Talk:Elon Musk

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Can I write a message to Elon Musk here? (No.)

A1: No. The "Talk:Elon Musk" page is not for writing messages to Musk. It is only for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article about him. Writing a message to Musk here is pointless and disruptive, and such messages will be removed as an improper use of the page.

Q2: Can you update the article to call Musk a "business magnet"? (No.)

A2: No. Musk once suggested in an interview that his Wikipedia article be changed to describe him as a "business magnet" rather than a magnate. The tone of that interview was not very serious; he also claimed to be an alien. Wikipedia doesn't have to do what Musk says, and this request has been made and declined dozens of times already. New requests may be removed without a response so that other discussions are not disrupted.

Q3: Should Musk be identified as South African in the opening sentence?

A3: Musk is a US citizen (since 2002) born and raised in South Africa, and also acquired Canadian citizenship via his mother. Including these nationalities in the opening sentence in a balanced way would be complex, and the consensus is that they should instead be explained later in the lead.

Q4: Can you change "Tesla CEO" to "Tesla Technoking"?

A4: No, because he is still CEO according to company records and that is a common corporate title that readers will understand, unlike "Technoking". The goal of the article is to inform people, which would be hindered by raising a confusing technicality.

Q5: Should the mention of Errol Musk having an interest in an emerald mine be removed in view of Elon's denials?

A5: While Elon today vehemently disputes any history with an emerald mine, he formerly accepted and even confirmed it. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon. Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of emeralds from his dealings.

Q6: Should "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" be "Bachelor of Science" instead?

A6: No. Although it may seem counterintuitive, "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" is the degree that the University of Pennsylvania (among other schools) awards.

Q7: Should the article acknowledge doubts about Musk's academic record?

A7: Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons requires that negative information about a person must be attributed to reliable published sources, and excludes both self-published sources (e.g. Twitter threads) and court trial records. The article states that sources disagree about when Musk obtained bachelor degrees, and that he did not attend Stanford for any significant amount of time. Any doubts beyond this require appropriate sources.

Q8: Why doesn't this article describe Musk as an engineer?

A8: Musk is chief engineer of SpaceX, a title that applies within the company and that the press regularly mentions. He is not a professional engineer, a distinction within engineering that carries certain legal privileges in the United States, nor has he completed an engineering training program, nor has he ever been hired as an engineer. The article therefore does not include any of these claims. It does note that, from time to time, Musk has made initial product proposals at his companies that his trained engineers then research and develop. He does hold IEEE Honorary Membership.

Q9: Why doesn't the article identify Musk as co-founder of PayPal?

A9: Because that could mislead readers that Musk was involved in the creation of the PayPal service and brand, when he was not. Instead, as the article states, he co-founded a company (X.com Corporation) that acquired the company that had developed PayPal (Confinity Inc.) and then renamed itself as PayPal, Inc.

Q10: Why does this page include criticism of Musk's actions and stances?

A10: Musk is criticized/praised a lot in many reliable sources, and as such we need to talk about these criticisms and praise. To quote from Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Q11: Why is this a "good article" when some people consider Musk a bad person?

A11: "Good article" on Wikipedia refers to the way the article is written, not what kind of person Musk is. Good articles have been found to satisfy Wikipedia editorial standards for accuracy, verifiability and balanced presentation.

Q12: Why doesn't this page call Musk African American?

A12: African Americans are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Reliable sources do not use this term to describe Musk.

References

Lead improvements

User:HAL333 I had posted my proposal here, and I have gained consensus. What do you want from me? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want us to discuss, develop a consensus, and most of all be civil. I'm all for improving the lead, just in a coherent and consensus-supported manner. ~ HAL333 04:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, please give feedback instead of just reverting. I think that the revised lead is good enough to replace the old lead, but we can have a chat together and make it better :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, the current lead is somewhat of a mix of the status quo and your proposal. Could you make a bullet point list of what you want to change and we can discuss each one? ~ HAL333 05:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to make the lead more compact at Elon companies and mention public perception about Elon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for concision in the third paragraph as long as it still covers the basics. For example:

• Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.) --> Tesla
• eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008 --> becoming CEO in 2008
• I would also be fine removing the hyperloop mention from the lead. He didn't invent the concept or coin the term: he just talked about a lot in the early 2010s and never did anything with it.

In my opinion, the fourth paragraph already gives weight to the public recognition section, but my ears are open. ~ HAL333 06:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, here it goes:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. As a result, he is a highly polarizing figure, being admired and detested by the public. He has also been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk for tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, which the SEC described as false. Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333, @QRep2020, is the lead ok now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph here looks good except for:

• "that was later acquired by Tesla" -- > Let's remove "later". It's redundant.
• Let's put also before "the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation" for flow.

The second paragraph has some issues:

• "As a result" : he is not polarizing just because of his statements. That's undue weight and just false. The current Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a highly polarizing figure. does it fine imo
• "being admired and detested by the public" should be cut. It's redundant and repetitive. That's what "polarizing" means: some people like him and some don't.
• "and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue" should not be lumped with "unscientific and misleading statements". There's nothing scientific about it. Calling somebody a pedo is a different thing from Musk spouting random crap on Twitter to grab headlines. Also why remove the mention of the submarine fiasco? That needs to be given weight.
• "which the SEC described as false" is wordy fluff. Just say "falsely tweeting" or nothing at all.

That's all. ~ HAL333 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I admit the fourth paragraph isn't ideal and might be missing a few things. A little clunky. When I have the time, I'll propose a revised one. ~ HAL333 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"falsely tweeting" as the tweet was indeed false. QRep2020 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all of your suggestions, so the revised lead would be:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is also the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. He is a highly polarizing figure and has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation and tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. The false Tesla takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to force Musk stepped down temporarily as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. He has also been involved in a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. (I don't know how to add the submarine part)

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed the part about the cave rescue from the last paragraph. It seems sort of out of place for that section and minor compared to everything else in that section. --Malerooster (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  George Floyd is a controversial figure but is not polarizing for the vast majority of people (the internet will tell you otherwise). However, Elon is both controversal and polarizing as there is vastly different views of him, swinging between admiration and detest. So I actually think we should keep "polarizing" and remove "controversal". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

One or the other ought to be removed, User:CactiStaccingCrane. “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” That would be fine, and implies the statements have been controversial. Alternatively: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This matter was brought up in another part of the Talk page already. No need to multiply discussions. 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved that other section to here as a subsection👇. These two proposals were not discussed in that other section:

• [A] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.”
• [B] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.”
  

Either one is fine with me. Both versions comply with WP:LABEL and avoid redundancy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I prefer A because it is shorter and more direct. B is also fine for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked, Slatersteven and myself took issue with such changes. Therefore, the discussion is ongoing and the latest edit is unwarranted.

If forced to, I could see B working. QRep2020 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’d be glad to change it to option [B] which seems to have unanimous approval. The two options were proposed at 23:12 on 10 December, and I’m not aware such changes were presented earlier than that. In any event, it seems important that we not transgress WP:LABEL, and also not beat the reader over the head by saying stuff that is already implied. Option [A] seems better because it doesn’t slap a label on him, but option [B] would still be an improvement. Per WP:LABEL, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

HAL, the discussion about polarity is over here now apparently. QRep2020 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it can be generalized as HAL333 hints "Musk took business actions and made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect." I'm not sure. The business actions that have caused polarization is mostly due to their political aspects anyway. In any regards, the number of contentious labels should be reduced Jatlin1 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Or

"Musk has made polarizing statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, along with his business actions [or business decision]"

Hmmmm. Jatlin1 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose both and think the status quo: Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. is the way to go. Musk is not polarizing simply because of statements. His actions have irked a lot of people as well. ~ HAL333 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Have you seen mine? We can still reduce it and say the same. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Second. QRep2020 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent sentence of BLP policy

The last paragraph of the lead says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” The propriety of this wording has been discussed at this talk page, but I would just like to also bring attention to this sentence of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” In my view, the sentence in the last paragraph of the lead violates this part of our BLP policy. The problem could be easily fixed by writing instead: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” Also keep in mind WP:LABEL. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. Because even if Elon Musk is a polarizing figure, he is also something else. You might say, yes, the lead calls him CEO, founder, etc., etc., but these are all formal roles. "Polarizing" in the phrase "polarizing figure" says or suggests something about his psychology, but the notion that his psychology is defined by one trait, or overwhelmingly defined by one trait such that no other trait deserves to be in the lead, is completely absurd, and breaks at least with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Jatlin1 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It says nothing about his psychology. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

But suggests, yeah, at least Jatlin1 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to insert in-line attribution for the statement in the lead about being polarizing, but was reverted.[1] In-line attribution wouldn’t solve the problem, but would ameliorate it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, because it's not necessary. Gain talk page consensus and stop edit warring. ~ HAL333 22:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

For one, it is not only Vance:

https://dalquestnews.org/22614/commentary/opinion-why-is-elon-musk-so-polarizing/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/30/elon-musk-twitter-polarizing-conservatives-liberals/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2022/11/23/can-psychological-research-help-us-understand-elon-musks-polarizing-brand-of-leadership/

22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, your first source is explicitly labeled commentary and opinion. Your third source is a medical opinion of a psychologist who has evidently never met Musk, and moreover it does not use the redundant combination about being controversial and polarizing too (same for your second source). We cite a Washington Post article that says this:

“ He just decided to let much more of his personality loose on Twitter,” said Vance of Musk, “and to embrace this role as part philosopher, part troll.” “I think that’s complicated his life and complicated the stories around the businesses pretty dramatically,” Vance adds. “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.” ”

The last paragraph of the lead says the tweets have been controversial, and it also says they’re polarizing. This is redundant overkill. Moreover, we say he’s a polarizing figure in a general sense, whereas the cited source only suggests he’s a polarizing figure on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck, or rather if it picks cherries like a Turdus pilaris

You're cherry-picking a single source to support this weird slant. Check out the list of reliable sources above. ~ HAL333 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your corncerns, @HAL333

You have, frankly, misunderstood WP:CHERRYPICK

In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.

By the way, we can't break WP:SYN Jatlin1 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the clarity Johnnie Cochran, but I was using "cherry-picking" as a word and not in reference to the policy, hence why it wasn't linked. ~ HAL333 02:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:HAL333, you seriously think the long blockquote in my last comment was cherry-picking? The body of this BLP only mentions “polarizing” once, when it says “Musk was described by Vance as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’.[448]” Therefore I quoted at length (not a snippet) from footnote 448. That seems like pretty much the opposite of cherry-picking. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that Musk is polarizing is implicitly stated throughout the article beyond Vance saying it outright. What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? And you are cherry picking if you're trying to refute that RS say Musk is polarizing when we have a whole basket of sources above. ~ HAL333 04:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? Controversial. So why are we being redundant in the lead, User:HAL333? We’re also over-generalizing, as the cited WaPo article says he’s a “polarizing internet provocateur” rather than polarizing in other contexts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying a controversial thing and being controversial yourself are two separate things. Clarity has never done a human harm. ~ HAL333 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizing

The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not synonymous, I can say something controversial and if everyone but me thinks it's controversial it's not polarizing, as everyone agrees. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I still don’t get why this is lead-worthy. The only support for it in the article body is this sentence: “Celebrated by his fans and hated by critics, Ashlee Vance described him as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’”. So someone named Ashlee Vance says he’s polarizing, and we can just say so in wikivoice in the lead? That doesn’t make sense. Also, I would appreciate an example of a situation where he’s said something polarizing but not controversial, or vice-versa. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We also have [[2]] and [[3]]. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, controversies are almost always polarizing. Your first link says that Musk's buyout of Twitter was polarizing. Other reliable sources say the buyout was controversial. If there is any difference in meaning there, it is not sufficiently great for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To add on: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". It's entirely due. ~ HAL333 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't we too short it down to "polarizing statements"? Or that's too contrived perhaps. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this reply, HAL.

The Talk page is a convoluted mess right now. What can we do to streamline? QRep2020 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I love how every source you linked calls him that after he bought Twitter. But still none of the sources use the redundant wording Jatlin1 (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The wording is not redundant. Slatersteven explained this already. QRep2020 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And I already explained him why that is redundant Jatlin1 (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree in that sense that there is some redundancy issue here. I'm not sure about in which way it should be reduced, but there is a redundancy issue, yeah. Your suggestion is better than status quo, definitely. - Copenhagen University IP [[Special:Contributions/130.2

We should keep both. ~ HAL333 03:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we want to make such pronouncements in the lead of a biography of a living person in the voice of Wikipedia, without attributing it to a source. IMO, it looks quite distasteful and not in the style of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man. ~ HAL333 04:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Counts just as much as your opinion, User:HAL333. You also seem to have a misunderstanding about consensus in a BLP. Per WP:BLP (emphasis added), “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. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” Please read that last sentence closely. You too User:QRep2020. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and we have consensus. ~ HAL333 05:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there previous consensus? Or just this discussion and the one below?

If it's just here, I think there's consensus to say he made polarising statements, but labelling him polarising in Wikivoice, based on apparently just 5 sources, is quite flimsy. (I'm deliberately ignoring the Psychology Today piece about polarising leadership style & Bloomberg about a polarising mission, which do not support a statement about him personally) DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

I started a section about this at the BLP Noticeboard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace "highly polazring" with "highly discussed" and remove extremely trivial story

Change "[...] is a highly polarizing figure" to "[...] a highly debated figure".

Why? What constitutes a "highly polarizing figure" is very subjective and is not based on any sources. It might also be problematic because any person who is heavily involved in the process of reforming the world in a way that is subject to a political discussion, which Elon Musk indeed is, can be labeled as a "highly polarizing figure".

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

Why? The fact that a person with one of the largest numbers of followers in the entire world and who is the richest person in the entire world - for example, 86 million followers on Twitter at the time - publicly criticizes a person and that at least 2 followers (=some followers) out of all those followers take that as an opportunity to post aggressive utterances is extremely, extremely trivial - trivial to an extent that you wouldn't expect anything else. If it had caused severe death threats, and Gadde had filed lawsuits (and eventually had won those lawsuits), it would have been a different story, put in another way, if she had been victim of criminal actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Because RS say it? Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is RS, by the way? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"I am unsure its already not overloaded, this (after all) is an article about him, Twitter is one recent acquisition. Nor am I sure what this new material tells us about him, as a person. "

Do you think this reasoning can be applied to "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" as well? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would argue saying he has "86 million followers on Twitter" is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that 43 million followers on Twitter are trivial or that the richest man in the world doesn't have a large following, frankly. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We know that he's rich and he has lots of followers who aren't bots. We also know that reliable sources call him "polarizing", even in the headlines.[5][6] "Highly debated" is much weaker language. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, I replied on myself by accident below. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Another problem about the extremely trivial story is that it doesn't even relate to Elon Musk's biography. It doesn't even relate to the content of Elon Musk's tweet.

If something as trivial should be inserted, it should at least relate to Elon Musk's biography. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

But the evidence still lack though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked further into it. Even New York Times prefers to sum the situation up with the subtitle

"In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage"

So the source has not even been used properly, instead very specific details about the situation have been highlighted,

but what shall be highlighted shall ofc. be the general about the situation that is the outrage. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternative use outrage or verbal harassment instead of "sexist" and "racist" -

It is also worth noting that the source used to back up "which lead to ..." is from New York Times a left-leaning paper which makes it even more problematic

since these words "racist" and "sexist" tend to be buzzwords on the left. Scrolling down this wall https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1518664847768006656

which I believe to be the Twitter in question, it isn't my impression that there is any tendency of racism or sexism, but more like "bullying", "rage", "verbal harassment", "trolls", etc. Considering that Elon Musk's tweet didn't contain any sexist or racist content, it doesn't make sense to use these words in this context.

I talked about how this isn't relevant to Elon Musk or Elon Musk's critique in any way, but if he indeed is a polarizing figure,

then words such as outrage would fit better. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, wrong replied to the wrong person again, but I would like you to check my post "I have looked further into it ..."

The source isn't even used properly. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it can be formulated in many ways too.

A right-winger would probably prefer something alike

It led to "more people being open about their critique/opposition"

It "inspired more people to come forward and criticize ..."

All these formulations are true as well, but we have to pick the one that is most general.

The problem about words as "racist" and "sexist" is that they frame Elon Musk as "someone" who inspires racism/sexism which doesn't make sense considering his tweets was not about that.

I think creating outrage directed toward Gadde (formulated in a better way - my English sucks) is definitely the most neutral. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to source 14.

But I can see the gap in the level of trust between Democrats and Republicans was larger before Elon Musk took over - now it is more equal.

I would see that as polarization has reduced. But it depends on how it is defined.

But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!

It is worth pointing out that Elon Musk has just taken over Twitter, fired numerous people, and is in the process of trying to reorganize the entire organization.

We cannot in any way say that this is indicative of how it is gonna be in the long term. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!"

I must correct myself here. Maybe not, because this is a biography, not a social science article or anything alike, so the definition should rather fit the one we use in natural language (descriptive definitions, for example, definitions in Oxford Dictionary). 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

highly discussed is better though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can go with polarizing figure without highly. Degree adverbs along with attitude adverbs, etc., tend to be inappropriate for neutral articles. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I got you wrong about triviality! Yeah, we should probably reformulate "[..] to his 86 million followers" in a more cautious way. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree against both recommendations. QRep2020 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. But I would really like to hear your inputs on

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

if you have some 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely agree to removing "highly" as unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose both, but fine with removing "polarizing highly". ~ HAL333 07:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, that is what I have done. The polarization criticism is referenced, but should not be made written about his person, in the voice of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I like those changes. Eruditess (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

"[...] and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

I guess this is a very uncontroversial suggestion. Fact of matter is that Adolf Hitler analogies are extremely common on every political party. If we wanna have an insight into Elon Musk's views, we need to understand how he uses the analogy. So insert something like this "comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler in the light of Canada convoy protest". - Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not the first time I have seen you break neutrality policy. Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cut it out with the aspersions bud. ~ HAL333 22:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's uncivil and if you continue to do so I will bring you to the Great Dismal Swamp. ~ HAL333 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, was this edit ever brought to the talk page? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. It was a revert to the status quo, which was agreed upon in a compromise. Visit the archives. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is my account. Nope, it was never agreed on. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is one hand. So what?

Consult the archives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_13 QRep2020 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

He voiced support for the 2022 Canada convoy protest and was criticized for comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. ~ HAL333 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah? Jatlin1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If not, we could perhaps talk about it? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hitler comparisons don't actually come out often from the mouths of prominent people, and Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League often object to their usage as trivializing the Holocaust. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"[...] Shortly thereafter, Musk announced that SpaceX could no longer supply Ukraine [...]"

The combination of those two sentences are very critical

"It was reported that Musk allegedly spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin prior to the proposal, which Musk denied.[352][353][354][355] Shortly thereafter, Musk announced that SpaceX could no longer supply Ukraine with Starlink satellite units at its own expense,[105] but he reversed his stance a day later.[356]"

It is written in such a way that it suggests that Elon Musk stopped supplying Ukraine with Starlink satellite units because of Putin. The source tells an entirely different story: "Musk on Friday said that in asking the Pentagon to pick up the bill for Starlink in Ukraine, he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who responded to Musk’s Ukraine peace plan earlier this month, before the letter was sent to the Pentagon, with: “F*** off.” "

Obviously, this shall be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.130 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's actually terribly written. It's not even clear whether Elon Musk announced that he would stop the supply, just after talking with Putin, or just after the critique of the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• REPLY TO THE COMMENT BELOW ME(=IP 130.225.188.130) SINCE I CAN'T REPLY TO IT SOMEHOW

Alright. But we have to make it clear whether it was after talking with Putin or after the critique. We also have to include Elon Musk's own reason. Once again the Wikipedia article suffers from bias issues. It depicts him as he is sensitive to critique. That might be true, but we also have to cover that he was told to fuck off, and that is actually what he uses to explain his motivation behind his descision. We can't just assume that Elon Musk is lying. That's bias. But at the other hand, we also have to make it clear that the proposal was in general met with critique such that the reader can make his own opinion on the question "Was it because he felt mocked or is he just too sensitive to critique"? 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We say Musk denied it, and plenty of RS cover it. Nor do we say he did, it say it was claimed he did. 10:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We do we said musk denied it, we include his response. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I might mix stuff now. I talk about that Elon Musk's motivation behind stopping the financing of the satelitte units have to be included too. He expresses his motivation in a tweet that has widely been covered by reliable sources too https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As I recall that came after the Uklrianian's response to his statement. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean his statement on withdrawal of Ukranian satelittes? Nope.

https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768?lang=en 3. October. He announced his withdrawal the 14. october. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I will not question whether the hypothetical conversation between him and Putin should stay there.

But we have to make it clear that he announced his withdrawal of satelitte units after the backlash of the proposal, not before the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So he announced this because a Ukrainian official told him to fuck off, that is what you want us to say? And why did the Ukirians official say that? would we not also have to include that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 Yes, but it is a hint too that fits into the situation. He wasn't just met with critique, but anger https://time.com/6219480/elon-musk-ukraine/ - I'm pretty sure that is covered in many reliable sources. He points at this anger and somewhat hints "if you don't respect me then ...". That is my interpretation. But it is not my interpretation that he refers to the anger in his motivation behind his reason, that is Elon Musk himself.

Ofc. we can include the motivation behind the Ukranian official. But I'm pretty convinced he is just responding to his peace proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It might not be necessary to include his apparent motivation directly. But we can't just say "after the critique" ... We have to include "After critique and outrage ...". It wasn't just critique. Many reliable sources confirm this, and Elon Musk confirms that in his motivation behind the descision. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

But I have has my say, time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a very simple edit which makes it more clear. We don't have to state Elon Musk's motivation directly.

Replace "Shortly thereafter" with "Shortly after the condemnation to his proposal".

Replace "which was criticized by Ukrainian officials" with "which was condemned by Ukrainian officials with one of the officials telling him to 'fuck off' "

Makes it more clear. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Something like that. My english is not too good. It can also be more elaborate. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that reliable sources do not link Musk's peace proposal or his later announcement about discontinuing Starlink's services in Ukraine, with the Starlink outages that occurred around the same time. According to the Financial Times and other reliable sources, there were other reasons for the outages [7], so the current text looks like OR, or unbalanced. I recently tried separating the peace plan proposal from the issue, by moving the former to the Views and Twitter section, leaving the latter two in the Politics section [8]. I hope HAL333 and Slatersteven understand my reasoning now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That was not the reason you stated, it was we needed to put his view. Are you now saying this is wp:synthases? Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand the context properly since I have had limited time to look at the previous talk pages. I didn't talk about the outages here, but, yea, that context about the outages also completely misses. There is a lot of contexts that misses here, and some of the information is misleading too, for example, how the backlash of his proposal just gets reduced to "critique". The context that doesn't miss here is, strangely, some very hypothetical conversation between Putin and him where we have no idea what they could have talked about either, that subtly and misleadingly can being readen (by readers) as the entire, only, or main reason why he had an interest in this withdrawal - which is not balanced in any way and actually propagandist, lol. It has to be rewritten Slatersteven Jatlin1 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, because the issue of expensiveness comes from the outages, but the Wikipedia article doesn't even talk about that - it just mentions the expensiveness (but uses a source that elaborates on that, yeah). The WK article says nothing. It even makes it look like he just didn't bother with the expenses any longer. The paragraph is terribly non-neutral, unbalanced, misleading, ambiguous, etc. It should definitely be rewritten. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The entire sentence "Musk's statements have provoked controversy [...]" is not backed up by any sources

Not backed up by any source. I have checked the two first sources and the third one for the two statements respectively. None of those articles refer to his statements as being a cause of controversy. The second statement (about the Canada convoy) is not just backed up in that way that the statement isn't characterized as cause to a controversy, the statement itself is not anywhere to find in the article! You might subjectively interpret the first statement as a controversy, but that's not allowed, and even if it seemingly is intuitively self-evident (which I don't agree with at all), it isn't allowed because the sources lose its reliability on this matter because that would suggest that many think it [Elon Musk's idea/opinion] is a bad idea according to Oxford Dictionary, but that statement is within the expertise of a polling institute (or something alike) because it deals with numbers. It's also a contentious label. Rewrite the bullshit. Ofc. this Wikipedia article information is also from 2022, lol.

EDIT: I have looked more into it. The story was written "elaborately" and sourced as well back in times: "In February 2022, apparently supporting the convoy protesters, Musk tweeted and later deleted a meme comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler." Later an activist shorted it down to Elon Musk comparing Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler without the context, and the source (a Reuters article) was also replaced with another Reuters article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlin1 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced in the body. ~ HAL333 21:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."

WP:RS ? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is sourced in the body, it does not need to be sourced in the lead paragraphs. Perhaps consult WP:MOS more closely. QRep2020 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You link me a page dealing with WK policy, yet "Sourced in the body" isn't a term in the WK policy, please elaborate, instead of creating your own private language.

If I understand it correct, it is implicitly justified considering the entire context. Contentious labels are definitely not justified in the body. That's even directly said in MOS:LABEL "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Jatlin1 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Body" is the term and it is used many times in WP:MOSLAYOUT. The specifics of citation use in the lead are available at MOS:LEADCITE.

And the sources cited in the body of the article certainly establish the existence of controversies surrounding the man. QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They need to connect controversies to the statements in question. Especially when they are contentious labels.

By the way,

Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Jatlin1 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would not describe what you are doing as a challenge. Regardless, there was a recent Talk discussion about the sentence where the consensus was that the current wording is fine. QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Go check out Donald Trump -- no source is required in the lead to support that he has made racist/racially charged statements. ~ HAL333 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not a statement about Donald Trump or label on Donald Trump, it's a statement that some people (where the subject some people is hidden away via the passive verb have been) have characterized many of his comments as racially charged, etc. That's indeed a more considerable way actually. It's also different because the sentence is general and don't refer to specific events. Anyway, why do you not have sourcing for statement 2? Elon Musk never said that according to the source in question. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is full of well-verified controversy. "Have provoked controversy" is actually the understatement of the year. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so the entire article fails the WP:NPOV? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? ~ HAL333 22:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Jatlin1, you seem to have missed the "well-verified" part. I'm going to repeat some of the things that were said here, and I'll add a note or two for your and our benefit. First, citations in the lead are not necessary, but the lead should summarize well-verified material. Second, unsourced "controversy" isn't immediately a matter of POV; it's first of all a matter of being unverified, so if I'm reading your misreading correctly, you pointed at the wrong problem. Third, "have been" is not a "passive verb" (there is no "passive verb" in English, and "have been" is two verbs), but I understand what you mean; however, the lead should summarize, and if the material in the article is well-verified and properly ascribed, there is no problem with such a summary. The sentence is general: yes it, because it is the lead.

Since I left my note for you, a few hours ago, you made a dozen edits, and two editors had to come by and explain things to you. That's what I was pointing at on your talk page. Please be advised that uninvolved administrators (such as myself) have a variety of tools at our disposal to prevent or stop disruption on this and other such articles--the notification on your talk page, which you removed, provided valuable information about those tools. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your contribution. I can't find the term "well-verified" in the WP:G sorry. I have never questioned whether citations in leads are necessary or not. Second, I'm not sure about which "unsourced pov" you refer to. True, passive voice, I forgot the third verb characterized. Okay, the lead shall summarize, cool. I was not talking about the lead, but the first paragraph in Personal views and Twitter usage section.

Anyway, the inline-citation source does not back up the Adolf Hitler comparison story. Jatlin1 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No longer the wealthiest person in the world

Forbes now lists Bernard Arnault as the richest, with Musk falling to second place.[9] — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would let it sit for a few days as the Tesla stock price is volatile. QRep2020 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Why when it is presently inaccurate information? Bernard Arnault's page lists him as the richest person right now, so as of this moment there is conflicting information on wikipedia. Potatohead2000 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree here; as long as both lists are in agreement for the top rankings, the page should be updated as the information is available as this is often important to one's status and it doesn't hurt to stay on top of the data. Is there some policy against this? I like the version of the lead from here as a concise way to display the current standings as they are. BhamBoi (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WHy we should not include Newsy content, it changes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is why we used to say "A centibillionaire, Musk is one of the richest people in the world." We really shouldn't have something that changes every day, every hour. To a certain degree, these net worth claims are just somewhat arbitrary estimates. ~ HAL333 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m in favour of restoring this phrasing (although change richest to wealthiest). Perhaps we should ask other editors? Asperthrow (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Schierbecker (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wealthiest" is an improvement. ~ HAL333 21:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Per my now-reverted edit: We think that the second he's no longer the richest person in the world, the information of his estimated net worth suddenly becomes irrelevant? Almost every other billionaire in the top ten has a net worth listed in their leads (an estimation per both--or either--Forbes and Bloomberg), but Musk, now the second-richest person, shouldn't have that same information listed? It's ridiculous. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Almost every billionaire has it in their lead. If you're going to take it off of here, go take it off all the others, Gautam Adani, Bernard Arnault, etc... it's not that big of a deal Nswix (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll even take it a step further: Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffett, Ellison, Balmer, Page, Ambani, literally all of them have net worths listed in their leads. lol. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And they shouldn't. I'll open a community-wide RfC if need be. But, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's an irrelevant argument. ~ HAL333 01:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The net worth estimate is constantly changing and is highly volatile (violating MOS:DATED). Thus, we will never be able to give readers an instantly accurate number. Wikipedis is not news. The exact value isn't notable. The reader doesn't care if Musk is worth $185 billion or $197 billion. The difference is arbitrary. What's notable is that Musk has a lot of frigging money (hence centibillionaire). Furthermore, Forbes and Bloomberg are in constant disagreement as to the exact value of his net worth. As of this writing, Forbes claims it $176 billion and Bloomberg claims its $164 billion. That’s a pathetically imprecise $10 billion difference. We cannot claim to know the true value to any degree of uncertainty and to do so is misleading to the reader. Choosing one over the other is ultimately arbitrary and violates NPOV. Let's leave the nitty gritty for the "Wealth" subsection, and grive the reader a summary in the lead. ~ HAL333 01:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that our colleague Britannica avoids doing this, the community-wide consensus on net worth values in IBs may also be of interest. ~ HAL333 01:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk as Chief Engineer of SpaceX

There doesn’t seem to be any source for this claim. I only see articles that refer to him as CEO/CTO of Space Exploration Technologies. DMonitor (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's in the Atlantic article. ~ HAL333 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Jet

@Slatersteven:@Jatlin1: I am not sure how aware you are of the account ElonJet and its significance. It has been covered by national news media for years, sometimes several times in a row, and has been a personal target of Elon Musk since its creation. The account belongs in the mention about Musk's jet as it is intensely notable for tracking the jet's movements. As well, the account has a high degree of secondary notability for its relations to sustainability, freedom of speech, and how Musk has handled his new Twitter ownership. Any attempt to remove this oversight reads as a whitewash effort in line with Musk's own to ban the account. ɱ (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly notable and due. ~ HAL333 03:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What about mention of Musk's promise NOT to ban the account?

Also highly relevant, and probably worthy of inclusion:

In November 2022, after Musk bought Twitter, he said: "My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk". Quoted from the Jack Sweeney article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

In 2003, Musk said his favorite plane he owned was an L-39 Albatros. He uses a private jet owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a SpaceX-linked company, and acquired a second jet in August 2020. The jet's heavy use of fossil fuels—it flew over 150,000 miles in 2018—has received criticism. His flight usage is tracked on social media through ElonJet. The Twitter iteration of the account was blocked in December 2022.

It's not about whitewashing efforts, it's about putting the information in the right place. This entire paragraph doesn't fit into "wealth". Put it somewhere else. This information lacks tons of context too which you amusingly even point out yourself - you mention free speech, how Elon Musk has handled his new Twitter ownership, etc., yet this context isn't to be found anywhere. I still think the Twitter policies are on its way to be settled, etc., and we don't know what's really up and down before 2023 on this matter. But if you really want to include it, then cover the context properly. Jatlin1 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

None of these are valid reasons to remove the content. If you disagree with the location, move it, add more context, or take it to talk. I agree more context could be relevant in this page, even if most of it is already covered over at ElonJet. And it is relevant to multiple portions of this article, from leadership of Twitter to personal wealth through his airplane usage, to his general controversies and criticisms. We can't list this in all those places, so we have to choose the most relevant area. For me, that was the area that already talked about his jet. ɱ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially the supposed "free speech" claims by Musk. Important for the record on many fronts. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. But we have to cover it in its entirety. For example the unbans of the scientists who were critical of the lockdowns (many of which who signed https://gbdeclaration.org/) and the unbans of conservative voices is also an important subject that tell us about how Elon Musk look on free speech. He has also talked about deamplifying negativity just like the former Twitter organization somewhat did on hate speech, but in contrast he says he will make it transparent, though he hasn't proved that yet - we will have to wait til 2023. His views on doxxxing and impersonating are also important, but question is also whether these policies weren't already in place before he took over Twitter? My impression is that impersonation policies were already in place, but not doxxxing, that's actually something new he introduced. He did break his promise indeed, but we also have to include the context of how his family was stalked which led to the final decision. Jatlin1 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You should probably start a new thread to discuss these other issues. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a clear violation of WP:PROPORTION Jatlin1 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see what this tells us about Musk. If the suggestion is "it tells us about his hypocrisy" then let's reword it to be about this, not one spat. But I do not see the relevance of just his dispute with one user on Twitter. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and if it is about hypocrisy which is the about the entire Twitter+free speech debate then the subject should be covered properly such that we don't violate WP:PROPORTION . And it shouldn't be covered under "wealth" lol. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If anything this is really about Twitter, so should have a paragraph there with one sentence (here) linking to it. Something like "and after his claim of protecting free speech musk was accused of hypocrisy (link to twitter article section)". Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Some news this morning for assessment: Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Or here. BBC has a far better reputation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061

And to adress WP:BALASP, the content of this article should be covered too

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63963779 Jatlin1 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Excessive subsections

@Country20: please discuss and gain consensus. Why are you adding dozens of subsections? ~ HAL333 14:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I deleted them...I thought it was more organized. Why did you delete my sourced content? Country20 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's poorly written, the sources are subpar, and there are potential BLP vios. The subsections don't make it more organized - if anything it's more cluttered. ~ HAL333 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

I suggest the following paragraph be added under media appearances.

"Musk made a brief appearance at a Dave Chappelle show in San Francisco,California."

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/dave-chappelle-booing-elon-musk-fans-react-twitter-1234646236/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221214235358/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/dave-chappelle-booing-elon-musk-fans-react-twitter-1234646236/ (archived) Publicerination (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that it's of lasting significance. ~ HAL333 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk and his relationship with journalists covering him and his enterprises

I would like to propose a new subsection under Personal views and Twitter usage that expounds on Musk's history with journalists, especially ones who have either praised him or criticized him. Source material could include the following:

• https://slate.com/business/2018/07/elon-musks-attacks-on-reporter-linette-lopez-need-to-stop.html
• https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/kara-swisher-elon-musk-interview.html
• https://www.inverse.com/article/45319-elon-musk-erin-biba-daily-beast-twitter
• https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-dac21de7abb6167bb604f5317aeda10a

All (well-mannered and judicious) thoughts appreciated. QRep2020 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As this seems to be also discussed under Jet, it will get a bit confusing to also discuss it here as well. Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

But it extends way before and beyond ElonJet. QRep2020 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it's due to have a section solely for this, but I would be fine with interspersing (some of) the content throughout other sections. The Twitter stuff should go with Twitter, and we should also move the ElonJet fiasco there (something I wanted to do but decided not due to the edit war.). ~ HAL333 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just add a general new section as part of the timeline, called "2022 and his descent into madness"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say that this is not the article on Caligula, but then...General Ization ^Talk 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You said it, not me! QRep2020 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Could link to the Thursday Night Massacre article, which covers recent suspension of journalists from Twitter. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

LADD and his son info

I added the following on it, seeking consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1127860528&oldid=1127859361&diffmode=source Valery Zapolodov (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Not found. You presented hearsay as fact. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I concur. ~ HAL333 02:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Here is a source about his LADD blacklisted plane. https://www.protocol.com/elon-musk-flight-tracker Why are you hiding this info? Also stop pinging my home page. I though I opted out of your spam. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Not even Elon's tweet claimed his son was "attacked". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Please read WP:ONUS. ~ HAL333 02:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• So, the original edit didn't make the claim ("his son was attacked"), nor does the link here. I have blocked Valery Zapolodov for a blatant violation of the BLP: misrepresentation of what is in the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The source they cited did use the word "attacked". But it looks like a bad source blowing things out of proportion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Muboshgu, the car, not the child... So if the bad source already blew something out of proportion, this user blew it up even more. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

      It's Terminology Time!

      assault, n. 1. Criminal & tort law... [T]he act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery.

      Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed. -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

      Okay, but this editor didn't use "assaulted". He used "attacked". Here's the learner's dictionary entry for that one. ~ HAL333 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

      Your reply links to "Definition of attack noun". The original edit and source used it as a verb. It means

      • to set upon or work against forcefully
      • assail especially with force and weapons
      • assault

    See Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (or the Collegiate). -Dervorguilla (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC) 00:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  Muboshgu's comment erroneously treats Sky News as "a bad source". Wikipedia generally treats it as a respected mainstream publication. (Cf. RSPSOURCES.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Dear admins, please for the love of God give this article extended confirmed protection. Just look at the chaos in the revision history. It's going to give me an aneurysm. ~ HAL333 03:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

    Second. QRep2020 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Tengoritmo (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider adding "South African" in the first sentence? So sorry if this discussion has already happened before and has already been voted on.

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RealAspects (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)