Talk:Elon Musk

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Elon Musk made his first billion after the sale of PayPal to eBay in 2002? Source: multiple
  • ALT1:... that Elon Musk lost $16.3 billion in a single day, the largest in the history of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index? Source: [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/111 West 57th Street

Improved to Good Article status by HAL333 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC).

• article is a bona fide GA, promoted five days ago, so no issues with quality. Hooks are both good and suitable, both interesting, obviously for me the 16.3 bn hook is mind-boggling and fascinating, but I'll leave it to the set creator to decide on which fits better. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• And I forgot to say the QPQ was tickety boo too. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy with ALT1. ~ HAL333 15:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Date for the archive bot. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 section stating as fact that Musk spread misinformation is editorial opinion

The second sentence states "He spread misinformation about the virus...". This is editorial opinion disallowed by WP:NOR. The first citation given only states that he has been accused of misinformation. The second citation by the Verge is an opinion piece of the author, who is not a subject matter info according to his bio. (Note that WP:RSPUSE states that "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source.".  Moreover, this is not the opinion of the Twitter censors according to twitter's policy for removing tweets containing COVID-19 misinformation, as the tweets have not been removed. An objective wording suitable for an encyclopedia is "He has been accused of spreading misinformation about the virus...". Axiarchist (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources stating he has spread misinformation, and it's not controversial at all to state that he has, but that new wording is fine by me. BeŻet (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the new wording, and indeed with Axiarchist's other recent changes. AFAICT, all of the sources that accuse Musk of spreading misinformation are opinion sources, not definitive statements by subject matter experts. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not an editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/musk-tesla-coronavirus/. This is not an editorial: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-coronavirus/index.html. etc. Call it what it is. QRep2020 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And here is a piece from a nonpartisan policy institute specifically about COVID-19 misinformation that speaks directly to Musk's actions AND uses The Verge article as reference: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology-policy/reports/2020/08/18/488714/fighting-coronavirus-misinformation-disinformation/. QRep2020 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wording fine as is. ~ HAL333 23:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording and sourcing are fine as is. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation is missing for him promoting chloroquine. He made a tweet pointing at the study from a reputable doctor showing promising results from chloroquine. It wasn't known at the time the study was flawed (so hardly misinformation) and calling it promoting is dubious at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.101.175 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Verge article sourcing that statement seems appropriately summarized to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The article correctly states the study is debunked, but doesn't say it was debunked before or after his tweet. I can't find any source that it was debunked at the time of him tweeting it. In fact, if there is any such source the "Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic" page should be updated to include it.

I am not sure it matters to state when it was debunked. We could put the point like so if need be: "a later debunked study". QRep2020 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it matters. WHO announced a multinational study of chloroquine and three other drugs a few days after the tweet. To use it as an example of Musk spreading misinformation is very misleading, unless you also want to claim WHO is spreading misinformation. There are better examples.

I think an institution testing a hypothesis relating to a drug's efficacy is different than Elon Musk tweeting about how a drug might work and linking to a self-published paper from a doctor with a bit of notoriety: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html . The WHO also was quick in February 2020 to point out the side effects of chloroquine use while later Musk spoke highly of it as a former malaria patient: https://fortune.com/2020/03/20/malaria-drug-coronavirus-treatment-chloroquine-trump-musk-deadly-china/ . Different leagues. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would WHO test a hypothesis in clinical studies if it was obviously poor science? Is Elon Musk expected to know better than WHO? I can't read the Times article as it is behind a paywall, but it is published two months after the tweet. You posted the wrong link for the second article. This one only refers back to the tweet and says nothing about him speaking highly of chloroquine.

No, I did not use the wrong article: "China, where the deadly pathogen first emerged in December, recommended the decades-old malaria drug chloroquine to treat infected patients in guidelines issued in February after seeing encouraging results in clinical trials. But within days, it cautioned doctors and health officials about the drug’s lethal side effects and rolled back its usage." And there are plenty of ways to read the the NY Times article if you please. QRep2020 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

From The Verge: "he said the 'danger of panic still far exceeds danger of corona,' as part of a larger thread promoting chloroquine as an effective treatment". RS describe Musk as promoting chloroquine, and we should too. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That tweet is a much better example of poor covid-19 judgement than the chloroquine stuff. Use that instead.

I'm commenting on the above precisely because of this remark on the main page. It is defamatory. It presumes that Mr Musk has deliberately spread false information about Covid. In fact it is reasonable to argue that instead Mr Musk has expressed strong doubts over government narrative on Covid. That is all. And he is far from being alone in this. Frankly the sentence is an outrage. I would remove it instantly if I didn't know already that an arrogant oaf will immediately reinstate it. Presumably Mr Musk is giving wikipedia the contempt it deserves by ignoring the smear rather than mounting legal action. He doesn't exactly need the money!John2o2o2o (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree the statement is defamatory and must be: A) removed (On the grounds that there is no proof that Elon Musk spread misinformation in fact the statement itself is misinformation)

B) An amendment can be made that I would agree with such as “it has been alleged that Musk spread misinformation”.

I would ask that either A) or B is implemented immediately. ToZero (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I cite this article and itge study here in that Musks reference to Hydroxychloroquine are backed up by peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC findings. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/

The statement must be removed or amended immediately. ToZero (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim Cook, Elon Musk among Time's 100 most influential people of 2021

https://time.com/collection/100-most-influential-people-2021/6095970/elon-musk-innovators/

Tim Cook, Elon Musk among Time's 100 most influential people of 2021. Along with the Apple boss and Tesla chief, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and cryptocurrency pioneer Vitalik Buterin also make the list. https://www.cnet.com/news/tim-cook-elon-musk-among-times-100-most-influential-people-of-2021/

• He was listed among Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2010, 2013, and 2018. The year 2021 is missing.

Added.

This should be deleted "Musk has been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox or unscientific stances and highly publicized controversies. "

That sentence should be deleted. Wikipedia should not make judgements such as "unorthodox" or "unscientific". How could anyone call Musk "unscientific"? This reads more like a hit job instead of being objective. So this sentence should go. People don't go to Wikipedia to read made-up opinions. Just stick to what is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroche (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please review the archived discussions to see the arguments as to why that conclusion belongs in the article. QRep2020 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• @QRep2020:Why not just add (even in the lede) the sources for this statement? I am sure they are buried somewhere in the article, but it is ok to add references in the lede if a statement is likely to be challenged. I looked in the archives as you suggest, but it is far from easy to find actual supporting evidence there. I believe you are right and he has made "unorthodox" or "unscientific" statements though. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There are sources under the Views section that support the generalized statement. Here is one archived discussion that covers the statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_7#Biased_negativity_on_Elon_Musk_in_this_article QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. As I said, I do not doubt that you are right. It is just that these articles are so hard to read because they are so long and involved. Just suggesting that I believe, according to the "rules", it is ok to add a reference in the lede if something is likely to be challenged. But thank you! Krok6kola (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yep - already been discussed. More discussions can be found in the archives. ~ HAL333 02:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• How could anyone call Musk "unscientific"? - he has made several unscientific statements, as described by reliable sources. He's not a scientist, he's a businessman. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Eroche. Wikipedia's editors now are trying to gain authority to assert many things, specially opinions by favorite sources and journalists. And i disagree with QRep2020, that doesn't says why it "belongs to the article" that says what the editors who did that think while doing that, as simple as that. It doesn't "proves" that it belongs to the article, it's just a question of balance of power when the matter is the 'importance' of some editor's vote or opinion. Sawyersx (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion but clearly the statements are backed up by sources that are cited later in the article and proposals to change it have been defused. If you wish to pursue it again, feel free to make an actual case and perhaps initiate an RfC. QRep2020 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If the grounds for maintaining this claim or that Musk is not a scientist I disagree with that. He clearly is a scientist as specialising in applied physics. The statement is false and groundless. It remains unproven and is opinion. It must be removed or amended. ToZero (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Change "business magnate" to "business magnet" as requested by Elon Musk on Joe Rogan's talk show. 162.202.25.22 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See FAQ at the top of the page. BeŻet (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not call him an 'oligarch'?

many businessmen and entrepreneurs from around the world are designated as oligarchs in their wikipedia articles. so why is this person eminently fitting that designation not called that? why the double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:2380:3C95:48DB:50BF:A506:2 (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t easily find reliable sources describing Musk as an oligarch. Do you have any? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Here are some opinion pieces that do:

• https://www.salon.com/2021/07/22/why-are-rich-people-obsessed-with-outer-space-experts-say-theres-a-psychological-explanation/
• https://newrepublic.com/article/156397/oligarch-month-elon-musk
• https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/07/richard-branson-space-flight-virgin-galactic/
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/todays-tech-oligarchs-are-worse-than-the-robber-barons

Might make sense to word it like "Musk has been described as an oligarch" and put it in the final paragraph of the lead section.QRep2020 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Within the context of the massive amount of news that has been published on Musk, I'm not sure that that is due. However, a Criticism of Elon Musk article may be warranted and maybe that could be included there. ~ HAL333 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I also have DUE concerns, especially if we're sourcing the label to opinion pieces. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

He's already identified as a "magnate," a term that reflects the combination of wealth and influence. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

217.127.63.239 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm called Alexander I have 28 years I work as a teacher of politics and english, so may I update it.

 Not done No. Those are not the criteria used. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Added back emerald mine detail per corroboration by multiple outlets since 2009

Previous discussion regarding Errol Musk's stake in a Zambian emerald mine centered on distrust of a string of Business Insider articles, so I found sources that predate those articles by several years that make the same claim. I have a bad habit of making unhelpful edit descriptions, sorry for any confusion. Mewnst (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on the wording, "who became wealthy in part due to a significant stake in a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika." The article written in 2009 from the New Yorker mentions that Enrol Musk got a share in a Emerald Mine, not that it was a significant stake and also neither that it was really profitable.

My suggestion would be to change it to something like this "It's presumed that Enrol musk received part of his wealth from a stake in a Zambian emerald mine near lake Tanganyika" or remove this part so it's more accurate until it's really proven that Enrol Musk became wealthy because of the emerald mine stake or received significant funding from it.

Renizen (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a fair assumption that a share in an emerald mine contributes to one's wealth. The sentence does not specify a percentage, only that added in "part" - a case where imprecision serves the veracity of the larger sentence. We can add further mention of his engineering projects too maybe. QRep2020 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If the page is going to claim Errol (not Enrol) Musk had a "significant" stake in the mine and that it played a part in him becoming wealthy (and that he was "wealthy" at all), there'd better be a source for that. The sources say he had a "stake"/"share" in a mine. I have shares of Tesla (full disclosure) but I am far from wealthy. Also here's an article that investigates the origins of the claim and presents a different view: . If it weren't for the persistent widespread slander about both Musks benefiting from an apartheid mine, I'd say remove the mention of the mine completely as it doesn't seem relevant to an article about Elon Musk. Because of that hoax, I say change it to something like "Errol Musk owned a minor share in an emerald mine in the 80s, the value of which is disputed" and link the article I ref'd, which specifically discusses the widespread allegations. Vashekcz (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better source from The Independent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a better source: it just links back to the (discredited, in my opinion) Business Insider article and quotes it. This article by Jeremy Arnold investigated the claims made there to some depth (same link as above). Vashekcz (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Independent makes several relevant claims in its own voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What claims (about the mine)? Other than those lifted from one or the other Business Insider article? Note that the Jeremy Arnold piece linked by my previous bullet points deals with both of them. Vashekcz (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"In the mid-1980s, the family profited handsomely from Errol Musk’s purchasing of an emerald mine, after selling their airplane for £80,000 (the equivalent of £320,000 today)." Also, I don't believe it's a good idea to check generally reliable sources against a self-published source (Substack). I am not desperate to include this material, and I'd be interested to see what other editors think. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition. As others already pointed out, Mewnst's causal claim is not supported by the two cited sources. And handwaving about "fair assumptions" does not give one a free pass around WP:OR.

What's more, Mewnst's summary of the previous discussions that led to the non-inclusion of this material is likewise misleading: Far from having only "centered on distrust of a string of Business Insider articles", other sources were extensively discussed there too, including the 2009 New Yorker article that Mewnst is now presenting as a new finding.

Finally (as already discussed back then as well but ignored by Mewnst above too), this topic is a major BLP issue. See e.g. the context provided in this Bloomberg piece published last year by Ashlee Vance (who is probably one of the most factually reliable journalists in this matter, having published an entire book on this article's subject):

"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. For what it’s worth, my reporting, based on conversations with hundreds of people, confirms Musk’s story. Regardless of your opinion of him, he is a self-made billionaire."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Vance can say what he pleases now, but his book about Musk he describes the family as wealthy at least prior to the divorce. Whether or not the mine contributed to the family's affluence at some point is not that important: The fact that Musk was not born into destitution is and reference to that fact, which was broached by the sentence since removed, belongs in the article. I have reintroduced the point as well as something less controversial about emerald mine business. Also, the BLP stuff is a bit silly. QRep2020 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "self-made billionaire" is utterly meaningless nowadays - Forbes labelled Kylie Jenner as the "youngest self-made billionaire" (although they did change their mind later, but just because of technicalities), even though Jenner belongs to a very wealthy, famous and recognizable family, and has been in the spotlight ever since she was young. Likewise Musk comes from a wealthy and influential family. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Under 'Education', Didn't Elon get a BA in Economics and a BS in Physics, instead of the other way around?

Under 'Education', Didn't Elon get a BA in Economics and a BS in Physics, instead of the other way around?

Like, if an admin could fix that, it would be great i think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Corrigan a.k.a Spectre (talk • contribs) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed for a while. From the best sources we have, it appears he got a BA in physics and a BS in economics. One can have a BS in something that isn't a hard science and vice versa. That being said, the sources are not ideal. If you can dredge up a source that says otherwisem that would be appreciated. ~ HAL333 19:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Jet - owned by Musk or not?

@HAL333: @QRep2020: @Rebell44: Looking at the sources in the article, the jet is not owned by Musk, but rather Falcon Landing LLC. Business Insider states Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company with ties to SpaceX's Hawthorne, California headquarters, recently registered a new Gulfstream G550 jet alongside its larger G650 The current Ars article heavily depends on Washington Post as its source, which states Tesla chief Elon Musk’s corporate jet flew more than 150,000 miles last year [...] (emphasis my own), continuing later, The company said Tesla does not cover the costs for Musk’s personal trips and that Musk, SpaceX and Tesla review the flights and agree on who pays for each trip. Washington Post is considered "generally reliable" under perennial sources, and its claims that this is a corporate jet are verifiably accurate. Falcon Landing LLC is publicly registered, and anyone can see that it is registered at the headquarters of SpaceX itself.

References

Elephanthunter (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh how fun, shell games. Fine, put it as he has unlimited access to a private jet registered to an LLC that he uses for anything and everything that suits him. Surely this all speaks to his amaterialism. QRep2020 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

But QRep, He doesn't own the jet. He just owns the company that owns the company that owns the jet. ;) ~ HAL333 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, beautiful delegation of responsibility and accountability ;) BeŻet (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "Elon Musk's corporate jet" seems most accurate, clear and concise; "a private jet that is owned by SpaceX"—not so much. Basically it's the (completely environmentally-conscious and humble billionaire) equivalent of a company giving someone a work laptop to work from home—they may not technically own it, but it's certainly "theirs" in a pragmatic sense. Stonkaments (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, I think the current "owned by SpaceX" is one of the most false options available. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "owned by SpaceX" is clearly incorrect. The FAA aircraft registry confirms that N628TS is registered to Falcon Landing LLC, 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA. I haven't attempted to determine the ownership of that company – be it Musk, SpaceX or some other investment vehicle. Regardless, any wording that suggests Musk owns the jet personally is equally incorrect. My suggestion would be to run the two sentences together: "Musk uses a corporate jet [...] whose use of fossil fuels [...] has been criticised [...]". Rosbif73 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Falcon Landing, LLC is managed by Musk, Shotwell (President and COO of SpaceX), and SpaceX: [2]. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a corporate jet. It's not personally owned by him, but it's "his" corporate jet. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also relevant that the jet being discussed (SpaceX actually has several) is also used to transport other SpaceX employees and sometimes eqipment - it si not exclusively used by Elon Musk.

Errol Graham Musk, father

Elon Musk's father, Errol Graham Musk, is missing from the Parents section of the infobox. It was removed in this change by user HAL333, with an edit summary that does not match the edit. I assume this removal was an unintentional error. 213.205.242.251 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I added him back. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He may well have been removed because of the instructions for {{Infobox person}} which state that the father parameter should be included only if independently notable or particularly relevant, which IMO isn't the case. Rosbif73 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Not notable, but I'd argue he is relevant. We do discuss him in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Change "business magnate" to "business magnet" as requested by the man himself.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Kto4fAHdh7M?feature=share Manderhouse (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please review the FAQ at the top of this page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 22:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)