter. Making a bold change and then insisting people bring it to AFD to undo it feels like an attempt to abuse process in order to ignore consensus and get the outcomes you want. There have been numerous discussions about how to organize this content, many of us responding have disagreed in those discussions, and yet I see broad agreement that this split was not a good idea. Consensus on this does not need to come from AFD to be legitimate. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 20:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::The talk page is fine for establishing consensus for removal of NPOV template, but if you want to delete another article, AfD is that'a'way. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi sir I want some help 2409:4089:BECB:2756:0:0:29CA:1608 (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:If you're looking for help pertaining to Elon Musk or Twitter, you're in the wrong place. But if you want to suggest a change to this Wikipedia article, you can do so below. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is included in :Category:Far-right politics and social media, but unlike other pages like newspapers or blogs X is a social network, it has no webmaster writing anything or any content whatsoever other than what users want to post. And yes, it surely has far-right posts... same as it has far-left, standard right, standard left, center, apolitical, "they can all go to hell", and basically all topics that someone may want to talk about. So we either include this category, along with all the subcategories of :Category:Websites by topic (a truly futile task, BTW)... or just ignore them all, and strick to the other categories the article already has. Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:Its category "Far-right politics and social media" not "Far-right social media" and there appears to be significant discussion of far-right politics and social media in the article (Account suspensions and reinstatements)... And there is no requirement to include all categories or ignore them. That being said I agree that its not a great category for the page as currently constructed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)