Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
tesla factory and the connection to startups, etc. i dont know if hes also important in la itself
No edit summary
Line 32: Line 32:
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}




===Condensing===
===Condensing===
Line 310: Line 312:


Looks like Musk is going to donate money to help with the Tesla museum championed by [[The Oatmeal]]. I know little about the topic, but page followers might know more and are able to add it to the article. See [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154186859065078&set=a.10150413121115078.628758.220779885077&type=1 1] and [http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s2 2]. [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] ([[User talk:EvergreenFir|talk]]) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Looks like Musk is going to donate money to help with the Tesla museum championed by [[The Oatmeal]]. I know little about the topic, but page followers might know more and are able to add it to the article. See [https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154186859065078&set=a.10150413121115078.628758.220779885077&type=1 1] and [http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s2 2]. [[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] ([[User talk:EvergreenFir|talk]]) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)



==Education==

Why has Stanford been put under alma mater?
He did not graduate from there, and attended for literally less than 48hrs, it is hardly noteworthy enough to be included on top of already being included in the early life section.

Revision as of 20:23, 19 July 2014



Condensing

I think the 'Interest's' section could be moved into the 'personal life' section, with the exception of Iron Man 2 SpaceX filming which can be moved into the 'SpaceX' section.

Dirac740 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Founding

Ongoing Debate As of April 2014

There is unresolved contention on this issue related to Tesla and PayPal. I believe Musk is a founder of both and make that case below. Looking at the London proxy server edits, I think there may be unreasonable contention to come. We'll see. I also see reasonable, credible editors who believe he is not a founder of either.

Disclaimer: I joined this debate yesterday as anonymous poster 67.165.115.254. Registered this morning to pursue the debate as a registered user.

Here is my case for why we should consider Musk to be a founder of both Tesla and PayPal:

  • Tesla: I previously referenced the cnet article ([1]) that was published after the Eberhard lawsuit. In that article all five founders agreed to founding status for each.
  • PayPal: As I note below Musk founded x.com which had the rights to the name PayPal and changed it's name to PayPal. Eric, I believe in good faith, below asserts that this indicates he was not a founder of PayPal. I believe this indicates the opposite. PayPal today was born as an amalgam of several companies. We still think of Warren Buffet as the founder of Berkshire Hathaway. That the company existed prior to his takeover is irrelevant. The company he built in that name is all him. I believe PayPal shows the same level of ownership/founding from Musk.
  • Good Faith This morning @ ~11ish GMT anon user 62.84.167.153 (I believe this is a proxy server hosted at pro-net in London) removed my valid reference to the CNET article i link above. Not a crime, but let's get out of anonymous changes without explanation. I am going to put my reference back in, and I would appreciate any changes to be accompanied by reasoned arguments that address the bullets above (Tesla, PayPal) and for good faith to be demonstrated in the changes. Lovbiz (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside sources call him a founder/co-founder The overwhelming weight of reliable sources refer to Musk as "founder" or "co-founder" of Paypal, Tesla, and SpaceX. That should be the end of the matter per WP:NOR. Even beyond that, the objections to PayPal are odd. Many sources confirm that two companies were founded around the same time to address online payments. There's no doubt that Musk was a founder of X.com, which later purchased a company called "Confinity." Confinity had started the "Paypal" brand (along with many others), but was not known as "Paypal." X.com (which Musk founded and was still involved with) then renamed itself "PayPal" and became what we know today as PayPal. Musk was the founder of the company that became PayPal.com and the surviving legal entity.

Here's a sampling of reliable sources for PayPal:

"Better known for founding PayPal and Tesla Motors, Musk has spearheaded recent efforts to get Americans back into space." http://techpageone.dell.com/business/startups-tackle-final-frontier/#.U0pTH_ldV8E

The same goes for Tesla:

And SpaceX:

The list goes on. Long story short, an overwhelming weight of third-party sources refer to Musk as a "founder" or "co-founder" of each company. Our own personal judgments as to what constitues a "founder" are irrelevant in light of such clear outside judgment that he is such. TwinkleVain (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The point is that this is a common mistake and has been for a while. The fact is that the company WAS NOT cofounded by Musk and he came in as a series A investor, now some may argue that that classifies him as a cofounder since he has invested a lot of his own money and time into it, but the fact is that it is the rare case of an early investor and CEO. However he came in approx. a YEAR after the company was founded, hence officially not making him a cofounder. But as Eric has said due to wikipedia's Neutral point of view it should be kept Early investor of Tesla Motors & Paypal (o keep neutral point of view) & Founder of SpaceX.

Further more this is a direct wrote from the Tesla page "Tesla Motors was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, who financed the company until the Series A round of funding. Both men played active roles in the company's early development prior to Elon Musk's involvement." ....Musk then became part of the company when he became a series A investor. There should be no dispute here. He was not a cofounder of the company but instead an early investor.

Unfortunately, your logic is flawed. For Wikipedia, it is not about what we can conclude from a source, it is what the source says. You state that the company "WAS NOT cofounded by Musk" but fail to provide a reference that states such. You can find references that state he was an early investor, but you are simply concluding that he was not a co-founder as the source only stated he was an early investor. The majority of sources out there state that he is a founder or co-founder and as such this should be the content that is kept. I cannot even find a source that says there is a controversy as to whether he is a co-founder or not. As such, the co-founder language should remain in the article.
Consensus is also something that is not in your favor if you do not agree that the article should cite what the sources say. Consensus is what governs article content hence the reason for deletion discussions, talk page discussion, etc. A random check of the article's history shows that the consensus is that he is a co-founder. Here is one from 2013 which states "He founded SpaceX and co-founded PayPal and Tesla Motors." Here is one from 2012 with the information box stating co-founder of the various companies. Here is one from 2011 with the same information in the info box. So I am not sure why this is a discussion, but I believe the co-founder status has been established through consensus as well as the references that state such. To argue otherwise, I would suspect there would need to be more than random IP editors editing from proxy servers in order to overturn such consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wording "co-founder" is misleading

Hi, Elon Musk enthusasts. Going to chime back in here.

Verifiable facts from our list of sources: Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, and Luke Nosek were the three people who incorporated Confinity, and together they created the PayPal brand. Elon Musk was not on the Confinity team at the time the PayPal product was created, though he did join a year later as a result of X.com's acquisition of Confinity. Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the two people who incorporated Tesla Motors. Elon Musk was not on the Tesla team when the company was created, though he did join a year later as a Series A investor. Elon Musk did incorporate X.com (which later acquired Confinity, after the PayPal product was created) and SpaceX. Please let me know if any of these facts are under dispute.

Given the above facts, I believe the current wording ("a co-founder") is misleading, since common definitions of the word "co-founder" do not include investors and acquirers who join 1+ year after the establishment of a company. That said, it's an improvement from original description of Musk as "the founder" of these companies - which was dangerously inaccurate, as it implied sole creation, and I don't think anyone is arguing for it anymore. My preferred language has already been suggested above: "an early investor at Tesla Motors and PayPal, as well as the founder of SpaceX." But if we're willing to clarify the point in a controversy section about "Eberhard v. Musk" and Musk's attempts to manufacture a founder story, I won't object to "co-founder." -- Eric - www.tjosse.me - 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you used the words "verifiable" and "facts." If you familiarize yourself with WP:NOTTRUTH, you will see that you actually proved my point in different comments I have left on this talk page. It is not about what is true or not true, it is what van be VERIFIED. The term co-founder can be verified by many reliable sources and as such deserves inclusion in the article. Here is a direct quote from the policy (I used bold to emphasize the part that is the most appropriate in my view):
"Not truth: It is not good enough for information to be true, and it is definitely not good enough for you to (perhaps wrongly) believe it to be true. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability. You are allowed and encouraged to add material that is verifiable and true; you are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable, with zero exceptions—even if the un-verifiable material is true."
So, with that in mind, there is nothing that needs "clarified." In fact, if you are referring to this lawsuit, then I am not sure what information you want clarified as the lawsuit appears to have been dropped. Regardless, the reliable sources verify that he is a co-founder. What you believe or logically conclude from connecting the dots in whatever way you want is not something that belongs in Wikipedia. Quite simply, verifiability is the trump card.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solution. It seems like there are two schools of thought here. One says that if the New York Times thinks that Musk is a "founder" of all three companies, then he is a founder of them based on WP:NOTTRUTH or because the lack of concrete standards for what constitutes a "founder" (on the incorporation papers? the next day? within a month? the surviving company or the surviving product?) mean that "founder" is a title more than an objective thing. The other thinks that there is a set of objective criteria that must be fulfilled to be considered a "founder" even if the New York Times calls him a "founder." I've made an edit to split the difference by saying that he is considered a founder by reliable sources (which is true). This acknowledges that sources like Forbes, the New York Times and the 20 others sources listed above call him "founder" of each company, but without taking a direct position on it. It's not perfect, but can we call a truce on it?TwinkleVain (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love this, thanks Lovbiz (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine by me given the multiple definitions of "founder" that seem to be going around here. I'd still like to see a Controversy section that draws attention to Musk's campaign to be called a founder (and the Eberhard ouster), with appropriate citations. Not everyone agrees that he's a "co-founder of Tesla and PayPal", and his Wikipedia page needs to reflect that. Good talk, everyone. -- Eric - www.tjosse.me - 20:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith

I think there are two reasonable sides to this debate. I would really like for both sides to be reasonable and use absolute good faith and logic as we continue to has this out. erictj: I appreciate you looking for a reasonable compromise. I am a little worried when you are saying things like "...Musk's attempts to manufacture a founder story..." which seem pejorative to me. I believe CNMall41 is acting in good faith Let's stick to facts and reason. CNMall41, I am in agreement with you that Musk is clearly a founder of both Tesla and Paypal. I am also glad that you referenced Wikipedia policy which is what the debate should be grounded in. I am frankly a little bit confused about "verifiability" here as a "trump" in that both you and erictj are referencing seperate verifiable facts and drawing opposite conclusions. You have separate facts and you don't directly engage erictj's argument. We should. Erictj - you also avoid CNMall41's argument that the overwhelming body of sources we can refer to consider Musk to be a founder. I think we all have to, fairly, address each other's logic directly. Lovbiz (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to CNMall41's assertion that we can find sources that refer to Musk as a "co-founder" (most of them say "co-founder", not "the founder"). I also don't believe I'm being pejorative when I claim that Musk has attempted to manufacture a founder story. His most recent interviews (e.g. CBS 60 Minutes [2]) make no mention of the original product team and portray him as Tesla's sole creator, which is something any of us can verify as false. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide another PR platform for Musk's "lone hero" media approach. We need to present objective, verifiable facts about when Musk joined the company if we want to maintain NPOV. -- Eric - www.tjosse.me - 21:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with Erictj's argument that to be a cofounder you must be present at incorporation

Erictj - keep me honest if I am mischaracterizing your argument. Looking at definitions of cofounding, there is grey area. I don't think I can find anything we could call "generally accepted" that supports your definition. I believe it's demonstrable that a founder is a founder if all the founders say they are. For example, here is a Forbes article explaining to founders how to find co-founders. [3]. I have referenced above and will again here the article specific to the Tesla lawsuit's settlement. One of the things that came out of it is that all the five founders agreed that they were all founders. The article is in cnet and is titled "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five"[4]. I think you at least have the burden of referencing an article that in good faith can be seen as similarly definitive. I can't imagine anything more definitive than that. I think it is a smoking gun for Musk as a founder of Tesla. I don't think this is overwhelmed by the technicalities of who was present at incorporation. I don't think incorporation defines founding. But I do believe a legal agreement from a settlement can.

I do not agree with Erictj's argument that the company that first bore the brand determines what was founded

PayPal is the Ship of Theseus. I've made this argument elsewhere but it pertains directly to a point Erictj is making. Erictj, you said that because a company named PayPal was created without Musk that Musk therefore can't be the founder. I think that is a reasonable argument but I don't agree. I think it is more reasonable to acknowledge that Musk founded a company, x.com, that then acquired a company with many assets, one of which was the brand PayPal. Musk then took that brand and and used it as the brand for the company he founded. x.com and PayPal had significant overlap in their function. Unless there is evidence that the new company abandoned all the assets (code, contracts, etc) of x.com and was wholly, actually, just PayPal, then we have to say that Musk was then running a company he had founded and that company was now named PayPal. I know it's Thesueusy be it's also plainly true. If we deny that Musk is a founder of PayPal then we have to say that the company he founded, x.com, disappeared. But it didn't. That's PayPal. He founded it, acquired a company with a brand, and put that brand on the company he founded. Right? I think mine is the correct argument. I acknowledge it isn't the simplest but it seems to me to be the most true.

Compromise

I think the page can definitely have a controversy section. I think it would say (perhaps among other things) that there was a lawsuit with Tesla. And I think it would note that the lawsuit ended w/ Musk as, officially, a founder.

Agreed. I support a controversy section which clearly lays out the Eberhard v. Musk lawsuit. -- Eric - www.tjosse.me - 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The Tesla lawsuit already has a long section about lawsuits at Tesla Motors#Lawsuits and it would be redundant to duplicate it here. The suit with Eberhard was more about Eberhard's connection to Tesla than Musk -- the central contention was whether Eberhard was being given enough credit as a co-founder after his separation from the company; Musk was named but was not the focus. The Tesla page seems the best place for it.TwinkleVain (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archived Debate Prior to April 2014

I don't understand why it says he is founder and CEO of SpaceX in the second sentence, but not Tesla Motors. Does SpaceX take precedence of tesla? [5]

Elon Musk is not a founder of Tesla Motors. He was a financier to the company in its early days.
Tesla Motors was incorporated in July, 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, who financed the company until the Series A round of funding. Elon Musk led the Series A round of investment in February, 2004, joining Tesla's Board of Directors as its Chairman. (Eberhard and Musk then entered a court battle, where the ruling pushed Eberhard out of the company.)
Elon Musk is also not the founder of Paypal (though this is subject to semantic debate). He founded X.com, a payment services company. His company acquired Cofinity, a company that operated a person-to-person payment service called PayPal. The merger gave Musk rights to the name, so he named the entire operation PayPal, which took focus on the person-to-person payment service as we know it today.
As far as I am aware, he actually did found SpaceX, though.
-- Broc
I've verified sources for Broc's notes and they are accurate.
I'm going to go ahead and make the change to "an early investor at" rather than "the founder of" the listed companies for the sake of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Depending on your definition of a founder, it might be accurate to call Musk "a co-founder of SpaceX, PayPal, and Tesla Motors", but in the case of both PayPal and Tesla he did arrive after the original product team. Musk made an attempt to simplify the founding story of PayPal with the "Deletion of References to Founders" clause [6] (p.42) and has also avoided public mention of the initial Tesla team[7], so keep that in mind when choosing your sources. I'm not sure if it warrants a Controversy section, but we should make a special effort to avoid portraying him as a lone wolf entrepreneur.
--EricTJ (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
Eric - I think this is incorrect. ####wrong####PayPal was a renamed x.com ###should be#### x.com was renamed PayPal (see SEC docs: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1088143/000095015602000193/ex99_e-i.txt) and this cnet article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10357665-54.html?tag=mncol) removes all contention around Tesla founders as all five agreed to agree on founder status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.115.254 (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC). Identity disclaimer: 67.165.115.254 is me... as this page is in some dispute I am registering so as not to be anonymous so that I can see the dispute through to a logical/factual resolution. Lovbiz (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paypal being renamed to X.com (??) doesn't imply that he founded Paypal. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric I wrote it backwards. What I meant to say: x.com - which had acquired PayPal, renamed itself as PayPal. The company included the DNA of several companies but was named PayPal. The company we know today as PayPal began as x.com. x.com was founded by Musk. Ergo Musk founded PayPal. Much in the way that Warren Buffet founded Berkshire Hathaway. Does that make better sense?
It's misleading, though. Sure, I guess he founded the corporate entity that was for a period of time an independent company named "PayPal", but he didn't found Paypal. Paypal isn't even independent anymore; there's nothing today at least called "Paypal" that he founded, is there? I don't think Buffet is a good analogy here, and I don't think people would normally say he founded BH anyway! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is nothing misleading about it. In fact, let's look at Donald Trump instead of Buffett. He is called a magnate, real estate investor, business executive, and billionaire. If there is a source that leaves out calling him a billionaire should we remove that wording from his article? Absolutely not. So, we cannot hold on to a single reference that calls him an "early investor" without calling him a co-founder and use that as a basis to remove such from the article. Everything else is coming from people drawing conclusions from what is said in the media. Again, Wikipedia is not about our conclusion, it is about what the sources say. The overwhelming number of sources out there state that he is either an early investor, founder, or co-founder and as such all three would apply to be included in the article. So instead of concluding what PayPal was or is or could be, we simply need to stick to the sources. If stating he is a co-founder in Wikipedia is misleading, then so is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and dozens of other articles from reliable sources that call him such. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, they are misleading as well. Unfortunately, news stories occasionally get details like this wrong. This is a short, important-sounding snippet that bios which are controlled by Musk tend to use: for example, www.spacex.com/about/leadership or www.teslamotors.com/about/executives/elonmusk, so others copy and copy it in articles about some other aspect of Musk and it takes on a life of its own. When in doubt, we can turn to sources that are more reliable for the claim being made. I don't think you'll find any detailed or credible history of Paypal that calls him a "cofounder of Paypal". He thinks of himself that way, obviously, but it's a tough case to make when the name and brand were invented at a company that you were not yet a part of. This doesn't detract from his contribution to what Paypal is today, it's just not true that he is a cofounder. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that news stories are prone to print wrong or misleading information. However, the sources provided above clearly show that the term co-founder is verifiable from reliable sources. WP:NOTTRUTH should be the guiding principle here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be evaluated for how reliable they are for the claim being supported. An offhand comment from a news article that used the bio from teslamotors.com that Musk controls to describe him in background as a Paypal cofounder wouldn't be as accurate as a reliable article detailing the history of Paypal. You'd agree that one that talked about how the Paypal name, product, and first million users all happened before Musk was even a part of the company would call this into question, wouldn't you? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biography profiles and interviews

Here is another Musk biography profile that might be of use in improving the article:

...and a few more recent (or recently published) interviews:

South African American?

It should be mentioned that Musk is a South African-born American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.128.107.21 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been mentioned that he was born in South Africa. Just because he was born there does not mean his nationality is South African. --Farquezy (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he lives in America doesn't mean his nationality is American. He was born and raised in South Africa to a Canadian mother and a South African father. He is an immigrant to the United States, how does the make him more American than the other nationalities? He has citizenship in South Africa, Canada, and American. So all 3 should be mentioned, not 1 getting priority over the others, familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.56.67 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you source that he has South African citizenship? Based on SA citizenship law, it is likely that he surrendered his citizenship by appyling for US citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.12.232.255 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indented line I'm speaking as an immigrant myself. I am unsure about what wikipedia guidelines dictate. Can we please get some admin to clear this up? Personally speaking, I know many people, such as myself, who have dual citizenship and were raised in another country. But I would never say my nationality if of that country and I could never want to be known as a _____-America. But I shouldn't be letting personal biases get in the way. Can someone clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farquezy (talk • contribs) 23:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family

I'd like to clarify my changes, Wikipedia's policy is that an article is not one sided, it must show both the brilliant parts of someones like but also the very personal embarrassing parts of someones life, Marie Clare is a reliable source. Therefore I used it as a source to put information regarding personal life on the wikipedia page. Taking it off would be wrong. Wikipedia states the personal embarrassing parts must be listed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Given Musks' controversial press history, his divorce, and other incidents shouldn't there be a controversy section on this page? Spinezzle (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree Dirac740 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please include Eberhard v. Musk lawsuit over founder status and the fact that it has gone to mediation.[8] -- Eric - www.tjosse.me - 20:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German descent?

There's a category "South African people of German descent". --91.158.78.116 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15 April 2014

The article starts with 'Elon Musk is a south african born Canadian-American business magnate, inventor....'

Firstly I ask that investor is added. He is an investor in Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal etc. He was also listed on Forbes 2014 Midas List of investors. http://www.forbes.com/video/3391084854001/ - This fully qualifies him as a investor. Which leads onto my next point that, in the Tesla Motors section of his biography, it states "The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk." While this is correct it does not give the full picture and is misleading, as Musk was not part of the original team. Musk came in as after the original team was formed AND had incorporated the company in July 2003. He then became involved with the company in series A round of funding as a INVESTOR.

SOURCES: Mainly http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064 (But also http://teslarumors.com/HowTeslaBegan)

After a court case, it was declared he is in fact entitled to the 'cofounder' title, however this does not change the fact that he was not part of the original team, and that the company existed before his involvement. Rather that delete anything instead when listing cofounders simply add '.....Wright and Musk, however the company was incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003 prior to Musk's involvement.' This is also keeps Wikipedias neutral point of view.

I ask that 'inventor' is removed from occupation, this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. The only this he could be considered for in terms of inventing is Hyperloop, when in actual fact all he has done is conceptualise it, while announcing it as an open source project. This means that even if it could be classified as inventing it would be more of a hobby that a occupation. However I also ask 'inventor' to be removed in the introduction titles Business Magnate, investor etc. This is again fro similar reasons above, but that compared to his activity as a entrepreneur and investor, conceptualising a SINGLE technology does not seem noteworthy or significant, for a introduction title. Yet he still did conceptualise it therefore should be noted somewhere later in the introduction, like it has been. However bearing it mind it has been as 'Musk conceptualised the Hyperloop, a high speed....' in the current situation (with inventor listed as well as conceptualiser of hyperloop) this implies he has invented a device which is not the Hyperloop, this is false, and there is no evidence of such a feat.

In conclusion I ask the introduction titles to ...Canadian-American 'Business magnate and investor.' Change occupation to 'entrepreneur, businessman, investor' And change the Tesla Motors intro to one similar to that on the Tesla Motors page... 'Tesla Motors was cofounded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk, however was incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003, one year prior to Musk's involvement.

Thank you Dirac740 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your own comment, "After a court case, it was declared he is in fact entitled to the 'cofounder' title" your arguments are counter productive. Please read WP:NOTTRUTH. This comes down to what it says in the references which is that he is a co-founder. It does not matter what you surmize. Wikipedia requires verification which we have from the abundant number of reliable sources. As far as the request for adding the content, I believe that "Market Business News" and "Tesla Rumors" are not going to meet the threshold of being a WP:RS. Also, please do not blank sections of the talk page. It is important for other editors to see the discussions on talk pages as Wikipedia runs by consensus and as such it is useful for editors to have a full history of what is being discussed. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think NOTTRUTH can be used to defend leaving information on the page that is verifiably untrue—it probably isn't so useful to keep linking to it in these discussions; WP:ASSERT might be more relevant here. We have plenty of reliable sources that make it pretty clear that Musk didn't found, e.g., PayPal the product, so we certainly can not leave that statement in the article. We have a few other choices: (1) we can clarify everywhere that he was a cofounder of Paypal Inc. but not the product or (2) we can just explain the history: Confinity developed Paypal, later merged with x.com which Musk cofounded, Musk was the chairman and later CEO of the combined entity which later became PayPal, Inc., and he had an enormous role in developing the product/company or (3) <something else>? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think (2) is probably best. CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It is not counter productive at all, i did not once day he is not a cofounder but the article is incomplete and would be misinterpreted, Market business News is a reliable source an online business newspaper, i have not deleted or vandalised the page, i have added detail, therefore improving the quality. Furthermore, just because you disagree personally with an edit is not a reason to undo the edit completely along with all my other edits, all of which have good reasons and sources! Dirac740 (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit April 2014

I have provided reasons for all my edits, all of which do deleted any of the article merely add to it, creating a better quality and more detailed article, completing he story instead of something that can be misinterpreted such as the fact that he was involved with the company prior to its incorporation I have listed a source Market Business News, a reliable Online Business Newspaper. This does no reject that he is a cofounder but rather gives the full detail of the story. You seem to think he is not an investor even though I provided a source to Forbes VC Midas 2014 list, a very reliable source the fact that CNMall41 has deleted this source and removed investor is vandalism. To reiterate from above Inventor' is removed from occupation, if not this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. The only this he could be considered for in terms of inventing is Hyperloop, when in actual fact all he has done is conceptualise it, while announcing it as an open source project. This means that even if it could be classified as inventing it would be more of a hobby that a occupation. Introduction titles 'Business Magnate, investor' should be noteworthy... 'inventor' is not because of the reasons above. And the fact it implies he has multiple inventions which he has NOT. Therefore reverting this without giving a relievable source listing INVENTIONS, is vandalism.

Dirac740 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirac740, it seems that you misunderstand what vandalism is, as defined here on Wikipedia. Vandalism is defined as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." First of all, you need to stop making accusations of vandalism, when what we have here is an ordinary, garden-variety content dispute. When you say that something is "hugely untrue" then you need to back up your claim with a reliable source that says "The claims that Musk is an inventor are false" or something like that. The same thing goes for every single change you propose to make to this or any other Wikipedia article. Those changes must be based on what reliable sources say, and you must cite those sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investor

He is an investor in Solar City, Tesla, SpaceX, PayPal etc. He was also listed on Forbes 2014 Midas List of investors. http://www.forbes.com/video/3391084854001/ And other sources... http://www.crunchbase.com/person/elon-musk http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/03/21/zuckerberg-musk-invest-in-artificial-intelligence-company-vicarious/ http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-invest-in-vicarious-2014-3 Therefore investor should be added to occupation and i introduction titles. Dirac740 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Dirac740 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I shall remove one or two of your references from investor. Four seems excessive. CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla section incomplete

The Tesla Motors section of his biography, it states "The company was co-founded by Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, Ian Wright, and Musk." While this is correct it does not give the full picture and is misleading, as Musk was not part of the original team. (And he is only considered cofounder because, he won a court case). Musk came in as after the original team was formed AND had incorporated the company in July 2003. He then became involved with the company in series A round of funding as a INVESTOR. reliable Source: http://www.marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064 (market business news is an online newspaper). I propose 'The company was cofoun.....Wright and Musk, however the company was incorporated by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in 2003 prior to Musk's involvement. Musk became involved with the company in 2004, as a Series A investor. Other Series A investments groups included.... ' Dirac740 (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inventor status

'Inventor' should be removed from occupation, this implies he is inventing on a day-to-day basis. This is hugely untrue. Its not a matter of providing a source that he does't, because there would never be, its the fact that the article has failed to provide ANY source or article that states he does, or even list an invention other than hyper loop, even the esquire article that is linked, does not once call him an inventor. And even They did just mean hyper loop, which one mean it would be taken down from occupation anyway, Hypelroop has not been built, and all musk has done is conceptualise the project. You wouldn't say Leonardo da Vinci invented the helicopter, he conceptualised it. Therefore providing none can provide a list of multiple inventions, then 'inventor' should be taken of occupation, as should engineer, as there is no evidence of this also. I also think inventor should be taken off introduction titles as it is additional to 'conceptualised Hyperloop' and therefore implies he has inventor something other than conceptualising hyperloop, which is untrue and no one has provided any evidence of such a feat. it should therefore read 'Business Magnate and investor. Musk conceptualised the Hyperloop, a high speed...' Dirac740 (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I have looked, an failed to find evidence of any invention other than hyperloop. Which as you say he merely conceptualised. I think it should be taken off occupation therefore, and probably introduction titles as they are supposed to be 'noteworthy' only. I think 'Business Magnate and investor' followed with 'Musk conceptualised the Hyperloop' as you proposed would be best. CHARLIEPHILLIPS00 (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, with fear of being accused of vandalism, I will wait 24hrs for more opinions before making any edits. Dirac740 (talk) 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're seeking to make a pointless distinction here. Somebody invented the hyperloop. Who? You don't have to actually make a thing to invent it - having the idea is enough. Otherwise 90% of patent applications would fail because they were merely "conceptualisations". Musk could patent the thing if he wanted, which makes him the inventor. andy (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And while I think about it, if his occupation isn't inventor because he doesn't do it every day (arguable, since he heads up a company that strives for innovation) then he's also not an investor unless he invests in something every day. This is a silly point and it sounds to me that you're very keen to do the guy down and are reaching for some pretty abstruse and scholastic arguments. andy (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my prospective, it just seems the article is portraying him as some ingenious inventor who has invented multiple devices. This is untrue and the actual fact is that he has merely conceptualised the Hyperloop, maybe it's just me, I don't know. Dirac740 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an inventor would mean he has patents. What patents does he have? Otherwise, I thought this was a fascinating article and well sourced. 174.6.44.36 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)31jetjet[reply]
Here is an Interesting news article about Musks opinion on patents http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-patents-2012-11#!K66WM .174.6.44.36 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)31jetjet[reply]
Elon Musk actually has had several patents granted by the USPTO. See also the archived discussion here about this topic: Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Inventor?
This is IMHO an already resolved issue, so I don't know why this has been brought up again. Elon Musk has invented several things, thus the distinction of being called "an inventor" is appropriate. He shares several of these patents with presumably other employees of his, but he certainly participated in the development process and is named by the USPTO on those patents.
Perhaps the solution here is to follow the pattern I've seen on some other articles and list the patents as a separate section with reference to the ideas being invented. I assume that the USPTO counts as a reliable source here? --Robert Horning (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have argued that he isn't an inventor, as he only oversees development at SpaceX (unless we can verify that he invents things there) and the Hyperloop definitely isn't an invention (it's unpatentable, for one thing), but if he has patents in his name it should be a simple matter to add references. Robert? nagualdesign 00:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link for a list of his patents: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=in%2Fmusk-e%24%0D%0A&d=PTXT
What I'm asking for is an example for citing individual patents as some sort of list of patents. I don't see anything in WP:MOS to suggest a reasonable way to get this done, so any suggestions or examples from other articles would be recommended. The patents he has been granted relate to the work he did with both Zip2 and later on Tesla Motors. Apparently the design of the Model X gull wing doors are specifically something that the USPTO has recognized as novel enough to give Elon Musk a patent. Most of those patents are joint with other co-inventors, but his name is none the less on those patents. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Perhaps we need a patents specialist to look over those results. To me it looks like 3 patents for specific designs, not inventions (the person who patented Beanie Babies didn't invent the teddy bear, for example), and 4 patents for novel search engine methodologies that might be worth selling to Google/Bing (although they only represent specific ways to proverbially swing a cat, of which there are many). I don't see any inventiveness, per se, but that's just my opinion. I think you're right about finding examples from other articles. Regards, nagualdesign 18:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oatmeal, Tesla Museum, etc.

Looks like Musk is going to donate money to help with the Tesla museum championed by The Oatmeal. I know little about the topic, but page followers might know more and are able to add it to the article. See 1 and 2. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Education

Why has Stanford been put under alma mater? He did not graduate from there, and attended for literally less than 48hrs, it is hardly noteworthy enough to be included on top of already being included in the early life section.

  1. ^ "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five". CNet. 2009-09-21. Retrieved 2009-09-21.
  2. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-industrial-empire/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Template:Cite article
  4. ^ "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five". CNet. 2009-09-21. Retrieved 2009-09-21.
  5. ^ http://www.teslamotors.com/executives
  6. ^ http://evworld.com/pdf/eberhardvmusk.pdf
  7. ^ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tesla-and-spacex-elon-musks-industrial-empire
  8. ^ http://www.wired.com/2009/08/eberhard-tesla-lawsuit/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=617621249"