Talk:Kimbal Musk

Canadian?

Wouldn't he also be Cdn, given his mother is Cdn and his brother obtained citizenship through that route? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Tesla

Being on the board of directors and a major shareholder of Tesla sounds like something that should be mentioned in "Business career". If we can trust this website it could be a significant share of his net worth. Reference 13 is dead, by the way, I found an archived version but that doesn't mention his shares either. --mfb (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Epstein Connection

Squared.Circle.Boxing I have provided an article from a reputable publication (business insider) in regards to his connection with Jeffrey Epstein. The only way I know about Kimbal Musks existence was from discussion of this connection. The reason for reverting my contribution was inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk • contribs) 10:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how reliable the source is, While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included, per WP:ONUS, and When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies, per WP:BLPRESTORE. Stop restoring your disputed edit until you have WP:CONSENSUS. To the meat of the issue, WP:NOTGOSSIP. Who Musk is reported to have dated, allegedly as part of a sex offender's masterplan to take over the galaxy, is not encyclopaedic. Even more problematic is using a source that says according to two people familiar with their relationship, sources say, the people said, for highly contentious BLP content that is so utterly irrelevant it begs the question of, why? – ².O.^Boxing 11:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I am unsure why you are ridiculing my contribution, it is not some grand plan to take over the galaxy it is an alleged attempt to build connections to a billionaire from a sex offender who had a documented history of building connections to powerful people. It is not gossip to include in the article an instance of this well documented history in so far as it is relevant to the subject. I see no problem with the usage of anonymous sources as that is the basis of much journalism. This standard is obviously not enforced throughout Wikipedia articles so I am unclear why you are insistent on such an obviously silly point. If I rewrote my contribution to make the source of these claims explicit would that suffice? Additionally it is insane to me that you think this is utterly irrelevant. The subject of this article is alleged to have maintained a relationship with a convicted child predator. This story is the only reason I, and I imagine many others, know of Kimball Musk's existence. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You say it's not gossip but use the word alleged, twice, with the only evidence being two people familiar with their relationship. Looks like a classic case of gossip to me. I'd argue that the vast majority of people know of Kimbal because his brother is one of the most well-known people in the world. We can use Elon as a comparison; reliable sources have also reported on a similar alleged personal connection between Elon and Epstein/Maxwell, yet those alleged connections aren't mentioned in Elon's article, and I'd bet it's for the same reason. – ².O.^Boxing 11:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Gossip comes from the unreliability of the reporter and lack of substantiation. Business insider is a reliable source and would have fact checked the reporting from their sources. Are allegations gossip? I'm confused why my use of that word is being referenced. I have not seen any reliable allegations that Elon and Epstein had a friendship the same way it is alleged Kimball and Epstein had a friendship. The controversy between Elon and Epstein primarily concerns allegations of a business relationship which the article DOES mention. A much better comparison between the brothers is the sexual misconduct allegations that Elon faced seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Legal_matters. This allegation, like the one I wish to include, was covered by business insider relying upon an anonymous source said to be the friend of the alleged victim. Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It is literally the definition of gossip; two people told another person something about somebody else. How is BI supposed to fact check the allegations of two people familiar with their relationship? Did they get confirmation from Kimbal? The woman? Epstein? Doesn't look like it to me. BI also does not provide any reliable allegations that Kimbal and Epstein had a friendship, it provides rumours of a connection through a third party. Much the same way RS speculate on the alleged relationship between Elon and Epstein because of a gathering they attended and a photo of Elon and Maxwell. It is directly comparable to this instance. The sexual assault allegation in Elon's article prompted a response from the man himself, while also having an apparent financial impact, so I don't find it comparable. – ².O.^Boxing 12:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Literally the first definition of gossip I found: "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people" my contribution is not casual, a conversation or unconstrained so 0 for 3. They would have access to more knowledge about the situation then provided in the article as the evidence for the reliabilit of their source would be constrained by the attempts to keep them anonymous. In this case we have to trust Business Insider, and as a reputable news source I do trust them. You are completely dodging my point regarding the Elon Musk allegations. The article presents the allegations in the same way I intend to using nearly identical evidence. Kimbal Musk is much less profile then his brother and the allegations in question are not as egregious as those against Elon so comparing the situations in the way you are doing is irrelevant. The fact is the Elon Musk article presents allegations from the same source, obtained in the same way the same as those I wish to include. Must I find other articles doing the same for you to concede that my choice of source is entirely appropriate and consistent with other Wikipedia articles? Aphrodite=Ishtar (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

You conveniently forgot to quote the second part of that definition. Here it is in full, casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true (emphasis mine). BI being reliable isn't an issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and the context of that source is gossip/rumour/hearsay/unsubstantiated allegations...that have the potential to cause damage to a living person. The point of Elon Musk was not dodged; the article only presents those allegations because of Elon's direct response to the BI article and the financial ramifications, giving the situation a degree of significance. You haven't provided any evidence to suggest it has any degree of significance beyond a juicy bit of unsubstantiated gossip. – ².O.^Boxing 15:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Year of marriage

The recent book by Walter Isaacson says the marriage to Christiana was in 2016 (page 265) 108.180.18.37 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)