Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Half Ownership of Emerald Mine

The article currently says Errol Musk "was a half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika". Source 1, The Buffalo News, says he "had a stake in an emerald mine". Source 2, The New Yorker, is Elon Musk saying Errol Musk had "a share" in an emerald mine. Source 3, Forbes, has no mention of an emerald mine. And source 4, The Independent, is an interview with Errol Musk where he says he had half-ownership. Other sources mention both the half-ownership claim from Errol Musk and Elon Musk disputing it [1]. We should edit this to a less disputable claim. My suggestions would be: "His father, Errol Musk, is a South African electromechanical engineer, pilot, sailor, consultant, and property developer, who says he was a half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika." or "His father, Errol Musk, is a South African electromechanical engineer, pilot, sailor, consultant, and property developer, who was a partial owner of a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika." or "His father, Errol Musk, is a South African electromechanical engineer, pilot, sailor, consultant, and property developer, who says he was a half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika. Elon Musk disputes his father's half-ownership of the emerald mine, although acknowledges that he had partial ownership." or remove the emerald mine part entirely (a £40,000 investment may not be particularly notable). LordDiscord (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that is so ungainly. I think it's fine as is. ~ HAL333 16:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How is changing "half" to "partial" ungainly? LordDiscord (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to that change, but the rest is clunky and poorly written. ~ HAL333 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's literally the only change in my second suggestion. My first suggestion only adds the words "says he". Are you referring to my third suggestion? That also wouldn't be my first choice. LordDiscord (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

His dad said he did, his dad should know. Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

If the sources are purely interviews and the like that claim this, a 'says that he was' sounds like a fair phrasing. effeietsanders 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an interview [[2]], or this [[3]], this is [[4]], this is not [[5]] So we have plenty of sources saying he was a half owner, and a tweet form his son saying he was not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The first one is from Errol Musk. The second one is citing our own Wikipedia article, which seems rather circular. The third one is a quote from Errol Musk. The fourth one gives no source for the information. Regardless, there are dozens of sources that say "a share" or similar language. But all of these, even the "share" ones are getting this from Errol Musk or Elon Musk or other family members, there are no actual records of this yet, so we need to be careful on the wording. LordDiscord (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Per a 2014 Elon Musk interview: "my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia." ~ HAL333 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that RS has not seen any records? Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. ~ HAL333 17:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

How does the person objecting to this know the RS has not fact-checked this claim agasint offical records (for example)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't know if the sources saying "a share" fact checked against records because they do not say that they did. Same for those saying "half-ownership". There are no sources mentioning records. The Snopes article you posted is an excellent review of the current evidence for this, and they found no documentation, only quotes from Elon Musk and Errol Musk. Both of them have said that Errol Musk owned a stake, so I think it's fair to include that. Half-ownership seems to have only come from Errol Musk. LordDiscord (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not get to second guess or question RS, they are RS because they have a reputation for fact-checking. As such we assume any claim they have made has been fact-checked (unless they issue a correction). Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue with this particular claim is that there are contradictory claims from different reliable sources. For example, Bloomberg says, "Errol Musk, an engineer, owned a small percentage of an emerald mine" [6]. Both of these cannot be true. The guidelines clearly say we can use our own judgment:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

"Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process."

So, there are several sources saying "half-ownership", "a share", "small percentage", etc. in passing. On the other side, there are sources (like Snopes) that wrote articles specifically on the topic and did in-depth reviews and found no documentation or other evidence other than statements from Elon Musk and Errol Musk. Using our reasonable judgment, sources mentioning it in passing are probably not actually doing an in-depth research of the emerald mine, they are probably getting it from Elon Musk and Errol Musk and just stating it as fact. This is often the case on reporting what people have said about their personal lives (if Errol Musk said he owned seven cats, it would not be unusual if this was reported in a reliable source). LordDiscord (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't view the Bloomberg source, it seems to be behind a paywall, but it also seems to be an interview with Elon Musk. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It discusses their interview with Elon Musk, but this was stated as a fact outside of the interview. It was not from Musk. Some more context: "Some of his most vocal detractors have promoted the idea that Musk, like Trump, began his career backed by the deep pockets of dear old dad. Errol Musk, an engineer, owned a small percentage of an emerald mine and had a couple of good years before the mine went bust and wiped out his investment. Musk readily jumps onto Twitter to refute the charges that his empire was forged with the aid of family wealth, and part of the reason he wanted to talk to me—rather comically given the rocket launch and, well, trolls—was because the jabs bug him, and he hopes to set the record straight." LordDiscord (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Errol and Elon seem to agree across the available sources Errol had some kind of interest in a mine. Whether that was a large share, a small share, a share of a share, or an informal pledge of some quantity of emeralds is murky, although the idea of someone purchasing half of a mine by a handshake isn't very credible. Given the uncertainty, perhaps it shouldn't be included in a summary of Errol's career. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we can say "erol Musk claimed" based upon what we now have. Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy with this. LordDiscord (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not forget ye olde MOS:CLAIM. ~ HAL333 22:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Errol and Elon have both told the story different ways, including outright denial. A career is what someone has done, not what they claimed to have done. There's so little clarity about what Errol did in regard to Zambian mine that it should be left out, at least at that point. Maybe it could be mentioned in relation to Elon's wealth and the politics thereof. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• After further thought, I say we put it like "Errol Musk reportedly had a partial-share..." and explain and qualify the he-said-this-and-he-said-that in an accompanying footnote. ~ HAL333 00:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• My father had a mine in Africa. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) ~ HAL333 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ha! QRep2020 (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine the way it is, I reckon. No need to modify because Elon is turning his back on his own admittance. QRep2020 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Elon Musk's earliest public statement it seems was: "my father also had a share in an Emerald mine in Zambia" [7]. So this change would be consistent with his earliest statement. Do you have any source where he said 50% ownership? LordDiscord (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  The point is not to over-contextualize these statements. Musk reported that his father owned some share of the mine and in a separate interview his father, the owner, quantified it. Case closed. That said, it may be appropriate to introduce a footnote that Musk later denied it after people used his own words to question characterizations of his background as humble, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would be fine with including Musk's later comments, as long as we can find reliable sources on what he is denying. The Snopes piece references two articles he has promoted recently regarding the emerald mine [8]. The first one is the Bloomberg interview with him, where Bloomberg adds, "Errol Musk, an engineer, owned a small percentage of an emerald mine and had a couple of good years before the mine went bust and wiped out his investment". [9] The second one is a Substack article from someone who interviewed Errol Musk, so not a reliable source, but it claims Errol Musk made a handshake deal and there was no formal ownership. [10]

  I do not agree that the case can be closed based on one person's claim when there are reliable sources contradicting it. LordDiscord (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. QRep2020 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I like this wording. When looking around on this, I found that Jennifer Gwynne (Elon Musk's ex-girlfriend) also mentioned the mine, although she said it was in South Africa: "His mom had a number of these necklaces in a case in her bedroom, and Elon told me they were from his father's emerald mine in South Africa—he pulled one from the case." [11] This might be good to mention in the footnote. LordDiscord (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't that be mostly evidence that Elon claimed that Erron had a stake in the mine? It doesn't sound like independent verification. effeietsanders 00:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Errol may have lied to Elon about the mine, and that this deception could be the reason for Elon's rejection of it. This is a valid possibility, and it highlights the importance of thorough investigation. Cptfantastic7 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

ANd Musk Jnr might have lied to help his public image. This is why we do not allow wp:or to inform us, but rather wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk and Errol Musk have both said there was an emerald mine in Zambia, the bigger question I think is the level of ownership - was it 1) an informal deal? 2) a small stake? 3) a 50% stake? Elon Musk has implied it was (1) or (2), Errol Musk has said it was (3), and reliable sources give different answers. I like the "Errol Musk reportedly had a partial-share" wording because it gives what reliable sources all seem to agree on without taking a side on the exact amount. LordDiscord (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as notability goes, if there is coverage in RS, I suppose. However I would really just remove all of it since I don't think this passes WP:10YT. Eruditess (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but for now I think getting this line to be more consistent with the information in RS is a step in the right direction. LordDiscord (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2023

" and is a polarizing figure."

-define polarizing -need source or is it opinion? 83.87.65.78 (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've clarified the meaning in the article. Thanks for pointing that out! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Hectobillionare?

Could we include a tag of musk as one of only five hectobillionaires? This would help correct the usage of centibillionaire which is sometimes used to refer to individuals with 100 billion dollars or more, and would help highlight the actual extent of his wealth in comparison to other ostensibly rich individuals. It could just be a single word in the lead, like ‘one of seven hectobilionaire with a total of XXXs’ and include a link to the billionaires. Just a thought. LarryBoy79 (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? 12:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Lead cropping

Hi all, for a while I have been having an issue with the last paragraph of the lead, for me it seems substandard. It currently reads:

Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation. In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk for falsely tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC.

I have no issues with the first sentence, but I do with the rest. Elon has been involved in dozens if not hundreds of controversies, why then randomly list one of them and leave the rest out?. I thus suggest to crop this paragraph to the unbiased, concise first sentence already there and remove the rest:

Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.

It would make a much better lead ending. Polmas (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fine as is. If anything, it should be expanded. ~ HAL333 21:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The bias inherent in the sentence is unnecessary and not that informative either. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you as well. The controversy paragraph should be broader. CactiStaccingCrane 15:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest how the subsection can be expanded, but the misinformation part has been discussed to death and has held throughout. His peddling of inaccurate Covid information has the subject of dozens of articles - let it be. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Iron Man in Texas (7956032050).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is his origin not mentioned in the first line?

Why is he not described as a South African-American business magnate in the first line? The origin/ nation of birth/ citizenship of a business leader is usually mentioned in the first line of their wikipedia article. Why is Musk an exception to this usual format? See Sundar Pichai, Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Satya Nadella, Jeff Bezos. NeutralityForAll (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget Canadian. Too much detail to fit in a sentence? Did he ask to not be called South African-American? Did he ask to not be called simply American, like Sergey Brin is called? NeutralityForAll (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Covered in the FAQ clearly above, or you can read prior discussions in the archives. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

TBH, it feels disingenuous to not include his nationality. It can be easily mistaken that he is still living in South Africa by uninformed readers. CactiStaccingCrane 20:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of a stretch. The lead already mentions him attending American colleges, moving to California, and being subject to US federal agencies. And South-African-born-turned-Canadian-and-now-American just doesn't have that ring to it. ~ HAL333 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you meant. Why not just say South African-born American? CactiStaccingCrane 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Aside, where's the discussion about not including his nationality to the lead? CactiStaccingCrane 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second para of the lead reads Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and briefly attended at the University of Pretoria before moving to Canada at age 18, acquiring citizenship through his Canadian-born mother. Is his nationality one of the absolutely most important things to know about him? No. So it doesn't belong in the first para of the lead: just somewhere in the lead is good enough. Does he have US citizenship? Who knows, as the article has nothing to say on the subject! [though I see it has Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States - why?]. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed

I appreciate it if someone could add these two references to the "Public perception" section, line 3, where is mentioned that citations are needed:

Kioumarsi (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Kioumarsi (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2023

change elon musks picture to a more recent one 74.14.93.187 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2023 (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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Leadership style image

Not sure why this image with the NASA astronauts was re-added, but as discussed before its inclusion makes no sense. BeŻet (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Flyedit32: noticed that it was you who restored the image. Could you explain why? Thank you. BeŻet (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the description of the photo:

SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer Elon Musk, left, NASA astronauts Victor Glover, Doug Hurley, Bob Behnken, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, and NASA astronaut Mike Hopkins are seen inside the crew access arm with the SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft visible behind them during a tour of Launch Complex 39A before the early Sunday morning launch of the Demo-1 mission, Friday, March 1, 2019 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The Demo-1 mission launched at 2:49am ET on Saturday, March 2 and was the first launch of a commercially built and operated American spacecraft and space system designed for humans as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Program. The mission will serve as an end-to-end test of the system's capabilities. Hurley and Behnken are assigned to fly onboard Crew Dragon for the Demo-2 mission and Glover and Hopkins have been assigned to fly to the International Space Station on Crew Dragon's first operational mission. Photo Credit: (NASA/Joel Kowsky)

And the title of the section is "Leadership style". So after reading the description of the photo and looking at the image (musk speaking to the group in a managerial setting prior to a launch that SpaceX is involved in with NASA), and seeing as to it is actually a good photo (which is objective, of course), tell me why you think it's not appropriate or not relevant to his leadership style? Thank you. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the description changes anything. Musk is not their manager or leader. He's talking to his customers. BeŻet (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023

"Though Musk's ventures were influential within their own industries in the 2000s, Musk only became a public figure in the early 2010s. He is often described as an eccentric who makes spontaneous and controversial statements, contrary to other billionaires who prefer reclusiveness to protect their businesses.[470][471] Celebrated by fans and hated by critics, Musk was described by Vance as having become very polarizing because of his "part philosopher, part troll" role on Twitter.[472]"

Should include egotistical where eccentric is and mention how he is a polarizing figure. Lizzieturnerrr (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Egocentric is a loaded term and should be avoided for neutrality (or at least attribute it to reliable sources as ...has been described by X and Y as egotistical..."). polarizing may be apt, but once again please attribute to reliable sources first. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"Funding secured" update

In the interests of NPOV, should the following be added to the lead: "A related shareholder lawsuit ended in his favor." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Pelosi tweet

Article says “Musk also promoted a baseless theory relating to the attack of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, which Musk subsequently retracted by deleting his tweet.” There is no support in the cited source that he “retracted” this statement. He deleted it, without explanation. It’s OR that this implies he “retracted” it. Making scurrilous tweets and then deleting them without apology after they have had wide publicity is a tactic to attack and try to avoid consequences. That’s my opinion, also OR, of course. Without strong evidence, should not ascribe his motive. Make it “Musk subsequently deleted his tweet.” 27.96.195.20 (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Can I get a response to this before the page is archived, since it’s set only 7 days. 27.96.195.20 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Musk did apologize.[12], though The Independent calls it "half-hearted". I don't think the source calls the deletion of the tweet a "retraction", which would make it WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

Shreyashmaruya444 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)hi my name is shreyash

•  Not done Empty request. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

emerald mine in zambia

Is true? 93.71.224.28 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the sources cited in the article. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

“Misinformation”

“He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation.”

“He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting a widely discredited paper on the benefits of chloroquine and claiming that COVID-19 death statistics were inflated.[384].”

There is something about this specific choice of word which seems to have come up far more deliberately, almost routinely, I think since there was a lot of press and media coverage around 2016 about the concept of “fake news”, certain American groups gathering and marching more openly such as neo-Nazis, Proud Boys, etc., and the related idea that the internet allowed people to communicate without information being vetted by media companies, and Donald Trump often stating that something reported by a newspaper was not true, and finally with Covid.

It seems like in both professional and general contexts and groups, a sort of new norm or standard editorial policy was chosen and shared, that newspapers should unequivocally, firmly state what information is true, and what is false. They probably did that before anyway, but somehow, given the recent context I described, it became by way of person-to-person influence more frequent for people to borrow and mirror other people’s exactly terms or choice of words.

It is honestly a deeply unconvincing and surface-level theory, that information sources be morally expedited to be extra loud and clear what information is false, in the world. To me it’s like people that have never appreciated thinking more about epistemology or theories of knowledge thought they had a novel idea which isn’t a new idea at all: since we’re definitely right, for so and so reason (which is suspiciously what too many people have said, regardless of what their position is), why don’t we be extra self-certain, and not hedge ourselves whatsoever, when we deliver what the Truth is?

It’s sort of ironic because it sort of seems on the surface like it was an attempt to rise above the all too common logical fallacies and errors in reasoning that cause so many people to fall into false beliefs - yet, it doesn’t innovate or add any remarkable ideas to that actual question, of if there are really conditions or criteria for how you can know something certainly, what they are. It’s like in their desire to be better than just dogmatic, unjustified, unskeptical thinking, the only thing they could come up with was to be even more dogmatic, even less self-skeptical, to assert whatever beliefs they happen to have with the same level of attention as before to the question of why their belief is justified.

It is one of those classic cases where because people are able to mask some thing as its opposite, they find by far the most effective way to convince people who profess to be against something, to do exactly that thing. Sort of like, if you want to feed someone poison, who’s very cautious about avoiding it, you don’t just try to slip poison into their food unawares, but rather, you make them think they’ve been poisoned, then offer them the real poison as what they think is an antidote. People come rushing for what the thing they think they want is, so you just have to disguise what they’re trying to avoid as its opposite. By this I mean that they managed to convince people that they stood on the side of righteous belief, reason, and the sanctioning of wholesome authorities, scientists - so long as they agreed with whatever the newspaper said was “misinformation” or “discredited” or “scientific consensus”. And yet, immediately swallowing something whole without analyzing it for total explanatory pedigree, trying to confirm firsthand what somebody else is saying or reporting, is, as I said, the opposite of what it professes to be - blindly marching along with whatever a newspaper tells you is “science” isn’t particularly in the spirit of “science”, since I think science is ultimately about incontrovertible explanatory models, to build which requires an extensive, belaboured amount of critiquing and doubting.

Basically, the term comes across as rhetorical. I don’t think it’ll age well. Given enough time it will come to seem hollow - like it was a fad at the time to not just say your belief, but to couch it in a little extra rhetorical embellishment to make it sound extra certain, extra morally right or wrong, to have the right opinion or not. It isn’t important branding whatever you happen to believe as confirmed scientific findings and not misinformation; what’s important is being able to deeply understand *why* you think something really is true or makes sense; not just because it was force-fed to you in a slightly brainwashing manner.

Changed in opinion, more information, are still coming out, about the Covid pandemic. It would be painful to see the status quo suddenly change, after seeing the confidence with which people simply defaced other people’s beliefs or ideas as merely trite “spreading misinformation”, a colorful synonym for “I happen to disagree with you or think your opinion is wrong” - but *only* for those politically charged topics the newspaper has for some contextual, historical, cultural reason basically chosen for you. Note, they *never* call a person who believes in or practices a certain religion a prophet of “misinformation”. Why? If it’s not true, then it basically meets that definition; it’s false. Because: “misinformation” is a meaningless rhetorical term to buttress whatever you happen to believe without needing to concern yourself with why you are so confident it’s true.

So I would, in the interest of making Wikipedia a better, less glib, information tool, advocate changing the wording of those sentences to try to be more neutral, as many other topics on Wikipedia are treated. Wikipedia isn’t the place for a political group to rally and make sure you are getting served the right view on the world when you’re skimming around some person’s biography. Why not just say that those are what his beliefs were, without this undertone of personal conviction from whoever’s writing it? 92.62.199.50 (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, RS says it was misinformation, that is what they criticized him for. Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. Consult the archives.QRep2020 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The statements in question say that he promoted scientifically dubious and discredited claims, not politically incorrect ones. If those happen to correlate for some people, that's a matter outside the text. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

lede image

User:Flyedit32's suggested image looks better to my eye https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1141156953 Schierbecker (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

When we start using images that makes a noteable person "look silly" it sets a bad example for all other articles. Regardless of what people think of someone. On top of that, replacing a professionally taken portrait with a picture that is objectively worse doesnt improve the quality of the article. RedWhiteDevil (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

user:RedWhiteDevil I can't tell which image you are advocating for. Schierbecker (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I am pro File:Elon_Musk_Royal_Society_(crop2).jpg and against File:Elon Musk Brazil 2022.png. RedWhiteDevil (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone else looking to comment? QRep2020 (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The current image is best. I agree that the suggested image replacement is intended by some to make Musk look a bit silly. --Pmsyyz (talk)

My suggestion for the infobox

Transvaal no longer exists so I don't think MOS:GEOLINK applies to it. Anyway, not a good idea to de-link it. Thedarkknightli (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Subject has been broached here before, though it may be time to revisit. Reverted to stable version for the moment. QRep2020 (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (2)

From the table of companies, it says Founder of X.com while he was the Co-founder which is also listed on X.com wiki. 103.27.164.65 (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Elon Musk has announced that Twitter will make public all the code utilized for suggesting tweets

[suspected malware link removed] Gossipstories (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2023 (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. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed the source link, as it appears to be promoting malware. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk received hair plugs

this should be added due to it being factual 97.120.147.168 (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

• Request to revert 1147448554:

This text had recently been removed from this page None of this text is about Musk's actual views on subsidies. Removal of similar text is being discussed on Views of Elon Musk's Talk.

Accepting a subsidy is a substantially different act from issuing one, so the implied hypocrisy of placing these things adjacent presents WP:NPOV problems. WP:MOTHERJONES is a "biased source" for "political articles," and the referenced article is political.

This WP:SUMMARY is already extremely long compared to the subtopic.

Foonix0 (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. The article is about Elon Musk; the subsection is about his personal views. Practically all companies the size of Tesla receive large subsidies in some area, that is not per se a personal view or opinion of Musk. Corporate strategy does not necessarily reflect the individual beliefs of the corporate decisionmakers. Actualcpscm (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

@QRep2020: the concerns have already been highlighted (see the edit request above). M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The edit request about Twitter code going public? Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ahh no I see, the one that is bizarrely appended to the end of the hair plugs request. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As I see it, it was not clear this was a new edit request (As an example I missed it), thus it seems off to remove content based upon it (and it was in fact rejected). Mother Jones is not forbidden from use, or even from being used without attribution. As it is not the only source being used to object to its use seems odd. Even so, just remove it, not the content. It also seems relevant to mention this, as it does seems to be about how his company is financed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

To me, it looks UNDUE. Why not just use the sources that discuss the perceived double standard? M.Bitton (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Motherjones was not the only thing removed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

While I'm not against mentioning the double standard, I think that the way it's done gives UNDUE weight to the editors' thoughts and conclusions (rather than what the sources say). There are plenty of other sources sources that we can use without going into the details of which of his companies has benefited from government subsidies. M.Bitton (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

But the reversion did not do that. it seemed to remove all mention of it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The mention that his companies received billions in Government subsidies was kept. What we could do is change it to "despite the fact that his companies have received billions in government subsidies in the past, Musk said ...". M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Why in then past, is it still not the case? As it seems to be [[13]] [[14]] , as least I am finding nothing that says they are not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We can omit "the past". There are also some interesting facts in these sources[15][16][17] that we can use. M.Bitton (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I still fail to see what is wrong with the current language. QRep2020 (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The current language is the editors' attempt at trying to draw a conclusion from tangential subjects (it's big and adds no real value to the article). I have presented some sources that could be used to present the issue from an RS perspective (some of them even suggest a reason for the change of heart). M.Bitton (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so we need to add something, not remove? QRep2020 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for messing up the formatting here on the talk page. I tried to use a request generator and apparently had an issue.

The core problem is that the perceived hypocrisy its self is an opinion. Musk criticized the issuance of subsidies to create market distortions, which is something he and his companies are incapable of doing. Tesla is not a government and cannot issue subsidies. Both the WP:MOTHERJONES and WP:BI sources are trying to suggest that accepting a subsidy that was criticized is hypocrisy. That's their prerogative, but it's still just a statement of opinion. Both sources are listed as politically biased. See also WP:BLPRS.

Foonix0 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Those numerous opinions about his opinion deserve a mention. How we should do that is what's being discussed here. M.Bitton (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Journalists have criticized Musk for allowing companies to accept various sources of government funding despite his criticism against market-wide subsidies."

Information about individual funding sources can go in the page about their respective companies. Foonix0 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not just "Musk has been criticized because some of his companies have received various sources of government funding despite his criticism against market-wide subsidies."? Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That would work. Qualifying the source might provide an appropriate level of credibility, but cutting that for brevity is reasonable. These aren't, for example, economists making these criticisms.

Foonix0 (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

That could work as an additional line at the beginning of the relevant paragraph, sure.

For the record, I am not convinced you need a PhD in Economics to point out instances of "good for me but not for thee." QRep2020 (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It does when those supposed call-outs run counter to relatively uncontroversial ideas on market distortion and game theory, and then conflate unrelated types of government funding to make the numbers look bigger.

Foonix0 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with QRep2020 in that we don't need an economist to point out the double standard, but at the same time, I'm sure we can do better than what we have right now. Saying that his companies received billions in Government subsidies is enough, we don't need to cite every example. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Noting the opinion at arm's length (IE, not endorsed by wikipedia or held as a given) is sufficient to address most of my concerns. (On concern's about Motherjones notability, I relent.)

I wouldn't think we would need an economist to explain that Musk's proposals would apply equally to Musk's own companies, but here we are.

I support your suggestions.

Foonix0 (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Musk's voice into his infobox

Adding a voice clip of Musk to his page (infobox) would provide a more immersive and engaging experience for readers, capture nuances in his speech, and enhance the credibility of the information presented on the page. Ramanujaner (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we engage Elon Musk for the Voice intro project? QRep2020 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

No, but I'm merely suggesting that someone with access to edit this page should add a short sound clip of Elon Musk's voice to his infobox, as this practice is done with many high-profile figures, such as every US president since Grover Cleveland.

. Ramanujaner (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, a publicly available, already recorded sound clip. Ramanujaner (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you 117.20.113.48 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a parameter in Template:Infobox person. Moreover, not sure how this would "enhance the credibility of the information"? BeŻet (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Yea, I am unsure what this really adds. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

Please change or write Elon Musk to a magnet. He asked on Joe Rogan.

Thank You! - Elon Musks Assistant Madeleine 174.205.103.155 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See Q2 in the FAQ above, in red font. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Inc. has become X Corp.

The article says that Elon Musk is the owner and CEO of Twitter Inc. However, it has recently been integrated into X Corp. Felixsj (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Emerald mine

His family was never owner or part owner of a mine. 2607:9880:1418:D2:7954:37A3:6E98:3620 (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. QRep2020 (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archive. Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Political Views

I think we should add that He told Tucker Carlson that he voted for Biden in 2020 but has changed to a Republican recently Matthew Campbell (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

He told other people before he told Carlson, and it's already covered. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

He's not a Republican. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023

Hi, i'm a new user at wikipedia so i have no rights to edit this page.

Need to add a reference on where Elon & Kimbal Musk got the map data to build their city guide product on top (for their Zip2 company). In Spanish version of the article there is a quote to Elon's Musk PODCAST, in which Elon & Kimbal themselves share this information.

Need to add wiki page reference in Spanish version of the article: Please change this: "Navteq" to this: "[NavTEQ]" where? in the below paragrapgh under the "Carrera" section:

"Para ello consiguieron el uso gratuito de la cartografía de Navteq, que había costado 300 millones de dólares. Aplicaron el lenguaje Java para enviar los mapas e indicaciones como imágenes vectoriales en lugar de mapas de bits, que eran muy lentos de transmitir en la incipiente red de internet.33​ Elon se dedicó a la programación y la ingeniería, mientras que Kimbal hacía las ventas y buscaba capital.34​"

English version of Elon Musk's article: Please ADD this sentence: "Elon & Kimbal acquire the free usage rights to [Navteq maps] "(which had cost this company 300 milloins to built this data) in exchange for quoting the company if they ever made any money with it" and applied JAva language on top of it to be able to send maps and indications in a vector tile format instead of bits (which were too slow to transmit through the web.

After this sentence: "In 1995, Musk, his brother Kimbal, and Greg Kouri founded Zip2.[50][51] Errol Musk provided them with $28,000 in funding.[52] The company developed an Internet city guide with maps, directions, and yellow pages, and marketed it to newspapers.[53]" Wxcirstn (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This most likely does not pass wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The youtube video is not a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove critism of jet usage

Nearly every high-profile businessman uses their jet plane alot. It is rather irrelevant to mention. Felixsj (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but this has received more coverage, in part due to his fetching up at environmental meetings having flown. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also an interesting amount of discussion that was spurred around the public data around flight-tracking of his specific jets. It seems worthy of of mentioning (keeping) it. Pedantical (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Reopening discussion about emerald mine

Although this has been discussed extensively before, it's notable that Elon Musk's fictional emerald mine (which doesn't exist) has become a hot topic again in the media and popular culture. It's against WP:BLP to make an assertion that Elon profited from his father's emerald mine, even when there is no evidence linking the Musk family to the purported mining operation, and no physical evidence that it even exists. It's defamatory and unnecessary. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

SEE ABOVE. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I did, and it's time to talk about it again, due to the news coverage this article is creating about this sketchy at best claim. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we really don't, even if Elon is offering a dogecoin reward for proof of the emerald mine. We follow reliable sources which have talked considerably about this mine. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reliable sources state that Elon Musk's family owned an emerald mine. The New Yorker article after the sentence mentioning emeralds was from 2009, and only mentioned "emerald" verbatim a single time in the entire piece. The Forbes article did not mention anything related to mining. The Independent piece only talked about emeralds in an interview excerpt with Elon's father--certainly not a reliable source. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As previously established, it's not just Errol's word to go on. It's Elon's word as well, even if he later decided that it was a problem for his image. You can believe what you want, but Wikipedia's standard here is not "whatever makes Elon look best." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No, there's no citations pointing to Elon's word. Only Errol's. And we know he's not a reliable source. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Admittedly the apparent corroboration by Elon comes from a "Forbes Contributor," which arguably does not meet WP:RS, Regardless, "we" don't "know" that Errol is to be automatically disbelieved in everything that he says about his biography, nor is Wikipedia required to cite every biographical claim to the satisfaction of every doubter. Saying that Errol, by his own public account, was involved a legitimate business (even one based on colonial structures) cannot objectively defame Elon. It can be "defamatory" only in the subjective frame of wishing always to be presented in the best light. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140901222916/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/ QRep2020 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This article looks a lot like "whatever makes Elon look best" not gonna lie. 87.176.163.152 (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

What about adding MORE about the emerald mine? What do you all think? QRep2020 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I assume this is a joke but, just in case, I think everything is good as is. One could argue that Musk's insistence that there is no mine may deserve a note, but to me a simple mention backed up by reputable sources is more than sufficient. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia must take care not to defame living people, and it is not a legal threat to say that, but please at least familiarize yourself with what the article says and does not before calling it defamatory. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Own that fraud. 2601:40:C700:FD00:C0C:4DD0:9EB2:7351 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Nor is it fraud, if it is sue the news organs we source it to. Otherwise, we go by what RS say, as both fraud and deformation are crimes, so it has to be proved. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggested rewording: Change "who was a half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine" to "who was a part owner of a Zambian emerald mine".

The half-owner claim seems entirely based on Errol Musk's old comments, which is poor evidence even if it was not contradicted by anything. There are two more recent interviews at unreliable sources but have been taken seriously by reliable sources, both where he supposedly said that there was no formal ownership [18][19]. Reliable sources say things like "[Errol Musk] owned a small percentage of an emerald mine" [20]. And Elon Musk's old comments ("a share") and the amount Errol Musk said he bought it for both seem to imply a minority stake. Of our current four sources, the only support for it is the Errol Musk interview where he says it; one other source calls it "a share", another calls it "a stake", and the final one does not mention the emerald mine at all. My proposed change takes no position on the amount of ownership, and would simply change it to be more compatible with the sources. LordDiscord (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this rewording. Under WP:BALANCE, the article should not state "half" ownership based on the source where Errol said so, while disregarding those where he said that it was something less. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

So is his dad lying [[21]]? Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Elon's dad just reiterated his claim that the mine is real.[22] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. Sun is a local edition of The Sun (UK) which is a deprecated source on Wikipedia. 67.180.143.89 (talk)

It's since been echoed by several other sources. It includes this WP:BALANCE-worthy quote from Errol: "Elon's main concern is not to appear to be a 'trust fund kid’ who got everything given to him on a plate. That's what his nay-sayers are pushing. It's not true. Elon took risks and worked like blazes to be where he is today. The emeralds helped us through a very trying time in South Africa, when people were fleeing the country in droves, including his mother's whole family, and earning opportunities were at an all-time low."

Other publications "echoing" a Sun report without any independent verification doesn't establish reliablity. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

In any case, I presume the sources at Errol Musk#Career and investments are reliable. Sandizer (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggested rewording to maybe put this to rest and not have to argue about it every few months: 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

...consultant, and property developer.(existing sources) Errol also, by his own account, was part owner of a Zambian emerald mine,(existing sources except Dolan)(Adam Smith source) although Musk has alternately confirmed and disputed this.sourcesourcesource

Agreeing with User:ASpacemanFalls, the article is fine the way it is. Maybe a footnote that says that Musk now denies the claim but in doing so contradicts his own earlier account: https://web.archive.org/web/20140901222916/https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimclash/2014/07/28/elon-musk-tells-me-his-secret-of-success-hint-it-aint-about-the-money/ . Also, we have no reason to call into question Clash's interview for only being a Forbes contributor. QRep2020 (talk) 10:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Clash is a career interviewer and he didn't interview Musk as a one-off event, but FC can't be used as a source because its articles are effectively self-published and therefore classed as generally unreliable. If Clash's interview is to be cited, the AskMen copy that I linked is more complete and does not have the same reliability problems, even though AskMen has been questioned a few times as a source. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

As with other self pubs, this can be cited if the article was written by a subject-matter expert. I believe Jim Clash, a professional journalist, should count. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we have any sources that actually say he owned less than half? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See the Snopes writeup, particularly what it has to say about Jeremy Arnold's investigation and Errol's own Facebook post. I don't suggest citing his Facebook post, of course, but it is useful to have a statement that isn't mediated by this or that tabloid. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can quote the part that says the claim of half is falses, as I can't find where it says that. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Snopes didn’t prove the claim false. The issue to me is that there are several reports that say it was less than half (see edit request above). Aaron Liu (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to study the writeup rather than ask for particular quotes, but "very limited involvement" as stated in the Arnold piece is certainly less than "half ownership." The piece generally calls into question that Errol was any kind of mine "owner," but instead concludes that he dealt in emeralds from the Tanganyika mine as well as other sources. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

We have RS (quoting his father) saying he owned half a mine. Thus we need RS to say THAT is untrue, not that he did not own it outright, or that there is no proof he did. They must say in their own were words (per wp:v he did not. Nor am I sure this source is RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

...or Ashlee Vance's Forbes Bloomberg piece (as a featured writer, not a Forbes Contributor) that says "owned a small percentage." Seriously, read the writeup. The point of controversy appears to be whether Errol's share was a share of the mine as a money-making enterprise, or of its production in emeralds. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there is no Forbes link here written by Ashlee Vance. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the Snopes writeup. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you can't be bothered to even correct yourself (its Bloomberg not Forbes mentioned in the snoops article) then I am not going to bother to read any more. I am not going to make your case for you. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Aha! You made a mistake!" How irritating. I've made the correction above. Now what? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

FYI telling someone to scour a document multiple times when they have already said that they can’t find that information in the document is even more irritating. Especially when you’re sentence went beyond a typical mistake by adding the detail of featured writer. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I referred SlaterSteven to Snopes twice before more specifically pointing out Ashlee Vance's piece, and then in my hurry to move the discussion along I mistook the Bloomberg Businessweek feature for a Forbes feature. Excuse me for that, but also I'm not everyone else's internet clerk obligated to pick out the precise words from a source that will persuade them. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t change how hostile your tone was, which drove Slatersteven away. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have not been driven away, I will just not be engaging with this user on this topic anymore. I have said all I wish to say to them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Alright, let’s start over then. How about my point above that it’s not a matter of proving wrong, but a matter of conflicting reliable reports? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

We should then reflect that conflict, not pick which side is right. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

While I agree (maybe we should introduce a footnote), I do not think the article is currently picking a side, as “part” encompasses both half and “a small share”. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not the one arguing for a change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

What then? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Against those who want to change it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: This sounds confusing grammar-wise (he was a part owner? like pickaxe heads?) so I changed it to “partly owned”. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Change business magnate to just magnet because Elon musk said it in his podcast with Joe Rogan 206.84.226.70 (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 19:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, see Q2 in the FAQ above. This issue has already been decided by consensus and the change requested will not be made. General Ization ^Talk 20:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2023

In the source code, "according to the latter. <ref>{{Cite news | url" should be "according to the latter.<ref>{{Cite news | url". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Change business magnate to business magnet as requested by Elon Musk himself on the Joe Rogan podcast on the 7th of September 2018 5.81.35.252 (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the FAQ right above your post before requesting changes. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why doesn't the first line identify him as South African?

The pages of his siblings do. 84.19.38.82 (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the seems to be some doubt as to his nationality. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a double standard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it, how? Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the nationality situation for Kimbal Musk and Elon aren't that much different: they were born in South Africa, moved to Canada to ease the immigration process and now primarily residing in the United States. But then why Musk's nationality isn't mentioned upfront but Kimbal's does? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well for one Kibal Musks is not, as only one is. Secondly, they are not the same people, so they may not in fact have exactly the same situation. If you go over the archive this has been discussed here, and the consensus was (to avoid "is a South African, Canadian, American", or similar silliness to leave it out as I recall. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your claim that Kimbal Musk is not is correct, but I do think that at least some mention of his nationality should be present in the lead, like in Maye Musk. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Well if its is the same as musks he must also have multiple nationalities, not just one. But I have no objection to one line laying out Musk's citizenship status. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. That would clear out a ton of confusion for readers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Owner and CEO of Twitter

This should be corrected. Elon Musk is no longer the CEO.

"Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO of Twitter, months after he promised to step back from the role. “I am excited to welcome Linda Yaccarino as the new CEO of Twitter!” Musk wrote in a tweet on Friday.May 13, 2023 JeanFrancoisGagne (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There's an error

It claims elon is an engineer which he is not Owenyay (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

RS say he is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they say he has the title of "chief engineer" at SpaceX. Musk has no professional engineering credentials (degree or licensure), and thus is not considered to be an engineer in any part of the English-speaking world. It's just a vanity title. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Apart from the National Academy of Engineering [[23]]. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

And the National Academy of Sciences. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed to death and what we got is the result of pages of discussion and compromise. QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

White supremacy debate

Many public figures have a "criticism" section and Musk has been repeatedly and consistently been identified as white-supremacy-adjecent. I think Wikipedia should at least have a short paragraph that mentions the debate, which is not a momentarily on-going or fringe discussion, but a topic that has been and is becoming more and more apparent. Sabify (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabify (talk • contribs)

Have any RS alleged he is? Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Making a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION impairs NPOV. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of this Reddit post: [24] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2023

" "Change from second richest to first" Adenudu (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Transphobia accusations

I propose creating a subsection of Politics that addresses the public accusations against Musk for transphobic actions and dispositions. Previous Talk page discussions concerning this admittedly contentious topic happened prior to his acquisition of Twitter and the radical changes to the platform's content policies, etc. he implemented. We should include such allegations originating from the likes of:

• https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Elon-Musk-is-leaning-into-transphobia-17649577.php
• https://observer.com/2020/07/elon-musk-grimes-twitter-transphobia-pronouns-suck/
• https://www.transgendermap.com/politics/media/elon-musk/

QRep2020 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I imagine this is in light of his recent tweets, promoting a certain documentary. To my mind, if that incident receives significant coverage, a subsection could be warranted. But just the "pronouns suck" thing is not nearly enough, in my opinion. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I think a line might be warranted, but not a whole section, quite yet. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with both of you. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to keep the conversation alive, here are some other WP:RS sources that cover instances other than the Grimes thing.

This is in regard to the recent tweet:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/06/hours-after-spacex-postponed-a-liftoff-elon-musk-boosted-a-transphobic-tweet/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/musk-elon-twitter-ella-irwin-trans-video-what-is-a-woman-stream-rcna87429 (this is more relevant to Twitter as a company, perhaps, as it pertains to staff leaving over his retweet)

This is about his (transgender) daughter cutting ties with him:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-61880709

https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/10/10/elon-musk-says-he-lost-transgender-daughter-because-of-neo-marxists/

All in all, I have a feeling some coverage of this is needed and it may be just a line for now, but there's some meat to it. This is mostly going off of the recent news and the rather generous coverage it has received. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Highly recommend that interested editors get involved at Views of Elon Musk. We have to summarize that whole sub-article here, so it's hard to know how much weight each issue should get until things over there stabilize a bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Found error on "Personal life" section

on the last break, it says "In July 2022, Insider published court documents revealing that Musk had had twins with Shivon Zilis" it has 2 "Had" and should only have one, can't change it as I don't have 500 edits. IAmAttractedToFemales (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Its awkward but not incorrect. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It's grammatical. ~ HAL333 19:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that he's a Texas resident, we could compromise with WP:ENGVAR and say "Musk done had twins". Sam Kuru (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Personal views and Twitter usage

The sentence "The Israel government and several media outlets accused Musk of antisemitism due to him spreading George Soros conspiracy theories, although some Israeli officials defended Musk." is wrong. The Government of Isreal made no such statement. Amichai Chikli, Israel’s minister who’s entrusted on combating anti-Semitism, tweeted that the Israeli government [...] see[s] Elon Musk as an amazing entrepreneur and a role model and claimed that Musk's view on Soros is the opposite of antisemitism. David Saranga is a memeber of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and critizied Musk and Twitter for not combating antisemitism on Twitter. The Isreali foreign ministry reposted this tweet from Saranga. Saranga also posted a newspaper article that marked Musk's post about Soros as antisemitic. However, this was Sarangas personal Twitter account, thus no official statement. Sigmund von goethe (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement that Musk's comments were anti-Semitic was made by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, which represents Israel abroad. It is appropriate to label their statements as statements by Israel, which is also what the Washington Post article used as a source does. The other WaPo article you cite here is already cited in the article as well, backing up that some Israel officials defended Musk. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

Should the FRS designation be included after Elon Musk's name in the first sentence of the lead? This is common practice elsewhere. Cessaune [talk] 04:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The guideline MOS:POSTNOM changed recently and now states that postnominals should not be included in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2023

business magnate." Remove "South Africa" after "Pretoria" and "acquiring citizenship..." from the following paragraph. See Terry Gilliam for a similar case, but without a footnote. 98.248.84.55 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

True : he has Canadian citizenship as of right, from birth. Frenchl (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

So he is South-African-Canadian-born rather than only South African-born. Frenchl (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

In that context "born" means where someone was born, not what citizenship they had at birth. Meters (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)not the same thing

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Change Twitter to X, and possibly add “formerly known as Twitter”. 2601:741:100:D650:11E2:D860:C0D7:E25A (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

No harm in waiting a bit. Wikipedia is not news. And, ignoring the fact that it's url domain is still 'twitter.com', "X" may be better known as Twitter by the masses. ~ HAL333 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

False claim about supporting DeSantis for president

The article claims "He openly supported Republican Ron DeSantis for the 2024 U.S. presidential election by hosting DeSantis's announcement on a Twitter Spaces event".

This isn't true. Hosting an event on the platform you own is not the same as an endorsement. Musk has said that he would host Twitter Spaces events for any willing presidential candidate, and has hosted events for other presidential candidates than DeSantis.

Unless Musk explicitly claims to endorse someone for president we should be careful not to claim that he does. This is a BLP. 185.183.146.172 (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It may need rewording, but its a fair accusation. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

"Fair accusation"? That's not how we usually conduct ourselves when creating BLP articles. Unless he explicitly endorses someone for president why should we "accuse" him of doing so?

Musk wants to promote Twitter Spaces, and has said that he would like to host all of the presidential candidates regardless of party. He has hosted both DeSantis and Kennedy so far, why is it a "fair accusation" to say that that means that he endorses DeSantis? 185.183.146.172 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No we go by what RS say, RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think some clarification was needed, and I took a stab at it with this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Undid Zuckerberg cage fight revision

Hi, User:Slatersteven

Could you tell me why the cage fight between Musk and Zuckerberg is only notable once it has taken place? Surely, the amount of journalism and attention dedicated to this event is enough to note it, even if it does not transpire.

There are examples, for instance, where boxing matches are arranged yet do not happen, which are detailed in the associated boxer's article. The only difference between professional fighters and Musk/Zuckerberg is that this information would be in the "Career" section for the former and the "Other Activities" for the latter. TDW ✉ 16:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Because if it does not why is it even worthy of inclusion? These people are not professional fighters, this is just trash-talking. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Lots of digital ink has been spilled on this, but there's only noise, little if any signal. "Cage match between Musk, Zuckerberg could become 'noble' TED-style debate" – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's all Musk cares about here. QRep2020 (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

So does it even have a venue yet? Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Zuck only wants an official UFC fight, while Elon wants to do a charity fight in the Colosseum (italy). T ByGoalZ (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Factually incorrect/disputed claim of "risen hate speech" on twitter

The claim which was made on multiple occassions in this article that hate speech has risen on twitter is not correct according to X Corp. itself, Elon Musk and the leading (independent) social analytics platform "Brandwatch". Its in contrast to the source linked right now, but the statements by X Corp., Elon Musk and "Brandwatch" are newer, rely on more accurate and newer data.

Source (X Corp and Brandwatch): https://twitter.com/XBusiness/status/1681646056038187008?s=20 ByGoalZ (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

X Corp is not an RS for this claim, as it is self-serving (see wp:sps). Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats correct. X Corp alone is not. But Brandwatch has confirmed their statements. ByGoalZ (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea who they are, or if they are an RS, but care to link to the statement? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mike Griffin facts

Many SpaceX related articles have been edited with false claims about Mike Griffin. Such as that he worked for In-Q-Tell Musk’s trip to Russia (Which happened in February 2002 https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-elon-musk-spacex/, while Griffin joined In-Q-Tell in August https://www.iqt.org/news/in-q-tel-names-dr-michael-d-griffin-as-president-and-chief-operating-officer/), or that Mike Griffin personally selected SpaceX to win the COTS contract. (I personally don’t think the individual is relevant, but Bill Gerstenmaier was the selection authority: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/01/planetspace-officially-protest-nasas-crs-selection/) Any claimed about Mike Griffin should probably be double checked at this point. 2607:FEA8:1FE1:F100:71B6:9DB6:4D09:29FD (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

WHat has this to do with this article? Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're confusing COTS with CRS. Anomiemania (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

Change Bachelor of Arts in Physics to Bachelor of Science in Physics. Change Bachelor Science in Economics to Bachelor Of Arts in Economics 169.0.96.219 (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The current article is correct. The physics degree is a B.A., and the economics degree is a B.S. It's odd, but that's apparently how University of Pennsylvania does it. additional snopes source Foonix0 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2023 (2)

xAI

The company intends to use AI systems to make sense of our universe and reality. Even after openly criticising OpenAI, Musk aims to build his own similar program . Alternateuse (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait until it does. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

2023年8月25日扩展确认保护的编辑请求（3）

Elon Musk said the limited edition version of the upcoming Tesla Roadster will come with a “SpaceX” option package which will include not one but “10 rocket thrusters, arranged seamlessly around the car”. Musk even revealed that the rocket thruster-laden option will hit 0-100kph in 1.1 seconds.https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/technology/auto/what-we-know-about-elon-musks-flying-tesla-6922771.html Estellazhuxw (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait until it does. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Reference/for a "Further reading" section

• Farrow, Ronan (28 August 2023) [21 August 2023 (online)]. "Elon Musk's Shadow Rule". A Reporter at Large (story series). The New Yorker. Retrieved 25 August 2023.

—DocWatson42 (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

I just have a question. I wanted to edit the page about Elon Musk but it said it's controversial. How is this controversial? Digitclock23 (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

How is what controversial? Elon Musk? The page is protected from editing by anonymous editors and fairly new accounts as folks have been making nonconstructive edits. If you have a specific change or addition in mind, please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate, and reopen the request then Cannolis (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Emigrate vs immigrate

The early life section contains the phrase "knowing that it would be easier to immigrate to the United States this way". I would suggest that, as he was not in the United States already, he was emigrating, not immigrating. The word "immigrate" implies an American perspective on the part of the reader. It's a nitpick, but it's the kind of thing Wikipedia tries to avoid. LeoEvilsbane (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is just English grammar, not American-centric writing. The context of the sentence is where he was moving to, thus "immigrate" is the correct word. Meters (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2023

In the 4th paragraph from the very start of the article, is this sentence: "His Twitter ownership has been similarly controversial, including letting off a large number of employees". I believe you should change "letting off" to "laying off" which is proper American usage. Musk fired or laid off about 75% of Twitter's employees, he certainly did not let them off in any way. Use of the phrase "Letting off" is highly misleading. "Letting off" somebody means to excuse them with no penalty, the opposite of firing them or laying them off. Shazzam Potzman (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for noticing this, Shazzam Potzman. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

FAQ “show” and “hide” links do not work

The “show” and “hide” buttons on the pinned talk section “Frequently Asked Questions” do not work, at least not for me (mobile user). Jason Ingtonn (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have the same problem. (I am using Safari under iOS v15.7.8.) DocWatson42 (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a limitation of the FAQ template. It isn't designed to display in the mobile view or to be pinned in a box the way it is here, but there is no other way to make the list conspicuous to all users. 98.248.84.55 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, foo. Thank you for replying and the explanation. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

In the first paragraph of Public Perception, remove “Celebrated by fans and hated by critics,” and make the sentence start with “Musk was described…” This comes off as an over generalization of public perception, plus it’s not really clear what “fans” they’re referring to. 2600:1017:B805:10EC:E154:9F86:FBD4:BAB1 (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Critics don't have to hate the subjects of their criticism. Musk's fans build ridiculous statutes of him and call him a genius. The point of that statement, which came from a Talk page discussion by the way, was to convey how polarizing the man is, an important notion now less clear in the article.

The statement maybe should be expanded or qualified, but not removed entirely. Reverting until we discuss further. QRep2020 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@QRep2020, can you link the relevant talk page discussion? A search of "Celebrated by fans and hated by critics" in the archives brings up only two results. One, is an unrelated edit request and the second is an unrelated discussion about the lead. Further, could you also quote the section in the source that supports this claim? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I might have been confusing that line with the polarizing line. Apologies to all. QRep2020 (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

QRep2020, same. "The language resulted from a engaged Talk page discussion"? It's going to require a pretty strong consensus to get that unencyclopedic, sensationalist, and seriously POV language into a GA. Drmies (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Billionaire" should be in the lede

Given that Elon Musk was at one point considered the richest man in the world, and his wealth is a huge part of his notoriety, it seems very important to reference his status as a billionaire in the lede. I believe that the article should be changed to say "billionaire business magnate and investor" first thing, similar to the articles for Bernard Arnault, Larry Ellison, Zhong Shanshan and others. This is especially true due to the fact that Elon Musk is not really known for much else besides his standing as a billionaire businessman (compared to Michael Bloomberg, for example, whose billionaire status is not mentioned in the lede of the article, but who's various standings as a politician, philanthropist and author are in addition to businessman). Also, simply mentioning that he is a "business magnate and investor" isn't sufficient in my opinion since it doesn't necessarily show that he is wealthy. Justtrujames (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you think "net worth of US$217 billion" means? That he's a millionaire? ~ HAL333 21:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the first sentence Justtrujames (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

For what reason? There is already a full sentence dedicated to that point. Both sentences preceding it give pertinent and and much more relevant information as to who he is. My logic here would be that someone opens Musk's page to see who he is in terms of business - an investor, a CEO at X, Y, and Z. It's much less likely that they're looking to see if he's a billionaire or not or what his exact worth is. Even if they are, those facts are prominently displayed. I'd argue that Arnault, Ellison, and Shanshan also don't need to be described as billionaires in the first sentence either, frankly. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

So? Slatersteven (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, a quick search suggests that billionare is a much more common way to describe him than business magnate, which strikes me as slightly archaic, awkward, and a bit puffery-ish due to its archaic nature . (Its literal meaning, after all, is "great man", and I don't think it has enough modern usage to totally escape that.) By the argument above, we list the companies he's connected to and his specific connection to them already; "business magnate" is just a less-neutral way to summarize that and is awkward due to not being how he's normally described, besides. --Aquillion (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be repetitive and ungainly to says "Musk is a billionaire.... Musk has $X billion." There is nothing wrong with "business magnate" and it's been the status quo for years. Plenty of words have etymological origins not immediately apparent, but that's no reason to use, or not use, a word. ~ HAL333 19:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2023

Under “Personal Life” and then “Relationships and children,” I believe you should change “Musk has 11 children” to “Musk has had 11 children” because one of the children has passed away so the latter would be more grammatically correct. Zaxcion (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for what? Zaxcion (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The edit you are asking us to make. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry this is my first time doing this kind of thing. What has to be sourced? Zaxcion (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The claim that one of his kids has died since the claim was made he has 11 kids. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Well on the actual page the source is

Vance, Ashlee (2017) [2015]. Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future(2nd ed.). New York: Ecco.

ISBN 9780062301253.

if you want me to find an article I could do that too Zaxcion (talk) 12:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The source we use for 11 living kids is from 2023. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

In this article, https://pagesix.com/article/elon-musk-children/, it says he has had 11 kids, 10 of them are still alive and one of them is not Zaxcion (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems to say 10 living. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Can you tell me why you would not make the change? Zaxcion (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I am undecided how to word it, yours is not all that much cop. I was wondering just changing it to 10, as we do not need to know one has died. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Alright I’ll leave it up to you. I hope something gets changed to make it a little more clear. Thank you for helping me out. Zaxcion (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Buy the way edit requests are for making edits you are not allowed to make, not just to ask for any old edit to be done. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I can’t make the edit because the article is protected Zaxcion (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, sorry. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

he has had 11 kids now, 3rd child with grimes just announced 125.237.149.138 (talk) 10:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one dead one. See the thread above, we need an RS saying he has 11 living children. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

Change business magnate to business magnet

Source: https://youtube.com/shorts/wA9nBKyQyKs?si=sNTZmdHo0gn4WpAX 79.186.31.188 (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ, and read wP:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Polarizing

This edit is problematic. Here’s what the edit did:

“ Musk was described by Vance as polarizing (such that “you either love him or hate him”) due to his "part philosopher, part troll" role on Twitter.[25] ”

The deleted parenthetical was important because the cited biographer (Vance) did not mean that Musk was “polarizing” in the sense of dividing people and causing people to have differences with each other about various matters; instead, Vance only meant that Musk was polarizing in the sense of causing people to be divided about Musk himself, and to have starkly different opinions about Musk. The parenthetical clarified this by quoting Vance. Vance said, “He’s become such a polarizing figure, almost this religious-type figure, where you either love him or hate him, and there doesn’t seem to be much room in between.” So Vance was clearly referring only to Musk causing polarized views about Musk himself, not Musk causing polarized views about anything or everything else. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I have rephrased the sentence as follows: “Vance described people’s opinions of Musk as polarized due to his ‘part philosopher, part troll’ role on Twitter”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2023

Change business magnate to business magnet per Elon (https://youtube.com/shorts/wA9nBKyQyKs?si=BT5AF4cJY-TtpTFH) 2601:40D:400:9280:FDAF:DAE7:1C0F:8397 (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

see FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.155.60.73 (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to delete this as an empty request, and just say. You do need to tell us what you want done, we can't read your mind. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Non sequitur

This has been marked quite some time ago, but there is a non sequitur in the "leadership style" section:

Musk does not make formal business plans; instead, he says he prefers to approach engineering problems with an "iterative design methodology" and "tolerance for failures".

The sentence seems to be equating business planning with engineering problems. These are two, very distinct things, so the sentence doesn't really make sense. Interested in hearing other opinions about this. BeŻet (talk) 09:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not, after all part of the issue maybe he does not approach engenering issues from a business perspective. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This does not address the point I'm raising, which is that these are two distinct things. If he's not approaching engineering issues from a business perspective, this makes the issue more pertinent. BeŻet (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I see what you're driving at, BeŻet. Proposed edit? QRep2020 (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

I object to this edit. It makes the lead less concise, less consistent with the article body, and more subjective and vague. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I support the revert of your first change (it feels less clunky); neutral on the revert of the second change (somewhat redundant but does help clarity). DFlhb (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

User:DFlhb, thanks for the reply. The first change was as follows. It initially said, “Musk has expressed views that have made him a polarizing figure.” I changed it to “Musk has expressed views that have polarized people’s opinions about him.” My goal was not to make it more clunky or less clunky, but rather to make it more accurate. There’s a big difference between saying that a person is polarizing (which implies that he causes all kinds of divisions about all kinds of things), compared to saying that people’s views about a person are polarized. See the difference? In other words, saying people either love Musk or hate Musk is very different from saying that Musk drives people apart instead of bringing them together. The second change I made was this: “His Twitter ownership has been similarly controversial, including included laying off a large number of employees, an increase in hate speech on the platform, and changes to Twitter Blue verification.” WP:WTW is a Wikipedia guideline which says, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies”. So that’s what I did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edits changed the meaning and are also less clear. They should not be reinstated without affirmative consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, it should not be changed henceforth without consensus, and my rejected edits changed the meaning from inaccurate to accurate, and from noncompliant with Wikipedia guidelines to compliant. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Autism diagnosis

The statement that Musk had "never been medically diagnosed" with autism isn't entirely correct; the reference listed, a quote from his mother from a biography by Walter Isaacson says that "He was never actually diagnosed as a kid." People can be diagnosed with autism in their adult years—Anthony Hopkins was diagnosed at 77—and there isn't any source saying he wasn't diagnosed as an adult. He may have or may not have. Qbox673 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. There is nothing to suggest he has ever been diagnosed, a fact that deserves mention given his public self-diagnosis. QRep2020 (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

When did he publicly say he self-diagnosed? Qbox673 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

He said he had Asperger's syndrome during his SNL monologue and never released evidence suggesting a physician made such a diagnosis. He hasn't brought it up since so take that as you will. QRep2020 (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

True, but we would need a source saying he was medically diagnosed as an adult. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Absent a source stating categorically one way or the other whether he has been medically diagnosed as an adult, we're trying to prove a negative. Better just to drop the statement altogether. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Remove "business magnate" altogether

Propose removing both "business magnate" and "investor" from the lead sentence.

• Investor is inaccurate unless used colloquially. Musk isn't an investor like Warren Buffett, Jim Simons, or venture capitalists. Those people buy assets to get returns from those assets (dividends, yields, capital gains, whatever), as a career. Musk's handful of investments were to acquire businesses outright and run them, with few exceptions. Term is used in sources but not that widely.
• Business magnate is WP:PUFF and too informal for an encyclopedia. The word isn't found in Isaacson's book (I'm aware of its flaws, still a good source), nor Britannica. Similarly gets used but not that widely.

Suggest replacing with "businessman", "entrepreneur" (Britannica's wording), or TBD.

Magnate was added in 2015, removed in 2018, re-added in 2020; I found no discussions in the archives (unlike "magnet"). "Investor" was added a year ago[26][27][28], discussed late last year, previously discussed in 2019. Happy to address those arguments if requested. "Entrepreneur" was present for most of this article's existence, removed last year. DFlhb (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course you should address the previous discussion points.... QRep2020 (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You added it to the lead within days of his purchase of a 9% stake in Twitter; the first sentence is supposed to be the most stable, not be changed over WP:RECENTISM. And it's not how investor is commonly used. Wouldn't you agree it's more accurate to say he "owns Twitter", rather than "is an investor in Twitter"? Musk isn't an investor, he has investors. It's passive income for them, not for him. Invest is fine as a verb in the lead, just doesn't belong in the first sentence under MOS:FIRSTBIO positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective [...] terms. The most common terms used to refer to him are entrepreneur or businessman. There shouldn't be so much churn and WP:OR in first sentences of BLPs; it used to say "industrial designer" too, which is silly (not blaming you for that). DFlhb (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Accuracy is important, yes. For instance, despite his title, he didn't found Tesla, he heavily invested in it. He first invested in Twitter and then, after much rigmarole, he acquired it after brokering (through his agents) many sources of investment and loans.

Moving forward, please address the various points raised in prior discussions in a noncombative, simple format.

And, no, I wouldn't agree. QRep2020 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not one of the people who says he founded Tesla. I'm saying "investor" isn't a positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for. And I apologize for the rough edges. DFlhb (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the article does broadly support the use of investor somewhere in the lead (its in the second sentence so doesn't necessarily have to be repeated), but we don't use the word magnate at all outside of the first sentence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not disputing its use in the 2nd sentence & third lead paragraph; those are fine - DFlhb (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"Business magnate" is not puffery. Being not just a "businessman," but an especially influential and feted one, is part of M's public notability. When that is no longer true, I would be glad to see the phrase removed. 2601:642:4600:3F80:8D37:3869:175F:C726 (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it? find 5 RS that say he is. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not uncommon at all [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Ptrnext (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2023 (2)

I would like to make a request to make a minor edit to this page to honor a statement made by Mr. Musk during an interview on the “Joe Rogan show”. During this interview he jokingly requested that someone change is Wikipedia page from “Business Magnate” to “Business Magnet”. In honor of his since of humor (despite always being under immense pressure) and for all he has done and accomplished I feel it would be fitting to temporarily Change this descriptor to “Business Magnet” and for Wiki to release a statement on “X” (formally twitter) that they are doing so to honor him. Williamrutherfordii (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ and if this question is asked again whilst all these edit requests are still not archived I will just start deleting them. And no, it is not fitting for us to honour him. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yep,  Not done: per above.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 15:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Every "magnet" request that gets posted is from someone who has been presented with the edit notice saying that it's not going to happen. There is no reason not to delete every one on sight, regardless whether other recent requests are visible, and regardless whether the request (like this one) is worded as an obvious troll. 2601:642:4600:3F80:1CF1:F8B:FE8A:28AA (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not "honor" anyone. We don't include quips, jokes or wordplay. Wikipedia strives to be a factual, reliable source of information. BeŻet (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

yeah right 2603:8080:C00:86AB:AC9B:6524:E479:1392 (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

a request from Elon Musk

according to his tweet yesterday among a few other tweets mocking Wikipedia and WMF, I think we as the English Wikipedia community should accept this challenge and put 🐄 💩 on his article as his request. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 06:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done and won't be done. Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources say about their subject. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ibrahim.ID Nope, that's something vandalism. -Lemonaka‎ 11:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No we should not, read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk picks a rather significant number of fights on a regular basis. This doesn't merit inclusion in any way, even a neutral, measured way.

But most importantly we're not vindictive. It doesn't matter if people like us or not. Our mission is to present a neutral article to our readers based on reliable sources. If we let people's opinions on us – negative or positive – influence that, we'd be doing all our readers a disservice. Their understanding of Musk isn't enhanced by in any way letting something like this colour an article. /Julle (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

$1B should be enough to have an AI rewrite WP. Doug youvan (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

If the fights are significant then they should be in Wikipedia. Maybe a separate article, List of Elon Musk's Feuds Jef (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As the source is his twitter asking for this, n it is not significant. Nor do we need a list of his "feuds". Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the opinion statements about Elon Musks "controversial statements" should be edited out, as they're more conjecture and opinion about his statements than his actual statements themselves. 2601:602:8701:CE6E:132F:37DF:30AA:FB00 (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374919946_Proposal_Leveraging_Advanced_AI_to_Revolutionize_Wikipedia_A_Call_to_Elon_Musk Doug youvan (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that an RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like self-promotion to me. Not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:THEHILL https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4270360-elon-musk-offers-1m-to-wikipedia-if-theyll-change-their-name/ Foonix0 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a RS has covered it. That doesn't mean we should include it. Otherwise, I'd recommend including Musk turned into 'a little baby' on Tesla call: Investor. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. An encyclopedic biography is a summary of the most significant aspect of someone's life and and deeds. Elon Musk is in the news all the time. Everything he says and does can't be part of the article, merely the key aspects. The goal here is to serve the reader with a condensed understanding of the topic Elon Musk, not to list every possible fact. Neither an investor complaining about Musk nor Musk tweeting about Wikipedia help us doing that, even if both have been covered in the news to some degree. /Julle (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No Mather how much of a prick he is we have to remain neutral Alice was Mad (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

We go back to, this can't be a list of everything Elon MUsk has ever said or done, and we don't need one. What next, a list of what he has fro breakfast? Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• There's a line about this now in Views of Elon Musk. If RS give this more weight, the content can be built up there and potentially summarized here. Give it some time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t about listing everything Elon has ever said, that’s not what Wikipedia is about. But creating a factual historical record as it relates to Elon trying to, essentially, buy Wikipedia, is important. What’s going on his could be considered censorship, Elon makes 1000 dumb comments a day, no one is asking to list all of those here.

the issue here is just that Wikipedia doesn’t want to write down what was said, regardless of the historical and social implications only because Elon explicitly asked that his comments about the $1 Billion he listed. Had he not made the comment about listing it in his page, it would have already been listed… Stealth006 (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

What evidence besides his tweets points to him "essentially" trying to buy Wikipedia? QRep2020 (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There is not even any evidence there, he did not try to buy Wikipedia, he made a joke about changing its name, not changing its owner. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)