Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2022

Hello sir I am doing this edit because I realized that there is no comma under line 17 in letter 8. The english dictionary suggests a comma there. Joejoesiwa283 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please provide the prose where the comma is missing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Father: Errol Musk, not mentioned next to mother in parents section. 2A00:23C5:6686:C501:C9D9:E986:E17F:32D8 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Head of Tesla╱SpaceX╱Boring╱Neuralink╱OpenAI╱Twitter

Something along the line of the title should be our article's short description. “Why?” you may ask. Well if the short description is all about maximizing the informative content in a concise manner, I think this does it very well. Much better than the previous "born 1971" anyway. Birth information is redundant especially given that there are no other Elon Musks from earlier eras. A list of the most important points of interest is an efficient way of short-describing our article. ToniTurunen (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We do say it, in the second line of the lede, other than Twitter. Is he its CEO or just its owner? Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

At the moment he is its fiancé. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

Change the description for Elon Musk from "business magnate" to "business magnet". Mr. Musk has stated that he himself wants and supports this change, as stated by him in episode #1169 of "The Joe Rogan Experience" 2600:6C64:7F7F:430E:19CE:44C2:8AB9:E97E (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Pixel cover

By ahetesham momin 2409:4042:2287:5B08:0:0:1253:88B1 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

As Musk is not ahetesham momin how is this relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Gigafactory 2 is missing

Gigafactory 2 in New York is missing under Tesla part. Source: https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory2 Alexander.berg85 (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done, though I used a Bloomberg source as the citation instead of the Tesla website. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"total and complete pathological sociopath"

I boldly edited this before, but was reverted, so thought to bring it here instead. The article currently includes under " Managerial style and treatment of employees" the claim: " Another described him as exhibiting "total and complete pathological sociopathy" with a reference to this Vanity Fair article. I have some different problems with it. First of all, "sociopath" is (also) a medical term, and should be used very carefully. The source used for this states: And, while he can even come across as a “bully,” [one person who knows Musk] noted that Musk is not alone among tech titans in this character trait. “All of these guys, I’ve spent time with them, Musk, Zuck, all of them; they all exhibit tendencies of total and complete pathological sociopathy. They don’t at their core give a flying fuck about you or me as individuals.”.

This quote has multiple problems:

1. The person who's quoted seems to have no medical qualifications to make a medical claim. You could argue that this is no medical claim, but at least it's ambivalent.
2. It is only a single source for this term, which is fairly weak. Note that we have no way to verify how well this person "knows" Musk. Note that they claim apparently "all of these guys" well enough to make the same claim about "all" of them. That weakens the authority of the source in my opinion even further.
3. The way it's being quoted in the article, it sounds like Musk is an exception. This cannot be justified based on the source at all.

My proposal would be to just remove this statement. If the appropriate nuance would be added, it would not add enough value to the text in addition to the other negative qualifications. This is after all a living person, and we should be extra cautious with what we claim. effeietsanders 20:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, one anonymous source with inapparent qualifications for psychological diagnoses should not be given this level of credence. This should not included. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Disagree:

1. "Sociopathy" has migrated in the English language to be a negatively connoting, nonmedical descriptor, much like "idiot".
2. The language appears in am independent third party well-respected publication and it is a verbatim quotation from a notable portion of the article. The Wikipedia article simply reflects what is stated in this reliable secondary source.
3. In no way does the sentence containing the quotation indicate that Musk and only Musk is sociopath, it only uses the same words that were used to describe him and some others.

By the way, are you proposing this edit as part of a coordinated maneuver to influence the article's messaging? See https://archive.ph/ULU44. QRep2020 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the fact that this is a living person, we should steer on the side of caution. I experience some effort to stretch in order to include this message, and I don't believe that is how we should write these articles. I otherwise refer to my original statement - I don't think your defense adequately soothes these concerns.

As for your question on a "coordinated maneuver": I am not active on Reddit, but it was pointed out recently as an example in Facebook conversations why this article would be biased. While I disagreed with other examples, I felt that this particular example is poorly sourced and biased - and that the fact that this is also discussed on Reddit should not be an argument to change or not change it. I would suggest to view BLP concerns on their merits, rather than be worried whether it is part of some "maneuver". effeietsanders 01:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia portion in question is reporting a line verbatim from an article published in a verifiable source and is contextualized to make it very clear the statement originated from a personal account concerning a very public individual that Vanity Fair itself documented. Furthermore, like mentioned earlier, the account is given significant weight in the article and thus contributes to its notability and noteworthiness. The article is not saying Musk is sociopath and neither is the Wikipedia article and care was taken to make that very clear. Furthermore, Refer to WP:Publicfigure, where it reads, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Just making sure, as the timing is quite the coincidence then. QRep2020 (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:blp, we would need a clinical diagnosis by qualified physiatrists who had examined him personally. But (as also stated) we make it clear this is just what a former worker has said about him. Its a hard one for this reason. I would ere on just leaving out the mature psychology but leaving in the bullying, and not giving a fuck about others. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Goldwater rule barely applies to psychiatrists (see Goldwater rule#Regarding Donald Trump. It does not apply to journalists or Wikipedia editors. Schierbecker (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

We are not claiming Musk is a sociopath in WP:WIKIVOICE, we are quoting someone, therefore it is completely unnecessary to get a "clinical diagnosis by a qualified psychiatrist". BeŻet (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Its also (even in the source) unattributed, so we do not know who said this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is moot because sociopathy is not even a diagnosis: https://www.healthline.com/health/mental-health/sociopath#traits. The language of the DSM is strictly in terms of antisocial disorder: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546673/. QRep2020 (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, note that the article later on allows for Musk's declaration of he having Asperger's, which is similarly no longer a diagnosis: https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/mental-health-aspergers-syndrome. QRep2020 (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We should remove the line, and the one just prior ("One person who ..."). The most important reason is that we're mischaracterizing the quotes and their author, whom Vanity Fair describes as "one person who knows Musk". The section of the article is talking about Musk's personal, not professional life. Our article erroneously makes it seem like these are comments on his managerial style. We might reasonably rephrase our introduction of the quotes and then move the content to the §Personal life, but I haven't paid enough attention to how the body of sources describe Musk's personality to know if the quotes are due there or not, and introducing them in isolation would be an NPOV problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it per your comment. The article makes it clear this is talking about his personal life: This wayward behavior is on display in his personal life too... Endwise (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If this was long standing content it should not have been removed without a clear consensus to do so, I am unsure at this time there is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think for BLPs we should be quick to remove misleading or badly sourced content, but if you disagree with the removal feel free to revert me. Endwise (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the removal. It should almost certainly never have been allowed in the first place per WP:BLPSOURCE: The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well damn, missed that in the reread. Fair enough and kudos to Firefangledfeather. Agree that the text was misinterpreted.

For the record, I did not introduce the language into the article despite what propagandists on other websites would have one think: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1017043489#Musk's_managerial_style_and_treatment_of_employees

And, please, "tabloid journalism" is a worth a laugh. If Vanity Fair is a tabloid, then try to get it off of the Perennial Sources list.

Added a line from the cited WIRED article for additional color. QRep2020 (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of long standing content does not require clear consensus when it's a BLP; however, in this case maybe there was. The section that included this wording was approved by RfC about Musk's treatment of employees that was started on 12 April 2021. Although you won't see sociopath* in that thread you'll see a link to the edit where JShark had removed it. It was re-inserted by BeŻet on 19 April 2021 with edit summary = "Adding content based on talk page consensus", which I guess refers to the RfC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Update: QRep2020 is partially blocked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Heh, maybe Musk is not that wrong after all... [1] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed from here aswell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Musk%27s_work_behavior based on this decision and for consitensy Alexander.berg85 (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk takeover of Twitter

I think with all the news, a separate article, Elon Musk takeover of Twitter was called for. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I have created a separate article, Elon Musk and Twitter, to detail Musk's history with Twitter which goes back to 2010. Thriley (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely needed its own article, has gotten enough notoriety in the news cycle. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution, I suggest a temporary lock on edits made to Musk's Wikipage. Wikipedia has become an old-school rag similar to the National Enquirer. Bias and political motivations can be found in every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C802:99E0:B9A6:7A1:3170:8A8E (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Engineer

According to his ex-wife, Musk identifies as en engineer. So we should should probably mention that somewhere. See this video at 4:36 minutes. I saw Q3 at the FAQ, but I am raising the issue of self-identification, not of formal education. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, according to the second sentence he is, "the Chief Engineer at SpaceX". That's a mention, isn't it. Or is that not a real engineer? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is something, but the first sentence mentions "entrepreneur, investor, media proprietor and business magnate" without mentioning he is an engineer. After adding it to the first sentence, the second sentence would make more sense, because how can one be chief engineer of a firm if one is not an engineer. So I propose to add it to the first sentence. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the old consensus was that since he does not hold a degree in engineering he can't be called an engineer. I think that's kinda silly since most of his work is engineering related there is reliable sources to prove this. Also there is numerous other famous people on this site who are called "engineers" without a degree. Xpenz (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a some examples Nikola Tesla, Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander Graham Bell, George Stephenson, Nicolaus Otto Xpenz (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

All of whom actually built (and invented) stuff, often on their own. Some of whom (in fact) almost invited major world-changing technologies (and one (arguably) a key component of the industrial revolution). But we can (I think ) say he is an engineer as he has been granted membership of a professional body of engineers. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue propulsive landing an orbital rocket is a major world changing technology aswell. Xpenz (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Also National Academy of Engineering seems to agree. Xpenz (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that agree, but this has been debated at length on numerous occasions and the consensus of the latest RfC on the topic is that we should not call him an engineer. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Yep, its not as if anyone else had built rockets. This is why we go by what RS say, and not what we think. Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The National Academy of Engineering is not a "body of professional engineers" and it does not, by membership or otherwise, accredit engineers. Its statutory purpose is to inform the US government on scientific questions. Past members have included Paul Allen and Arthur C. Clarke. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say most of his work is engineering related. Most of his work is engineering management related. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rosbif73 I see the Rfc. On the other hand, the source I brought was not available to them, so I think this question should be revisited in light of that source and the self-identification as an engineer which is mentioned in it. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but I don't think the YouTube source is a compelling reason to re-open the matter. Justine says Elon used to write "engineer" as his occupation on customs forms. It's not the reliable, secondary coverage that we'd ideally base the opening sentence on (see MOS:ROLEBIO). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there consensus on whether his lack of PE (professional engineer) status is the primary driver for this omission or the lack of a strong secondary source? Most engineers are not professional engineers. For example the CEO of twitter Parag Agrawal is listed here as a Software Engineer. I am an engineer and work with many others who do not hold a PE. I find this PE reasoning very offensive.

Has "Inventor" been considered? The Steve Jobs article mentions him this way. Bertie woo (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The previous RfC (and indeed all the previous discussions on this topic) were IMHO strongly tainted by those who insisted that one could not be an engineer without holding formal qualifications in engineering. Consensus can change, but you'd need to introduce more than the fact that he identifies as an engineer to change the balance. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Firefangledfeathers here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

He's described as an investor in his lead sentence, despite "angel investor" already being placed in the following sentence. Therefore he should be described as an engineer in the lead too, despite "chief engineer" already being placed in the following sentence. Consistency. Update: rather than saying "despite" I should say "because of"... For instance, if someone is considered the angel investor of a company, they would then usually be called an investor in their intro--or if you're considered the founder of a company, you'd then have "entrepreneur" in your lead--so because of this, if someone has the official title of chief engineer at a company, especially a company of Space X's caliber, then of course they would be described as an engineer in their intro. Why is Musk different? How can you hold the title of chief engineer at any company and not be described as an engineer in your lead intro? ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Relying on own assertion for this purpose is dubious. Engineers do not have to be state-certified, but neither is identification as an engineer completely subjective. Musk has never practiced engineering in the main engineering areas that he is connected with today: automotive, aerospace, and solar. He is not a William Shockley or Andrew Grove who worked up from practice to supervision, so he is not identified in a way that would imply that. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

He was doing software engineering at start: he was writing video games, in Zip2 he was writing code as well. Alexander.berg85 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

He wrote code, yes. Vance describes him as a "self-taught coder" whose skills "weren't polished," and says that he created a "hairball" (big ball of mud) that the incoming CS grads had to rewrite. The distinction between a software engineer and a coder is partly ideological, but Vance's account pegs him as the latter. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonsensical Statement

In the "Twitter" paragraph, at the bottom, it says: "Tesla's stock sunk by more than $125 billion the next day in reaction to the deal, causing Musk to lose around $30 billion of his net worth". This is obviously wrong ( a stock that is worth around 1,000$ can only sink by 1,000$ and then it is at 0). The stock did not sink by 125 B$, but its market capitalization. Some user then reverted my correction, stating "not supported by source". This is akin to me correcting "1+1=3" to "1+1=2" and having it reverted due to "source" stating otherwise. It doesn't matter what the source says. It is wrong, plain and simple. --Tittyjoke (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tittyjoke: That comparison is invalid, and your edit was WP:OR. I doesn't matter if it is wrong or not... you must provide a reliable source that backs your statement. Wretchskull (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Tittjoke's got this one right, and the existing sources have it backed up. TJ, you might be coming on a bit pedantic; "the stock sank by x billion" is commonly used phrasing in business sources, with everyone knowing they don't mean the price of a single share. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source (hopefully more than one if) stating that, then we can use it. I imagine if there was such a significant loss of stock there would be quite a bit of WP:SIGCOV. Also there hits a point where WP:COMMONSENSE must be considered. Eruditess (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, this is not a matter of pedantry or commonsense. Commonsense tells us that no single stock is worth 125B$ because it would be a little hard to trade. My point was not that it could be misunderstood. My point was rather that an encyclopedia should not engage in the informal phrasings (that are understood but are formally incorrect) found in colloquial language. E.g., if Tesla went bankrupt many would say "Musk went bankrupt (with Tesla)". It is a colloquial replacement, yet it would be factually wrong as Tesla's bankruptcy would be unrelated to Musk's personal financial situation. So, you could say that in everyday life and it would be understood but you would not expect that phrasing in any environment that conveys knowledge. At least, the problem is solved now. Tittyjoke (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Third paragraph

Is it just me, or is the whole third paragraph on the intro not required? It's a frankenstein of criticism/tham lung case/and "misinformation views" that aren't long-term significant or of primary importance to Musk. Most bios for other famous persons would just leave this to another section titled criticism, if at all. For example, Bill Gates/Peter Thiel/Richard Branson and most others of similar stature are obviously controversial, and don't have those highlighted in their respective intros.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

You must be new here, literally 1/4 of Elons page is dedicated to criticisms, Go check Jeff Bezos And then tell me how this page is not biased. Unfortunately alot of the the biased edits here is made by the banned user Qrep2020 Warbayx (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

While I think the paragraph needs to stay, I am thinking the cave content could go. As time has passed, my anecdotal experience in the sources suggests that other controversies have floated past that one in significance. No rigorous source review to back that up, but I'd love to test the waters on removal/replacement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It should probably all go. The 2019 SEC case was settled, and not of long-term significance. It's already highlighted in the body. The defamation case likewise is not of primary importance. Misinformation claims regarding COVID/crypto/etc isn't also of PRIMARY importance, more trivia than anything. The intro should be for the most important pieces of information and summary of the body, not for trivia.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers, but I do not think removing the entire paragraph about criticism is necessary as you did Ortizesp, although it should definitely be revised. The comparison with Jeff Bezos is brilliant: this article is basically a soapbox created by a few users (that I won't name) to demonize Elon as much as possible. Wretchskull (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I removed the part about the defamation case from the lead, it is barely covered and too minor compared to the rest. Further discussion can determine if it should be trimmed in the body, which I think it should, since it is way too long and far too weighted compared to much more important things. Bill Williams 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I significantly trimmed it in the body, since it was way too detailed compared to other sections. Bill Williams 01:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Bad writing at end of lede

Nothing about the information conveyed at the end needs to change. But can we please make it less of a word salad?

1. "Highly publicized" adds nothing. Everything we cover about Musk is necessarily highly publicized given the choices we have to make to comply with WP:N. There is also a tautological element since criticism is a form of publicity.

2. I've seen many publications accuse Musk of being unscientific. But I've never seen one allege that his statement is made worse by the fact that it is not only unscientific but unorthodox as well.

3. If you receive criticism and the "unscientific" label, controversial goes without saying.

I previously tried to tighten up the lede to make it use only a subset of these adjectives. The person who reverted me didn't point out a problem with my wording. Connor Behan (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There are subjects on Wikipedia that are publicized, i.e. receives limited coverage in a segment of niche publications, and then there are ones that are published about all over. The coverage of his criticism he has received is remarkable, and "highly publicized" is a typical idiom to convey as much objectively. Separately, we have discussed the inclusion of "unscientific" at length and deemed it worthy. Finally, the "unorthodox" refers to his statements about thinking we live in a simulation, promoting a substance as a COVID treatment despite the medical community's recommendations to the contrary, etc.

All that said, I agree that the statement is a bit compressed, but that is because his recorded views happen to run the gamut along with the critiques thereof and the sentence endeavors to capture that fact as such. "Musk has been criticized for unscientific stances, unorthodox views, and highly publicized controversial statements in general" is the tweak I would recommend. QRep2020 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Well "criticized for... highly publicized controversial statements" refers to high coverage of the thing being criticized, not high coverage of the criticism itself. If it's important to reassure readers that a niche issue has not been snuck into the lede then it's also important to make this less ambiguous.

When it comes to libertarian or technocratic ideas of how the world should be run, I think we can pick either "unorthodox" or "controversial". Promoting a dubious COVID-19 treatment sounds like it's covered by "unscientific" and most people have not thought enough about the simulation hypothesis to have an opinion about it one way or the other. Connor Behan (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough on the main accounts. How about, "Musk has been criticized at length for his unscientific stances and controversial statements"? QRep2020 (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I like it. Connor Behan (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Presently, the last paragraph of the lede begins as follows: “Musk has been criticized for his unscientific stances and controversial statements.” I suggest changing it to this: “Musk has been criticized for making controversial statements, including purportedly unscientific ones.” This is (1) more neutral, (2) it would relieve readers of the burden of figuring out the distinction between stances and statements, and (3) would also stop leaving the strange impression that some or all of his purportedly unscientific stances were not controversial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

How about "criticized for his controversial and unscientific statements". It at least addresses 2 and 3.

1 is challenging, as we should hopefully be able to avoid doubly doubting critical commentary. Musk's critics are saying things along the lines of "his statements are unscientific" and not "his statements are purportedly scientific". The stylistic question around sentences like this is recurring enough that it would be helpful to have some centralized, consensus-supported guideline to lean on. As far as I know, there isn't one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

We should avoid saying in Wikipedia’s voice that he’s unscientific or the like. How about, “Musk has been criticized for making controversial and unscientific statements.” I will give this a try, since I’ve merely taken your proposal and changed the word “his” to “making”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence "Musk has been criticized for making unscientific and controversial statements" implies that in the opinion of Wikipedia editors, the statements are unscientific. I know people above say that this is just characterizing the views of critics, but I don't think that's how most people will read it. If we're going to say this in the lead I think we should be clear that this is the view of the critics rather than Musk himself. Perhaps "Critics have described some of Musk's views as unscientific."

Separately, can someone tell me which views are allegedly scientific besides his views on COVID-19? If that's the only one, then we should just stick to saying he's been criticized for his covid views. Binarybits (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

South African?

Seems so bizarre to me that no-one in here can come to any consensuses about Musk's nationality when both his brother Kimbal Musk and sister Tosca Musk are described as South Africans. We know he was born in South Africa and lived there for his first 17 years until he moved to Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 19:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Xpenz Biography.com and other websites and sources list him as having 3 citizenships, South African, Canadian and the US. He was born into South African citizenship, he acquired Canadian from his Mom, and acquired US citizenship from his application for naturalization. Only on Wikipedia... Do you think he recanted the citizenship he was given by birth? The U.S. doesn't require it. Stevenmitchell (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Pause on buyout?

As Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk#Acquisition_announcement mentions Musk's recent statement about the buyout now being on hold, should not this article reflect that development as well? QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Calls out Democrats

Probably should include today's tweet, which is getting a lot of media attention, in which he says the Democratic Party has become the party of "division and hate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.4 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Political views are normally included in BLPs, if well sourced. Solipsism 101 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

But this is one tweet, and so would not be well sourced, and maybe undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Their motivation to include this detail, perhaps of undue weight, may be to own the libs. However, if it really adds anything substantial and is of due weight and well sourced, etc., then it can be included regardless of motivation. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Born to white south african parents, he was raised in pretoria.

1. His mother was born in Canada but emigrated to South Africa as a infant. To say she's Canadian in the lead is misleading. Canadian-born can be mentioned later to avoid overcomplication.
2 Saying "Pretoria, South Africa", isn't needed either if "white south african" preceeds it --Aubernas (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Simulation views being "criticized"

From the Wiki article:

Musk's claims that humans live in a computer simulation have also been criticized.

---

The first reference doesn't seem to mention anything about his views being criticized. The second reference involves a single person from a debate who criticized the simulation argument:

In any case, Randall sees the odds of the hypothesis turning out to be true as “effectively zero.” At least someone has her head on straight.

So if you count the author of the FOX Business article that is two critical people. I don't think the views of Randall in that debate was particularly noteable or that opinionated FOX Business article is a good source. On the other hand a much more reputable source, Scientific American, says "Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50" [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyr103 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying might and is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Fox Business article is also an opinion piece. I think we're overstating the criticism relative to the overall body of coverage. Surveying some sources now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind! TechnophilicHippie already rewrote the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

We discussed this in the GAN: The debate was a direct response to Musk's musings and the panelists are experts. Also, since, acclaimed philosopher Ned Block was interviewed on the matter: https://www.inverse.com/article/16539-why-elon-musk-s-simulation-argument-fails. The criticism is warranted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see due weight to document engagement with this idea with respect to Musk. Musk’s simulation hypothesis isn’t an original idea, because The Matrix is popular science fiction. Even the The Matrix itself was a popularization of ancient philosophical ideas such as Plato's allegory of the cave and solipsism. These ideas have already been responded to and criticized, or refined, by philosophers from the Age of Enlightenment. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not a new idea by a longshot, no, but when experts and panels are discussing it in light of and in open response to Musk's comments, then it is noteworthy. The article features his views of other matters, none of which are new, and the criticism issued in response, rightfully. QRep2020 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Which experts and panels are discussing this? I saw what looked like a Vox interview with Musk, and the article separately interviewed Ned Block who was “unfamiliar with Bostrom’s argument and with Elon Musk”. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Block was still interviewed about Musk's argument, that's what the nature of the article was. The author clearly reiterated some version of it to the philosopher otherwise Block would have nothing to say.

Musk spoke openly about the Simulation Hypothesis at a 2015 Vanity Fair conference: https://www.vanityfair.com/video/watch/elon-musk-y-combinator-president-thinking-for-the-future . He was the biggest "name" to bring it up at that time. Later, in 2016, Randall, philosopher David Chalmers, and others had a debate/panel/whathaveyou about the Simulation Hypothesis in response, her argument thereby being a counterargument: https://www.openculture.com/2017/04/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation.html . Her response is further used as a counter-argument against Musk's position in these articles: https://qz.com/921277/a-harvard-physicist-explains-the-problem-with-believing-we-live-in-a-simulation/ , https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/11/simulated-world-elon-musk-the-matrix QRep2020 (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Musk has said that the likelihood we are living in "base reality" is one in a billion: https://www.vice.com/en/article/8q854v/elon-musk-simulated-universe-hypothesis . That is a monstrously different claim from Bostrom's and Randall's estimation is the antithesis. QRep2020 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 The foundation of Block's argument seemed to be: “Neurons live in a chemical soup,” he explains, “and that combination of electricity and chemistry may be important to human consciousness.” Good luck replicating that soup. It is related to a simulation of a rainstorm isn’t wet - but I think physics simulations in tech demos (particularly machine-learning based) are starting to simulate wetness.... so in my view it doesn't destroy the simulation argument. edit: if brains can't be simulated you could just use physical brains like in The Matrix... Zephyr103 (talk) 08:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We are not arguing if Block succeeds in defusing the Simulation Hypothesis, though I think he does, simply whether if he is responding to the argument couched in how Musk presents it. QRep2020 (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2022

Elon Musk holds three citizenships. Very biased to only list one when he legally and notably holds three. 2605:B100:B15:6E:DDB1:7F75:A902:B0C (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the infobox. See also Section "South African?" above. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I see we now also have the hidden note added "It is not uncommon for a wealthy person to renounce a prior citizenship to avoid taxation; need reliable sources on current non-US citizenship." So has he renounced the other two? Where are the sources? If he has, shouldn't that be mentioned explicitly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

So we have reliable sources that he held these other citizenships. We have no reliable sources that he has renounced either. Why do we assume he may have renounced them, without any sources whatsoever? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn’t, that’s the problem. The only “source” for this is a linked U.S. sec.gov paper that confirms he holds United States citizenship. That’s it. He still holds other citizenships. 2605:B100:B15:6E:DDB1:7F75:A902:B0C (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

What are the reliable sources for the other citizenships that isn't original research? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If the other citizenships are unsourced, they should also be removed from the maim body, not just from the infobox. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

There are no sources indicating he has renounced any of his three citizenships, while plenty of third-party, reliable sources indicate he holds them. Citizenship should not be removed by one user because “he is rich and probably renounced them” without reliable sources stating so. 2605:B100:B15:6E:DDB1:7F75:A902:B0C (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to admit, that does look like pure speculative WP:OR. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Source 12 is not impartial.

Source 12 which is quoted many times in the article, is by Adam Smith of The Independent. Adam Smith regularly posts verified and unverified defamatory information about Elen Musk on his Twitter account. He does not post good stories about him. This is probably because of his overt bias against tech giants. His Twitter bio reads "all posts are about tech, all tech is about power." He is extremely left wing, as are most of his commenters. Source 12 is a singular source claiming multiple things, some of which have been blatantly denied by Elon musk himself, like being extremely rich from owning half an Emerald mine in Zambia. Because of the bias, the denial by Elon Musk, and it being a singular source, source 12 is simply not reliable enough to be quoted without at least a warning. 201.141.111.83 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a source to be "neutral" - articles must be neutral which means that we present what reliable sources say (with attribution, usually) whether it's good or bad. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Well then how do you decide if a source is reliable or not? Julkhamil (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Seeming sentence written by heavily pro-contemporary trans rhetoric person

There is a sentence that says that Elon Musks “pronouns suck” tweet was “widely perceived as transphobic” and it cites a very opinionated and not impartial article from the observer.

From a factual perspective this is invalid, the article is not a source providing documentation on public sentiment over the tweet, rather it is merely the opinion of the author.

The sentence should be changed to, “journalist X of the observer considered the post transphobic”, or the sentence should be deleted. Julkhamil (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The assessment of the tweet being transphobic is actually from two sources which are both listed as green-level RS at WP:RSP, not opinion pieces. What evidence do you have that “From a factual perspective this is invalid…”? The article is the source, and The Hill uses a lot of info to come to that conclusion. Kbabej (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kbabej: sorry for not following up here. I pulled out the Observer opinion piece that Julkhamil referred to and replaced it with the two reliable sources in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs)

@Firefangledfeathers: Ahhh that makes sense! Thanks for the clarification. --Kbabej (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Mr Musk is a contemporary person, so he can be judged by today's standards. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Add all of Musk's tweets to better understand his response to the accusations. Elon Musk says he doesn't use flight attendants. Virtual interview posted to YouTube on May 16 (voting intentions).

1. In a response to a tweet about the email, Musk said he doesn't use a flight attendant.

"Astute observers of my plane (and there many) will note that I don’t use a flight attendant," he wrote. "Moreover, only fruit & nuts are stocked on the plane. I use flights as an opportunity to fast." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1528872338866860032

2. "I have a challenge to this liar who claims their friend saw me 'exposed' -- describe just one thing, anything at all (scars, tattoos, ...) that isn't known by the public. She won't be able to do so, because it never happened," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO tweeted early Friday morning. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527505449905528846

3. "Did you actually respond to the reporters from BI?" one user tweeted at Musk. "No," Musk responded, "it was clear that their only goal was a hit price (sic) to interfere with the Twitter acquisition. The story was written before they even talked to me." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527519328245059592?s=20&t=4xf39uzpstCd5OuoGNaT_g

4. "They began brewing attacks of all kinds as soon as the Twitter acquisition was announced," Musk added in a separate tweet. "In my 30 year career, including the entire MeToo era, there's nothing to report, but, as soon as I say I intend to restore free speech to Twitter & vote Republican, suddenly there is." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527629698267615232?s=20&t=4xf39uzpstCd5OuoGNaT_g

5. Musk's tweet declaring his voting intentions was posted at 2:44 pm ET on Wednesday (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526997132858822658?s=20&t=T1He7N1hzTOU0oCG7Hsluw), though he also made comments to that effect in a virtual interview posted to YouTube on May 16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CnxzrX9tNoc). --JShark (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @JShark. WP would not use Musk's tweets about such a controversial issue. Please review WP:RSPTWITTER on WP:RSP, which states tweets can be used from a verified source for "uncontroversial self-description" (ie: birthdays or whatnot). These tweets fall well outside uncontroversial self description IMO. Kbabej (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Has no sense. Since in these tweets he defends himself from the accusations including this other tweet widely cited by many publications (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527496917579612161 And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue). In fact all these tweets were quoted by the press.--JShark (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

On wikipedia in fact the editors quoted the part that says wild. --JShark (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

His denial of the accusations has already been included. Are you actually asking for a blow-by-blow quote of every tweet to be listed on WP? That isn't what WP is. The allegation (which also doesn't have details of the allegation included) is covered, as is Musk's denial, as well as how it has affected Musk's businesses and personal fortune. A WP article is not an indiscriminate collection of every piece of information having to do with an event. I'm also confused that you can unequivocally say "those wild accusations are utterly untrue". It sounds like you have an agenda to push having to do with this subject instead of looking at what RS are saying on the subject. Kbabej (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You're accusing me without proof of having an agenda. I am only talking about what Mr. Musk wrote about those accusations and there are tweets with important information that are not taken into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.). --JShark (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought your bolded quote ("And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue") was your summary of the situation, not a quote from Musk. I should have not read it as quickly. I stand by not including every tweet Musk fires off. Of course, I am only one editor, so if others come to a consensus it should be included then it should be added. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the consensus of the editors. I think there is important information in those tweets that has not been covered in the article. --JShark (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

There is no consensus at the moment. You raised the issue, and the only editor to respond (me) does not agree with their addition. So you actually do not have a consensus by any measure at this point. Kbabej (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The presence of many other editors is necessary. It is also good the presence of editors who have never edited this article to have a huge number of different positions and without bias. --JShark (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

THe presence of editors is ENTIRELY necessary. QRep2020 (talk) 01:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

These are all self-published sources, by the subject themselves, and are therefore not independent and should not be used directly. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Has no sense. Since in these tweets he defends himself from the accusations including this other tweet widely cited by many publications (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527496917579612161 And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue). In fact all these tweets were quoted by the press.

On wikipedia in fact the editors quoted the part that says wild. --JShark (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/elon-musk-sexual-harassment-denies-allegations/index.html Those tweets are quoted in the following journalistic publication. --JShark (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/20/musk-denies-wild-accusations-against-him-in-apparent-reference-to-harassment-report.html Those tweets are quoted in the following journalistic publication. --JShark (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Insider Article

Are we going to update the page to include the revelations from the insider article showing that Musk sexually harassed an employee , seems very pertinent. His followup statements and the preliminary tweets he made upon finding out the article was coming out should probably also be referenced. Not sure about the procedure on editing articles this prominent so I will wait until someone more knowledgeable on the etiquette can get back to me Lgnj (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As this is a blp, not from one source no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Lgnj, you're doing the right thing etiquette wise. Until it's clear that there's consensus here to include the content, it should stay out of the article. As I said in an edit summary, I'm mostly on the fence for now. There's secondary coverage in moderately reliable sources of the "according to Insider" variety. I think it's worthwhile to be cautious and patient. I assume the most reliable sources are working on independently verifying the facts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with a policy stating multiple sources have to report on an issue before sourced info can be added. Can you point to that? Because what is the threshold? Two sources? Three? Seems arbitrary to me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE might be said to cover it, this is one view. WP:PUBLICFIGURE might also cover it (as I am unsure "well documents" can apply to one source). Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The most applicable policy here is WP:ONUS: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". There's also WP:BLPPUBLIC, with "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

That said, there are a dozen reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation already. There are also articles documenting Musk's responses to the allegations. QRep2020 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the clear responses; So should other verifiable sources on the matter not traceable to insider appear corroborating the account in this article, then it can be added to the page? Lgnj (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A lot depends on what they say, and what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

While the initial article did not have varied RS, Musk has publicly replied to the allegations and Tesla's stock dropped accordingly, both of which have been widely reported in RS, such as CNN; CBS; NPR; The Guardian; and USA Today, among others. I understand the wanting varied sources if we were only including the Insider article, but the fact of the matter is, it's moved beyond that into analysis of Musk's denial and impact on his businesses. I think it now merits inclusion. Kbabej (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Last time I had looked, it was mostly Vox/Verge/Salon-tier sources that were covering it. The entry of ultra-green sources like CNN, NPR, and The Guardian push me over the fence onto the side of inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, that makes sense with Vox/Verge/Salon/etc. Thanks for the reply. @Slatersteven, what are your thoughts? It seems as if @QRep2020 and @Lgnj are in favor of inclusion from their above comments. With the sensitive nature of sexual misconduct allegations in a BLP, I understand wanting to gain consensus. If you agree at this point, the editors participating in this discussion (up to this point) would be unanimous in wanting to include the material. Kbabej (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Update: It looks as if another editor not engaged in this conversation has added the information to the article. As we have a general consensus, I support the information staying in at this point. Feel free to ping me if anything comes up - I will not be watching this page. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I seem a lone voice I will not oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The subheading "Sexual misconduct settlement" implies that a sexual misconduct settlement actually took place, which Musk denies. The subheading should be renamed "Sexual misconduct allegation". Headings & subheadings should be based on objective truths. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Racial discrimination lawsuits

The sources we're using in §Racial discrimination lawsuits either don't mention Musk at all (NPR) or mention him in passing (Time, LA Times, The Guardian). Is there more coverage out there of Musk's role in the suits or the company behavior that led to them? If not, we should cut the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be cut or merged into Tesla,_Inc.#Racism. None of the reports of racial discrimination involve Musk directly. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I second that it should be cut or moved to the Tesla article. It seems to imply Musk is directly involved in the racial discrimination rather than an ongoing issue at a company he heads. Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Third. Seems out of place. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

SpaceX executive defends Elon Musk against misconduct accusations. Add the statement from the president of Spacex.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/technology/spacex-elon-musk.html

Read Ms. Shotwell’s email to employees below:

SpaceX team-

I want to directly address the story that mentions our company and CEO with serious allegations. Let me be clear — SpaceX does not tolerate harassment of any kind — I am saying ZERO tolerance. We firmly believe everyone at SpaceX deserves to be treated with respect. And every accusation of harassment is taken very seriously, regardless of who is involved. HR thoroughly investigates all claims that are brought to their attention and takes appropriate disciplinary action. If you have any questions or concerns about this policy or our workplace, please reach out to me, your manager or your HR rep.

Admittedly this is a difficult topic to navigate. It’s natural to have questions and to want definitive answer. For privacy reasons I will never comment on any legal matters involving employment issues. However, what I can share is that Elon has made a public statement via Twitter that the allegations are utterly untrue. Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations. Anyone who knows Elon like I do, knows he would never conduct or condone this alleged inappropriate behavior.

I believe SpaceX is an extraordinary place to work because of you. And I remain committed to ensuring it’s a place where all employees can do their best work.

--JShark (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be undue to add an entire statement in response to these allegations. And of course his company and his employee are going to say the allegations are false. "Well [s]he would, wouldn't [s]he?" - Mandy Rice-Davies. Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Spacex was also accused and the most senior executive has a right to answer about these accusations. She is a woman and president of the accused company and therefore also has the right to speak about these accusations. Why can the friend of the alleged flight attendant make accusations and the president of the accused company cannot speak about what happened? --JShark (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course SpaceX has the "right" to respond to the allegations, which they have. No one is stopping that, or saying that they shouldn't. I think you are conflating the "right" of responding (a First amendment issue) with WP regurgitating the press release/memo. Those are not the same issues. Musks's companies, and those employees, have an inherent conflict of interest in responding, and WP should be balanced in its coverage and sourcing. Kbabej (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

To say that the president of SpaceX has a conflict of interest without hard evidence is far-fetched. Gwynne Shotwell as the president of the company and a representative authorized to speak on behalf of the company has the right to speak about these allegations. I'm also saying that the part where she talks about Musk be included. I'm not talking about all the content of the email. --JShark (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why their relationship as his employee wouldn't be an inherent conflict of interest, we likely will not agree on this issue. Again, if you get consensus for your proposals, great, but adding a statement from one of Musk's employees will almost certainly be reverted by other editors. The helpful suggestion I'm trying to make: gain consensus for the info you want added, then expand from there. This is a level 5 vital article, with over 2,000 page watchers and over 100,000 views a day. A string of tweets and his employee's opinions are not likely to be accepted to a BLP. And, as always - those are my thoughts and I'm not the arbiter this article. Kbabej (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree with that of the conflict of interest since Gwynne Shotwell is the legal representative of the company to speak about these accusations and therefore her email should be taken into account only because she is her authorized representative to speak about the matter and the only executive of the company that has dealt with the matter. If the testimonies of a person's friend without a name are taken into account, why do we not take into account the statements of the president of SpaceX?. --JShark (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want to include the statement of a person who says the words little rocket in reference to Musk's private parts and not the statements of the SpaceX legal representative? --JShark (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/union-blasts-musk-misconduct-allegation-flight-attendants-are-not-just-rcna29863 "Musk's little rocket"". That sentence doesn't sound like a serious statement. Instead it sounds like a joke about the size of Musk's penis. --JShark (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

When someone uses the words "Musk" and "rocket" in the same sentence, I think that very few people will be thinking about his penis. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"Flight attendants are not just another accessory on Musk’s little rocket," Nelson said. She talks about the little rocket and she doesn't say the word plane. --JShark (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Flight attendants are also used on SpaceX rocket flights? --JShark (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Second the thoughts expressed above. QRep2020 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 I also remember that you were blocked from editing this article and I really don't trust you. I look forward to input from editors who have never been blocked from editing the article about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, that no longer matters as I have been unblocked. Secondly, you do not control the discussion here so whether or not you "trust" me is irrelevant. QRep2020 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @JShark on this matter. Shotwell's quote adds actual insight into the credibility of the allegations. In contrast, Sara Nelson's statement is simply a regurgitation of the Business Insider article, and frankly a waste of space. Nelson has never met Musk nor the flight attendant involved, and she has no additional insight on this matter other than what is publicly available to us all. If you want to include both Nelson's & Shotwell's statements, fine. But, choosing to include Nelson's statement without Shotwell's statement is clearly an unbalanced and unfair decision. Specifically, this is the concise Gwynne Shotwell quote that should be included:

“Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations,” Shotwell wrote. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because it is formulaic HR spam that almost sounds like it is from a generic HR email template that is brought out whoever employees complain about any workplace issue; it doesn't add any information. The president of SpaceX has a conflict of interest, because Musk is her boss and pays her salary and controls her livelihood. It doesn't matter that she's a woman. HR people are mostly women and often send out these type of emails against employee complaints. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying that SpaceX employees cannot speak or think for themselves? I do not see in that email any kind of conflict of interest. She speaks not only as an employee but as a person who has known him for a long time. Apparently only those who have never met or talked to him can talk about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

One can make the argument that Sara Nelson, who was named co-chair of the Economy Task Force formed by Joe Biden to create a unity platform for the Democratic Party, also has a conflict of interest as Musk has recently publicly voiced concerns about the the Biden administration. It seems to me that Nelson is supporting these sexual misconduct allegations not based on any factual evidence, but because she has a political axe to grind.

If you say Shotwell's statement doesn't add any information, I strongly argue the same for Nelson's statement. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not include Shotwell's comments in the article but include Nelson's comments on Musk's penis and that shows many readers little impartiality. Just like taking the so-called TITS university too seriously. As soon as one reads such nonsense as that in this article you stop believing in the impartiality of the article. --JShark (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with you on the penis euphemism. However, we seem to agree on the points that Sara Nelson a) has a conflict of interest b) does not have anything insightful to add, as she has never met Musk nor the flight attendant involved.

Authors should either add Shotwell's statement for balance, or remove Nelson's statement entirely. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Also the university with the acronym TITS is terrible but the small penis is not terrible or rather Musk's little rocket. The culture of cancellation is reaching an extreme for some and not for others. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What I want to say is the following: This article could stop looking like a nest of nonsense (university TITS in a person's bio) and could be a cohesive, unbiased article that doesn't look like an edit war all the time. Reading this article about Elon Musk makes me want to throw up because of how terribly bad the article is. The reading is without logic and without meaning. --JShark (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope that the articles about Mathematics never reach the garbage level of many biographical articles for the good of humanity. --JShark (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

#MeToo allegation

MeTooAllegation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.54 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

See Elon Musk#Sexual misconduct settlement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Political Beliefs

Should we add his political beliefs—or, narrowly speaking, his political party membership? Conservative Alabamian (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Conservative Alabamian, there's an entire article on Views of Elon Musk with a very large political subsection. Hope that helps! --Kbabej (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Sexual assault allegation

There should be a unique section for the sexual assault allegation. As it stands it's just an offhand (literally two short sentences) remark under "Managerial style and treatment of employees". Reality check: sexual assault is far more serious than just being a mean boss. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:D0E7:8869:1B29:1F1E (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that sexual assault is a really big thing which should not be lumbed together with his managing style, but right now it is just an accusation from a somewhat-reliable Business Insider. That dedicated section would be a pretty nasty thing to put on the article if it turns out to be not true, so we should just place it under the "Managerial style and treatment of employees" section and reduce Musk's rebuttal, as it is obvious that Musk would deny the accusations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with CSC. I'm neutral on whether it should be in the §Managerial,,, section or §Personal life. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If found guilty by a court, otherwise (even if settled out of court) it remains an allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

What sexual assault allegation are you talking about? I can't find any sources claiming there has been an assault. Are you talking about the sexual misconduct allegation by Business Insider? We need to watch what we are claiming on WP and what words we are using, especially with such a highly trafficked BLP and level-5 vital article. As to where the information appears, there's a subsection for the sexual misconduct allegation under the 'Personal life' section. Consensus was gained for the inclusion of the material in a 5/20 discussion (just a section or two above this discussion, if you want to review it). Kbabej (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excerpt: Sara Nelson, head of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, a flight attendant's union, stated, "Flight attendants are not just another accessory on Musk's little rocket. Musk believes that money gives him the right to do anything that he pleases, regardless of the rights, humanity or protestations of others."

Seems unfair to include Sara Nelson's statement when she has no additional information about the allegations, has never met Musk personally, and is only giving us her own interpretation of the Business Insider article. Nelson's statement is based entirely on hearsay, which is also the basis of the Business Insider article. As written, this section is biased heavily towards the side of the accuser's friend. To provide both more balance and insight, it makes sense to include Gwynne Shotwell's statement, as she is the president of SpaceX, would have direct access to any settlements that her company has made, and has worked with Musk personally for 20 years. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/spacex-president-gwynne-shotwell-defends-elon-musk-over-sex-misconduct-allegations.html “Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations,” Shotwell wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.65.88 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

WP is not a court of law with hearsay standards. The quote from Sara Nelson makes sense in this context. She leads the largest flight attendant union in America and her response to the allegations was covered in RS. --Kbabej (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You did not comment on my suggestion that Gwynne Shotwell's statement should be included. As I said, she is president of SpaceX, would have direct access to any settlements that her company has made, and has worked with Musk personally for 20 years. Her statement (linked above) is concise and can be added to this section to provide balance & insight. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Shotwell's comment is not an official statement from SpaceX. As for Nelson's comment, it was a statement on behalf of the union as one can tell from the language of it ("we've", etc.): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTPi02MWUAE1QTo?format=jpg&name=large QRep2020 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lack of citation in opening summary

No citation in final paragraph of opening summary. Either citations should be included in opening paragraph or content moved to another header to be consistent with other biographical entries. The uncited quote "Musk has been criticized for his unscientific stances and controversial statements." should immediately be referenced, removed or moved in light of recent developments to enhance impartiality- 25 April 2022.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.231.114 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs do not require citations: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#References in the lead? QRep2020 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Views section should be trimmed and be more of a summary of most important/noted ones

The views subsection should be trimmed and be more of in Summary style most important/noted ones. The rough structure of Politics, COVID-19, and technology subheadings (as seen here [3]) I think were much better than what we have now with a dozen of so subheadings based on a tweet or two. More detailed summaries or less noted ones can be placed as Views of Elon Musk.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 10:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts before I try and BOLDly do this myself?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I agree with a trim, and I like the rough structure you propose. Any thoughts about which subsections you're thinking to cut and which can be condensed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I count only one cite of an actual tweet, and the three or four titles that mention Twitter are about Musk and his relationship with Twitter, so it's quite a misrepresentation to characterize all those subheadings as "based on a tweet or two"; they are well sourced with many reliable news sources. I do agree that having so many subheadings is overdoing it; the effect of so many subheadings is like that of a bunch of bullet points. Although this asshole Musk's every little musing is not of great import, I think the information given should be kept, and consolidated, because it does reveal something about his character. Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle:, please take a stab. Any reduction would be an improvement from the current. As discussed on the Views of Elon Musk page, having the same information in both places makes absolutely no sense Wiki-wise. In fact, I would support moving the last paragraph of the lede to the "views" section as a summary and then linking it to the Views of Elon Musk page. This would solve a number of issues that have been previously discussed. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. The section currently feels like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE jumble. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The archived version you linked was worse. All topics on Politics were lumped together in a big wall of text, so the reader had to read the whole thing to find Musk's views on specific topic they cared about. There was a section called "Artificial intelligence, Metaverse, and public transportation", but this was an artificial category of miscellaneous things thrown together that didn't cleanly fit into Politics. The current version is better, because the reader can browse topics they are interested in. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The section on the cave defamation case needs significant trimming, it's longer than every single other section of the article but is far less notable, yet I was reverted when I attempted to remove parts of it. Bill Williams 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I readded because it gained a great amount of coverage so has large WEIGHT assigned to it.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle:, were you able to take a stab as of yet? If not, I would be more than happy to give it a shot.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfoutunately I have unexpectactedly really busy right now IRL to be able to work on it right now, you're more than welcome to give it a shot. Also, I do not think the Canada convoy coverage is worth including on the main bio page and longstanding consensus is not a couple of months of it not being reverted.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a separate Views of Elon Musk article page. A lot of times pages can suffer from people who want to put WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT on the views section, it gives a little bit of a bias to the article as a whole, it can be a very non-neutral experience to a uninformed reader who doesn't have full context. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

There is already a Views of Elon Musk page that is a POV fork that censors Musk's conservative-leaning views. Specifically, @CNMall41: keeps removing Musk's view on the Canada convoy protest under the reasoning that consensus must be achieved to include information, and as an individual, they should be able to veto the inclusion of information from any Wikipedia article. They also believe that including the fact that Musk compared Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler is clear editorializing, perhaps because it makes Musk appear extremist, which must be clearly wrong and biased, because Musk said himself that he was a moderate. /s TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC); edited to include references TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie:, being that you have no idea what I "believe" about anything, you may want to consider removing your WP:WIAPA above. Saying I believe and then attempting to explain "why" based on your own belief is ridiculous. And don't ping me with an accusation again unless it is done at ANI. Read WP:CIVIL.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried to update my comment as per your request to follow WP:WIAPA with links to diffs, but it was reverted due to WP:TALK#REPLIED. To keep things on topic, Views of Elon Musk is currently a POV fork because of active efforts to exclude Musk's right-leaning views. I think Views of Elon Musk should exist to document things like Musk's views on Wikipedia, but there is a systemic problem there where documenting Musk's extremist political statements (including quoting him directly) is viewed as non-neutral, biased, defamatory editorialization (versus factual information reported by "green" secondary sources) that ends up getting deleted. Therefore, requests to move certain views from this article to Views of Elon Musk may effectively censor Musk's right-leaning views from being documented on Wikipedia. I am also actively trying to trim down this (Elon Musk) article's Views section to make it shorter and more concise. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Still an accusation. Either strike it or prove my intentions at ANI. Simple as that --CNMall41 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Mental health section blanked

I've reverted the inexplicable blanking of the mental health section, which discusses Musk's own self-disclosed Aspergers diagnosis and anxiety. Please discuss here before making such destructive edits. Schierbecker (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Stock shares of all companies have fallen. We are in bear market. Associating the fall in shares to that (accusations against Musk) without convincing evidence is not credible.

Stock shares of all companies have fallen. We are in bear market. Associating the fall in shares to that (accusations against Musk) without convincing evidence is not credible. --JShark (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tesla Stock Losses Top $575 Billion As 'Investor Patience Wears Thin' With Elon Musk's Twitter ‘Circus Show’. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/05/24/tesla-stock-losses-top-575-billion-as-investor-patience-wears-thin-with-elon-musks-twitter-circus-show/?sh=53b4d3a77170 There are many other factors such as the company's production in China and the closure of its factory. The accusations against Musk have no credible relevance unlike car production in China. Prompting the steep decline, Daiwa analyst Jairam Nathan lowered his price target for Tesla shares to $800 from $1,150—telling clients Covid lockdowns in Shanghai, where the electric-vehicle maker operates its so-called Gigafactory, as well as supply issues impacting its Austin and Berlin plants, will cut deeper into earnings than previously expected. --JShark (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We have been over this. The article is relating information as it has been presented notably in reliable independent third-party sources. It is not a depository for talking points from Tesla influencers. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020 The source is Forbes. I also remember that you were blocked from editing this article and I really don't trust you. I look forward to input from editors who have never been blocked from editing the article about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The Forbes article is not about the relation between the allegations of Musk's misconduct and the fall of Tesla's share price. Besides, the original text - which you removed before opening this discussion despite the usual practice of BRD - does not state that the fall of share price was exclusively because of the allegations.

Here, let me take a page from your book: Firstly, that no longer matters as I have been unblocked. Secondly, you do not control the discussion here so whether or not you "trust" me is irrelevant. QRep2020 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

JShark, you plagiarized content from a Tesla press release. Take your moral grandstanding elsewhere. Schierbecker (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The harassment allegation was made public by Business Insider on May 19. According to the cited MarketWatch report, Tesla stock was already dropping the day before that and continued to fall for two more days, with several other things going on around Musk. In the absence of any other information, any association between the two events is speculation and innuendo. I would favor removal of the stock decline from the harassment allegation section, as irrelevant to the topic. Neither the MarketWatch source nor the Barron's source presents "information" on this point other than coincidence. (The quote from the Barron's article is substantiated there only with an analyst remark from April, and another analyst remark referring to Twitter-related "distraction risks.") 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Caption on Tham Luang cave rescue image

This was updated and then reverted, and then reverted back to HAL333's preferred version. This image is from Tham Luang cave rescue and is described as an image from a newscast. There is no indication that any equipment pictured is Musk's device in the photo's description, nor in the newscast. If it is pictured, it is impossible to discern which orange part of the photo might be Musk's submarine in the thumbnail. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The Tham Luang cave rescue is pictured.... The minisubmarine is not pictured, hence the fact that "(pictured)" is not placed after minisubmarine. ~ HAL333 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I suppose most people will probably understand your clarifier. Thanks for explaining. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries :) ~ HAL333 01:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333: How do you feel about the overall neutrality of the article? There has been much discussion regarding that. Welcome back by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This article will always have an anti-Musk bent, because that's how most reliable sources approach him. There's nothing wrong with that—that's how Wikipedia works. Yet, there is a little bit too much of "Musk did X. Person Y says this is bad." But that's more of an undue weight problem. Thousands and thousands of people have published works or issued statements against Musk and we shouldn't indiscriminately mention random ones. On the other side, some of the recent pushes for neutrality seem to have created false balance. There are places where we have "Person X says this is bad, but person Y says it is good", even when most RS and credible figures have the same view as X. ~ HAL333 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Commentary about father

I've removed Musk's comment about his father being a "terrible human being", as it caused another bit to be added about his parenting style as reported by Errol Musk as an attempt to neutralize the quote. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If someone is going to make a contentious comment about an alive parent that ends up in their biography, that parent has every right to state their own side of the story. That's what neutrality is. Trillfendi (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the solution was to simply remove the contentious comment, rather than add something undue. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Issue of undue weight with views section

Musk has made about 5000 tweets and a good portion of those have been covered RS. We can't feasibly cover every single Elon Musk shitpost. It's undue weight to include entire sections on relatively minor tweets—like the two regarding the Canada convoy—when we don't include similar tweets from Musk. ~ HAL333 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are too many Musk shitpost tweets, but in the modern age, Musk's tweets are greatly influential, changing stock and cryptocurrency values, and spreading science misinformation. Musk giving an interview to the Babylon Bee probably has less influence than his tweets, despite interviews being more of a traditional platform for famous people. Controversies at least should be included, not random shitposts like wanting to be called a "business magnet". TechnophilicHippie (talk) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversies at least should be included With Musk, there's a minor controversy nearly every day. We can't have a subsection for each one, and to give a relatively trivial Musk view an entire subsection is ridiculous and clearly undue weight. What makes two off-hand tweets from Musk about a trucker protest in Canada as notable as his views on climate change or COVID-19 or politics as a whole (all of which have received exponentially more coverage over a much more extended period of time and appropriately have their own section? ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not a "trucker protest" in Canada. The Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) both came out against the convoy, saying 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The protest was endorsed by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. If it was a trucker protest, it wouldn't be notable. It's notable because it was a far-right extremist movement associated with QAnon, and there were elements trying to overthrow the democratically elected Canadian government. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't make sense to create a new section to discuss the same thing when Talk:Elon Musk#Canada convoy protest already exists with a rough consensus to keep. It's like rebooting to get a different outcome from what previous editors already decided. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I do not oppose mentioning Musk's Hitler comment (as it is especially egregious), hence the fact that I did not remove its mention in the Twitter section. There is no need to have it duplicated. ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources and neutrality

There is a user that has been heavily editing this page inserting information from dubious sources with an explicit biased intention to modify the page to discredit Elon Musk. This user is heavily biased. Quoting from their user page "Recently, my edits have been focused on countering misinformation that Elon Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject." I think something should be done about this as otherwise the page will become full of meaningless andecodes and character assassination on minor issues inflated into large issues. Ergzay (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

then report at wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Users are allowed to have focused editing goals. The fact that TehnophiliicHippie has 100+ edits on COVID-19 and N95 masks before editing the Elon Musk article kind of flies in the face of an SPA. Regardless, Slatersteven is right that this is not the proper forum for such discussion, a matter some editors easily forget about. QRep2020 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by dubious sources? I am using "green" reliable sources. Please point to something specific. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Saying that Musk is political isn't discrediting Musk. It is true. Musk is political, because he makes political statements. Saying that Musk is isn't objective and isn't "a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject" isn't discrediting him, unless you think Musk is god-like and smarter than everyone else in the world. I would argue that the idea that Musk should overrule scientists who specialize in the field itself is "heavily biased". Do you think Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject, and anyone who denies this is heavily biased? Is my statement even controversial to anyone who doesn't think Musk is God? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Views section: What to include and exclude

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to educate the reader on the topic, including controversies. Controversial views are more notable than uncontroversial views, because it indicates that people are discussing the topic. Thus, to achieve WP:NPOV balance, controversial views should be included in the Elon Musk "Views" section.

One of the main reasons I came back to edit Elon Musk was because I found that people on the internet are very divided on Musk. One group of people who follow Musk's tweets or (critical) reports of his tweets have one impression of Musk, while another group who think of Musk as only the one who makes electric cars and rockets don't understand why Musk is a controversial figure. Clearly, different groups of people follow different news sources, and Musk's Wikipedia article should give an overview that takes into account what other people outside of your circle/silo/echo chamber are talking about, so that a person who is unfamiliar with Musk can read his Wikipedia article and not make ignorant statements, such as suggesting that those who oppose him must be jealous of his wealth, because Musk has done nothing but good things.

This means that "I have never heard of this topic or tweet, so it's undue weight" is a subjective, and we should use more objective criteria, such as whether it is discussed in multiple secondary sources. Even if you are someone who wants to defend Musk, you should at least be aware of the criticisms and controversies surrounding Musk, so that you are prepared when debating someone whose position is that Musk is an a-hole, who follows mainstream news sources that tend to be critical of Musk. Even if it's a one-off tweet, it's notable because it's controversial and covered in multiple news sources. I'm assuming some editors disagree with including Musk's "Hitler" tweet and "TITS" tweet, because Musk likely spent no more than 10 seconds thinking about the former and no more than 10 minutes thinking about the latter (to come up with the "clever" acronym), and the objection is whether or not this is Musk's persistent "view" or a controversy covered by the media. If this is what the issue is, then the objection is more about the section being called "Views" instead of a different name. However, to achieve NPOV balance on Elon Musk, these should still be included, because they are controversies covered by the media. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we present material proportionately in regards to its coverage in reliable sources. Subsections should cover Musk's views that have receieved significant coverage over an extended period of time. Like his tweets about aliens building the pyramids or Bill Gates being an erection-killer, Musk's support of Canadian truckers has not received longlasting coverage. It is not on the scale of his COVID or climate change stances. ~ HAL333 02:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Musk wasn't supporting "Canadian truckers", but rather a far-right movement also supported by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated, and trucking organizations were against the protest. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The perception that this was about supporting Canadian truckers was intentional misinformation from the convoy protest organizers, and the majority of actual truckers were against it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Second. Controversy material should only be included if it raised a big response or had a long-reaching influence, like how his comments about us living in base reality being one in a billion was retorted by an scientist in a noteworthy discussion organized in response. QRep2020 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

That said, I do think the Public Transportation subsection deserves to be reintroduced. QRep2020 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

HAL333 removed all of the views with critical responses/backlash from Views, so a lot more than that should be restored for NPOV. However, I was informed that I would be blocked for edit warring if I continued reverting. I was unable to read your sources regarding his simulation view because of a nag pop up, but I didn't think I was stopping you from adding criticism if there are reliable sources. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I am on a self-prescribed break from editing the Elon Musk article until mid-July. If nothing about that particular part has changed by then, I will probably take another crack at it. QRep2020 (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fair characterization. HAL333 moved them to Views of Elon Musk, which is not the same as removal. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Each article by itself should be balanced and not require another article to be balanced between them. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not true. There is still plenty of criticism of Musk in the COVID, Technology, Finance, etc. sections. Stop spouting crap. ~ HAL333 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

All right. You removed statements from specific people or groups demanding an apology. I thought the COVID section was just a description of what he said and did, but there is the one specific criticism from Politico. In the Finance section, there is the specific criticism from Nouriel Roubini. I subconsciously ignored Zuckerberg's criticism because I don't care about what he says, but it is there. I thought there was only the Finance criticism left, but there were actually two others. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

And now the public transportation content has been removed. Can we please give it back its own sub-subsection? QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I strongly agree. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Imo these should be mostly summarized and moved to Views of Elon Musk. The section feels overlong and undue weight as it is. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The Views section is not that long, but the "feels long" is probably because of subsections instead of Views being one big wall of text, which only makes the table of contents longer. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it feels overlong because it is a disproportionally large part of this article to the point where splitting it off into its own makes sense. It makes sense to then summarize these views, mentioning the most egregious, and encourage readers to read more detail in the split article. I do not understand why this is contentious. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, we have to cover his views in a concise and condense manner or else we'll run into undue weight issues. ~ HAL333 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Bullying claims

"Musk was bullied throughout his childhood and was once hospitalized after a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs after Elon made hurtful comments about a schoolmate's father's suicide."

This contradictory sentence is cited to Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, the Rolling Stone and an AFP article in Yahoo from just this Wednesday. Assuming the AFP article isn't talking about a different incident, Musk's father makes it sound like Musk was the primary aggressor. (The Rolling Stone article does not mention the stairs incident.) Needs to be reworded. Schierbecker (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

It's possible that Musk was bullied at school (unfortunately, plenty of children get bullied). It seems that the stairs incident either wasn't part of the bullying, or Musk made some offensive comments in response to bullying, which concluded in him getting pushed down the stairs. I doubt that he got pushed twice. BeŻet (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The second possibility you mentioned crossed my mind as well. Schierbecker (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet I removed your edit given that first of all it is at least second hand (and maybe third hand) information from Errol that he heard from someone else (who may have heard from someone else again), not something he heard from Elon directly and secondly Errol and Elon are estranged so anything Errol says must be put in that context rather than trusted outright. If you want to add it back in, please put it in that context. Ergzay (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Errol praises Elon in the same source, so clearly he isn't making stuff up to make Elon look bad. Nonetheless, I've attributed that fact to him. BeŻet (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Issues with the Views -> Politics section of the article

The section of the article has become completely dedicated to recent events and doesn't contain any of the historical information on what his views in general are and have been. For example I picked a random old version of the article and this politics section covers a much wider breadth of topics than the very narrow breadth of the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1025661986#Politics

I propose wholesale bringing back this version of the section with a slight modification to include most of the current section reduced down to a couple sentences. Ergzay (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I just overhauled it. Hopefully that's a little better. ~ HAL333 15:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333 Thanks, it's a definite improvement, though I think you accidentally cleared out him talking about voting Republican next election as well unless you moved it somewhere? Ergzay (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's the final sentence of the second paragraph. It's qualified in a note as well. ~ HAL333 03:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether people's views on Elon Musk belong on this page

This page is about Elon Musk, not what everyone else thinks of Elon Musk. In sections where his viewpoints are given, a brief summary of criticism is valid but opinions of the form "I don't like Elon Musk" or "Elon Musk is dumb" (but said in more words) are not relevant for the page (or frankly anywhere on Wikipedia). Ergzay (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I've said this before but take a look at Jeff Bezos and then compare it to Musks. The anti Musk edits is getting out of hand. Warbayx (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Most CEOs keep quiet and don't give their opinions on all kinds of topics unrelated to their company, so they are less likely to say wrong things about topics they don't understand. In general, people who are very vocal are going to be criticized for what they say by experts a lot more than people who keep quiet and rarely say anything publicly. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

True but that does not mean all that criticisms of what Musks says belong on wikipedia. You will always have people criticizing you when you're a popular figure. Warbayx (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but when Musk is spreading misinformation or encouraging discriminatory behavior among humans, it is worth noting and becomes notable. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Elon has never encouraged discriminatory behavior among humans. Ergzay (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? almost (all?) of our biographical articles contain sections about image and reputation, why not Musk's? Here is Bezos [[4]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Seconding position. QRep2020 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Bezos frost page is not dedicated to criticisms though. How long do you need to scroll down to see any criticisms? pretty far. Warbayx (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Because almost the entire article seems dedicated to adding criticism to every single section of anything he's ever done. Ergzay (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

People aren't saying "Elon Musk is dumb". AI experts are basically saying, "Elon Musk is dumb when he's talking about AI, because he doesn't know what he's talking about." This is important information, especially for some members of the general public who might mistakenly think that Musk is a reliable source of information on the capabilities of AI. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Problem is you can always find an expert who disagree with another expert. The sources provided only mentions two experts from Facebook a company Musk often criticize. Rest of the sources provided is not reliable. Warbayx (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What sources specifically are not reliable? The sources summarize the AI community's poor opinion of Musk, and Wikipedia is just supposed to say what the sources say. You might be able to find an expert that disagrees with another expert in general, but Musk evidently doesn't even have a basic understanding of the topic that all AI experts would share as a common ground, if he is worried about AI as an upcoming existential threat. For some reason, you are convinced that Musk must have some AI expertise without evidence. If a guy knows about both electric cars and rockets, it does not follow that he knows about the entirety of human knowledge. The fact that he is a billionaire also does not imply that he more knowledgeable than everyone else. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not a critique of his opinions on AI. It's just a statement that they don't like Elon Musk. They made no statement of WHY Elon's thoughts on the matter are incorrect. If they did we can include that. What they did write that you quoted was very clearly of the form "Elon Musk is dumb". Ergzay (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding @Ergzay:'s edit →‎Technology: Revert direct quotes. Summarizing opinions of others is all that's needed, directly quoting is NPOV. Direct quotes of their views on Elon Musk should go on their own pages—which I take be claiming that directly quoting AI experts' criticisms reduces the neutrality of the Elon Musk article—I would argue that it is the opposite. Criticisms need to be included to achieve a neutral point of view. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case, Ergzay was not removing the criticism: just making it concise. Beyond the undue weight issues, it's awkward and lazy to have quotes every 2 lines. ~ HAL333 04:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That was not the reason they provided in their edit, and you know it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie I made that edit because their opinions amounted to "I don't like Musk". To be frank they shouldn't even be in the section. They were not responses to Elon's critique of AI, they were just ridicule. Also I can't include it in the article because it's a personal anecdote but my own father was a researcher in AI in the in the 80s and became disillusioned with it because of the horrendous ways it can be (and was being) used to harm people and I grew up hearing a lot of attacks on it and then Elon comes along and says the exact same things. His statements are not wild and out of the norm. They are common and we should factor in the bias of scientists employed in leadership positions at large corporations who's future careers depend on critque not being allowed. None of this is wikipedia level but it's something I consider when curating how people are quoted. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, AI can be used to harm people, such as AI used to kill in war and AI bias (learning based on a biased data set causing discriminatory outcomes), but Musk wasn't talking about those legitimate threats, but rather an existential threat to humankind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie The negatives of AI also include over-profiling where private information is predicted from public information. Sci-fi likes to call that concept "pre-crime". Those existential threats are those same local effects translated into the future as more and more aspects of the control of such negative effects are handed over to automated systems. Ergzay (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Cue the Schubert. ~ HAL333 03:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources needed offering praise for Musk to counteract the criticism

This article has basically two types of content. 1. Basic dry facts about what Musk has done and what he's said. and 2. Personal criticism anecdotes added from numerous outside people with histories of attacking Musk publicly. People need to be adding more "personal praise anecdotes" to counteract such criticism and maintain a balanced article. For example there's a section on criticism of his management style, but I've read numerous articles years ago that I remember praising his management style, but none of those are in this article. We need more of such things. Were they lost over time as people removed them but people missed reverting them? Ergzay (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to artificially balance an article out. If most sources criticise Musk's managerial style, then we include that. If you have a source with examples of praising his managerial style, by all means please include them. BeŻet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet There is a selection bias going on because of current recent events that is causing oversubmission of historical details. The article shouldn't be a random collection of every single person's opinions on Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The vast majority of the sources for the managerial style subsection are not even from this year. QRep2020 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 I didn't say that they were from this year. I said that they were being added recently. People are digging up old content and filling the article with it to portray Musk in a negative light. Ergzay (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

This is demonstrably false. That section has been created over a year ago, and the sources are mostly from 2021. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 You're extremely biased against Elon Musk yourself so not sure this comment is exactly relevant. Ergzay (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Qrep20202 You were banned for your anti-musk edits. Not sure you should have any relevance about any Elon Musk edits. Warbayx (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

They were blocked because the campaign from r/elonmusk redditors to defend Musk's honor by getting QRep2020 blocked on Wikipedia succeeded: Guys - we succeeded! QRep2020 is now indefinitely blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk!! (Archive 1) (Archive 2). TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, a subreddit community does not get someone banned. Warbayx (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I have had all rights and privileges reinstated. So, yes, my opinion does matter. QRep2020 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work that way. My block was rescinded anyway. 15:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Truth Social quotes

The following discussion 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.

---

This series of edits removed a reliable, secondary Reuters source and replaced it with an undue amount of quotation from Musk's conference speech. Would others support:

1. Restoring the Reuters source
2. and removing quoted material that isn't highlighted by the secondary source?

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I would. The editor left a blatantly deceptive edit summary saying "fix typos" for a major change that removed the reliably sourced Reuters cite and replaced it with a YouTube video of an Elon Musk Interview that's 1:29:57 hrs long, as well as other major changes. Seems hypocritical to talk about the truth "quickly dying", and then to pull a stunt like that. Not good, and it doesn't speak well of the editor's modus operandi. The video is a primary source, but without an indication at what point in the video the attributed statement was made, it's worthless as a source. Carlstak (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Carlstak. FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately.

Okay, thanks, apologies to the editor for the confusion, but my other points still stand. Carlstak (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Heads up for you and QRep: Hal333 moved all the content to Views of Elon Musk. I'm waiting a little while to see if it seems like that'll stick; if so, we should probably move this conversation there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak Which edit did I introduce a bunch of changes with the comment "fix typos"? It's possible I may have just forgotten to update the edit summary. I have in the past done that where I fix some typos, write the edit summary, preview the changes, and then find something that needs fixing and make the change and forget to update the edit summary. If that's what happened then I'm sorry. Unfortunately you can't go back and edit edit summaries. Ergzay (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see above where Firefangledfeathers said "FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately." I meant to link to the relevant diff in my original comment, rather than to the page's edit history. I've just corrected the link in the text I wrote which says "deceptive edit summary" above. If you click it you will now see a mid-top notice that says "3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown". I was under the mistaken impression that you had made all these changes with an edit summary of "fix typos". I apologized for my error. Now, on the other hand, I do think you're going overboard with your changes. Carlstak (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Third. QRep2020 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers I corrected the record as it incorrectly stated that Elon Musk wanted Trump back on Twitter when several things that I quoted clearly conveyed that he had no such interest. Thank you for further confirming your bias against any of my editing. I will have to revert this one as well. Sigh. Ergzay (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (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.

The general theme of Musk criticism commonly cited in this article and the job of Wikipedians

The general theme of the criticism that has started flooding this article is of the form 'if you shout it loud enough it becomes true' by using sources that selectively recast good things as bad things it conveys additional meaning that is not actually written in the words, namely that Musk is a bad person and everyone should join in on the dogpile of anti-Musk criticism. It is the job of wikipedia editors to curate sources to portray things accurately rather than join in as one more source of the mob attacks on this individual. The truth is quickly dying.

As an example Elon Musk created a $100M carbon capture fund, something hailed everywhere as a very good thing. However the source we use for this event is from NBC news website and is titled "Elon Musk to donate sliver of net worth for carbon capture". This is just one example of things that are common throughout this article. The general sourcing used on this page goes to great length to portray good things as bad things, and bad things as inhuman/devious/horrendous things. This page is in need of a massive cleanup. I have started on a few things but I am having to fight against reverts because of the hive mind not wanting to allow these types of changes in. Ergzay (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

You and HAL333 are doing a great job cleaning out the rubbish. Warbayx (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the sources are all secondary reliable independent sources providing notable coverage. Feel free to introduce coverage of the same caliber that somehow prevents the truth from "dying". QRep2020 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a vested interest in many journalists to tear the person down rather than convey truth. They know if they write Elon Musk articles they can make money off of them and praise doesn't get as many clicks as vitriol. Ergzay (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest slowing down a bit. You've created several threads here recently, and it's difficult to keep up with your comments. If you want a constructive discussion, let's go one by one, and try to improve things you think are wrong. Also, please refrain from suggesting that there's some conspiracy going on here - it doesn't create a constructive atmosphere. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree—let's avoid the broad strokes. I think we can get more down if we address each issue individually. ~ HAL333 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

So say we Hall. QRep2020 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's mission is not to right great wrongs, including journalistic bias. If that is your intention, you should find another project to contribute to. Schierbecker (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Schierbecker Journalistic bias is not among that list. Journalistic bias can be corrected, with extra work on the sourcing, which if no one else seems interested in doing it looks like I will have to. Ergzay (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Remove the rumour that Elon is dating Natasha Bassett from the section about his dating life. There is no proof that he is dating her and he has never said they are. They only had lunch together... that does not mean they are dating. He has never talked about her. Citing gossip articles is not real citations and is hugely disappointing to see happen. Gossip articles are not real sources. No wonder Wikipedia gets a bad reputation. Natashaisanobody (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done per WP:BLPGOSSIP