Talk:Vulcan Elements

Attempts to remove content

Hello everyone. Creating this topic to avoid further edit warring (Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior).

This page has seen several users try to remove or alter the same content over the past couple of weeks for similar stated reasons. All of those edits have been reverted thus far, most of them by a different person each time. At least two of the editors who removed large chunks of content have been asked to take it to the talk page; no one has done that yet, but in the interest of cooling the edit warring here we should probably discuss this.

@~2025-40303-41

@~2025-39921-87

@Autotrader2345

The edits I'm most concerned with, personally, are:

1) the removal of the content about the investments and investment by the US government

2) the modification of information about the number of employees

Personally I think we need to leave the info from point #1 in the article, because it's the biggest news story about the company so far, and was reported on by several mainstream news sources. I'm willing to change my mind about where the content should be organized on the page but I am inclined to believe there should be at least a mention of it in the intro even if the details (like the $ amounts) are moved to another section.

As for point #2, we will need an appropriate source in order to change the number of employees listed. I went looking and only found a couple of usable sources (see WP:CITE) that state the number of employees at the company...and those are the sources that are used in the article now.

Also, I would just like to remind everyone about WP:COI – please follow the guidelines if you have a possible conflict of interest related to this article.

Thanks,

Doomhope (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Makes sense. The one edit I would suggest after reviewing the page is to shift the section at the top and move it to "history." This doesn't change any of the content and saves some redundancy. Giftsabc349 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Let's talk this out here some more before making more edits to this content.

I disagree - this event is the biggest news story about this company so far, it wasn't on a lot of peoples radar before that. Like I said, I think we need to include this in the lead section, but it may make sense to move details to the history section. The intro can be a little redundant, since the purpose is to summarize the topic (see WP:LEAD). Doomhope (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. You are pushing a political point. I am not trying to erase any content. Simply put it in the history section, not the up front section. Giftsabc349 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• WP:UNDUE (giving fringe or partisan views too much weight)

Giftsabc349 (talk) 05:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you attempted to remove the content again. In the interest of cooling the edit war, please do not edit the intro until we have reached consensus (see WP:QUO, WP:NEGOTIATE).

I am *not* pushing a political point here, and I don't appreciate the accusation. Please assume good faith in other editors.

However, I combed through the NPOV guidance and all of the sources for this article again, and while I still believe the loan should be mentioned in the intro, I *do* see what you're saying about the bit about Trump Jr. and 1789 Capital's involvement. I incorrectly remembered how many sources mentioned this specific aspect of the news about the loan; I thought it was explicitly referenced in more sources and by more prominent individuals. As it stands, it does seem that including that bit of criticism in the intro does give it undue weight considering the small number or sources and notable individuals who have explicitly voiced that particular concern/criticism.

The loan was still one of the biggest stories about the company so far, though, and as such I feel it's appropriate to keep it in the intro. Is everyone ok with the loan still being included in the intro, and with the bit about 1789 Capital and Trump Jr. being moved? If so, we can workshop the wording before making the edit, to ensure we still have consensus and avoid continued edit warring. Doomhope (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. What wording do you propose? Giftsabc349 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see you made another set of unilateral decisions about how to make this edit despite the fact we have not reached consensus yet. This is against Wikipedia's code of conduct, and on a personal note it is quite rude to do to your fellow editors. Please see the links I posted about it in my previous reply.

I will return to this thread to workshop the wording soon. Doomhope (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Wiat hold on, I had my timestamps mixed up. My apologies – I see your most recent edit on the page was before your most recent reply in this thread. I'm leaving it up for accountability, but I retract my previous statement. (I will still return to workshop, though.) Doomhope (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Cool thank you Giftsabc349 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! Here is my proposed wording–this would be added to the intro section:

In 2025, the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Capital granted the company the largest loan it had ever made, at $620 million. Doomhope (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Perfect! Thank you Giftsabc349 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Great, I'll add it! Doomhope (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Great thank you. I would also propose consolidating the last two paragraphs in the "history" section. Not deleting info. Just removing redundancy. Let me know your thoughts.

Current form:

"In August 2025, the company raised $65 million from private investors such as Altimeter Capital, One Investment Management, and 1789 Capital. It also secured orders and a multimillion dollar contract from the Pentagon. In November 2025, the Pentagon announced that its Office of Strategic Capital had awarded a $620 million dollar loan to Vulcan Elements, and that the Department of Commerce had an additional $50 million in equity. The Pentagon said that the $620 million dollar loan was funded by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and that the $50 million investment used funds provided by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. Vulcan Elements said the money would go to increasing their production capacity to 10,000 metric tons per year.

In August 2025, 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm backed by Donald Trump Jr., invested in Vulcan Elements. Three months later, Vulcan Elements received a $620 million loan from the U.S. Department of Defense to increase the supply of magnets for industries. This was the largest loan given by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital. The deal raised conflict of interest questions related to Trump Jr.'s relationship with the second Donald Trump administration."

I propose the following:

"In August 2025, the company raised $65 million from private investors such as Altimeter Capital, One Investment Management, and 1789 Capital. It also secured orders and a multimillion dollar contract from the Pentagon. In November 2025, the Pentagon announced that its Office of Strategic Capital had awarded a $620 million dollar loan to Vulcan Elements, and that the Department of Commerce had an additional $50 million in equity. The deal raised conflict of interest questions related to Trump Jr.'s relationship with the second Donald Trump administration. The Pentagon said that the $620 million dollar loan was funded by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and that the $50 million investment used funds provided by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. Vulcan Elements said the money would go to increasing their production capacity to 10,000 metric tons per year." Giftsabc349 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Works for me, as long as the citations are preserved! Doomhope (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

No, this proposed edit fails to explain that 1789 Capital is backed by Trump Jr. Furthermore, no one should take any of this editor's suggestions until the editor clarifies their obvious conflict of interest. Thenightaway (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is it relevant to highlight that he is an advisor to 1789? Vulcan literally clarified in the FT article they have never spoken or interacted with him? Giftsabc349 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

And to be clear; I’m happy to include those sources and that information. It just should be in “History” not “intro” Giftsabc349 (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, it's relevant because he's more than just an advisor to 1789 Capital; he's a key partner who makes major decisions decisions about what companies and industries the firm invests in. The concern raised by these sources is not that Vulcan Elements is personally doing some backdoor deal with Trump Jr. directly...the concern is that a member of Trump's family is now in a position to directly profit off of government decisions, like the decision to award contracts and grant loans to companies like Vulcan Elements that Trump Jr. has a stake in, which could give him an unfair advantage over businesspeople who do not have family ties in the government. (All of this is spelled out pretty explicitly in the Financial Times article.)

Honestly, I'm inclined to agree with @Thenightaway...I didn't catch that the proposed edit removed the key link between Trump Jr. and 1789 Capital. It doesn't really make sense if you remove that information. And, frankly, I agree about the COI–I'm a newer editor and I got in my head about this reading a bunch of different advice on how to handle COI but I do think this whole situation is....well, it's pretty suspicious! Doomhope (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Fine again. happy to include that. I just don't see why it matters if this information is moved to the "history" section. The relevant "main idea" is that the company is an american rare earth magnet producer. Giftsabc349 (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Reversal of edits

@Thenightaway @Doomhope I have no COI. If you can provide any evidence of this, let me know. I'm literally not removing any content. I'm just shifting it. Let's reach a compromise. Giftsabc349 (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior Giftsabc349 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

(For any onlookers new to this talk page, this is a continuation of the conversation we had on this talk page under the topic header above this one.)

Hey again! I see you've both made some edits and reverts. Let's all put a pause on edits until we get this sorted out, yeah? It's not good to edit and then immediately post on the talk page, or vice versa.

In the previous thread, @Giftsabc349 said: "I just don't see why it matters if this information is moved to the "history" section. The relevant 'main idea' is that the company is an american rare earth magnet producer." My reply to this is that the lead section is not designed just to summarize the "main idea" of the article. Per WP:LEAD, "the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. [...] It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This is why I have argued for the inclusion of the content about the loan in the lead–as far as I can tell, this is the most nationally widely reported event in the history of the company. I did concede that the inclusion of content about criticism relating to Trump Jr.'s investment would probably give it undue weight considering there are only a handful of sources that explicitly voice that criticism, but I maintain that the loan should be covered briefly in the lead.

To re-address the COI concerns: I'm new to this sort of dispute, so I am figuring this out for the first time, but I do think it's important to note that there may be an additional sockpuppet concern at play here considering @Giftsabc349's account is one of four accounts that have edited this page (either exclusively or near-exclusively) and attempted to either remove content about the loan or shift it out of the lead section. As I mentioned in the previous conversation, some of the other users involved (@~2025-40303-41, @~2025-39921-87, @Autotrader2345) made concerning and repeated edits that, to me, indicate PR efforts: changing the titles of co-founders John Maslin and Piotr Kulik, removing the "startup" label despite broad and recent coverage of it as a startup, and modifying the number of employees. So, while wile we don't have any proof–it's entirely possible that @Giftsabc349 has no connection to the company or to the other users that made these edits–I agree that this may merit further investigation. I really hate to accuse a stranger on the internet of lying or concealing something, but it's too much of a coincidence to overlook.

I would like to wait for a few days to see if @Thenightaway has any more thoughts before moving forward with any other steps. Doomhope (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Thenightaway Trying to reach you one more time. Any further thoughts on this? Doomhope (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The content, sourced to multiple RS, about the conflicts of interest related to the company should be restored in full. Attempts by multiple undisclosed WP:COI accounts to remove the content should be rejected. This company was created in 2023 and has near-exclusively been covered in relation to its conflicts of interest with the Trump family and the money that the Trump administration threw at the company. Thenightaway (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Controversy section

Should the paragraph about “The deal raised conflict of interest questions, as 1789 Capital, a firm backed by Donald Trump Jr. had just in August 2025 invested heavily into the company…” not be moved out of “History” and into a new “Controversy” section? Delmontebanana (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

No, see WP:CRIT Doomhope (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Syntax correction needed

As of yester-day, I have not been able to figure out how to edit articles: I make the changes, but then I can't see any tab for preview or sending.

That being the case, here are the corrections (bold text) that I want to make: Neither 1789 Capital nor Vulcan Elements has disclosed what the precise stake of 1789 Capital is in Vulcan Elements. After the Pentagon loan, the valuation of Vulcan Elements increased from $200 million to $2 billion. The founders of Vulcan Elements said they received no political favoritism. Trump Jr. has said that he played no role in the deal between the Pentagon and the company. Kdammers (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC) Kdammers (talk) 16:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)