Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

RfC: Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus against calling Musk a co-founder of Tesla. Closed early per WP:SNOW. ––FormalDude talk 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Survey

There was a previous RfC regarding whether Musk can be considered a co-founder of Tesla; previous consensus opposed its inclusion in the lede. The previous RfC did not discuss all of the publicly available information. Based on the 3 points below, I ask that editors consider restoring Elon Musk’s title as co-founder of Tesla as it had been present in the lede of this article from 2009-2020.

1. A court settlement in September 2009 was reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, within which Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The following sources are completely unambiguous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla: CNET, LA times, Forbes

2. Tesla’s website names Musk a co-founder here

3. Some have made the argument that since Musk was not present on day 1 of creation of the Tesla “shell company”, he cannot be considered a co-founder. However, according to this LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day”.

The article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.

Please carefully consider the merit of these 3 points and consider restoring Musk’s co-founder of Tesla title. If there are editors in opposition, I respectfully request that they provide reliable sources that either a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Thanks. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Tesla was founded in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning. Musk became involved with the company in 2004. It existed before his involvement. Thus he clearly cannot be a co-founder. Reliable sources document this obvious fact. Our rival Britannica writes "(Tesla) was founded in 2003 by American entrepreneurs Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning." A recent CNBC article says, "Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk did not start Tesla." CNN writes "Tesla (was) founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning." To claim otherwise misleads the reader. Co-founder is also just a vague term. It is more precise to describe him as "early investor" in the lead. ~ HAL333 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333:"Co-founder is a vague term" Exactly, I agree. However, as stated in my previous comment: "The [LinkedIn] article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.". For these reasons, although Elon Musk was not at Tesla's shell company on day 1, that does not mean he can't be considered a co-founder. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether Tesla—a company that Musk now controls—describes Musk as a co-founder is irrelevant. That amounts to a self-published source, violating WP:SELFPUB. ~ HAL333 00:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

We both seem to agree that there is no formal or legal definition of a "co-founder". For this reason, we must rely on company resources or legal settlements. We have a real, legal document for this case: the court settlement reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla (point #1). There are 3 reliable, third-party sources that cover this settlement, also listed in point #1. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Hal333. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Reasons? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  They do not need to give them. Stop arguing with everyone. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. We are here to discuss. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  People gave their comments, they do not need to engage you in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Relax. I'm not forcing anyone to engage with me. I'm just inquiring about the reason for their opposition. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Hal333 makes the case. Dean Irwin is a consultant in the medical device industry, not a scholar of corporate law or even a lawyer. That little essay he wrote, What is a co-founder? What does it mean and why is it important? is not authoritative, and leaning on that is not at all convincing. Carlstak (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Diregarding Dean Irwin's article because it is not "authoritative" does not dispute his contention that there is no formal or legal definition of a "co-founder". However, in the case of Tesla, there was a legal settlement that definitively states who the 5 co-founders of Tesla are (point #1). Moreover, before this settlement occurred, a Superior Court judge dismissed Martin Eberhard's request to be considered one of only two co-founders of Tesla. Therefore, the Superior Court judge establishes the legal authority for this case. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by replying to every response with a counterpoint, IP. I'm not here to debate you—you made a request for comment, so I commented. This is a quixotic move anyway with what little you've got. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. We are here to discuss. You inquired about legal authority on the matter, so I provided reliable sources. Specifically point #1 and the Superior Court judge's ruling. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't "inquire" about anything, so stop putting words in my mouth. I quoted the title of the goofy essay you cited, "What is a co-founder? What does it mean and why is it important?. You won't persuade anybody with tactics like this, but the tide is strongly against you anyway. Carlstak (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is what you said: "Dean Irwin is a consultant in the medical device industry, not a scholar of corporate law or even a lawyer.", so I provided sources from corporate law and a Superior Court judge. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said, and in no way is it an "inquiry". It was a statement, not an inquiry. Perhaps English isn't your first language. I will thank you to kindly not call it that, or pretend that it was an inquiry. Carlstak (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose , reasons given previously. QRep2020 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The existing wording "early investor" is a more accurate description of his role in the inception of Tesla. The vast majority of reliable sources do not describe him as co-founder and nor should we. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  As Wikipedia editors, if we are to override a Superior Court judge's ruling, we must at the very least provide reliable sources that define what a co-founder actually is.

  Most people responding here are just stating "Strong Oppose" without actually addressing my arguments. Nobody has even addressed point #1 yet, which provides 3 reliable third-party sources that report a court settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla. It unambigously, definitively states that Elon Musk is a co-founder of Tesla, along with 4 others. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  We are not overriding anything. The article mentions the settlement already. HAL laid out their points fantastically; I agree with them and I imagine many others here do as well.

  You are verging on combative editing. QRep2020 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @HAL, nor anyone else in this section, has given a substantiative counter to a) point #1 about the settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla b) the Superior Court judge's ruling c) the fact that there is no legal or formal definition of a co-founder (so we can't make one up ourselves as Wikipedia editors).

  Until these issues are fully countered, we have more to discuss. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  No, we really do not. Especially with HAL's and now WikiVirusC's responses. QRep2020 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, reasons given above and previously. Musk simply isn't one of the co-founders even if he's allowed to call himself that without being sued by a different "co-founder". BeŻet (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Can you provide a formal or legal source that defines what a "co-founder" actually is? Based on this Superior Court judge ruling, Martin Eberhard's request to be considered only one of two co-founders of Tesla was denied. This Superior Court judge is the legal authority on this matter. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  No they're not, and I care very little about what the Superior Court in the USA says. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  If you choose to ignore 1) a settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla & 2) a Superior Court judge's ruling, you must provide some reliable source that defines what a co-founder actually is. As Wikipedia editors, we can't just write our own definition of a co-founder and ignore everything else. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here is disputing that he can be considered as a co-founder. The question is should we call him that in the infobox and the lede. And the answer, so far at least, is a resounding "no". And beware, your excessive replies are not helping your argument at all. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  you must provide some reliable source that defines what a co-founder actually is - a co-founder is someone who co-founded the company, that is, started an organization together with someone else. Since that wasn't Musk, he shouldn't be called one. Once again, I couldn't care less about what the 5 Tesla people decided between themselves, or what an American Superior Court said, which, nota bene, isn't that Musk is a co-founder, but, I quote: "denied former Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard's request that he be declared one of only two Tesla founders". BeŻet (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mentioning it in body of article in the context of the lawsuit settlement is fine. Simply stating he is a co-founder of Tesla by itself, sounds like he founded it. I don't believe it is lede worth material to include it and/or the full context, which is needed to paint full picture. As toward other points: Definition of co-founder is irrelevant as we don't need to define it in article or in discussion. Reliable sources aren't needed for excluding something, they are needed for including something. The content is included in body of article regardless, and the needed RS are there. We aren't deciding what a company can do, we are only deciding what to include in the article, particularly right now in the lede. Right now Elon Musk, Tesla, Inc., and History of Tesla, Inc. all mention Musk as being now named co-founder. So we most certainty aren't even trying to "decide who can and can't be considered co-founder" in the way you are implying. WikiVirusC^(talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @WikiVirusC:Thank you for the well-thought out response.

  What is a Founder? - Forbes "in business the founders are the people who establish the company—that is, they take on the risk and reward of creating something from nothing. Remember, an idea by itself is not a company, though most companies start as an idea. Some companies start out as one person’s idea and stay that way. More commonly one or two people might have an idea but then recruit a group to help execute the idea (because ideas are worthless without execution). The people who recruit that group and get execution going are founders. They split the original ownership in some way, and then work to bring in the resources they need to build an enterprise. Everyone who comes in after this initial ownership division is not."

  I think the real question that needs to be answered is whether Tesla was an actual company (or just an idea by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tappening) before Musk joined. Before Musk joined, there were no employees, no IP, no designs, no prototype, nothing but a business plan to commercialize AC Propulsion’s Tzero car (nothing but an idea based on the Forbes definition). Even the name “Tesla Motors” was owned by others. Tesla could never have gotten off the ground without Musk - he provided the crucial initial investment (ie the risk) and the execution needed to create something from nothing. Therefore, I think he is not only a co-founder of Tesla based on the legal sources provided above, but also the Forbes definition of a founder. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  Just like defining co-founder isn't needed here, defining when it was an actual company isn't needed. " I think not characterizing him as a co-founder of Tesla"(edit conflict): The article does already characterizes him as a co-founder, as do the other two mentioned Tesla articles with more detail. Discussing whether co-founder goes in the lede is the focus here, and no one is advocating removing the mention from article. Consensus before was is it wasn't needed, and as of this point right now it seems to be same consensus, not to include in lede/infobox. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  @WikiVirusC:I understand your stance of why the definitions are not needed to leave something out of the article. However, the reason you gave for leaving "co-founder" out of the lede is that it would confuse / mislead the reader. "Simply stating he is a co-founder of Tesla by itself, sounds like he founded it. I don't believe it is lede worth material to include it and/or the full context, which is needed to paint full picture."

  I am providing the definitions to refute the claim that it would confuse the reader, because Musk is a "co-founder" not only based on legal sources but also based on the Forbes definition of the word. Therefore, no additional context in the lede would be necessary. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything about confusing readers, I simply said my belief on how it sounds. My stance never was additional context was needed. I said I don't believe the mention is needed(by itself) and/or with context(that paints full picture). Regardless of whether it is or isn't needed, my stance was co-founder isn't worth mention/needed in lede, it is fine as it is now in article prose. You keep bring back up definitions and legal proceedings, but this discussion isn't about the content of article, it is where to put it. So if you want to keep talking about founder definition this, legal proceeding that, just refer to the first sentence of my original response as my response for any more replies. Oppose(in lead) - Mentioning it in body of article in the context of the lawsuit settlement is fine. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. There are far, far too many high-quality sources disputing this to ever remotely contemplate stating it as fact in the article voice. Court cases, settlements, and WP:ABOUTSELF statements do not override other sources - in fact, they are weaker WP:PRIMARY sources, contrasted with many high-quality secondary sources that view Musk's claims with skepticism. Especially when we look at sources that go into depth on that specific point (of which there are many), instead of just sources that mention it in passing - those sources overwhelmingly do not treat him as a co-founder. Relying on definitions of the term from elsewhere is also WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: The IP's busy-bee and peremptory approach to discussion clearly isn't working, and if the editor thinks that countering every dissenting comment is going to sway anyone's opinion, the editor is deluded. The overwhelming consensus at this point is that other editors do not want to restore Elon Musk's title as co-founder of Tesla, simple as that. The editor is wasting our time with this exercise in futility. Enough is enough. Carlstak (talk) 00:20, 28 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.

Misinformation from editorializing the suspension of remote work at Tesla and SpaceX

@HAL333: Stop lying to make it look you didn't commit a BLP violation twice. The unsourced/false misinformation you added twice was (emphasis mine; previous inline citations re-included for easier cross referencing):

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.

This is misinformation, because Musk was threatening office workers, not factory workers. Now that you read the articles instead of just reading the article titles, you understand why it's unsourced/false misinformation, which is why you removed the contentious word "factory" in your most recent edit, and added more misinformation on this Talk Page to obfuscate your previous edits being BLP violations.

Your most recent edit

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.

is also highly misleading to the point of not being WP:NPOV and being borderline misinformation (versus the clear misinformation of your previous two edits on the topic). The reason why your most recent edit is highly misleading and not WP:NPOV is that you are implying that there is some issue with Tesla/SpaceX employees working a minimum of 40 hours per week, which is the standard for a full-time job. It is completely reasonable that full-time hourly workers not working full-time hours should be fired; this is standard grounds for firing at any normal company, and not the issue. The issue is that Musk is threatening workers for not coming into office 40 hours per week, his tweet implying that remote workers are "pretending to work". You are taking Musk's side that remote workers using computers have been fake-working for two years since the COVID-19 pandemic started, and editorializing it into the article as if from Wikipedia's voice.

You seem to be unaware of why your edits are inaccurate or contentious, what is normal or abnormal for a large company, and why Ars Technica, CNBC, Reuters, and NYT highlight very similar information and deem these details to be notable. This is fine. These articles are all written by white-collar workers for white-collar workers, and not everyone has experience being a full-time white-collar worker for various legitimate reasons, including being a student. This is probably a bias from all the authors of the articles who are assuming certain background assumptions from the reader. Let me explain each point individually, which you call "redundant fluffy text":

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work for SpaceX and Tesla office workers

This is notable, because it contrasts with the trend in tech companies to allow remote work for office workers, post-pandemic, to retain and attract talent. (Also note that I kept your copy editing which changes Musk saying that remote work is no longer acceptable to "suspended", and so was not "edit warring" your copy editing for accurate concision.)

and also claimed that factory workers already must come in for more than 40 hours per week;

This is notable, because standard full-time hours are 40 hours per week. This implies that Musk requires factory workers to stretch themselves thin and work more than standard full-time hours on a regular basis, instead of hiring more factory workers to handle the expected work load. (Also note that I kept your copy editing that changes the passive voice to the active voice, and so was not "edit warring" your copy editing for grammar.)

he added on Twitter that those who think that coming into office is antiquated should "pretend to work" somewhere else.

This is notable, because Musk is accusing his office workers who were working from home of not actually doing work for two years while being on the payroll. He is not appreciating or acknowledging two years of work from his office employees, which is a sign of a bad boss.

Your edits mix up different points together to make some inaccurate and/or non-WP:NPOV claim. The fact that you perceive my version to be "redundant fluffy text" may also indicate that it isn't clear and is too terse. I had to provide more details above to explain the context. The target Wikipedia reader is someone with a high school education and experience, so perhaps the problem here is that there is an over-emphasis on concision that sacrifices clarity. If someone reads from it only one point with fluffy redundancies, instead of three points on the topic of "Managerial style and treatment of employees", then there is some kind of communication failure. If you understand my explanation now, how would you rewrite it to make it understandable to someone who is unfamiliar with the nature of remote work/office work/factory work? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC); edited to requote latest version TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

First, do not move my comments. I still support the concise status quo In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. It gives the reader everything they need to know, while avoiding pointless minutiae and adhering to summary style. The quote that Musk believes remote work is to "pretend to work" is redundant. His choice to suspend remote work and threaten to fire workers already demonstrates that he dislikes remote work. There is no need to add a repetitive and mundane quote from Musk. Imagine how bloated this page would be if we added on poorly written qualifying sentences with quotes for each sentence. It's also kind of elitist to think that someone who has a high school education does not understand "remote work", let alone "office work". And even if that were the case, they can always click on the link or use Simple English Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I moved your comments, because it is in the wrong section.

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.

Besides implying that remote work was suspended only at SpaceX, and that only Tesla threatened to fire workers, it also implies that Tesla workers are lazy and working less than 40 hours per week, when all this time, Tesla factory workers have been extremely hard-working and sacrificial, working more than 40 hours per week. If interpreted as a summary of what Musk said, it also implies that remote work is fake work. This is a complete WP:NPOV violation and characterizes both Tesla factory workers and Tesla office workers as lazy and not doing their jobs. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Move my comment once more and I will request admin action. STOP. ~ HAL333 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333: It doesn't look like you get why Musk's statements are inherently controversial enough to be reported without comment, and why there's a controversy so you can't take sides, so maybe read this? Game Devs Tell Elon Musk He's Wrong About What It Takes To Make Something Good. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's also kind of elitist to think that someone who has a high school education does not understand "remote work", let alone "office work". Just to reply to this, because it needs a response, although a high school student may understand "remote work" and "office work" conceptually, typically young people entering the work force don't know what a toxic workplace versus a normal workplace looks like, and many end up working at a toxic workplace for a few years until they realize they are being taken advantage of by the company. Understanding what a toxic workplace versus a normal workplace looks like is important background that would prevent the situation where an editor removes notable points on abnormal, toxic peculiarities at Tesla/SpaceX and replaces them with non-notable points on normal standards at a company, which aren't actually noted in the sources, because of said non-notability. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Ergzay Do you still stand by this edit. TechnophilicHippie is edit warring over it and continues to add it without gaining consensus. ~ HAL333 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to escalate it to the "happy" wikizone. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I despise having to deal with stuff at the Great Dismal Swamp, but I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ~ HAL333 03:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333 I do stand by it. I have given up wasting time on fighting edit wars with @TechnophilicHippie. They have a single purpose account of wanting to defame Elon Musk and I don't have the time to deal with them. I wish the best of luck in your notice board and hope they can be blocked from editing. Ergzay (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Proposal for new profile picture?

Current picture is 4 years old maybe time for a change? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elon_Musk_Colorado_2022_(cropped).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talk • contribs) 01:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the image is a little old, but the new one is of somewhat lower quality. (Completely tangential, but what's that weird scratch on his neck?) I lean towards to keeping the RS portrait for now, but a search for a new image is warranted. ~ HAL333 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Second using new picture.

He has said the neck scar was due to a back surgery. QRep2020 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting. It never occured to me that they would go in through the front for c-spine surgery. I guess it makes sense. ~ HAL333 03:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elon_Musk_Brazil_2022.png perhaps? Xpenz (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this one is better actually, yes. QRep2020 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There's also File:USAFA Hosts Elon Musk (Image 1 of 17) (cropped).jpg --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Works for me as well. The man's appearance has experienced some significant changes in the past five years and perhaps that fact should be reflected in the primary image of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter that the photo is 4 years old when it’s the best image available. It’s of decent quality, he’s facing the camera and smiling. That’s all we need. Trillfendi (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the above. We'll just have to wait; it would be great if a new image similar to the current one emerged. Wretchskull (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Current but 2018
• 
  2019, could crop
• 
  2020, could crop
• 
  2021, could crop
• 
  2022
• 
  2022, crop bottom
• 
  2022, could crop

I dredged up as many potential lead images as I could. Any keepers? ~ HAL333 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that the current image is the best. Other images look a bit on the uncanny valley side. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Then again, so does EM... Wikibarky (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with CactiStaccingCrane. It isn't old and is by far the best quality. Elon's looks haven't changed that much either. Wretchskull (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think 22, crop bottom captures the more "cavalier" vibe Musk has been giving off as of late. QRep2020 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Good example on a similar bio

J. K. Rowling recently has a big overhaul, as you can see from its talk page and archives. I think this is a great reference material for improving Musk's article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Nice. I've also requested a peer review, so hopefully that'll also straighten some stuff out. ~ HAL333 14:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If Elon Musk gets to the point of getting a serious FAC nomination, we would have provde to the community that articles about contentious and recent topics can certainly reach FA quality. This is consequential, as it would encourage more editors to work on more popular articles and make more casual readers notice that Wikipedia has visibly improved from its early sketchy days. I, like others, has a biased viewpoint on Musk, but I think that we can achieve neutrality if we can work together and stop accusing each other for foul play. If those at J. K. Rowling can do it, so can we. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

It is a nice idea, but we literally just had a case of sockpuppetry in the Page discussions. Sigh. QRep2020 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is me, but what are the similarities? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

They are both biographies about controversial and popular subjects. These subjects has a loyal fanbase and critics that would shamelessly bash at each other in internet debates. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And that is where the similarities end, they are controversial for different reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact they are very different people with far different reasons for both fandom and controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make here is that a topic that is controversial does not necessary make it ineligible for FA. It is possible to improve Musk to FA status. We just need to get over with our disputes and take compromises, as doing so would make the article far better than what it is now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Musk's extinction warnings

The online publication Aeon features some critical discussion about Musk's warnings regarding extinction and his proposed solution of colonizing Mars. It might be worth including some of it:

• https://aeon.co/essays/elon-musk-puts-his-case-for-a-multi-planet-civilisation
• https://aeon.co/essays/is-a-mission-to-mars-morally-defensible-given-todays-real-needs

QRep2020 (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that we should also highlight the unfeasibility of his Mars timeframe, showing that it is aspirational. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Musk's statement that AI is an existential threat & WP:NPOV

Musk's statement that AI is an existential threat is an extreme fringe view, and unaccepted in academic scholarship / the AI research community. Per WP:NPOV / WP:DUE / WP:FALSEBALANCE, "currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The weight of Musk's views relative to AI experts views should be more extreme than 0.01% versus 99.99%. Currently, as it stands, the article presents Musk's views versus AI experts views on the topic as if it was 50/50 or a legitimate scholarly debate. Additionally, the general public might assume that a tech CEO's view on technology is more legitimate than someone in a lower corporate position, even if the non-CEO is the practising expert technologist (or foundational to contemporary academic AI research and success, as in the case of Yann LeCun). This is why the AI experts have been speaking out to counter Musk's AI misinformation, which is likely being disseminated to the general public and causing harm.

We can't achieve the correct WP:DUE ratio by word count devoted to each view, but we can emphasize AI experts' specific harsh criticisms. The specific AI experts' harsh criticisms I had added some time ago were recently deleted within User:HAL333's bold massive edits these past few days, and when I reverted them, User:HAL333 reverted them as if my revert back to the old text was the bold edit within the WP:BRD cycle.[1] I have less time to edit Wikipedia now, I might not have time to reply, and no time to keep emphasizing that Wikipedia policies have higher priority than prescriptive writing style guidelines, but I just wanted to point out my disagreement with the direction, which currently perpetuates harmful AI misinformation in a highly read Wikipedia article. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Including that Musk has alarmist views on AI is entirely due. Most of the text in that subsection is about Musk’s views because it's the 'Views' section of Elon Musk. It's the subject of the frigging article section. Here, NPOV applies to how we portray support for/opposition to these ideas. It would be false balance if we cherrypicked three people who endorsed his stance and three who opposed it when 99 percent of credible figures and sources criticized it. Note that 100 percent of the commentary on Musk's AI views is negative. So your claims of pro-Musk bias are entirely untrue. If anything, we might need to add a bit supporting Musk's views. ~ HAL333 22:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Including that Musk has alarmist views on AI is entirely due. I never said it was undue.

Most of the text in that subsection is about Musk’s views because it's the 'Views' section of Elon Musk. It's the subject of the frigging article section. I never disputed this.

Here, NPOV applies to how we portray support for/opposition to these ideas. WP:NPOV says "In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Note that 100 percent of the commentary on Musk's AI views is negative. Sure, but it doesn't explain the critical commentary from AI experts. Without it, it's just he-said, she-said. I'd prefer if Zuckerberg's criticism of Musk was left out for the same reason. Musk was right that "[Zuckerberg's] understanding of the subject is limited." There is no reason to give undue weight to Zuckerberg's views on AI, either, as if the legitimacy of Zuckerberg's AI views was on par with LeCun's.

So your claims of pro-Musk bias are entirely untrue. If anything, we might need to add a bit supporting Musk's views. WP:NPOV says "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." Vanity Fair's opinion article on this mentioning Ayn Rand and Tony Stark is "general public" and one writer's opinion, not a reliable source on the topic of whether or not AI is an existential threat. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

First, you literally said Musk’s views were given too much weight relative to criticism of those views. That is a due weight argument. On the second point: Musk's views are more notable than criticisms of those views. They have been given more weight in reliable sources, and we will give them more weight in this article. If you want to go more in depth with the criticism, add it to the subarticle. That’s why it exists! On the fourth point, I don’t like Zuckerberg or particularly care about his opinions, but that is irrelevant because his opposition to Musk's ideas is due because of its heavy coverage in RS: he is the most prominent industry critic of Musk's AI views in these sources, hence why we mention him. Finally, the Vanity Fair article was a single example of an RS that gives credence to Musk’s views (there are many others: [2][3][4][5][6]). Also, it is a legitimate scholarly debate when you have esteemed figures like Stephen Hawking, Peter Norvig, Stuart J. Russell, etc. agreeing with Musk. ~ HAL333 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

First, you literally said Musk’s views were given too much weight relative to criticism of those views. Yes. One way to reduce the weight of Musk's views relative to criticism of those views is to increase the weight of the criticisms.

That is a due weight argument. Yes. Due weight is about ratio, not necessarily about deleting text altogether.

On the second point: Musk's views are more notable than criticisms of those views. They have been given more weight in reliable sources, and we will give them more weight in this article. Reliable sources cover Musk because he is famous and makes usual statements, but these reliable sources are not endorsing his views. Compare your version of the Musk text to the text on Gwyneth Paltrow's pseudoscience:

Paltrow has received backlash from the scientific community and medical professionals for promoting unproven treatments based on pseudoscience through her company Goop.

I am not suggesting that you make the Musk text shorter. I am suggesting that it should be reverted to like it was before. (You should follow WP:BRD in the spirit of the guideline, and not just declare your version to be the "status quo" and cry edit warring when someone reverts it.) Here is my suggestion, to make it clear that I am not asking to delete Musk's views:

Musk has stated that artificial intelligence poses the greatest existential threat to humanity. He has warned of a "Terminator-like" AI apocalypse and suggested that the government should regulate its safe development. These stances are considered alarmist and sensationalist by critics like computer scientist Yann LeCun or industry leader Mark Zuckerberg, Musk's opinions about AI have provoked controversy and have been criticized by experts such as Yann LeCun, who claimed Musk's panic was influenced by reading Nick Bostrom's book Superintelligence, and by Musk's attraction to the idea that he will save humanity. Facebook's head of AI Jerome Pesenti said that Musk "has no idea what he's talking about when he talks about AI." He noted that Musk's comments about a future machine takeover distracts people from real, immediate AI concerns, such as AI algorithms exacerbating inequality. Consequently, according to CNBC, Musk is "not always looked upon favorably" by the AI research community. and led theThe think tank Information Technology and Innovation Foundation to awarded Musk its Annual Luddite Award in 2016.

This is similar in due weight to how Paltrow's pseudoscience is treated. Again, by due weight, it's not about the absolute number of words, but about the ratio of the opposing views of a debate relative to each other.

Finally, the Vanity Fair article was a single example of an RS that gives credence to Musk’s views (there are many others: [7][8][9][10][11]). Also, it is a legitimate scholarly debate when you have esteemed figures like Stephen Hawking, Peter Norvig, Stuart J. Russell, etc. agreeing with Musk. First of all, to be clear, I agree with the Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence and I agree with AI regulation. The open letter does indeed mention the "existential threat" hypothetical concern, but more importantly, it mentions the very real, immediate AI concerns, including liability for self-driving cars, weaponry, automation disrupting skilled labor jobs, etc. Someone who agrees with or signs the open letter isn't necessarily "agreeing with Musk". Musk's public statements prioritized the "existential threat" angle over the immediate AI concerns, which is what LeCun and Pesenti were complaining about. It's fair to say that Stephen Hawking (a physicist, not an AI researcher or computer scientist) "agreed with Musk", but it would be a BLP violation (and arguably libelous) to say that Peter Norvig and Stuart J. Russell "agree with Musk" on AI being an existential threat. I wasn't able to read the WaPo article because of the paywall, but generally, the articles you linked mention Musk's AI concerns together with general, valid AI concerns. That general, valid AI concerns (mostly not about "existential threat") exist does not mean that Musk's prioritization of the "existential threat" angle over other AI concerns is in line with AI expert's views on the trajectory of AI research. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There are huge undue weight issues with your proposed text and it doesn't adhere to summary style. You choose to highlight weird random things, like Bostrom's book, which is not well covered by RS in relation to Musk. Also, the CNBC-attributed quote is misleading, as CNBC is in turn quoting an anonymous computer scientist's personal belief. And, besides the fact that it relies on an unreliable source, the Pesenti quote is also undue weight—I couldn't find its coverage in any RS. Nor does his quote add anything to the reader's understanding—it's just a straight refutation. We don't need to quote prosaic things. Imagine if we did that in every subsection of this article—it would turn to crap real quick. Again: what's the big picture? You're getting into weird minutiae yet again. ~ HAL333 05:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Court documents in Texas are what revealed the existence of the two children. That's better than a publication that can always tell lies.

@HAL333 Court documents in Texas are what revealed the existence of the two children. That's better than a publication that can always tell lies. I don't understand why you want a fight over something so silly. JShark (talk) 04:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333 I'm just leaving this discussion open for everyone to participate, although really arguing about this nonsense bores me. --JShark (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if a "publication... always tell lies". As Wikipedians, we must report that which is found in RS. Almost everything in this article was first "revealed" in a court document, SEC filing, or corporate report, but there is no need to attribute that. ~ HAL333 04:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• The Times source emphasizes that it was revealed via court documents, though. I feel that that aspect (the fact that it came out via court documents) is probably more significant than the fact that Insider broke the story - every single source I've seen mentions that it was via court documents in the first sentence, and generally only mentions Insider later on - but we can always cover both. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• ^Second this. Schierbecker (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Third. Makes sense. Carlstak (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Achieving Featured Article status

Perhaps I missed a discussion that is happening elsewhere, but from what I have gleamed from recent topics is that there is an interest in getting this article to Featured Article status. It is a venerable endeavor, but likely also ambitious (given the little exposure I have had to the process). Assuming this, I think it fruitful to start listing exactly what we need to do to get there based on WP:FACRITERIA, WP:GVF, etc.

I honestly do not have much to offer just yet, but at the very least I can spur the discussion: What do we think we need to accomplish to take the article to the next level? QRep2020 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

After reading the article and compare to the FA criteria, I think that the article already has a good lead and image selection, as well as consistent citation style and appropriate structure (criteria 2a + 2b + 2c + 3). I think these are the remaining issues that need to be solved, listed in increasing difficulty:

• Check for copyright violations (criteria 1f)
• Satisfy our internal manual of style (general criteria 2)
• Implement the summary style (criteria 4)
• Resolve content disputes (criteria 1e)
• Polish the prose (criteria 1a)
• Make the article viewpoints are due and has a neutral point of view (criteria 1b + 1d)
• Check that the sources are good and actually verify the text (criteria 1c)

Let's be real here: it is almost impossible to get Elon Musk to FA given his controversy, popularity, and our ever-rising FA standard. Nevertheless, I think by aiming towards the FA criteria, we can start organize our effort and make concrete progress on the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The practical me believes that you can only write a Featured biography after the subject is long dead, but in a world of J. K. Rowlings and Brad Pitts, why not give it a swing? The big issues with this article right now are stability/edit warring, sourcing, NPOV, and maybe comprehensiveness in a few sections. I'll try to address those over the next weeks/months. The road map to Elon Musk becoming an FA, as I see it, is first through a peer review, then to the guild, and probably two or three scuttled FAC nominations to make sure we have addressed every issue. And in the end, if we fail after a few FAC nominations, at least we will have substantially improved the article's quality. ~ HAL333 19:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Peer review is useless for an article that is this big. Most comments wouldn't be that useful anyways. I think it's time to get a A-Level Bio review instead. I think it's time to get some FAC experts to look on this article and tell us what do they think. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also yeeted this to GOCE for general copyedit and such. Hopefully the prose will be much better. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Due concerns

I think that the "Twitter" section is too long, while "The Boring Company" and "Neuralink" sections are too short. I also don't think that the "COVID-19" section should have more prominence than "Technology", "Politics" or "Existential threats" sections. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think doubling the weight of Boring and Neuralink would be due. I also agree that the COVID-19 section needs to be cut down. I've wanted to do it myself but decided to let sleeping dogs lie... And while I agree that the Twitter section is a bit too long, I think it's okay for the time being. It's a current event in flux and it will probably resolve itself soon. We can pare it down then. ~ HAL333 03:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Musk’s degree at Penn U

Bachelors of *Arts* in physics and bachelors of *science* in economics? —-I believe someone mixed these two up, however maybe the programs at Penn are unusual…I am too lazy to check, but someone should verify this… 2001:569:BB23:8300:1033:615C:C5D:F173 (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I checked the three sources listed for the sentence's attribution. The Mercury article gives the degrees as they are currently written in the article (BS in Economics and a BA in Physics). The CSQ source confirms he got the BA in Physics, but says his BS is in Business, not Economics. The third source, The Daily Pennsylvanian, simply lists him as an alum of the Wharton school and mentions neither degree. I'll do some digging to see if the second BS is in business or economics. --Kbabej (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Some sources list Musk's BS being in business, including The Seattle Times and the above-mentioned CSQ. Other sources list the BS being in economics, including Inc, Deseret, the Encyclopedia of Artificial Intelligence, and his alma mater Penn State's verified twitter. I think the latter is more likely, given it appears in more RS and comes from the school. I'll remove the CSQ source, as it's likely inaccurate. --Kbabej (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Canada Dates

The Canada dates must be incorrect. According to this entry, he left Canada around 1991 but his mother Maye Musk said on Twitter that he was living in Toronto, Canada, in 1992. 67.70.57.111 (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Secret twins?

Story appears to be confirmed by court documents: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-shivon-zilis-secret-twins-neuralink-tesla QRep2020 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Techcrunch makes the point that Zilis is a "direct report" of Musk's, which strikes me as a critical detail: https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/06/things-get-messy-for-elon-musk-with-report-about-new-twins-he-shares-with-neuralink-exec/ . QRep2020 (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to go all original research here but she has all but insinuated in several ways that she knew him on a personal level before actually working with/for him. So maybe an exception was made for her, politically. Trillfendi (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, how do you gather that? QRep2020 (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I wish I could find the specific source that put the idea in my head because I did a lot of research in a short amount of time but I guess her now infamous comment defending his character she mentioned something about personal aspects from herself and himself, as well as saying in another interview seminar thingy she met him through OpenAI (there was a portion of her career where she did a lot of non-profit work) but had not officially worked there at the time seemingly until she met Elon Musk. It started in 2016 though, that’s all I know. That just gives me the idea that knowing him prior is what led them to work together. Trillfendi (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

JShark, please: let's discuss the issue here. ~ HAL333 04:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Childhood bullying and staircase incident

I do not believe there is evidence of Musk being "bullied throughout childhood" other than his own claims in the Ashlee Vance book. Furthermore, Musk's claim that he was thrown down a staircase due to bullying was refuted by his father who said that it was because Elon made hurtful comments to another student about the student's father's suicide (from a Yahoo! News article). Uxyz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not even due to begin with. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe Undue, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. QRep2020 (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

10 percent of the company's salaried workers

10 percent of the company's salaried workers- Correction. 2800:E2:1C80:35D:D1A:1A42:E4EE:66D1 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Unscientific statements

The intro says: "Musk has been criticized for making unscientific and controversial statements, such as spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic."

As far as I can see the only "unscientific" statements mentioned in the article are his comments about COVID-19, so it's weird (and not very NPOV) that we're implying he's made other unscientific statements. A lots of public figures make controversial statements—I'm not sure what the point of saying that is. It seems like it would be better to just say something straightforward like "Elon Musk has been criticized for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic." That's shorter, clearer, and doesn't make insinuations that aren't supported later in the piece. Binarybits (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No objections. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that sentence from the lede is also referring to the following text in the body

Musk's statements have often provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler in support of the 2022 Canada convoy protest, and saying that the U.S. can "coup whoever we want".

––FormalDude talk 14:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

So "Musk has been criticized for making controversial statements, such as spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic." (If we think the COVID ones are the most controversial?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

No, as that one is unscientific, maybe "Musk has been criticized for making unscientific or controversial statements, such as spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic." Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes ok, his comments about COVID were unscientific. Are you saying they were not controversial? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

NO, I am saying we say both because he has made both unscientific and controversal statements. It is important to point out both, as if we do not say "unscientific" people might think they were scientific. Slatersteven (talk)

And maybe this https://www.iflscience.com/elon-musk-made-some-more-dumb-comments-and-got-schooled-by-scientists-47937, https://www.iflscience.com/elon-musk-made-some-more-dumb-comments-and-got-schooled-by-scientists-47937. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine how it is because he's made numerous controversial statements (per quoted text above) and numerous unscientific statements (relating to COVID). ––FormalDude talk 14:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's fine as is. ~ HAL333 14:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Like HAL said, it is fine as it is. QRep2020 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm clearly not going to win this argument, but I think it's weird that the intro says Elon Musk has been criticized for controversial statements, but the pages for left-wing figures like Barack Obama ("You didn't build that") or Ilhan Omar ("somebody did something") don't have similar statements. Almost anybody in public life says stuff that somebody finds controversial, but Wikipedia seems to only deem statements controversial if they make liberals mad. Binarybits (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well as they are not the saem, there may be reason other than "they are well known people", such as "a poltican will always be accused of being controversial by someone". Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Both of you have a point. I don't think it's about partisan bias here that's the problem; I think that it's a combination of Musk's Twitter usage, erraticness, and loftiness of his companies' goal that caught these statements attention. The last paragraph should have a summary Musk's views in addition to basically "Musk said dumb things". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, its about what HE says, not what others say about him. He has deliberatly sought to make controversial statements. Ones often at odds with what actual experts say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. He intentionally want to stir up controversy by saying such statements. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the sources make it clear that Musk thrives on being controversial and going out of his way to make controversial statements, or doing attention-grabbing things that become controversial (and actually affect the value of his companies' stock), like smoking weed with Joe Rogan, to a degree that most politicians don't, except for the stars of the Republican freak show. So it's not undue weight to mention this behavior of his in the lede. Carlstak (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Change Business Magnate to business magnet. Elon had requested this on an interview and I think the community would have a good laugh Couchguard (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No. QRep2020 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to make childish jokes or to submit to the will of the rich and powerful. BeŻet (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

"Xavier Alexander Musk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Xavier Alexander Musk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#Xavier Alexander Musk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).

Sexual misconduct

Add his affair with the wife of his friend (Sergey Brin) which led to their divorce. While single at the time, having sex with a married person is obviously misconduct, and doing it with a friend's wife is an egregious breach of trust.174.131.48.89 (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Information on the alleged consensual affair with Brin's wife is already present in the Personal life section of the article. We will not describe it as "sexual misconduct" unless published, reliable sources do so. Generally, an affair, even an adulterous one, is not described as sexual misconduct, which most often includes the elements of "power imbalance, coercion, and[/or] predatory behavior". No source that I'm aware of has alleged the affair included any of those elements. General Ization ^Talk 04:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Nationality

Why should Musk not be referred to as a South African-born American? DeaconShotFire (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Because he's not African-American? How much more obvious does that need to be? 2603:8080:F600:27A2:D065:905A:9F4D:3C28 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Because his nationality situation is more complex than that, and can't easily be shoehorned into the opening sentence. There is long-standing consensus to leave all mention of place of birth and citizenship until later in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Alleged affair

The allegation of an affair between Musk and Sergey Brin's wife has been vehemently denied by both parties. The WSJ report is very weaselly about its sourcing, merely citing "people familiar with the matter". An allegation denied by all involved almost certainly comes under WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:BLPGOSSIP; the latter tells us to ask ourselves whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. The truth of the allegation is in doubt, but even if it is true I'm far from convinced that it is sufficiently relevant to pass the due weight test. My removal has been reverted; what do others think? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It is an allegation which not all parties have publicly denied (Sergey Brin). Since the interest of the parties who deny the claim are aligned against it, there is still no way to verify authenticity and it should remain as an alleged incident. 2601:155:8401:F6F4:6801:D503:B95D:7D28 (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering the heavy coverage in RS, I think a single sentence is due. Also note that we use "allegedly" and mention their rejection of the claims. I believe the way we've put it adheres to NPOV. ~ HAL333 20:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Carlstak (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

UNsure we should include this as it may violate BLP, sure its been covered, and denied. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2022

Under early life, the two degrees Musk studied are backwards. Bachelor of arts says physics but it should be science, and vice versa for bachelor of science in economics. 2001:56A:78DE:6200:2064:5542:6A1A:38DC (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you happen to have a good source for this? A quick google search shows conflicting answers, and the sources in the article don't say either way. GrammarDamner how are things? 05:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it is easy to confirm that UPenn's Physics degrees are BAs [12] and its Wharton school awards a BS in Economics [13]. Of course, we can't use that knowledge directly as it is WP:OR, but it does confirm that we have the correct version between the conflicting sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Potential error under Leadership section

"Musk's handling of employees—who he communicates directly with through mass emails—has been characterized as "carrot and stick", rewarding those who offer constructive criticism while also threaten, swear and fire his employees impulsively."

I wrote potential correction in brackets.

"Rewarding those who offer constructive criticism while also [being known to] threaten , swear and fire his employees impulsively."

The page is locked due to vandalism, is this the correct way to submit a potential correction to a page I can't edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao.contracting.229 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

Please change magnate to magnet. 41.114.67.175 (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, see FAQ at the top of this talk page.

Existential threats and his business ventures

I think this may err on original research, but I think there is something to be said about how Musk's view on existential threats effect his businesses. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't include anything without a source. BeŻet (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Why relationship with Shivon Zilis is in article body but not in infobox in partners list, what is the definition of partner?

infobox should include Shivon Zilis, mother of Elon Musk’s children Sezerpal (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Neither have stated publicly what the nature of their relationship was or is. QRep2020 (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding supposed enrollment at Stanford

The text right now implies that Musk enrolled in a graduate program at Stanford but then dropped out. A recent letter from a professor there produced by Musk himself seems to suggest he did not enroll at all: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FajKxVPXoAID9QO?format=jpg&name=large . So, which is the case?

Vance's text for consideration:

"Musk found in Silicon Valley a wealth of the opportunity he’d been seeking and a place equal to his ambitions. He would return two summers in a row and then bolt west permanently after graduating with dual degrees from Penn. He initially intended to pursue a doctorate in materials science and physics at Stanford and to advance the work he’d done at Pinnacle on ultracapacitors. As the story goes, Musk dropped out of Stanford after two days, finding the Internet’s call irresistible. He talked Kimbal into moving to Silicon Valley as well, so they could conquer the Web together." QRep2020 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Elon is accepted to Stanford, but never meaningfully enrolled. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Any detractors for updating the text to reflect his acceptance rather than enrollment? QRep2020 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Just be bold and link to this discussion. It's faster that way. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Claim that musk father funded zip2 contradicted by musk himself in the quoted rolling stone article

Unsure if other sources are available but at the very least this debated fact should not be mentioned as it is now 37.171.0.90 (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Doing research... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is the section "Sexual misconduct allegation" due?

It's about 3 months since that happens. I don't really think that it deserves a dedicated section as the allegation is made without further corroborating evidence. That section can basically be summed up as "Business Insider say Musk is a sex offender, Musk responded the allegations by tweeting X". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

And

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-sexual-misconduct-allegations-utterly-untrue-wild-spacex-flight-attenda

https://www.newsweek.com/did-elon-musk-predict-sex-harassment-smear-timeline-doubtful-1708583

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/elon-musk-sexual-harassment-denies-allegations/index.html

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/05/20/world/crime-legal-world/elon-musk-sexual-harassment-allegations/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61526898

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/may/20/elon-musk-denies-he-sexually-harassed-attendant-on-private-jet-in-2016

It has got a lot of coverage (do we need more?), not undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It belongs. QRep2020 (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. While there's a lot of coverage about the allegation, nothing has come out of it. I would expect such a section to contain further evidence, development, police involvement, etc. It would be like putting Ghost of Kyiv as a header in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I think it is better to merge the paragraph somewhere at the article without the header. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

It is still getting referenced in fairly recent sources, eg. [14][15] - that sort of WP:SUSTAINED coverage would seem to indicate that it has had a significant long-term impact on his reputation and therefore belongs in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a good argument. However, I'm talking more about the dueness of dedicating an entire section for the allegation. Again, lots of coverage does not mean the allegation is significant. It would be a different story however if other people came up and provide further evidence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Then where should we place it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be placed at either the SpaceX or the personal life section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal life might work. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is in the Personal life section already. QRep2020 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I took them to me as one line, not a whole section. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a section, but a subsection and it is not a criticism blurb which has special guidance about "better" integration. It is also a fresh controversy that got tons of coverage and was brought up on this Talk page in a variety of discussions. No need to jump the gun and minimize it until a significant amount of time passes. QRep2020 (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

3 months is quite a long amount of time. It is not fresh anymore as newspapers are just rehashing the old news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I removed the subsection and kept it under personal life, not more due than the numerous other things mentioned there to be its own subsection, same as the previous paragraph on him having children with an employee. Bill Williams 17:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Naturalized

This non-inclusive reference suggests there are two types of Americans: Those born in the country and those who are not. It is racist and divisive. 2600:8800:242B:3F00:B5C5:CB94:DA2C:110 (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Um, have you read Naturalization? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Everything is racist if you don't understand it enough. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Describing the "funding secured" tweets as false and misleading

Right now, the article does not go as far as to say that Musk's tweets about taking Tesla private were false or misleading, only that the SEC said that were as such. I think that this is an oversight. In April 2022, a judge even ruled that no reasonable jury would find the statements "not misleading" and that Musk was aware of the "falsity" of such statements. (See https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/judge-ruled-elon-musks-funding-secured-tweet-was-false-plaintiffs-say/)

CC X-Editor. QRep2020 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware of this, but the article also says that the ruling in question has not been unsealed yet and this claim that the judge ruled this comes from a group of Tesla shareholders, not the judge themselves. I would suggest waiting until the ruling is unsealed before changing the article's content. X-Editor (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

In the "Childhood and Family" section, the claim "Musk's family was wealthy during his youth" is unsourced. Meddlingkids00 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Have repeated a source cited in the preceding paragraph which I think covers this pretty well. Cannolis (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Beat me to it. Thanks Cannolis. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

“Angel investor” in intro needs link or clarification

I’m fairly well-read, and I’ve never heard the term angel investor. This should be linked to a Wikipedia page or otherwise defined in text. 2603:7000:3D00:5DF1:BC9F:40A2:51:FBEB (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"Thud! (media company)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Thud! (media company) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Thud! (media company) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2022

In the subsection Elon_Musk#Technology:

Elon Musk has been consistently critical of patents, which according to him "serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors." Under Musk's leadership, Tesla, Inc has opened its patents to being used by competitors. Aerkem (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this better suited for Views of Elon Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2022

Elon musk is the richest man in the world. 103.160.194.26 (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

We say that. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Title

These are his titles?

He is not called MR or Sir or Lord he is called "CEO of"? It reads like puffery. Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

He is referred to by several different titles, not just CEO. I don't understand why 'CEO of' is "puffery". It's a descriptive term for the position he holds within a firm. What changes are you proposing?  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like job titles are allowed under Title parameter for the Person infobox: Template:Infobox_person#Parameters. I agree they should be separate from formal titles in principle though. QRep2020 (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Controversial statements

@QRep2020 You've completely ignored all of my reasoning and arguments by appealing to previous talk page discussions that you haven't even linked to. Consensus can also change and the unscientific claims is completely unsourced, as there is not discussion of this in the body as I pointed out in my edit. X-Editor (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_10#COVID-19_section_stating_as_fact_that_Musk_spread_misinformation_is_editorial_opinion QRep2020 (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_11#Looking_for_past_RFC's_or_GA_reviews_where_the_%22unscientific%22_slur_was_approved_by_the_community QRep2020 (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the discussions, but I still don't think the word unscientific is necessary, since spreading misinfo about COVID already implies unscientific. X-Editor (talk)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2022

Please change:

"Later in 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri borrowed funds from Musk's father and founded Zip2."

To:

"Later in 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2."

The former is not supported and is in fact contradicted by the article in the citation and is misleading (leading the reader to believe that the loan was required for the founding of Zip2 when it was actually incidental). The Zip2 article states that Errol did indeed contribute money towards Zip2, but only 10% of a funding round in the form of a loan of $28k.

Alternatively:

"Later in 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2, helped in small part by a loan of $28,000 from Musk's father." 82.5.42.19 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

How is 28,000 USD incidental for micro-start up in 1995? QRep2020 (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Rather than nitpicking my wording, consider whether the image formed by "Musk borrowed funds from his father and founded Zip2" is accurate given the citations. And consider whether the alternative wordings form a more accurate impression for the reader. 82.5.42.19 (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Zip2 article states clearly the substance of the matter, using sources. The middle of the three choices above would be the accurate characterization. Errol Musk's contribution was, as characterized by Elon, "much later", thus not a founding loan. The existing text is, quite simply, incorrect.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I see two sources on the Zip2 article that essentially quote or are quotations from Musk. These are autobiographical primary sources, yes, but statement is clearly controversial and so simply blanking out any mention of Errol's contribution flies in the face of that fact.

I could see the third choice working with the "in small part" removed, or perhaps instead we can add something to what is already present about how Musk later denied this specific account and thus follow the example in WP:PRIMARYCARE#Primary sources should be used carefully. But the point about borrowing money from Errol for Zip2 warrants inclusion as by all the sources. QRep2020 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I can find only two sources that suggest that Errol Musk was a founding investor in zip2 - [16] - Rolling Stone (not the most reliable source) and Ashlee Vance's biography, also not specifically reliable. I can find sources that specifically mention three founders. A later investment in an angel round by his father - if it can be verified - doesn't qualify as "borrowed funds from Musk's father and founded Zip2." If there are reliable sources that actually show that his father was a founding investor, that's viable in a BLP. Otherwise, it should be struck as the way it's written now it does not have reliable sources to support the wording.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I am fine with changing the text to the modified third option, but not the second one. I do not see a outlined defense of the second option in your latest comments, so does that mean you are agreeable to the modified third option?

Also, Vance's book is cited more than a dozen times in this article alone. I am not sure what you mean by "specifically reliable" but clearly it is reliable enough for an article that has passed the Good Article criteria. QRep2020 (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Is (Elon) Musk quoted in the book saying that Errol loaned $28k to help start Zip2? Or, did Vance interview Errol and he said that he loaned Elon $28k to start the company? Whichever the case, Elon has denied and disputed the characterization. I'm not invested in the matter enough to buy Vance's book. Crunchbase makes no mention of such an investment by the elder Musk. I can find no other sources that formally corroborate the claim. Other sources make no mention of this alleged investment. If you or someone else has access to the book, I'd be interested to know the circumstances and how it is characterized in it. I think it is necessary, if this claim of the $28k investment is to stand, then Musk's denial, and clarification of what it was (a much later angel investment, well after founding), needs to be included. It's perfectly reasonable to have the subject of the BLP quoted in regards to the matter, unless we're to imply that he's lying about it.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 03:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding my term 'specifically reliable', I have not read the entire article, nor am I interested in doing so. Is Vance cited for any controversial content, that is disputed by Musk or others? That was my qualification. In this case, the claim is disputed, so it may not specifically be reliable in this circumstance.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

So, to try to move forward. The article apparently some time back previously said this (at least according to this post on ycombinator, but it's obviously not reliable - just using it as a starting point - [17]):

• "In Ashlee Vance's biography of Elon Musk, it is claimed that the Musks' father, Errol Musk, provided them with US$28,000 during this time, but Elon Musk later denied this. He later clarified that his dad provided around 10% of US$200,000 as part of a later funding round."

That is problematic as well, so perhaps something more along this line:

• Later in 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2. In Vance's biography of Musk, he claims that the Musks' father, Errol Musk, provided them with US$28,000 during this time. Elon Musk later denied this, and further claimed that his father provided around 10% of US$200,000 as part of a later funding round.

In that older revision, it cites chapter 4 of the book. I think it could even be trimmed further to end at 'denied this'. The claim is disputed by and within the sources, this characterizes the dispute neutrally for a BLP in my opinion. It would be great if someone with access to the book could provide the details as presented there.   cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Update. Thanks to Firefangledfeathers for the pointer to OpenLibrary. Here is the precise text from the book: Errol Musk gave his sons $28,000 to get them through this period, but they were more or less broke after getting the office space, licensing software, and buying some equipment. For the first three months of Zip2's life, Musk and his brother lived at the office. I've contacted Ashlee Vance through his website to get greater clarity on this, pointing him to this thread, but have no expectation of a response, here or otherwise. The only problem is we don't know the 'provenance' of the statements. From Elon? From Errol? No idea (Errol isn't listed in the book as someone Vance contacted though). With the information as it stands currently, the dispute as to Errol's contribution needs to be noted in the article text. Leaving it only as 'Errol did give money at the start' is misleading, as much as leaving it only in Elon's words that 'Errol did not give money at the start'. We simply present both pieces of information in order to remain neutral. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I marked this request as "answered" as discussion is obviously needed before the request can be implemented. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone with a free account at OpenLibrary can borrow the book: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL25755973M/Elon_Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for that tip, Firefangledfeathers.  cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This talk of provenance is a bit much. The point is that Vance wrote such and such in a published, widely received book and that is sufficient for our purposes.

The controversy does not need to be featured, it can be. Furthermore, the details of the controversy are best suited for discussion at Zip2, as it does currently.

I am leaning towards the modified third option I presented earlier at the moment. QRep2020 (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Would this work for you? In 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2, helped with $28,000 from Musk's father, though Elon Musk disputes this claim of his father's assistance. This limits discussion of the details of the dispute, as suggested. It's worth noting that the book says nothing of a loan, so if the book is canonical, then this article currently mischaracterizes what ostensibly took place. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 00:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That suggests Musk said Errol did not give the money, which is not in question. What is is when the assistance came. QRep2020 (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The few reliable sources out there say that Elon and Kimbal, or Elon, Kimbal, and Kouri founded Zip2, with no mention of Errol. Whether or when Errol contributed cash or not, he was not a founder. [18] [19] [20] [21]. Only Vance's book has put forth the $28k claim, which Elon disputes. At minimum, the merging of 'founded' and 'help from Errol' is disputed by both the weight of reliable sources, and Elon's statements. So,

• In 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2. Errol Musk invested in Zip2, but when this occur is disputed. [insert reliable sources]

We can't say that Errol helped found Zip2 - which the current and proposed construct #3 imply - when that claim is disputed. By disconnecting the founding from mention of Errol's contribution, we avoid synthesis, and we avoid the conflicting wording of whether Errol gave or loaned money to found the company. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You should really wait for a consensus to be drawn before attempting another bold edit, even if it is an agreeable one ultimately. QRep2020 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've never previously made any WP:BRD edits to this article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, a bold edit. QRep2020 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on October 4, 2022

Musk has offered to go ahead with the acquisition at the original offer price of $54.20 per share. Sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-04/elon-musk-proposes-to-proceed-with-twitter-deal-at-54-20-a-share-twtr

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/04/elon-musk-twitter-deal/ 70.29.86.19 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

What edit do you wish made, to add this? Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

How about adding it? 70.29.86.19 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 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) 18:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Aspergers entry

"This led some commentators to doubt the sincerity of the claim, highlighting that the diagnosis is no longer in use as the Asperger classification was removed for the DSM-5."

This is synthesis. Literally nowhere in the source does any commentator by a reasonable definition of same, directly suggest that they "doubt the sincerity of the claim'. Only rando twitter users - not 'commentators' in the sense of a reporter or opinion writer in a reliable source referring specifically to Musk - are quoted. This should either be removed, or reworded. I think rando twitter users are not notable for this matter. Now, if a medical professional had said that he/she doubted the sincerity of the claim, that would be a different matter. But the article only talks generically about the DSM and diagnostic at this time - not in direct relation to musk. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

How about:

"The claim lead to critical responses highlighting how the the diagnosis is no longer in use as the Asperger classification was removed for the DSM-5." QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Better, but who is generating those critical responses? I mean yeah, sure, any rando twitter user can bloviate however they want, but I don't think it meets Reliable. I would bet there's an actual article out there where someone reasonably reliable commented on it. That would be better than this one... cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Psychology Today should be reliable, unless I'm mistaken: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/shrugging-should/202106/concern-about-aspergers-terminology QRep2020 (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not great, but I guess it'll do, as the author addresses the criticism as from 'autism self-advocates', some of whom criticized his use of the word on twitter. I was going to dismiss it entirely, because it has 'blog' in the URL path, however it appears that everything on PT is under that path, sheesh. I'll take a crack at it. Thanks. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page protection

This talk page may need to be protected. Morons keep using this page to leave personal messages for Elon, and some even post their personal banking information. This would prevent edit requests. Is this worth the tradeoff? Schierbecker (talk) 17:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It is an odd reason to need it, but it is getting frustrating to have to constantly tell people "we are not a message board". Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The process for dealing with that sort of thing is not talk page protection, but Wikipedia:Oversight. And if the user in question really is who he claimed to be, that should inspire more pity than frustration. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but if talk pages keep getting misused by IP's of course PP is the way forward. Nor are we social services, we cannot help them, and (as I said on their talk page) people like Musk are not going to see this and help them (after all as an anonymous IP he would not even know how to contact them). Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed if PP in enacted they will be forced to go to other (more appropriate) venues for their calls for help (where they might actually find it). Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages are protected only in the most severe cases of vandalism. If you see a case of plain misuse as set out in WP:TPO consider reverting it with explanation. That should be an exceptional action, and should not be used for comments that are merely annoying. For example, this looks like a cognizable edit request within the purpose of the talk page, (no it doesn't) while this is libel and trolling. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It is there for when disruption becomes a hindrance to editing the project, wasting time to read and respond. I am unsure we need it at this time, but if it becomes a major problem, hianvg to field these silly begging posts then there may be a reason for PP, it is there to stop random IP's from wasting our time (deliberately or otherwise). And if you think "He started using Neuralink on monkey's to get to the Gorilla's without acknowledging that Gorillas are smarter than him. He left Africka to move to an emerald mine and became filthy rich." is a "cognizable edit request" and not trolling... well I do not know what to say. Also it may be liable as it claims he is not as smart as a gorilla.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I didn't read closely enough. That was a legit revert. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

And this is why we would need PP if we have too many of the personal messages for Musk type posts, we do have to waste time actually reading them. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention the time spent talking about it, such as now. I'm not trying to be snarky, just pointing out to the IP that a bunch of people have put significant time into considering and writing the comments above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I suggest adding a new section:

On October 3, 2022, Musk offered Ukraine to capitulate and follow the Kremlin's "peace" option on Twitter. The Ukrainians explained to him that he was relaying pro-Russian narratives in this way and scolded him for it. However, instead of stopping writing nonsense and apologizing, Musk lost his mind and disabled Starlink in Ukraine. He also stated that he allegedly spent 80 million dollars in Ukraine. Although only 20,000 terminals were actually imported. On the picture Ukrainian officials, models for home use with a round antenna, which in March cost $499, in October - $599. And the monthly subscription fee for each such terminal is USD 110, separately for Ukraine it is USD 60. 91.210.248.246 (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Like Elon Musk § Russia–Ukraine peace proposal? We obviously can't use the non-neutral wording in your suggestion (things like "Musk lost his mind"). Endwise (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For one you need reliable sources for whatever you believe should be included. Twitter is not a reliable source nor is original research. Trillfendi (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I added Elon_Musk#Russia–Ukraine_peace_proposal and Elon_Musk#Starlink_development. I think they might be combined into one section in the future if reliable sources draw an inference between them. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

His university

He has attended the Turin nuclear university. Not Kingston 2.199.94.153 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022. Elon Musk doesn't yet own Twitter

Remove "Owner of Twitter, Inc." from titles. He has not yet acquired the company and taken it private yet. He will soon, but has not yet. Jso8910 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, here are SEC current reports put out by companies going private [22] (board changes only) [23] (board and executive changes) 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How does this relate to the matter at hand? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A report like those, and not reports from "a source familiar," will announce the transaction and any immediate executive changes. Under federal securities law, which Twitter's prior management will follow, even if Musk might not. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

New interesting info posted today by @capitolhunters on Twitter

Archived here:

https://archive.ph/gzGpF

VickiMeagher (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Intriguing, but not a RS. You could try sending this to the NYT or especially Bezos' Wapo. ~ HAL333 20:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Party allegations in litigation are not reliable sources. Yes, it is possible that Musk has lied about a few things, which is why sources with a reputation for fact-checking should be sought. I don't mean to be dismissive, but if there's a scandal, it's up to the press to break it. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That would explain the discrepancies in sources about his degrees.... ~ HAL333 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

CEO of Twitter?

Isn't Musk the CEO of Twitter now? Shouldn't this be reflected in the side-bar? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If he were, I figure there'd be a news report somewhere saying so. But he isn't, so there isn't. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To those now edit warring, let's chill until we have a solid source. The Bloomberg articles attributes the claim to an anonymous source. Let's wait until we have official confirmation (which we'll probably have within a day or so). ~ HAL333 01:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Musk as CEO of Twitter

HAL333 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the Twitter CEO addition which is based on a Bloomberg News citation. Since they didn't give a reason on either occasion, could someone tell what is problematic to include it? Twitter and the Twitter acquisition article already includes it. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave a reason. Scroll up to the preexisting subsection on his CEO status... ~ HAL333 01:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Scroll up where? If you mean the infobox comment, that is applicable when the title is a self-appointed one like Technoking or Chief Twit. CEO is a legitimate title, and is sourced from WP:RS. I don't see what your problem here is. Ptrnext (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

To the discussion titled "CEO of Twitter?".... ~ HAL333 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article says the CEO part without attributing the claim to an anonymous source (first paragraph). The firing of the executives is the one attributed to anon source. Ptrnext (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what the deal or argument against adding this fact is. This source [[24]] says he is CEO. --Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It says, "Musk plans on replacing ousted CEO Parag Agrawal for now". "Plans" indicates that it has not happened yet. QRep2020 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Hill provides a similar interpretation: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3709000-musk-to-plans-to-end-lifetime-twitter-bans/ QRep2020 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was first written on 27 Oct, which had "Elon Musk plans to assume the role of chief executive officer at Twitter Inc. after completing his $44 billion acquisition" in the opening sentence. So the summary was such. They then updated the article on 28 Oct to what it is now. "The billionaire appointed himself chief executive officer, dismissed senior management and immediately began reshaping strategy at one of the world’s most influential social media platforms as his $44 billion take-private deal closed". Seems they didn't update the summary (which still includes the 'plan'). Anyway we don't use the headline or summary from WP:RS, but rely on the substance. In this case, Bloomberg News consciously updated the wording to reflect that he is the CEO.

There is also no harm adding info based on WP:RS stating a fact. Ptrnext (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to be among the first to publish something. And, actually, there could be harm by adding it if it is not true. What we have is a single anonymous source. We have (yet) no confirmation from Musk, the company, or any legal filings that the Musk is CEO. It is not clear if he has officially assumed the position. Or if it is simply an interim position. No one is going to give you a medal for adding it first. I know you're champing at the bit, but just chill out. ~ HAL333 04:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the Bloomberg article states without attributing it to an anonymous source. For these filings, it is common knowledge that he is/was the Principal Officer, whether it is acting CEO or interim CEO. And now we have a published source that states he is one. It can be removed if a more recent source refutes it. I'm not here to collect medals, and no one is going to give you one to be the first in reverting a justified addition. Wikipedia is not a newspaper is an essay, not guideline/policy, btw.

P.S. I have no intention of adding this again, so sleep well :) Ptrnext (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no harm in waiting ~24 hours. Let's just chill until we have solid, reliable verification. ~ HAL333 02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The merger 8-K is up [25]. Some key points:

• Musk became the sole director, and signed all filings as an ad hoc officer, not as CEO or president.
• The updated articles and bylaws eliminate the duties of the CEO and the requirement to have one.
• The "departure of directors and officers" section does not mention the departure or firing of any officers, although it probably happened in view of the NYT article published over the weekend that cited multiple unidentified sources.

That leaves the situation clear as mud and Twitter doesn't have to issue any more reports. All that can be definitely said from this is that Musk is, or recently has been, the Director of the company. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Should we remove investor again?

"Investor" was added back to the introduction when Musk bought 9% of Twitter, but now he owns the entire company. Investing isn't a thing he typically does and he isn't commonly referred to by himself or others as an investor, am I wrong? Shane04040404 (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

He secured 44 billion dollars to acquire a company whose primary product he uses daily. Sounds like a massive act of investing to me. QRep2020 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an act, singular. Doesn't make it an occupation. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So who did the investing, him, or the people he convinced to give him money? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven both technically, if you finance an investment, it's still considered investing. My argument is that while Musk does invest, it's not his occupation.

Are we also going to call him a singer or musician because he made a couple songs? Shane04040404 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Did not Musk himself once make some quip about how f**king a horse once makes one forever known as a horsef**ker? QRep2020 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 well he also released a couple of songs, so we should also call him a singer. We'll all call him an actor while we're at it, since he's been in a few movies and been in Saturday Night Live.

Elon's not known for investing, just like he's not known for his music. Most people don't know Elon Musk as the great investor. Shane04040404 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point: He did a massive act of investing (ignoring the investing he did with Tesla for the moment) and that's enough to make him an investor and therefore record him as such. QRep2020 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with QRep. ~ HAL333 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings here of what 'investing' means. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Describe title at Twitter as "owner and Chief Twit"

Musk has tweeted that he is "Chief Twit" and not CEO. While this is ostensibly humour, Elon is known for officially taking on non-standard job titles (e.g. his government filing as "Technoking" of Tesla Motors) that should be his Twitter title.

In addition, this article describes his Tesla title as "CEO" not "Technoking". However, he retains the title of "CEO" at Tesla Motors. Elon does not hold a CEO title at Twitter Inc.; therefore, the only justifiable title is "Chief Twit". SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That is using Twitter as source though. Which we cannot do. Until something better arises, use CEO or nothing. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is his official job title, rather than a joke. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

1. There are non-Twitter sources, on Reuters and Bloomberg, that have reported the title change. 2. Elon is well-known for his disdain for the "CEO" title. He has already officially filed as "Technoking" of Tesla so it is reasonable to expect, given the secondary sources listed in point 1, that Chief Twit is his official title. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Then cite them. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources you're talking about merely said "Musk changed his descriptor to 'Chief Twit'". That is the laziest type of journalism and does not indicate that his actual title is "Chief Twit". As mentioned below, he's already changed his descriptor to "Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator". It's meaningless. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Musk is now claiming to be, "Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator" on Twitter. Do we really expect to change his title to each and every joke-title that he gives himself? :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We don't use his made up titles at SpaceX or Tesla. No need to use them here either. Nswix (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use contrived, self-declared titles like this. Note that we refer to Idi Amin as president and dictator, not as his preferred "His Excellency, President of Uganda, President President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji, Doctor Idi Amin, VC, Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." Stick to the common, widely understood term. ~ HAL333 13:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As with others, no what he called himself is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding subsection to Tesla

Why do we allow "Early days" as a subsection at the top of SpaceX but not "Early days and growth" as a subsection at the top of Tesla? Breaking up large sections with mini sub titled sections makes it easier on the reader. If we're staying fair and consistent, we'll add this to the Tesla section just like we did to the SpaceX one. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure that you need permission. You can just do it if you want to. JOJ ^Hutton 23:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Tesla" already is a subsection in and of itself. It's about Tesla so let's call the subsection "Tesla". No need to overcomplicate it. Adding another sub-subtitle is redundant and pointless clutter. "Early days and growth" doesn't even adequately describe the subsection, as 20 years after the company's founding does not constitute 'early days'. You're not even breaking up the text by adding a redundant second subsection title. It's still the four paragraphs under a single title. ~ HAL333 20:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

School

You don't "graduate" from a high school anywhere else in the world than America. A ridiculous claim. You graduate from a university.2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:881B:2261:CEC4:1B9D (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim but I'm rather sure it's incorrect, based on Wikipedia's own article on academic graduation by country. Graduations may differ from the US but they still happen. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Nationality in the lead sentence

There really should be something there. I know this won't be easy, maybe that is why it isn't there now, but it should be worked out. Maybe, "is a South African born America-Canadian"? What citizenship(s) does he currently hold? Best of luck with this. Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is long-standing consensus not to include nationality in the lead sentence, in part because there has been some debate over which citizenship he still holds, in part because trying to do so leads to endless edit wars over the precise combination of adjectives needed, and more fundamentally because his situation is too complex to shoehorn into a single sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no debate. He holds three simultaneously, South African, Canadian, and American. Like any normal article, his citizenships (in this case, all three) should be there, but too many people are clueless about nationality law, so it's best not to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.246.2 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

CEO of Twitter?

CEO of Twitter? 107.11.111.59 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, https://www.slashgear.com/1083592/elon-musks-latest-twitter-poll-puts-advertisers-on-the-spot/. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)