Talk:America Party

Evidence of actually being founded as an organization?

Beyond Elon Musk simply announcing a new party on X (Twitter) is there any concrete proof or documentation yet that this is actually happening? 2600:1016:A112:381B:60EA:E593:B65D:8FA0 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

My question exactly. is it really a notable political party if one person just says it exists, regardless of the coverage in the news? For now, this just seems like coverage of an event in the Trump Musk feud, rather than an actual org that has run candidates and published any policy positions or anything at all. WP:NOTNEWS PersusjCP (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, we need to wait for something more concrete. We are going off tweets and are assigning ideologies seemingly based on "vibes".

I assume at some point there will be a proper document or website that we can actually source. Brian boru642 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

You make some really good points. My suggestion would be to give it a month to see what happens. If nothing happens then delete it. It would be a shame to have to reinstate it if in a month this thing is starting to take off. 2601:2C1:9081:5530:2076:DB45:4CA0:B0AD (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the one month period to verify if the America Party becomes a legitimate party. It should have a chance to prove itself before a decision on its fate is effected by Wiki staff. 49.48.46.73 (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree on the one month period, seems like a good way of hedging this. Secondcodwar (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a Web page for the party, https://TheAmericaParty.org. Should that be made an external link?

Musk is talking about registering it with the FEC and IRS, but has not done so yet. There was a fake attempt at registration, which Musk has denounced. There are fraudulent offers of TAP cryptocurrency, also denounced by Musk. There is staff, some of them from Musk's other companies. The Web page contains a mission statement and nine one-paragraph issue statements. There is a little bit of polling. Musk asserts that he will go after two or three Senate seats and perhaps a dozen House seats, enough to derail the Republican trifecta.

I can supply more details. Ask me anything.

I have written about TAP on Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/10/2331883/-Thursday-GNR-The-TheAmericaParty-org-Party Thursday GNR: The TheAmericaParty.org Party. Naturally, I am not proposing my original research for inclusion here.

Do we agree on what would be significant activity? FEC registration? Verified fundraising? Announced candidates? Mokurai (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

How did this article become an article from a draft so fast?

Can someone explain??? I mean what if Elon decides to not start it? Why so fast?? 2600:387:F:318:0:0:0:3 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree I would wait maybe a day or two because musk is very indecisive and changes his mind a lot. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he starts it or not; the topic has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to merit a standalone article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree but if he decides not to do it or likely just forgets it then what is the point of the article. I would say keep it for now since it's important but if we could waiting is also good. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The facts that the richest men in the world said he was going to do something and then did not do. It is also notable.

I'm sure there are lots of articles on Wikipedia about things that didn't exist like UFOs. Anti-vaccination theories and so on. All notable even though they may not exist? 80.4.140.48 (talk) 06:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

also surprised at the speed, but there is quite a number of backdrop details for it so i think even if Elon doesn't officially found it, this can be turned into another kind SushiSteak (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

this article should probably be merged into Political activities of Elon Musk until there's actual evidence of formal party registration or organized activity, such as FEC filings or candidate endorsements. Marissa TRS (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I do think that at the moment there should just be a section and infobox in that article CY223 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Possible official website

I found this. https://theamericaparty.org/ should we hold off on adding it to the article until we can confirm it’s real? 142.160.219.53 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be real, as it links to the website for Musk's America PAC 2600:1016:B019:CB66:0:51:FF87:7E01 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It is not real. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The page for American Party is not the page for The America Party, which is real. Mokurai (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be a third-party that runs the site. The domain has been used (archive.org) since 2004 and the agreement to recieve emails reads as if it's not yet owned by Musk or America Party affiliates

• "from any future owner of these assets such as the future FEC-registered committee for The America Party that legally takes over"
• "TheAmericaParty.org is an independent exploratory civic-ideas project and is not yet an FEC-registered committee"
• "The future legal owner/FEC-registered committee... will give me explicit written notice and a reasonable opportunity to opt out..."

It doesn't seem like its an official Elon Musk or FEC-affiliated site. It looks like a private, exploratory website Marissa TRS (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Here you go https://muskx.us/ Americaparty (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

This has even less indication it’s official then the other website. Literally all it is is a page saying we are the America party.142.160.219.53 (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that the website suggests that the party is related to the America PAC (https://theamericapac.org/) by listing the America PAC in the footer. Jonl (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. No official connection has been made to this website. Οἶδα (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest emailing the email that they list on the website, and asking if they are affiliated with Elon Musk. PersonMan922 (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Citation Style

Should the citation style on this article be reverted back to the "standard" Wikipedia style as opposed to the current different one? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Why? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The style may potentially make the article unwelcoming for new and inexperienced editors and is fairly uncommon across the rest of the site, was just wondering the reason for the difference in style for the citations. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I will take it up on myself to fix any references that do not conform, so editors should not worry about that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:57, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I edited more than 100 citations on the Trump-Musk site.

You're using a standard that makes more sense for books and monographies. Selbsportrait (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this style is much more appropriate for book and in-hand citations with page counts rather than from online-born news articles. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. WP:SNOW should apply, but I can't close this as I'm involved. I will add that this article does use {{Harvnb}} to create inline quotes. I don't know how that could be replicated without shortened footnotes. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It'd be more welcoming to use the "regular" ref formatting. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Support. Theofunny (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Harvard style only makes sense if a lot of citations require page numbers or something: when the same source is used multiple times but in different ways. Usually more academic topics. It should not be used if all the sources are just regular news articles. It's annoying to click a footnote and then you have to click again to get the actual reference. It's also a massive pain to edit in the visual editor. Please don't use this style as a general practice. Reywas92^Talk 03:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Should not describe the party as right-wing or far-right until sources cover

I have not seen sources covering this as either a right-wing or far-right party, so no information relating to that should be included until it is more formally established as such. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Might possibly need to just outright clean the ideology section til we have proper sources. Brian boru642 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I was also considering this as an option. The original list, populism and deficit reduction, was based on what Musk had already confirmed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

re-add the original list than.

Until we have sources other than Musk himself that describe the ideology Brian boru642 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Deficit reduction is a policy position like the two-state solution which was recently removed from all Israeli parties, it's not an ideology. Theofunny (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed the section for now. Feel free to add those back, they were not included in the list that I removed, I guess they got removed down the line Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:48, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Considering Musk has ties to far right parties and promotes some conspiracy theories of the ideology, I find the “encourage births,” thing in the article to be sounding “save the white race,”-esque dog whistling. May be me, but that’s how I am reading it. MelonApostate (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Introduction of article

Should the introduction be amended to include the poll in which 80 percent of respondents agreed to his proposition? (After “feud” it could be included) Thefinals626472 (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Also there was an Overton Insights poll I guess showing 40 percent wanted a third party from Elon which he cited multiple times? Theofunny (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Ideology

Discuss the ideology here. (Sorry if I didn't tag anyone else that is also participating in the creation of the info box and or the article itself, I'm just trying to prevent any edit wars.) Thank you! @ElijahPepe @HyperAnemoia @Iberia-Tao @Freedoxm @Scu ba @David O. Johnson @Wistherdisc @Cgixn @Comfisofa Zyxrq (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I think we should add Techno-libertarianism, as it is elons main ideology since the very beginning, Elon had a major reason in the split with trump due to trump not caring as much about technological development, examples are the ev mandate removal, and the withdrawal of jared isaacman for administator of nasa Azaad271011 (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

also maybe the addition of direct democracy as he has on numerous occasions advocated for it on the future mars colony spacex plans to build by 2050 with 1m people.

here are all the sources.

https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/2/11837590/elon-musk-mars-government-direct-democracy-law-code-conference?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1873469783263580622?lang=en&utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-government-mars-colony-direct-democracy-no-representatives-shorter-laws-2021-12?utm_source=chatgpt.com Azaad271011 (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

also elon has advocated for UBI, the last time being march 27 2025, he believes AI will take away many jobs and that a UBI is inevitable

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/elon-musk-says-universal-income-inevitable-why-he-thinks-thats-bad-thing?utm Azaad271011 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Middle class interests should be removed from the info box. Claiming alignment with the general populace is a political strategy employed by most, if not all, parties in states that hold democratic elections. It's the most banal form of political propaganda there is.

The source only cites Musks tweet about his Twitter/X poll outcome, wherein 80% voted in favour of a new party created for the middle class. The source doesn't even mention Musk supporting this view, but let's ignore that for a moment. The poll has under 6 million answers, and was posted on a platform that's owned by Musk himself and is in recent times notoriously right-leaning. Musk boasting about the result is simply embarrasing himself and should not be treated in any way seriously.

I'm sorry for the lack of paragraphs, not sure how to make them appear. I will be deleting the edit, and leaving this for justification. TheAdriaticPolsza (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I recommend using this tweet as source for the America Party's ideology. Although not made by Musk, Musk confirmed this was the party's ideology in the comments. IAmHelloAndYou (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

The party's official position is just whatever elon musk wants. Hence its ideology should just be the Views of Elon Musk page. We can call this all sorts of things. "Views of Elon Musk" "Elon Musk Thought" "Elonism" "Elon-Muskism" but I think "Muskism" works the best. Scuba 15:55, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should remove the ideology section from the infobox entirely. It is too early to see what identity the party embraces. As of now, the fiscal conservatism tag is just what Musk has said and nothing more. EarthDude (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I only made an edit to revert someone putting "far-left to far-right" completely unsourced, however I think ideology should be held off until the party is actually formed, policies are crafted and reliable sources reach a consensus. Comfisofa (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

the only source for ideology right now is this post by elon where he states that "The Second Amendment is sacred" although this is a primary source and also not really much of an ideology Laura240406 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with @Czello @Maxeto0910 and @SSSEuropa from the "Category:Right-wing populism in the United States" discussion thread. We should wait for the party to form an identity and actually do something before labeling its ideology. Though I am open to the suggestions made by @Azaad271011. We should still wait to add any ideologies. Zyxrq (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Highly support this argument to wait. No point in adding ideologies when the party has barely started and there is little academic/press discussion of its ideology. We also don't know how much control Musk will have/want, inc. over ideology. Quinby (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Already notable

Polls show 40% support Musk, 30% dems and 30% rep. If true then these polls are already historical for a 3rd party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:5A9:46C4:B04E:822A:3318:6512 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

What polls are we talking about? How reliable are they? A random twitter poll is not representative whatsoever of the american popular system, and Elon is deeply unpopular from both sides of the political spectrum. I very very highly doubt that 40% is anything close to reality. 178.51.175.50 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed. Andrew B (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

"Category:Right-wing populism in the United States"

Does it really make sense to categorize the party as "Right-wing populism in the United States"? I can get why we already list some political positions of the party based on Musk's views and announcements, but the party hasn't engaged in populism yet, has it? Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's wait. SSSEuropa (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. We should wait until the party has done something that the media describes as populism, and then we can add the category. But not now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is populist, but let's wait until to see if it is Right Wing Populism. SSSEuropa (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, until a source says it it's WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 09:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

I suggest that for now, and until something meaningful can be said about the party, beyond it being proposed by Elon Musk, the infobox should be commented out. Right now it adds nothin to the page, and leads to persistent disruptive edits. Gust Justice (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gust Justice agree, it doesn't even have a logo so the infobox holds next-to-no actually worthwhile info in it. Quinby (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, It's typical practice to have Information boxes for political parties. There will absolutely be information as the political organization takes shape. It doesn't make any sense to remove a information box just to add it back in after a day or two. This conversation is ultimately redundant. Zyxrq (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait @Gust Justice I do not know what "commented out" means? Zyxrq (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at what "commented out" means. I think my point still stands, though you can do what you wanted with the information box. I did not read what you said in its entirety, I thought you wanted to completely remove it. that's on me. sorry for the ping. Zyxrq (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gust Justice again sorry for the ping, I just want to make sure you see this. Zyxrq (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree just because there is little to no useful information that can be put in the infobox at this point, which would improve the article. On the contrary, it opens the door for people to add whatever they think e.g. the ideology of the party is, even if poorly sourced. Commenting out the infobox now, doesn't rule adding it back e.g. in a week, when more information is available, and more meaningful things can be said about the party. Gust Justice (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I do think you should wait for a further consensus, I still think it’s altogether redundant simply because there isn’t really a big enough editing problem with the information box to warrant commenting it out. Zyxrq (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we change the party name in the infobox to "The America Party", the name on its Web site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokurai (talk • contribs) 18:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This Page should be in extended pretected.

Because this is a recently created article, (And one with a lot of attention). It should be in the extend protected area, much like the 2028 presidential election. This is so to avoid any vandalism. Fad8229 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added a request.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase David O. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you David O. Johnson Fad8229 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Should We move this page to America Party (2025)?

Reason for asking is that there were multiple parties over Americas history, and there were many parties named the America Party. Fad8229 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this; there is already 4 other pages with the almost exact name. The America Party page should be a redirect to the disambiguation page. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

there were many parties named the America Party

Such as? I am not finding any. American Party is not identical to America Party. A hatnote is sufficient. Οἶδα (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is an Disambiguation page that is at the top of the page. And in that page, there should be 4 articles with the exact name. Fad8229 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I said the pages had an almost exact name. But, Οἶδα is right, the hatnote should be fine. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I see his point on second thought, Because it's the America Party, and not the American Party. But I will still keep this up for debate reasons. Fad8229 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you put a LOGO?

In fact, there is a LOGO in Wikimedia Commons File:America Party Logo.png Ksrxz (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Because, It's not the official photo. It was made by a random person. And plus the photo was uploaded in May. Which would be a month before the announcement of the America Party. Fad8229 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Also the use of the "Logo" was put on the Translated versions of Wikipedia, which are notorious for inaccurate information. Fad8229 (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Fad8229 Thanks for the correction Ksrxz (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a logo on the The America Party Web page. It's a stylized eagle head in a five pointed star, with four green points and one red. As long as we don't regard that page as official, in default of an FEC registration, the logo is also unofficial. Mokurai (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST REMOVE THE INFOBOX

It's been vandalized way too much and It's So Annoying too the point were it's absolutely just melting the brains of people reverting the changes in the Info Box. So please, REMOVE THE INFO BOX. Fad8229 (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think if we requested page protection for the article, that would be a start. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes That also what I want, Extend Protection additionally. Fad8229 (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Also thank you for thanking my edit, even though it was reverted Fad8229 (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Fake (?) poll

„A preliminary Quantus Insights survey conducted in July found that around 40% of Americans would potentially support Elon Musk if he were to launch a third political party. 14% said they’d be "very likely" to vote for it, 26% "somewhat likely," while 38% were unlikely to support it, and the rest were unsure. The poll revealed strong interest among male Republicans and nearly half of independent men, while older and Democratic voters were more skeptical”

The citation for this leads to an article which itself does not link to the actual poll, leading me to think the poll either doesn’t exist or uses dubious methods. I cannot find the original poll either. Could we delete this paragraph? KittyClaireLune (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a good point, until the original poll is founded, I removed it from the article. Fad8229 (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

A high quality reliable source does not need to link to their sources for us to cite them on Wikipedia. But you asked, so I deliver:

https://quantusinsights.org/f/quantus-insights-national-survey-still-polarized-now-drifting

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R4pZVo0ZnrQyElZQzdNtt7CQ1zwTypuS/ Οἶδα (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You Got to be F###ing kidding me. I'm not going to trust Mr KittyClaireLune until he actually does some good insight. Fad8229 (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

BUT I think we do need to replace the source with that Quantus insights thing. I'm just going to do that now Fad8229 (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that the article does not link the data, an additional citation to their webpage could be useful. However, primary sources are not independent of the subject and should supplement, not replace, independent reliable secondary sources. Οἶδα (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, but the Secondary/Independent Sources when it comes to polling are just citing the poll. That's not really Independent, so I think it's one of those cases were citing the primary source is fine. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Fad8229 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact I'm think this should be a debate let me add that as a new topic Fad8229 (talk) 06:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No it should not. I get that you are trying to help but please slow down. Οἶδα (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No it is not a simple citation of the poll. It is a summary with commentary from an independent (heh) reliable secondary source newspaper. This is not a big deal. I did not remove the primary ref. All I am asking is that you not remove the secondary source for the sake of verification. Οἶδα (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Damnit why am I always wrong. Fuck Fad8229 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

We all start from somewhere. The longer you are around here, the more you learn. Οἶδα (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

my fault, I found the link but missed the part that talked about musk’s party KittyClaireLune (talk) 07:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

FEC filing

Musk has said that the supposed FEC filing for the party is fake. [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In the state of Texas, America Party of Texas Committee, has been filed with the FEC. ACCEPTED FEC-1898716 The Committee ID: C00910828. This is as of July 7, 2025. Levi Jobe as the Custodian of Records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.247.30 (talk)

Infobox and ideology

As already discussed, I do not believe that the infobox at this stage adds anything of value, and has just led to much vandalism. Moreover, the ideology of the party in the infobox clearly violates WP:UNDUE. I would welcome a fast consensus being built around this, so it can be removed and stop some of the chaos that has been the initial few days of the page. Quinby (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, an infobox is the most important part of any page on wikipedia especially for political parties. Scuba 00:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

An infobox is indeed one of the most important parts of any page. But for this article, there's just very little reliable information to be added except for Musk being the founder. As of now, the infobox is serving little purpose and is only the center of a lot of edit conflicts EarthDude (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Scu ba I understand that, but genuinely what does the infobox add which is not covered in the first line of the article? I eventually would like a full infobox with consensus on ideology etc, but at the moment there is no information to build this. Quinby (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree on removing ideology from the infobox. The party has literally just formed and does not have an identity EarthDude (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2025

I think the parties ideology should be updated to include Pronatalism. Musk has stated in the time magazine source the party is focused on increasing births and Pronatalism is the most direct term for an ideology that favors population growth. It often involves measures like financial incentives, social support, and cultural promotion of larger families. MinnesotaNice69 (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is WP:OR — Czello ^(music) 19:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added and that it doesn't constitute as original research as it has been identified as one of his platforms by Time magazine.

https://time.com/7300282/elon-musk-new-political-party-america-party-policies-trump-split/ 2601:19C:4A05:293D:D754:DBCE:A5F3:D268 (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a single issue, you don't describe a party's ideology by just listing out every position they have on every policy. Scuba 00:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it probably should be mentioned in the political positions were it can be stated as one of the policies, not the ideology. Not everything is ideology kid. Fad8229 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

while i agree with your critique of my suggestion i do find it condescending and disrespectful to be calling people "kid" for suggesting edits. This new party only has two clear motives, and that's fiscal stability and procreation. My suggestion to make it part of the ideology was based on the lack of other positions and narrow platform the party currently holds. MinnesotaNice69 (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the cynical tone there at the end, I guess I can see your point there, but the lack of positions are solely due to the party just being announced. And certainly there should be more policies positions when this continues on delevoping. Fad8229 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. my suggested edit was made to early. the parties ideology is not fully formed at this time. MinnesotaNice69 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times continues to monitor developments related to the America Party.

The New York Times continues to monitor developments related to the America Party, including any formal actions taken by Musk and his team to establish the party and its platform. This ongoing coverage indicates that the newspaper is actively engaged in reporting on the implications of Musk's political endeavors. 2806:2F0:9421:E631:E1EC:5A65:EEC4:3A4B (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Regd. ineligible to run for prez

Is the organization section's statement correct. If he is a US citizen (which he currently is). He can lead the party right? Srini350 (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe the statement in the organization section is potentially misleading. While Elon Musk is constitutionally ineligible to run for the U.S. presidency because he is not a natural-born citizen, this does not prevent him from serving as a party leader. The roles of a party’s presidential candidate and its leader (often referred to as the chair) are distinct, even though they can be held by the same person. The original statement makes it seem as though Musk cannot lead the party, which is not the case. Max1298 (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Max1298 yes, he can lead the party, but can't stand for prez. Srini350 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

so currently its misleading and incorrect, as he can indeed lead the America party Srini350 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

oh i got now. itseems the person has to be a US citizen (by birth) and not simply a citizen. Srini350 (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Srini350 is now blocked as a sockpuppet

¬¬¬¬ Doug Weller talk 15:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

America Party Ideology

The America Party ideology should be:

1) Fiscal Conservatism

2) Economic Liberalism

3) Populism (maybe Right Wing Populism)

4) Social Conservatism??? SSSEuropa (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Fiscal convervatism is already sourced in in the infobox. Are there any reliable sources for the other ideologies? David O. Johnson (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably natalism could be added (see note n.29).Iberia-Tao (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Extraneous article?

Shouldn’t this article be under Political activities of Elon Musk instead of its own? – KaijuEditor (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There was an Articles for deletion discussion five days ago; the consensus was to keep it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/America_Party_(2nd_nomination) David O. Johnson (talk) 16:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Edit semi-protected template. Edit requests are for implementing uncontroversial changes. Since Max1298 and another editor is disagreeing please discuss before reopening Dahawk04 Talk 💬

---

Add the america party website to the infobox 2600:387:F:580E:0:0:0:9 (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Question: What website? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 19:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The Web site for The America Party is https://TheAmericaParty.org. Mokurai (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not. This is not an official website. Max1298 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 22:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: You need to specify the exact website. I just got reverted. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 22:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

TheAmericaparty.org 24.0.255.96 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Since editors are disagreeing with whether this is the official website, I will close this edit request until consensus is reached — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 06:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

it is the official website since it has elon musk x posts 2600:387:F:580E:0:0:0:3D (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are for implementing uncontroversial changes. Since Max1298 and another editor is disagreeing please discuss before reopening — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 22:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

the website is about elon musk so in is not a diffrent america party 2600:387:F:580E:0:0:0:3D (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

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