Talk:Elon Musk

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KatieBracken2021 (article contribs).

Bust window

See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/elon-musk-net-worth-tesla-cybertruck .

The performance with the bust windows reduced the share price by 6%, as did the hashish smoking.

Please remove Grimes entirely from Elon's page

On May 7, 2018, Musk and Canadian musician Grimes revealed that they had begun dating.[343][344][345] On January 8, 2020, Grimes announced she was pregnant. The baby's father is assumed to be Musk, although this was not announced.[346][347]

Please remove this paragraph. Grimes has never been his girlfriend from the start and she is 100% not pregnant. Please see thetruthseeker.club or boycottgrimes on twitter for a lot of evidence of both of these things. Elon would ask himself if he wasn't being blackmailed by that awful thing. His PR person even confirmed that the Met "date" was only supposed to be a PR stunt that went very wrong and he was very mad about it. Seriously look at Boycottgrimes on YouTube for the video... He will ask you himself to remove all mention of that thing as soon as the 420 trial is over. She is not, nor ever was his girlfriend. Just an abusive, blackmailing, roofying grifter who demands he pays her large amounts of money every month. seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.35.109.38 (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Grimes has since confirmed she is indeed pregnant with Musks's child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 05:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Second this motion. Interstellar20 (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Elon and Grimes - once again

I don't intend to participate in a editing war or anything of that kind, but I must say, there seems to be some truth to the claims that Elon and Grimes are not together, as expressed by the user Interstellar20 (now blocked). Since there is no official information, I get why some are opposed to changing the partner section as per Wiki rules. However, there is also no official indication that they are together, coming from both Elon and Grimes (there are only articles citing Grimes, Elon never mentions it). As of yesterday, he is no longer following her on Twitter and there is mounting evidence that she is faking the pregnancy. Since Wikipedia is not a tabloid, in my opinion it would be best to just remove the information regarding Elon and Grimes and wait until there is some actual, verifiable and trusted source. Czarek11 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Until a reliable third party account reports of a split, we go by the existing sources indicating they are together. Wikipedia articles are not based on who follows who on Twitter. That's not a source. NJZombie (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not object to the pure removal of challenged information, even if such challenging is only based on the lack of recent reliable confirmation of the earlier statements of previously-reliable, but now possibly outdated, sources. However, Interstellar20 did much more than that, in a way that – when looking at their complete contribution history and searching the web for confirmation – appears to be only describable as the creation of hoaxes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Even if it were true that the two are no longer a couple, which I have zero emotional investment in, it's still sourced information about a relationship that did happen and is documented as such.NJZombie (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure – I think the main concern here is whether the infobox should display it as currently active. However, vague guesses based on social media interaction are unsuitable to be factored into this decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. I just sent you a direct message. NJZombie (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2020

In The Joe Rogan Experience episode 1169, at 10:13, Mr. Musk notes that his Wikipedia describes him as a "business magnate." When questioned what he would describe himself as, (10:16) he says "A business magnet. Can someone please change my Wikipedia page to magnet?"

I am requesting (along with Mr. Musk himself), in the first paragraph where it is stated Mr. Musk is an engineer, industrial designer, and technology entrepreneur, that business magnet be added to his description. YaboijackPK (talk) 04:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Not sure if you know, but on Wikipedia we go by WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Musk can describe himself any way he likes, but if there are no reliable sources calling him that, then he cannot be described as such, at least not in Wikipedia's voice. Dr. K. 04:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Tesla Stock values fall April 30th- May 1st 2020

https://fortune.com/2020/05/01/tesla-shares-tumble-after-ceo-elon-musks-odd-tweet-storm/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-stocks-musk/tesla-tumbles-after-musk-tweets-stock-too-high-idUSKBN22D5V7

SOme of the news outlets try to tie Elon Musk to rants he made over California's shelter in Place orders when that took place.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/29/coronavirus-elon-musk-says-its-time-to-free-america-now-from-lockdowns/

Right now Elon is being played as a loose cannon figure in his rants. 2601:640:C600:3C20:D457:1003:C6EC:FFAE (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-goes-off-on-elon-musk-for-insane-lockdown-rant

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/1/21244346/elon-musk-tesla-twitter-stock-price-coronavirus-grimes https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/musk-s-shutdown-rant-mocked-by-cuban-embraced-by-conservatives

Should this be in a section on his views, under a new bit about coronavirus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthinking2202 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Purpose of the quote in the Education section?

What is the purpose of the random quote in the Education section? It's completely unrelated. It should be removed. BeŻet (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've now removed it. If anyone can justify its inclusion, please explain it here. Thanks. BeŻet (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

@Axiarchist: what's the point of this quote? It doesn't belong here. This is Wikipedia, not an Elon fan page. BeŻet (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of the quote is to give insight into the problem solving approach Musk uses for both spacex and tesla. The citation was incorrect and has now been corrected- it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTZNZOf17N4&feature=youtu.be&t=1175 . It was placed in the education section because of the link to the physics background, but could be relocated to the spacex section where has the most direct relevance. I am not sure why you consider that a "fan page" link- it is a useful quote that provides additional insight into the subject. Axiarchist (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Because it's a vapid, trivial utterance of no real importance. There's a place for these at Wikiquote, not here. If you really want, you could mention in the article that Musk says he "boils things down to their fundamental truths and reasons up from there", which sounds a bit douchey and would probably be rejected by other editors, but including such quote in such a manner is rather pointless. BeŻet (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Introductory Sentence is Misleading

The introductory sentence to this article states, "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur, and philanthropist." The page for "Engineer" linked in this article states in its opening paragraph that "The foundational qualifications of an engineer typically include a four-year bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, or in some jurisdictions, a master's degree in an engineering discipline plus four to six years of peer-reviewed professional practice (culminating in a project report or thesis) and passage of engineering board examinations." Elon Musk does not possess any of these qualifications, and given the description of his role within his company from sources 2, 3, and 4 of the article, the existing label in the opening sentence of "industrial designer" seems sufficient to describe his involvement. Describing Elon Musk as an engineer is misleading in that it implies that he has qualifications and education which in reality, he does not possess.

It is true that Musk describes himself as an engineer, however, as evidenced by the "Business Magnet" discussion on this talk page, that is not sufficient reason to include such a title in this article. It is my opinion that the word "engineer" in the opening sentence should be removed, resulting in the following: "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an industrial designer, technology entrepreneur, and philanthropist."

NotOnTheSteel (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not misleading. The information that he is an engineer is not something that has to be established in some objective sense. Rather there has to be (and indeed is) a reliable source as source for the information. Lklundin (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Is to be an engineer to possess some property that is in Nature such as angular momentum? That's absurd; one is an engineer if a group of others or an institution ascribes the title to the person. The source provided is an archived profile from ASME.org which states the following: While Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree per say (sic), he holds degrees in Physics and Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, few dispute his assertion, in response to his focus on technical details as CEO of Tesla and Space X, "I'm an engineer, so what I do is engineering. That's what I'm good at.

That strikes me as a strange thing for a reliable source to disclose, especially if it also used against someone disputing whether Musk is an engineer or not. Firstly, it admits that he doesn't have a degree in engineering, so that removes institutional ascription. Secondly, it doesn't provide any evidence of some poll or survey conducted to determine if engineers or even laymen think of Musk as an engineer (i.e. ascription by group of others); it simply asserts that "few" dispute it. Does the number of those who dispute it matter? No, one should suffice. This leaves the argument with little strict recourse and therefore leads one to doubt how reliable it actually is.

However, the archived article also later describes him as a "practical engineer", which is admittedly ambiguous but also provides a clue as to what the article is attempting to do with regards to Musk's status. All that is needed is some further analysis. Now, is the article referring to him as one with a degree in practical eng ineering? Probably not, because the article already pointed out that Musk doesn't have an engineering degrees and reliable sources don't deal in contradictions. Therefore, unless we allow that the source contains false information, it must mean that Musk is to be considered an engineer in some loose sense of the term, as in an engineer in practice.

Given this analysis of the source material, I recommend the first line be changed to reflect this looser qualification: Musk is an engineer insofar as he's an engineer in practice. IanCappelletti (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

If you agree that the source confirms he's an engineer in practice, then where's the problem? Also, bear in mind that is not "some loose sense of the term", it is the sense of the term widely used around the world. Sure, a few jurisdictions restrict the practice of certain "engineering" tasks to people with a formal qualification in the subject, but many others do not. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Because 'engineer' is different from 'engineer in practice'; the article doesn't reflect that distinction and Wikipedia is in the business of trying to make things that verified by other sources put clearly. And are you sure yours is the sense of the term used widely around the world? Do you have anything that speaks to that conclusion? And even if there are different senses of 'engineer' in different parts of the world, shouldn't more care be taken to reflect in the writing how and by what local criteria Elon Musk is to be considered an engineer so as to overcome confusion? Or, we could just say he is an engineer in practice, which I don't believe anyone doubts and would "work" in any part of the world. IanCappelletti (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does this leave us? Would anyone object to NotOnTheSteel changing the language from "engineer" to "engineer in practice"? IanCappelletti (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As an engineer, I object to this change. Firstly, in some places 'engineer' is not protected, so anyone can call themselves (or others) engineer. Further, any actual engineer is per se an "engineer in practice", so the change is confusing and unhelpful and outright pedantic. Lklundin (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It can be argued that being an engineer does not require an engineering degree, just that you do engineering work. From a personal point I would argue that he is not actually an engineer and much less an industrial designer. He _supervised_ engineering projects and _critiqued_ industrial design. However, good luck challenging that here... I pass. I’d say “business magnate" would actually more apt (plus, Steve Jobs got that description, which may be why Musk wants it... Averell (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree. As I pointed out above, even the source material defers to some strange standard of "no one denying it". What engineering work has Elon Musk performed and then credited for? IanCappelletti (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I am very unsure that this is a relevant discussion. But Elon Musk has personally been a driving force of the engineering in SpaceX. For example, his realization that he should calculate the price of the raw materials needed to build a rocket and compare that to the about 30 times higher selling price of a commercially available rocket and that consequently SpaceX should build their own rockets is a prime example of engineering work. When Wernher von Braun was building his first rocket that went to space there had been the exact same discussions, the needed amount of steel and potatoes (for distilling the alcohol that the V2 burned) which were both sorely needed for more Earthly tasks. However, while highly interesting this is a digression and in relation to the article and therefore indeed to this discussion any reasoning based on such discussions would be WP:OR. Lastly to Averell23: Your musings over whatever description Musk would want clearly falls under WP:NOTAFORUM. Lklundin (talk) 07:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I had not heard of that story before! Huh -- prima facie, that sounds like good ole fashioned engineering to me. But on second thought, with taking in Averell23's réplique once more, I now have Mr. Musk in the example qua project budgetary manager. Well, allow me to give the dispute some further thought in the coming days. 🤗 IanCappelletti (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

When the "engineer" label is applied, most would assume that means one has a college degree in engineering. And if so, what kind of engineering? Electrical, chemical, mechanical, Ærospace...? Guess just fill in the blank with one's own imagination. Perhaps he mastered __ engineering using Professor Harold Hill's Think Method. The current designation is misleading and is little more than a Kentucky Colonel designation bestowed upon someone for the purpose of bolstering social standing. Maybe "lay engineer" or "amateur engineer" something along those lines?RRskaReb talk 01:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

X Æ A-12 / kyle

his newborn son, X Æ A-12, born on May 4th 2020 his name has been classified as "too complicated" on twitter. his new name is kyle. thank u for coming to my ted talk xoxo Clara.hehe (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC) a person with more common sense to name their kid R2D2's and C-3PO's cousin

References

Not a scientist

I challenge the claim that he's a scientist, which he is not. None of the given sources claim that he is a scientist. Tslawrk (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Tend to agree. None of those three sources in the lead have the word "scientist". There's a Q&A discussion at Quora here. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't see or find anything that says he is a scientist either. I removed it but it was replaced and for my sins I got called a reddit vandal, which I can assure you I am not. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like there might be some POV editing on this article by some users who are fans of Elon Musk. Tslawrk (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite see how everyone who takes an undergraduate course physics is necessarily "a scientist". Martinevans123 (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

May I redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method and how musk uses it in his day to day at Tesla and SpaceX. Thus is a scientist. Also holds physics degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 11:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to describe Musk as a "scientist" you need to provide a reliable source that uses that word. It's a simple as that. Although using just one single source might be pushing it. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

I propose you remove the claim that he is a scientist from the introduction, per my comment in the section above this one. To summarize: none of the stated sources claim that he is a scientist. Tslawrk (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rosbif73 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible case of non-neutral editing?

I feel like edits like this one aren't contributing to the neutrality of the article. This edit removed information backed by secondary sources, and replaced it with other information from a primary source which requires a person to provide their name and email to access it. The contributor of this particular edit also keeps re-adding the claim that Musk is a scientist, although (see previous discussions above) no source for this claim has been provided. --Tslawrk (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the edit was not an improvement. The editor in question is a new editor who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So we have to allow some degree of forbearance, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as a new user myself, I agree. The editor in question probably has good intentions, they may just be unaware of some policies. Tslawrk (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Stanford

The article says this:

"In 1995, Musk commenced a PhD in energy physics/materials science at Stanford University in California. Eager to pursue opportunities in the Internet boom, however, he dropped out after just two days to launch his first company, Zip2 Corporation."

Both sources support the claim regarding Stanford. Furthermore, Encyclopedia Britannica here says: "He enrolled in graduate school in physics at Stanford University in California, but he left after only two days because he felt that the Internet had much more potential to change society than work in physics." This is supported by: ecorner.stanford.eud, businessinsider, money.com and cnbc, amongst others. Are these sources all wrong? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123: No need to dignify the below nonsense with an answer. Lklundin (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Both sources do not cite a source--theybare unverified; see wp:verify

Please remove the content. Granite07 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I can post a half dozen sources that say the earth is flat... "Are these sources all wrong? Thanks" Granite07 (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The Mine of Musk

@Martinevans123:　Rebuttal of a claim is doesn't give more validity to the claim, hence the rationale for reverting my edit here: [1] is invalid as far as I can see. This is a biography of a living person on Wikipedia, not a gallery hall for claims without real backing like a news channel or a YouTube documentary or something. By analogy, there is no evidence that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a woman in 1990, and his formal complaint against the people claiming it is true doesn't somehow add to the evidence that he did that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: This edit doesn't help your case at all, it just lays bare the fact that we are slapping wild internet claims that the person has denounced into a living person's bio Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I have permanently removed [2] the emerald mine information from this biography of a living person. The source cited says that Errol Musk didn't even remember where he was when he bought the emerald mine, allegedly saying "I think we were in Djibouti." when they purchased the stake. [3] If you get a CNN or Snopes page or something solid that really supports this claim, then that's different- but what you're giving me is an article from a person that perennially makes wild claims about Musk including that 'teenage Elon Musk once casually sold his father's emeralds to Tiffany & Co. while his dad was sleeping'. NONSENSE. If you want to put this back in the article, you should put it in the right place chronologically too: this "allegedly happened" in the mid-1980s, which should probably not be before the paragraph about the man's childhood. Again, NONSENSE. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The key question (per WP:BLPSOURCES) is whether we believe that the claim's source [4] is reliable and/or whether any other sources corroborate the claim. Musk's rebuttal is a secondary consideration. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all the WP:AGF and collaborative effort here, Geographyinitiative. I don't even like emeralds. I wholly agree with you, Rosbif73. I only re-added it as I assumed Business Insider is a WP:RS. But apparently, it's just.... NONSENSE. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I also believe the chronological placement was correct, as it's about his upbringing. If this had been an agreed true fact, it should certainly be placed there. If it had caused a huge controversy in 2018, it should have appeared chronologically to reflect that timing. This seems to be something in between.

@Martinevans123 and Rosbif73: If there's a reliable source for this, let's see it. Otherwise, this is really worse than nonsense- it's clickbait used in the bio of a living person. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I might agree with you if Musk had just ignored it. I actually think his response was the more informative part of this topic. But then it seems what I might say is all NONSENSE. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: If only Glenn Beck hadn't made a formal complaint, then I wouldn't have believed that he raped and murdered a woman in 1990. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't see the relevance of Glenn Beck to Elon Musk. Such an analogy, if that's what it is, seems somewhat misplaced, if not wholly hyperbolic. Your personal beliefs, about what you may or may not read in the media, are your own concern. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: When you have more info on that emerald mine, lemme know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why should I ever have any? I think we both agree it's a fiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Musk's response may be an example of the Streisand effect. But in any case we shouldn't be taking his denial into account in deciding whether to include the claim or not. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I am sorry that I upset you and potentially other members of the community, but I was trying to do my level best to keep Wikipedia in good shape. Some of the lies that get posted here become believed in the real world, and then you can cite the lie-believers to back up spurious claims (for instance: various insane claims about Chinese langauges and the Voynich manuscript were posted in 2004 and they have spread to the four corners of the Internet; Unsourced claims about 'In God We Trust' became "sourced") Like I said, NONSENSE Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you ought to think twice before seemingly branding me an advocate of posting lies. I suspect many people will read that Business Insider piece on line (or even just read the headline) and wonder if it's true. Wikipedia would do them a favour by showing Musk's rebuttal. But I'm not trying to WP:Right great wrongs. I still think his reply was informative. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I am really at a loss for words. No known emerald mines. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unlike you to be at a loss for words. I bet he's got a few emeralds about the place. After all, he does love a nice ring. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I bet he does have emeralds, we can agree on that. I'm sorry for antagonizing you like this. All I can see is a biography of a living person that must be kept to Wikipedia standard on the one hand and a wild internet claim on the other. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm beginning to feel a little haggard by this ride... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: There does not have to be a WP:RS for the emerald mine. The fact that there is a RS for the 'claim of an emerald mine' - and a rebuttal from Musk is enough to make it notable. It helps to demonstrate the at times puzzling claims that (presumably) detractors of Musk put out there, and as such it adds value to the article. (If in fact Elon Musk had benefited financially due to this claim, I am sure we would learn the details about it - and that as such, it is very likely all bogus - but that's beside the point, whether we like the story or not.). Lklundin (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Alright, now, in this case, what is the reliable source (RS) that makes a 'claim of an emerald mine'? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)

You will have to excuse me, but the validity of my argument does not depend on whether I can produce such an example. What I am doing, is to refute your argument that we need a RS on the emerald mine. Lklundin (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lklundin: You wrote,
"The fact that there is a RS for the 'claim of an emerald mine' - and a rebuttal from Musk is enough to make it notable."
What I'm saying is that the
"fact that there is a RS for the 'claim of an emerald mine'"
has not yet been established.
Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say that I really don't understand what has happened in this conversation. It seems very strange to me. I didn't mean to cause offense. Sorry to all involved. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a source [5] stating that Errol Musk said he owned an emerald mine. First question: is it a reliable source? WP:RS/Perennial sources#Business Insider states that there is no overall consensus as to its reliability... Second question: are there other RS making the same claim? (I don't know, I haven't had time to look) Rosbif73 (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

And that's not all his father Errol has said allegedly (same source, of course): "We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe." Hmmm. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

If nobody puts in the leg work to find reliable sources to show there is a claim of emerald mines, then this whole discussion is over because you can't add stuff to the biography of a living person wildly. That's all I'm asking for here: sources for the 'claim of an emerald mine'. If you all find it, great. If not, then you didn't find it: discussion over. The Business Insider articles [6] [7] are not New York Times level material people. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, let's make sure to note in the event Mr. Phillip de Wet really did interview Errol Musk that the relationship between Elon and Errol is very tense seeing that Elon has called his father "a terrible human being". Who knows what's going on there people. Has anyone beside Errol been quoted talking about the half share of the Zambian emerald mine? Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion over?! Let's not forget about the Italians who paid £80,000 in cash for a plane Errol was intending to fly to England to sell when it landed, but couldn't fly via Jeddah, because there was a religious holiday.... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't clear what was going on there. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not a reliable source of information about Elon Musk. BeŻet (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

How about his Dad? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We can report what both are saying about the mine, but what I'm trying to say is that Elon rebutting something doesn't make it defenitely not true. BeŻet (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the odd twists in the narrative presented by the Business Insider articles as pointed out by Martinevans123, I do not believe the quotations in the Business Insider articles are genuine Errol Musk quotes. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to such opinion, but since you have no evidence it doesn't matter here. BeŻet (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

So, I just stumbled upon this conversation wondering why there's no mention of the emerald mine in the article. Here are some sources I've found with discussion regarding a the so-called Mine of Musk in Zambia:

• Friend, Tad. 2009. "Plugged In". The New Yorker, August 24, 2009. Online:

Quote: "When he was eleven—about the time that he sold his first piece of software, a video game called Blastar—Musk told his mother that he was going to move back to Pretoria to live with his father, Errol, an electrical engineer who would later own an auto-parts store and 'a share in an emerald mine. "

• Graziosi, Graig. 2020. "Elon Musk lists five more California properties for a combined $97.5m after vowing to sell his material possessions". The Independent. Online.

Quote: "Mr Musk - whose father was a co-owner of a Zambian emerald mine who once described being so wealthy that "at times we couldn't even close our safe" - has not announced any plans to part with his wealth"

As this is a BLP article, we certainly need to be careful about sourcing. However, this seems to be quite widely reported.

• Strauss, Neil. 2017. "Elon Musk: The Architect of Tomorrow". Rolling Stone. November 15, 2017. Online:

Quote: "When Elon came to live with him in Lone Hill, a suburb of Johannesburg, Errol was, by his own account, making money in the often dangerous worlds of construction and emerald mining – at times so much that he claims he couldn’t close his safe."

These are just three examples from a plethora of media sources on this topic, spanning back to at least 2009.

Now, it's clear that Musk is promoting a classic Horatio Alger narrative about himself (cf. articles like this one)—not at all uncommon among the wealthy (here's some notable discussion of a famous example)—but when do all these sources meet the threshold for inclusion? Certainly, the article requires extra care due to BLP and all, but we are also not here to parrot what people say about themselves and call it a day.  :bloodofox: (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: The New Yorker article says Errol had a share in an emerald mine. But how many shares did Errol have? My mom had a share in a company too. Everybody has shares in companies.
The Rolling Stones article says Errol was making money in emerald mining. If you own a company or only own one share, then you can make money in a company. Vague as anything.
The Independent article makes the most specific claim, saying Errol was a co-owner of a Zambian emerald mine. That might be notable if it could be more reliably sourced rather than a one-sentence throw away statement.
Now, based on these three statements, what is it that you propose adding to the article? (Opinion: A compilation of articles that have both the word 'Musk' and 'emerald' doesn't make the threshold of adding conspiracy theories to Wikipedia Living Persons Bios: a specific, credible claim needs to be made by the sources.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Bloodofox has provided all the WP:RS they need to. I say we include the information, it appears due and I’m not sure how Musk refuting it makes it less reliable... Musk is highly unreliable, especially for facts about his own life and businesses. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Also can you clarify what conspiracy theory you’re referring to, I don’t see one here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: What do you want to add to this article my friend? What sentence? What claim? The conspiracy theory is "his daddy has got a emerald mine". I can't wait to see what sentence we want to contrive out of these sources. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

If Errol Musk made a lot of money due to his stake in an emerald mine in Zambia, then hypothetically that may be important for this Wikipedia page. But if we believe that based only on the sources we have presented here so far, then I have a half stake in an emerald mine I'd like to sell you in the Florida Everglades, alligators no charge. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory? The sources I cite above are certainly reliable sources (WP:RS)—and there are many more where they came from. This is bizarrely defensive response to what should be a straightforward discussion. If you have other sources that describe this reporting as transmission of a "conspiracy theory", please provide them, and we can discuss those. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: Let me know when we have a sentence about the emerald mines that is proposed to be added into this article. Otherwise, I don't see the point of the discussion vis-a-vis the goal of creating a better encyclopedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, what is your source that this is a "conspiracy theory"? I'm genuinely curious about where you're getting this idea. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: This discussion is going on and on. Let's just get a draft of the sentence that you want added to this article so we have something specific to discuss. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources clearly state he was a co-owner of an emerald mine. Mentioning this in the article shouldn't be controversial at all. BeŻet (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So here's a draft 2-sentence addition which you might like to discuss:

In 2018 his father ErollErrol claimed that he had been half-owner of an emerald mine in Zambia, allowing Musk to grow up with a "lavish lifestyle" and leading to many of his interests later in life. Musk himself, however, denied this story, saying "This is a pretty awful lie... He didn't own an emerald mine & I worked my way through college, ending up ~$100k in student debt."

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Okay, why put quotation marks around "lavish lifestyle"? Also, based on this source, how can we say that the "lavish lifestyle" derived from the emerald mine money led to many of Elon's interests in later life? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The quotes could be removed. Yes, that's a claim by the author, de Wet, who says "... half-share in a Zambian emerald mine, which would help to fund his family's lavish lifestyle of yachts, skiing holidays, and expensive computers." So that could be clarified or be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC) p.s. I have asked a question here.

@Martinevans123: This sentence also has the words "Eroll claimed", as if Eroll said the things that come after those words. Did Eroll claim they had a "lavish lifestyle"? I think "lavish" definitely isn't put in the mouth of Eroll, even by de Wet. Remember, this is the bio of a living person on Wikipedia. We have standards. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to think that at this point, the changes to the sentence are already so many that there's not much content left- can we see where we are now and produce a new version of the content we are trying to add to the article? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

And I would tend to wait for inputs from other editors and a reply at WP:RS. We have standards. Yes, I managed to remember, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: What is it that you want to add to this article about Elon Musk? Are you trying to add De Wet's subjective assessment (with the adjective 'lavish') of the teenage life of Elon Musk? Once the word 'lavish' is out, what's left? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify: if Elon Musk grew up in the lap of luxury with the profit of half an emerald mine, then yeah, maybe that could be valuable content for his Wikipedia article. I'm just saying: let's get the evidence for that and then (and only then) start adding that to the page. One alleged interview with the man's estranged father in which the reporter uses the word lavish is not enough. If there is more evidence, more sources, then yes, that stuff could be used to make good Wikipedia content. In the absence of that, there is no new content to be added to the page in my view. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of what? We are talking about Eroll's claim which is described in the article and talks about the lavish lifestyle. We already attribute this to the reported claim. BeŻet (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@BeŻet: If you want to have a try, feel free to write up a new version of what you want to see added to the article. I'm afraid I'll put the conversation too far in the weeds and away from adding material to the Wikipedia mainspace if I start fielding questions here like that. Let's keep it focused on a specific thing we want to add to the Elon Musk article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

But I'm happy with what Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) wrote. BeŻet (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@BeŻet: I asked Martinevans123 the question, "Okay, why put quotation marks around "lavish lifestyle"? Also, based on this source, how can we say that the "lavish lifestyle" derived from the emerald mine money led to many of Elon's interests in later life?" and the user said the quotation marks were take it or leave it. What do you think? Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I applaud you for your work trying to get to the bottom of this. For my part, I just want to protect living persons biographies. I think that this process we are going through will help produce a more useful article in the long term. Thanks for your time and efforts. (PS Quick heads-up-- Errol Musk's name is spelled Errol and not Eroll- not important, but just wanted to let you know- it is misspelled in the sentence you proposed as well.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably an emerald-based Freudian slip. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have made too many edits about Elon Musk, and the danger that I will get myself banned grows greater with every post. I hereby give up on this project totally. I hope that if you are going to revert my deletion of this material, at least you will carefully consider whether one journalist's claim from a website cited for clickbait (according to the Wikipedia article) is enough to write the word 'lavish' in a man's biography. I don't think we're saying he lived in mansions- if you don't have a mansion, you're not at the level of lavish yet. A safe stuffed full of money means that's all the money you have (not much). Also, these events are alleged to have occurred in the mid 1980's, so they didn't happen in his childhood and were put in the wrong part of the article in terms of chronology. For the safety of my account and my sanity, I'm out! Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I added it to "Early life". That's when he alleged he had run up "~$100k in student debt"? Thanks for your lavish Talk page contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

p.s. I assume you mean "I hereby give up on this talk page topic totally." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to note, User:Masem said this over at WP:RSN: "I note that that article you linked seems to be summarizing a Forbes article, this one, which fortunately is written by Forbes staff and not Forbes contributors. That Forbes article is definitely reliable as to what Eroll's quotes are, in terms of what he was interviewed above. (note the editor's notes to explain the story's origins). That said, to the point Martinevans' raised and as noted by the Forbes editor here ... that Elon and his father Errol had a difficult relationship. This seems to be rather well-known, meaning that anything contentious stated about Elon by Eroll probably should be predicated by attribution, eg "Eroll stated that Elon..." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• Bloomberg has now published a piece by Musk biographer Ashlee Vance that casts further doubt on the "lavish lifestyle" narrative:

"Some of his most vocal detractors have promoted the idea that Musk, like Trump, began his career backed by the deep pockets of dear old dad. Errol Musk, an engineer, owned a small percentage of an emerald mine and had a couple of good years before the mine went bust and wiped out his investment. Musk readily jumps onto Twitter to refute the charges that his empire was forged with the aid of family wealth, and part of the reason he wanted to talk to me—rather comically given the rocket launch and, well, trolls—was because the jabs bug him, and he hopes to set the record straight. For what it’s worth, my reporting, based on conversations with hundreds of people, confirms Musk’s story. Regardless of your opinion of him, he is a self-made billionaire."

I think the emerald mine thing may still be worth mentioning in the article, but only if appropriately put into context. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'd certainly support relevant context. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Musk's false statement about child immunity

@Axiarchist: (Revert in question) What do you mean it is not in citation? It is directly the second part of the two part tweet. – the sources provided do not say that he has been "citing the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report". Either find a good secondary source that mentions that, or remove this change. If you look closely at the tweets, you'll notice that when he was making that silly statement, he wasn't quoting the statistics you referenced at the time - he posted them post-factum, two weeks later, after people started pointing out how misinformed he was. He apparently based his initial misguided opinion on very early data from Italy, according to the screenshots he shared, but this nonetheless requires a secondary source to warrant an inclusion in the article. Additionally, your change involved an improper usage of primary sources and synthesis of published material, which counts as original research. Could you please remove that sentence? BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the text to refer dircetly to the reference in his follow up tweet which is a fact and required for NPOV context. Citing the actual tweet referred to as statement of fact is of course not a violation of primary sources. Moreover even the title of this section and your characterization as "silly" demonstrates a lack of NPOV- considering it to be a false statement is your opinion and in the cited reports. In fact the dramatic age distribution of sars coronavirus 2 has been reproduced in all countries is not doubted by the scientific and medical community. In fact it is hypothesized that children under 5 may indeed have additional non-specific immunity that protects them (I could provided references but that is out of scope of this section.) Axiarchist (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is my opinion that his tweets are silly, but I am not describing them as such in the article itself. I have reverted your changes, as they once again are not supported by secondary sources. Please provide a secondary source explaining that Musk's tweets were "supported" by anything. BeŻet (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree- you are cherry-picking quotes to fit your narrative and POV, and to support this you are citing "secondary sources" that are opinion pieces in tabloid press by staff writers with no medical or scientific background who themselves have cherry-picked parts of quotes to suit their narrative. These are not reliable secondary sources to quote. If you can find reputable secondary sources in the medical literature that disprove Musk's claims then you can add those. The aim of this section is to discuss Musk's views on covid-19 and it is outrageous that you are deleting citations to direct primary source tweets by Musk himself *and* the secondary sources that he gave to support his position. I will reinstate the additional context I gave, and if we can't reach agreement on the purpose of this section, which should be an unbiased representation of Musk's views on the topic, then I suggest we simply delete the entire section. Axiarchist (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You're approaching this backwards. You are responsible to provide secondary sources supporting your claim. WP:BRD is recommended for BLP articles. You make a bold change, it gets reverted, and then it gets discussed. It's not the other way round. As I've explained countless times to you already, you need a source showing explicitly that this is the data he used to support his claim. Read Wikipedia guidelines. In the meantime, please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Axiarchist - the supporting tweets are entirely necessary to ensure WP:NPOV, and are entirely admissible per the criteria set out in WP:BLPSELFPUB. Of course, a secondary source mentioning the supporting tweets would be even better, if anyone can find one. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not arguing against using the tweets. I'm pointing out that we are performing an interpretation of what Musk said, what he used to support his statement and what the referenced reports actually say. This is why we need a secondary source to confirm that. This is clearly outlined in WP:PRIMARY. BeŻet (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The text they support says Musk "promoted a widely discredited paper on the benefits of chloroquine" (as quoted from the cited source). However, Musk's tweet about this paper was already on March 16, while the paper was described as "widely discredited" only on April 29. The whole sentence from the source is in fact "He promoted a widely discredited paper on the benefits of chloroquine, which was debunked so quickly that both Twitter and Google Docs refused to host it". So the paper was discredited (and pulled) only after Musk tweeted about it, and as such the partial quote is misleading, since it communicates that the paper had already been (widely) discredited when Musk tweeted about it. To get a correct and NPOV, I have changed this to Musk "promoted a paper on the benefits of chloroquine that was widely discredited and pulled down by Google". Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What bold change and what claim? I didn't change any existing text- I simply added additional details needed to understand the tweet fragment in context. What else do you suggest as "a source showing explicitly that this is the data he used to support his claim"- the tweet I cited is literally the second tweet of a two part tweet that Musk himself gave to support his claim!! The Italian data he quoted was posted 9:28 AM Mar 20, 2020 compared with the original tweet at 8:55 AM Mar 20, 2020- it is clearly a two part tweet. The CDC data was posted later as further support. Nothing I have added is interpretation or a claim- it is only statements of facts with direct citations supporting them. This section should simply state the facts- cherry picking to fit a narrative is not encyclopedic and not NPOV. Additional information with supporting citations should not be reverted, for the reasons discussed here. Axiarchist (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. We need a secondary source to confirm what we are saying. As it stands, we are making a false statement, because this tweet wasn't accompanied by US reports - those were only added a couple of weeks later. This is why we need a secondary source, because we are not just saying what he tweeted, we are adding a deeper explanation and interpretation. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now added a secondary source because that took less time than trying to explain the rules and guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok good- the BBC reference is certainly better than the previous tabloid website selective quote, and to their credit BBC gave the full quote and both parts of the two part tweet. To be clear, I of course agree that disallowing original research is a key policy of wikipedia, and that quoting a sequence of primary sources to push a narrative can in some cases be synthesis of published material. However, I think that expanding a quote fragment to the full quote (and in the case of twitter to give both parts of a two-part tweet) can only provide unbiased context and is not synthesis and is an allowed use of primary sources, even if the full quote is not give in secondary sources. It would be interesting to get the "official" wikipedian view on that, but in any case thanks for the discussion and your efforts to remove original research. Axiarchist (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's outlined pretty clearly in WP:PRIMARY – you cannot interpret primary sources yourself. Sure, it seems pretty logical that the images of the diagrams Musk posted were an attempt to back up his claim; and you can take another logical step and assume that he was indeed pointing at no deaths in Italy to support his claim. But first of all, that doesn't even support his claim (the diagram doesn't talk about non-lethal infections), but most importantly, this is our interpretation of what he's done there. If things like that are worth including in an article, it should be easy to find a secondary source confirming our interpretation. As I've shown above, using our own interpretations is a slippery slope, as it's easy to make a false claim. BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt right?

Should Musk's Red Pill comment be mentioned here? He has been on my radar for years as a having views aligning with the alt right, considering how much attention he's been getting from alt right personalities. This seems to confirm what most people already suspected. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pwoole? Is that like a poodle with wool? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it's significant, unless there has been a lot of press coverage around it. He often says silly stuff. BeŻet (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of coverage. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

people are this much down the political agendas if they think red pill means alt right. 2601:602:9200:1310:41C:195F:9A55:B941 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

thank you for your inout. Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

2nd Rogan podcast

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/05/16/dude-departure-what-elon-musk-and-joe-rogan-have-in-common/#1ed89b478fa9. 2601:602:9200:1310:41C:195F:9A55:B941 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Elons Newest Child

First it was never said the Grimes was the mother, she was believed to be though. And second they changed their child's name as of May, 25th, 2020 to X Æ Xii (pronounced X Aye Eye Xii, or X Ash Xii.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oifhr (talk • contribs) 10:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources say Grimes is the mother. There is no ambiguity there. BeŻet (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Height

Elon is from my estimation 6' 2" I came to this from Marques Brownlee's video of Elon touring the Tesla factory. If Marques Brownlee is 6' 3" Elon appears to be slightly shorter and is likely 6' 2" FloydHofmann (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't do original research on Wikipedia. His height needs to be supported by reliable sources. Please consult the guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Lobbying

Regarding "Musk has directly contributed to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been accused of holding similar positions regarding climate change." the source listed does not mention anything about donating to Sen. Marco Rubio, so I have deleted this reference and added a citation needed tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesdinovaUK (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Poor quality sources

Today I started checking and verifying some of the sources used in the article, and there are a few common patterns that occur that need improvement. Firstly, there's a lot of YouTube sources being used, which should be discouraged in favour of news articles and other easily verifiable sources. Moreover, a lot of the YouTube videos are used for statements of facts, not opinions; e.g. there are interviews with Musk where he says something about what happened at Tesla etc. - Musk alone is not a reliable source of information. Another tendency is using Musk's tweets as sources - again, this is discouraged. We should be supporting things using quality secondary sources. A lot of the claims in the article are interpretations of his tweets. For instance, the claim that the Boring Company was inspired to sell flamethrowers because of the film Spaceballs is supported just by a tweet where Musk says The *real* money comes from merchandising. I learned it from this documentary and links to a YouTube video with a scene from the film. Clearly we can't make a claim like that since it's a farfetched interpretation of what is being said in the tweet. We have to be careful. BeŻet (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)