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).

Musk is Tesla's retroactive co-founder 🤦‍♂️

Elon Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. The word co-founder has a concrete meaning. It is not a fluid title like CEO that can be reassigned. A settlement or a company decision does not change who is a co-founder. A claim from Musk or Tesla does not change who is co-founder. Beyond that, per WP:BLPSELFPUB we do not accept primary sources that make self-serving and reasonably disputed claims. As evidence that there is dispute, numerous secondary sources report that Elon Musk is not the co-founder of Tesla, instead naming Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning Tesla's co-founders.

I'm aware there are conflicting sources, so here is a tertiary source, Encyclopedia Britannica: Tesla, Inc., formerly (2003–17) Tesla Motors, American electric-automobile manufacturer. It was founded in 2003 by American entrepreneurs Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning and was named after Serbian American inventor Nikola Tesla. Nowhere does it state that Musk co-founded Tesla.

Quote from Wikipedia policy WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

But you know what I find interesting, is that in 2010 Tesla publicly states that Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning are the founders: Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive. Later in the article Tesla names Musk a chairman, but not a co-founder.

Let's be serious. Wikipedia is not a marketing launch point or a place for rewriting history.

Musk is a major influence on Tesla, but not a co-founder. Maybe we should say that Tesla claims Musk is a co-founder, but not without the WP:BALANCE of conflicting reports, not in the WP:VOICE of Wikipedia, and not without WP:INTEXT attribution. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

References

I absolutely agree. This article comes across very biased, and this serious omission is misleading. Rileeeey (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this article is just filled with fiction, non-truths, and half-truths. This is not an "encyclopedia" article "about" Elon Musk, this is an "fictional" tale of Musk that Musk wants people to falsely believe. SMH. I'd expect this type of article on a blog, but not an "encyclopedia." It's very sad that this article fails the reader in so many ways. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

Change first sentence from "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist." to "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist."

It is disingenuous to state Elon Musk is an engineer. He has no engineering experience and no education to that effect. The title of engineer is not an honorific and should not be treated as one just because he owns a company where engineers work. A source for showing that he is not an engineer is not needed. The current source, [5], states that he does not hold an engineering degree. This source only offers a quote of Elon Musk stating he is an engineer. This does not show the proper qualifications to list him as an engineer. ZimbuMonkey (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The source "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. Then there is a Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a handful of patents with his name on them and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated. Change the sentence to convey that he considers himself to be one or that he has been awarded honorary degrees in it and call it a day.QRep2020 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• "comment" @Synoman Barris: Here is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website [1] he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon leads all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not is). If this were a blog about Elon Musk, I would not care if he were falsely called an "engineer." But because this is an encyclopedia, facts matter. I feel, that if this encyclopedia wants to use the word "engineer" with Elon Musk, then we should at least word with some morsel of truth and use the same wording Elon Musk uses to describe himself on his website: "Elon Musk leads a team of engineers but has no formal education in engineering and is not licensed to practice engineering." BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  BetsyRMadison, Hello, the sources are convincing but since this is a BLP article. We must establish consensus, then it will be decided whether it should be removed or retained. Thanks Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Synoman Barris: - yes, I understand that, but here's my confusion. Since we all know Musk is not an engineer, why mention it all in the article? I mean, as it is, the 1st sentence reads to be "as a matter of fact" he "is" an engineer -- but we know it is not a matter of fact because we know he is not an engineer. And if we have to mention "engineer" why make it sound so matter of fact, when it's not even a true thing? So, since we know he is not engineer, why mention "engineer" at all? Wouldn't be easier, and more truthful to just leave "engineer" out? Or, if we have to include it, could we at least put some truth behind it and say something like, "Xmedia say Musk is an engineer ...." or something truthful like that? It just confuses the heck out of me why an encyclopedia would include something that they know is false. Am I making sense to you? I sure hope I am. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  BetsyRMadison, Yeah, I get you, but since this has turned out to be controversy, we need to wait for the discussion to be closed after a consensus. As far as am seeing many editors want his engineer status retained because of his involvement in an engineering firm. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Synoman Barris: - Ok. Well, it we have to say he "is" and engineer, because he owns a company who hires engineers where he "leads" the team of engineers, can it at least be written with some kind of truth, like the example I gave above? Or with an asterisk? Or, is it a WP rule on 'consensus' that no changes what-so-ever can be made so it has to stay as is? I'm not asking that last question to be snarky, I genuinely do not know the answer. No matter what the answer is, I am truly saddened to learn that an encyclopedia may be compelled to put something in an article that they know to be completely false. It's a deflating realization. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  BetsyRMadison, Biographies of living persons are among the most sensitive areas of Wikipedia, the only way we can make controversial changes to a BLP article is through consensus. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Synoman Barris: - I know you know much, much more than I do about BLP, and I hope you know I'm working in good faith & not trying to be a pain when I say I thought that the whole idea behind BLP is to not allow fictional information about a living person be on wikipedia and instead, "We must get the article right." In other words, I thought putting up fiction violates BLP. I will follow any rule WP has, and not being an Admin or knowing the ins-outs of BLP, I truly thought using fiction to describe a living person violates BLP. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Musk as an engineer

The issue at hand is whether Elon Musk is to be described as an engineer in Elon Musk. The issue of whether Musk should be described as such has been broached at least five times before on Talk: Elon Musk and none of those discussions actually Ended in anything like a consensus, likely because the issue is so “contentious” and there are strong arguments on both sides. QRep2020 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

I am on the remove side and my reasoning is (reiterated) as follows: The source "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. There is a Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a handful of patents that he has co-authored and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated.

Instead, I propose including a statement about his honorary degrees and providing proper citations. Finally, I would also like to unearth a moving argument from a previous discussion on this matter made by FenixFeather: “On a different note, since the lede is supposed to reflect the body, I think there would have to be content in the body that describes Musk's role as an engineer in order to make it WP:DUE to describe him as an engineer in the first sentence. Given that the article doesn't cover any of Musk's engineering activities, I don't think it would be a good idea to put that label in the first sentence, even if multiple sources label him an engineer. There needs to be in-depth discussion of exactly what he has done as an engineer, rather than just passing labels. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)” QRep2020 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC) With all of the back and forth, no one has yet to explain why would we refer to a page that no longer exists on its original website especially since the website remains active? And as for discussion in general, there is clearly no consensus here and I have yet to see an argument against my simple recommendation of removing 'engineer' from the lede and instead adding a reference to Musk possessing honorary degrees in engineering, a proposition which no one appears to call into question. QRep2020 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

That’s an unreasonable interpretation. You have definitely seen arguments against your “simple recommendation” - they are in this section labelled “Keep”. Absent a consensus the status quo prevails, that’s how it works here in WP. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." I meant consensus qua agreement, apologies if that was not clear. There are plenty voices here taking issue with calling Musk an engineer in the lede without any qualification. There are no arguments below as to why cribbing his engineer status in terms of honorary degrees are "unreasonable," perhaps because it is pretty reasonable. QRep2020 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

His having honorary degrees is irrelevant to his “engineer status” - he’s referred to as an engineer because that’s what the world calls him, it’s what the engineering community in particular calls him, reliable sources refer to him as an engineer and NO reliable sources deny that he’s an engineer. He calls himself an engineer too - which he’s allowed to - but that’s irrelevant.

I don’t see why the use of the word engineer in the lede needs any qualification other than what’s in the body of the article. If he was referred to as a licensed engineer then sure, but he isn’t and it isn’t misleading. No reader will leap to the false conclusion that he operates an engineering business open to the public, still less act on that, nor that he has made a false claim of possessing engineering qualifications, and that’s what it’s about. If we change the lede then we should do the same for other false engineers such as Henry Ford and Leonardo da Vinci.

I don’t see how there will be consensus in this discussion any more than there was in several previous similar discussions. Keepers say he simply is an engineer and the article should reflect that, and Removers say he isn’t a licensed engineer and therefore the article shouldn’t call him an engineer at all. It strikes me that there’s an unhealthy absolutism and perhaps a moralism in some of the Remove arguments and that’s another reason why there will never be agreement now or in the future. Time this discussion came to an end. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think saying he is not a licensed engineer in there could work perfectly well, come to think of it. The Keep/ Remove labels are more to quickly assess the Rfc's "temperature" as I understand it. QRep2020 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Especially in the lead, saying what he is not just isn't going to work,IMO. At best, I suppose that a footnote following the word "engineer" might be a possible compromise. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What about "[Musk is] an engineer by some standards but not a licensed one" or some such? QRep2020 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys don't give up, do you? Since he doesn't have to be licensed as an engineer because he's working for himself and not the public (industrial exception in the US and nobody else cares) and he doesn't claim to be licensed and nobody thinks he is licensed, why qualify the word "engineer" by pointing out that it doesn't mean something that nobody apart from a few WP editors thinks it does? Has anyone found a single RS where his being called an engineer is challenged, or where it is said to be misleading?

Let's have a look at what WP:JDL says:

"editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified — without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources"

And if you want actual policy, let's look at WP:OR:

"any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article".

In other words, I would contend, if lots of people think he's an engineer and there are reliable sources that say he is you cannot argue that he isn't or shouldn't be, you must prove that he isn't or cannot be by reference to reliable sources. This, by the way, is the basis on which I will take this discussion to arbitration if that proves necessary. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"You guys" - charming. First of all, how do you know no one "thinks" he is licensed? I have learned a lot about how complex the issue of engineer-dom from participating in this very discussion and it strikes me as a fair distinction to address especially with how much traffic this article receives. Secondly, how does it not behoove us to clarify what "flavor" of engineer he is when the article already goes into such levels of detail regarding Musk's religious views, the nature of his founder status at Tesla, exactly how wealthy he is a given moment, etc.? What is wrong with providing context and qualification especially of an educating variety in a Wikipedia article, exactly? That is a case I will happily make in arbitration, which it looks like this matter is clearly headed. QRep2020 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I apologise for the colloquialism. However neither you nor anyone else have addressed the main point - given that there are reliable sources saying that he IS an engineer are there any reliable sources saying that he is NOT? Because without sources any arguments in favour of removal are just personal opinion, not supported by evidence. And without sources that qualify his status as an engineer WP:PSTS makes it clear that there are no grounds for introducing such qualifications into the article. So... where are your sources? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy states that arguments in an Rfc need sources that present the exact cases or claims made? I and others have included sources, i.e. evidence, that provide foundations to our arguments. For instance, in my Remove statement, I brought up the Popular Mechanics article that describes Musk as an "engineer at heart", which implies that he is not technically one under some criterion. We can build a case for why a claim should not appear in an article without an independent, explicit renunciation.

That said, I concede that it may be difficult to source my above suggestion as I myself cannot find any articles stating Musk is not a licensed engineer, though it is often difficult to find someone talking about something did not happen. With that said, what is wrong with instead stating that "Musk is an engineer by some standards but does not possess a degree in engineering besides honorary doctorates" and cite something like https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-says-you-dont-need-a-high-school-diploma-to-work-at-tesla/ ? Again, my specific issue with the lede (and the article as a whole really) is that it provides no qualification regarding his engineering status which differs from that of, say, Steve Wozniak's. QRep2020 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

He’s referred to in the lede as an engineer because that’s what reliable sources call him, sources of such notability (serious engineers) that it’s worth including. Those sources don’t qualify the use of the term nor do any others - it’s only your opinion that it should be qualified. He’s not an engineer by some standards, he’s an engineer by any standards as far as the sources go. This argument is going nowhere. You are trying to qualify the unqualified statements that are made by reliable sources and that’s never going to get you anywhere. Why not find just ONE source that either qualifies or rejects his being an engineer? A single engineering society, state regulatory body, senior aerospace engineer etc. If you’re right someone is bound to have said it and if they haven’t then by WP policies you are not right. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep For the reasons already stated. Lklundin (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Such as? Can you point to any statements or WP:RS that says this? Without it, I will be voting remove. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

For anyone wondering what reasons for 'keep' there are, please note this discussion page's use of the template {{round in circles}}, which states: 'Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting' Lklundin (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

There are countless discussions--I found Talk:Elon_Musk#Past_Discussions 12 discussions, and I know there are more. Most of them have no reliable sources. The statement can only be justified if there are strong sources that say it, so those discussions that lack sources demonstrate he should not be called an engineer. Since you seem to have knowledge of these discussions, why not provide the best source if you believe they exist? Without good WP:RS the statement has to be removed --David Tornheim (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of the {{round in circles}}-template is the other way around: If anyone wants to bring up again an already discussed topic, then they first have to go through the archived arguments and read up on these. This makes sense, since otherwise recurring requests for discussing any given topic would require users who had already argued the matter to go through the whole thing again. So you get to do that now.

But I will bring a possibly new argument to the table. CEO of SpaceX Elon Musk has on at least two occasions described himself as 'chief engineer' of SpaceX - in one case even stating that he has been 'chief engineer/designer from day 1'. Clearly, if the CEO of company says that he is an engineer of that company, then we (like everyone else) will surely have to take his word for it. And he didn't say it to just anybody, on the first occasion he was responding to criticism of SpaceX from Dmitry Rogozin (administrator of the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos), on the other occasion he was in a talk/interview with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine. Lklundin (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

One tiny, additional detail: While we talk so much about mechanical engineering with all its moving parts like those found in rockets and cars, it completely escaped (until now) my attention that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers saw fit already 5 years ago to make Elon Musk an honorary, lifetime member. So at this time we have both ASME and IEEE that consider Elon Musk to be an engineer. Consequently, from now on, I will consider any claim that Elon Musk is not an engineer to merely be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Lklundin (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lklundin: Wait a minute. So you know full well that Elon Musk is not an engineer so instead of removing that blatant fictional claim in this encyclopedia article, you turn yourself into a pretzel, redefine the word "member" to incorrectly mean "is an engineer." For the record: being a member is not equal to being an engineer. ASME & IEEE have members who are not engineers (like Musk), as well as members who are engineers (unlike Musk). I'm stunned that even though you know he's not an engineer, in your comment you tell other encyclopedia editors on here that because Musk 'says he is one' we should keep the fiction alive in this article for Musk.

Oh & speaking of SpaceX, there is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website [2] he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon leads all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not "is"). I have no idea why any editor of an encyclopedia would turn themselves into pretzels to keep a fictional biography on it's website. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am going to have ask you to:

• follow the guideline on the top of this page, per the {{Round in circles}}-template and read up on previous discussions. Then you will learn that a person (like Elon Musk) can full well be an engineer without having a degree.
• take down your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude a notch - and not accuse me of arguing against better knowledge.

Your logic is clearly flawed, since the absence of statement 'X' does not make 'X' false, basically an argument from silence. In fact and contrary to your (flawed) argument, Elon Musk has - in his capacity as CEO of SpaceX - stated that he is (and always has been) an engineer with SpaceX. Clearly, when the CEO of a company makes such a statement, then it must be accepted - not only by a person directly overhearing it (e.g. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine), but also by the rest of the World, including Wikipedia.

So with this truly overwhelming body of material that clearly establishes Elon Musk as an engineer, this whole discussion really is quite superfluous. Lklundin (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Lklundin:- Elon Musk is not an engineer. That is a fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so truth and facts matter here. Above you attempted to redefine the word "member" erroneously to mean "engineer" and now you're attempting to redefine the word "CEO" to erroneously mean "engineer." Your above assertion of: 'sure Musk is not really engineer but because he says he is an engineer on Twitter, we're gonna force this encyclopedia to tell world he is one' - that's a completely flawed, erroneous assertion. The truth is, just because a CEO says something does not make it true -- especially when that same CEO (Elon Musk's) SpaceX website does not claim Elon Musk as an engineer. And notice, Elon Musk's company website debunks the claim by former GOP Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) who Trump appointed to be administrator of NASA. So far, you've posted 33 comments on here using flawed, erroneous assertions, attempted to redefined words, just to push for this encyclopedia to "keep," what you know in advance is, a fictional biography of Elon Musk. I question why any encyclopedia editor would go to such lengths to keep up a fictional biography of Elon Musk. The fact is Elon Musk is not an engineer and, as it is currently written, this is article is a fictional biography of Elon Musk, and by your comments you seem to be ok with keeping this a fictional biography. SMH BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just saying That is a fact does not make it so. The whole reason for the existence of this RFC is that it is a disputed assertion. You've made your point of view clear, but others continue to disagree with you. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON before replying again to this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Rosbif73: You're right, simply saying "that is a fact" does not make it true. Similarly, since we all know it is a fact that Elon Musk is not an engineer, (at least not in the real world where real state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer) simply saying he is an engineer, does not make it so either. As written this is a fictional biography & everyone here knows it's fictional -- and that's what most stunning and alarming regarding the veracity of so-called biographies on this website.

As for WP:BLUDGEON -I'm sure you agree that the Lklundin's 14 comments in this section, your 11 comments in this section are not "bludgeoning" -- just as my 11 comments in this section are also not "bludgeoning." But I will say, it's pretty sad state of affairs when an encyclopedia editor has to make 11 comments to debunk flawed statements, erroneous statements for those who, for some unknown reason, want to force wiki to have a fictional biography of Elon Muskb. I'd expect that type flagrant disregard for truth on a blog, not an encyclopedia. SMH. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, it’s obviously not true that “we all know it is a fact that Elon Musk is not an engineer”. Nor is it true that “state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer” unless you tack on the words “in America”, which gives the game away - you’ve forgotten that there’s a very big world outside the USA where these things really do not matter very much. Anyway even in America it’s just not true - see my comment about the law in Florida, where it is quite explicitly and undeniably legal for unlicensed people to be “real” engineers provided they don’t offer their services to the general public. Wishing it was so doesn’t make it so. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andyjsmith: You are mistaken. The legal fact is that under every part of Florida state law: [3] Elon Musk is not an engineer. You must have misunderstood the section of the Florida law that you cited (above). I'll explain.

1) Florida state law statute 471 - "Definition of engineer": (5) “Engineer” includes the terms “professional engineer” and “licensed engineer” and means a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of engineering under this chapter.. So, under FL state law Elon Musk is not an engineer.

2) Florida state law statute 471 - "Qualifications- subsection 1" (1) No person other than a duly licensed engineer shall practice engineering or use the name or title of “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state.. Under this subsection of FL state law: Elon Musk is not an engineer.

3) Florida state law statute 471 - "Qualifications subsection 2" (that you misunderstood) "(2) The following persons are not required to be licensed under the provisions of this chapter as a licensed engineer: (a) Any person practicing engineering for the improvement of, or otherwise affecting, property legally owned by her or him ..." Under this subsection of FL state law: Elon Musk is not an engineer.

This subsection 2 of the FL state law only allows a person, John Doe, who owns his company's building, to make "improvements" (within limits) on his own building without requiring John Doe to hire a real engineer to sign off on the "improvements" that John Doe wants to make on his own building. That Florida statute's subsection says "John Doe is not an engineer" but if John Doe owns a building that needs new floor joists, then John Doe (or his employee) can design and draw up the blueprints for the new floor joists without having to hire a real engineer to sign off on the design/blueprint. This subsection is a common subsection in most state's laws to allow business owners who own their own buildings make cost-saving building repairs (within limits) to their own building. So, to reiterate, under every part of Florida state law: Elon Musk is not an engineer.

So, as I said, in the real world where real state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer, Elon Musk is not an engineer - and everyone - including you, knows that. Which explains why in your comment (above) even you admit that Elon Musk would only be able to claim to be an engineer in the very, very, very few countries where anyone can claim to be an engineer because the country leaders do not give one dang if their so-called engineers cause buildings, bridges, and skyways, to fall down or cause planes, cars & trains to explode." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove I would be very leery of labeling anyone an engineer who didnt have an engineering degree, as far as I can tell Musk does not. If evidence of a degree were presented I would be willing to change my vote to include. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. To quote from Engineering § Practice, "One who practices engineering is called an engineer, and those licensed to do so may have more formal designations such as Professional Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer [...]". We are claiming only that he is an engineer in the general sense of somebody who undertakes engineering tasks, not that he is licensed in any way. Objections seem to be primarily from those who mentally equate "engineer" with one of the more formal designations, but remember that requirements for engineers to be licensed and to hold particular qualifications are by no means universal around the world. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

And why should we believe he is "One who practices engineering"? Isn't he just the CEO and/or owner of a tech company who is very good at getting in the lime light and making a fool of himself in the eyes of real engineers like me?  :) Honestly he seems more like a huckster or salesman who believes in Perpetual motion machines. It seems no coincidence his company is named Tesla, attaching himself to the over-hyped and re-invented Nikola Tesla, who did not ever make a machine that created "free energy". When people try to tell me about Tesla, I tell them I am electrical engineer that does not believe in ghosts, perpetual motion machines, or walking on water. Apparently, I'm a cynic. ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I take no stand as to your cynicism, but your stated opinion of Musk is hardly WP:NPOV... Rosbif73 (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

For completeness, I note here that Musk describes himself as "chief engineer/designer" of SpaceX, as per the extra references added to the article recently – though of course his statements are to be used with caution per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosbif73 I have looked into this more. Engineering § Practice is unsourced, (I tagged it) and Wikipedia is not WP:RS. Your statement requirements for engineers to be licensed and to hold particular qualifications are by no means universal is unsourced and irrelevant. The evidence from reliable sources supports the definition that engineers are professionals certified into their professional the same way doctors, dentists, attorneys and other professionals are. I explain some of that below [4]. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

See my point below about selective use of reliable sources from countries where that claim is true. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Remove per Horse Eye Jack.revised !vote below based on WP:RS No WP:RS has been provided by those saying keep that he is an engineer. If you can find some, I, like Horse Eye Jack, will re-consider. Has he been mentioned by at IMAC or by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [revised 07:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)]

Funny you should mention ASME, because one source given in the article is from ASME. Relevant quotes: An example of such a practical engineer is Elon Musk and While Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree per say [sic] [...] few dispute his assertion [...] "I'm an engineer, so what I do is engineering. That's what I'm good at.". If ASME are prepared to call him an engineer, why shouldn't we? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: That's way better than the Popular Mechanics quote. Why didn't you provide that WP:RS above? I'll likely change my vote based on that--keeping in mind it may be more like OpEd and others might know the author better than I. I did read the entirety of the very interesting Wired article Dr. Elon & Mr. Musk: Life Inside Tesla's Production Hell and was more inclined to think of him as an engineer / mad hatter. With a degree in Physics, he would know better than to attempt a Perpetual motion machine. And it did sound like he could parlay with the engineers, even though I had the sense he would have benefited by either getting a degree in engineering, or taking some classes in how to listen.  :) So I will probably change my vote based on the two articles...

Don't you have to admit though, that most engineers would have made good & sure this would never happen at a press conference. We would test a big enough sample, under every kind of temperature, humidity, stress test, etc. before doing that in public! It seems to me he takes short cuts...like that ridiculous stock thing he tweeted and got sued for. I'm so glad I never worked there.

Note: His main identity is Billionaire. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I will also point out the obvious: ASME no longer hosts this content and it makes me wonder if the perspective has at all changed. I am remiss for how to verify or deny that kind of an organizational attitude shift though. QRep2020 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Please respect the {{Not a forum}}-template: 'This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.' Lklundin (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"practical engineer” =/= engineer, if we want to say practical engineer with a footnote explaining the lack of degree based on this description we can. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

We are going in circles here with this having been discussed and rejected already (basically because being an engineer is a _practical_ profession, there is no theoretical engineer). Please read the old arguments. Lklundin (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thats not accurate... I also don’t see an argument going in circles, it seems to be rather straightforward and moving briskly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Except that the ASME reference above uses exactly that term... "practical engineer." If the ASME calling him an engineer carries any weight, it bears referencing that they qualified their reference to him in that way. Retswerb (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove from WP:LEDE per Isaidnoway [5] and Restate in WP:BODY as "self-described engineer" (per Rosbif73's sources [6]), "practical engineer" (per Horse Eye Jack), and/or "honorary engineer". <-- This is my revised !Vote --David Tornheim (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC) [revised 09:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)][revised again 12:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)]

The WP:BODY should back it up with something like this:

Although Musk has no formal degree in engineering... "Musk received an honorary lifetime membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 2015.ref Paul Glanville, PE, Senior Engineer, writing for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) described him a practical engineer. ref. Musk assigned himself titles such as "chief engineer". ref.

The poll on Facebook is not WP:RS.

Arguments like "walks like a duck" hold no weight, as this is WP:SYN. The statement "he is an engineer" can only be stated to the extent the WP:RS does. The WP:RS clearly focused on the fact he has no formal degree, so if he is described as an engineer, that he has no degree should be in the WP:LEDE.

I have explained elsewhere that people like James Watt, Henry Ford, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and the Wright Brothers may be considered by contemporary historians or people in their time to be engineers, but that was before engineering became a profession with degrees, qualifications, certifications, exams, etc. Fields like dentistry and medicine made similar changes in a previous period:

Our article on Profession based on WP:RS provided here explains it:

A profession is an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others...

It has been said that a profession is not a trade.

Applying these milestones to the historical sequence of development in the United States shows surveying achieving professional status first... followed by medicine, actuarial science, law, dentistry, civil engineering, logistics, architecture and accounting.

With the rise of technology and occupational specialization in the 19th century, other bodies began to claim professional status: mechanical engineering, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, psychology, nursing, teaching, librarianship, optometry and social work, each of which could claim, using these milestones, to have become professions by 1900.

References

The novel McTeague written in 1899 gives an excellent example of the transition to professional degree requirements. McTeague holds himself out in the community as "Dr. McTeague" dentist, but he is mostly self-taught with some experience helping a "traveling charltan practicing out of a wagon." [7]. After 12 years holding himself out as a dentist, he finds himself "barred from practicing dentistry by authorities requiring that he be a graduate of a dental college." [8][9] The blow is devastating.

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Please don't mischaracterise my contributions. While I did indeed note that Musk describes himself as an engineer, I do not advocate using the wording "self-described engineer" in the article; I'm of the opinion that we have sufficient RS to leave "engineer" as is in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully this meets your needs. I would have provided your sources instead, but I didn't have them when I wrote the comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Musk may have described himself as an engineer, but which engineer hasn't said that of themselves? All engineers are self described. Do you mean "falsely self described"? Engineers describe him as an engineer, newspapers describe him as an engineer (the London Times, Washington Post and a whole bunch of others), engineering websites describe him as an engineer. But a couple of WP editors say he is not. So what should the article say - "so-called engineer" or maybe "unqualified engineer" or even "popularly but incorrectly said to be an engineer"? This is a truly fatuous discussion which cannot result in any worthwhile outcome. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I still do not see the problem with instead describing Musk as having honorary degrees in engineering. That point does not appear to be in contention and is true regardless of where someone is. QRep2020 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Walks like a duck, etc. Wiktionary says “A person who is qualified or professionally engaged in any branch of engineering”. Musk has overall technical control of two massive engineering companies. He makes design decisions. OK, he doesn’t have an engineering degree but on that basis the Wright brothers weren’t engineers either, and I see that WP categorises William Boeing as an aircraft engineer whereas everyone knows he was actually a timber merchant. I don’t like Musk but he’s an engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a reliable source per (this discussion) any more than Engineer. Engineer#Definition includes an extensive quote from a reliable source that defines it. From that definition and the rest of the sources in Engineer, it becomes clear than an engineer today is much like a doctor or dentist--someone who has received either a degree or some self-taught who is certified by exams into the profession. It's true that the Wright Brothers are argued by a historian to be engineers in their time and that seems appropriate to me, engineering was a nascent field at the time: Schools like MIT and Harvard did not yet have engineering schools in 1903, and there was no way to get certification [10]. Also, the Wright Brothers did all their own study, work, testing, etc. unlike Musk who relied on credentialed engineers per this Wired article. Today an engineer is someone who has the credentials, which Musk lacks.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The need for credentials applies in some places around the world, but not in others - and wikipedia is supposed to take a neutral, global point of view to avoid systemic bias. It's easy to back a claim that engineers are required to be licenced if you cite sources only from jurisdictions where the claim is true! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

True. Some contributors to this debate seem to think that "engineer" must be the same as "Engineer". Here's a fun counter-argument courtesy of the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering. Felicia is a painter from Oklahoma. Also a product designer at Facebook who refers to herself as an engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim You have repeatedly (to the point that it resembles WP:BLUDGEON) argued against Elon Musk as an engineer - including your assertion (without a source) that a person needs an engineering degree to be an engineer. This is simply not true. I went over to The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, they really know what it means to be an engineer. To be a member of ASME you do _not_ need a degree, you can also have eight years of experience in the profession. So can we maybe stop this nonsense about degrees? Lklundin (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Lklundin you are mistaken and David Tornheim is correct, in order to be an engineer the person needs a degree in engineering sciences (aka an engineering degree) and you can't practice engineering unless you are licensed in engineering. Of course, you can't take the engineering licencing test unless you have a degree in engineering. For example in California, the requirements to take the engineering licensing test[[11]] are, "With respect to applicants for licensure as professional engineers, the board ... Shall give credit as qualifying experience of four years, for graduation with an engineering degree from a college or university." Each state has their own laws that govern engineers. The example I gave is from California "Professional Engineering Act" [12] which also says, "“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences ... no person shall practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering unless appropriately licensed..." I don't want put up the laws that govern engineers for all 50 states, but they all say pretty much the same thing.

As for being a member of ASME or any other engineering society whose mission is to advance the study of engineering in education, is quit different than being an engineer. As you said, you don't have to be an engineer to be a member of their society - you can be student engineer etc. So while being a member of a society does not require you to be a practicing engineer, in order to be a practice engineering you have to have a engineering degree and licence in engineering. Musk is a smart guy who hires engineers to do engineering work for him. But he is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove He does not have a degree in engineering. Musk also does not engineer any Teslas or Falcon rockets - he has hundreds of actual engineers to do that. ~ HAL333 23:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This whole discussion is incredibly US-centric. Read WP's own article on engineering: "In the United States, engineering is a regulated profession" whereas "the practice of engineering in the UK is not a regulated profession". In fact the Musk article doesn't claim that he has engineering qualifications but it does note that "In 2006, Musk served as a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board" - so he fooled those guys, huh? And there's a link to an article on the website of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers titled "Engineer in Focus: Elon Musk" - fooled them as well!

Reading on, the ASME article says "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." Even as a CEO, his close involvement with design, engineering, and critical technical decisions is unique amongst his peers". Well if leading engineers think he's an engineer that's good enough for me. I'm not an engineer so I defer to those who know. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The more I go back to that ASME article the more it looks to be a blog post that does not reflect the quality of content found elsewhere on the site. I think I might reach out to the ASME web team for comment. As for the US-centric focus, Musk operates primarily in the US and all of his companies are headquartered in the US and therefore we should hold him to the US standards. QRep2020 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Pesky ASME really don’t have a clue about what makes an engineer, do they? I mean, here for example they make the same mistake again, and as Lklundin points out above, they’ll allow anyone to join provided they’ve just done some engineering! Andyjsmith (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, ASME lets in members who: have never done any engineering, and members who are not engineers, and members who plan to never be engineers. For example: ASME Honor Members only to 1) have "distinctive accomplishment in engineering or science or industry or research..." Keywords: or - meaning some ASME Honorary Members have never done any engineering at all BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn’t help any coldly reasoned case. That aside, I also find the Efest article interesting because it admitted fictional characters could be submitted to a “Facebook contest” that appears to be more for fun than anything else. What serious literature on ASME discusses Elon Musk’s contributions to engineering? QRep2020 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Andyjsmith: Thanks for digging up this link, where ASME's social media manager writes the engineer who came in second in our Facebook poll, Elon Musk, i.e. expressly confirming on behalf of ASME that Elon Musk is indeed an engineer. With that we have two ASME sources stating that Musk is an engineer and to top it off, one IEEE source that honors Elon Musk as a role model of an engineer. That Musk is an engineer doesn't really get any clearer than that. Lklundin (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Keep Engineer is quite a broad term, like scientist, and seems reasonably appropriate for someone with such a record of achievement. A formal qualification is not required for this, as we see in other cases like Brunel and Dyson. Note also that both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And, regarding practice in the USA, note that our article explains that "Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States, areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include much of mechanical, aerospace and chemical engineering and may be specifically exempted from regulation under an "industrial exemption". An industrial exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state where they are produced..." As Musk works in both the automotive and aerospace fields, the industrial exemption applies. Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Note that the article is lacking sources for many of its statements all over and including those on that specific topic. The only source for that part applies to architects. QRep2020 (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Here's a source which confirms that "an overwhelming majority of engineers—somewhere around eighty percent—do not pursue licensing". Musk's situation is the norm. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• The "industrial exemption" is a big deal as far as this strange discussion goes. Here's what the Florida Board of Professional Engineers says:

While Florida Statute 471 states that Florida’s Legislature deems it necessary in the interest of public health and safety to regulate the practice of engineering in Florida, there exist licensure exemptions for those whose practices fit within certain categories:

...

“In-house” engineers employed by a manufacturing or other business firm not providing a service directly to the public

...

Engineers employed by defense, space, or aerospace companies

...

[the] safety of the public is protected by way of licensure regulation of the engineer when that engineer offers services to the public

The law is very clear - it's about preventing people from calling themselves " “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state." It makes a clear distinction between "licensed engineer" and plain old "engineer". I have neither the interest nor the patience to sift through statues from 49 other states but it's explicit in Florida law at least that when Musk is at the Cape he's a space engineer. Just not a licensed space engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep—Musk is an engineer because he does exactly that, makes tradeoffs and design decisions about applying physics of materials, energy, etc. to applied technology development, and he has clearly done this in both Tesla and SpaceX (I'll skip the others; but more examples are possible) since the earliest days of both companies, and still does so today. One does not need credentials (university degree in engineering, or passing an exam, or holding a state certification) to be a practicing engineer. Of course he works at the higher levels of abstraction and the higher levels of design more than the specific design of particular parts that make as assembly. However, sources demonstrate that he is frequently involved in the review, oversight, and redirection of myriad lower-level engineering decisions, from material selection, to details of design for some particular part to making calls when to accept this or that design risk to forego or add a part. His title also reflects this fact: "Chief Engineer". (and FWIW, although it doesn't matter in a Wikipedia editor sense, I am an engineer, from uni degree to state certification as a "Professional Engineer", to having been involved in product development (hardware and software, electrical and mechanical) for decades now, down at the level of parts and subassemblies to overall product architecture.) It is not the credential that would confirm that one of Musk's major roles is that of an engineer. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually, in all 50 states, in order to be a practicing engineer you have to have a licence to practice engineering and in order to get the license, you have to have a degree in engineering. Every state has laws that govern practicing engineering. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. Does Musk have an engineering degree? No. But neither did James Watt, Henry Ford, or Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Musk does have a degree in physics which is not so far away, particularly Applied physics. Engineering is a matter of vocation, not formal education. Some graduates of engineering schools do nothing in engineering, the formality of what is written on a diploma matters little. Musk is engaged in multiple engineering ventures. He is noted for his engineering. He is an engineer. Free1Soul (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• observationyou say you realize Musk is not really an engineer but yet you say to "keep" the fictional false claim that he is one in this article. Isn't it better for an encyclopedia to not say anything about engineering with respect to Musk rather than say he is one in this encyclopedia article? BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are very mistaken. A degree in engineering is much, much, much different than a degree in physics. Engineering is, absolutely, a formal education. Musk hires engineers; Musk is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

• Remove - per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD - engineer is the first descriptor of Musk that reader's see in the lead sentence, so he must be notable for that, right? At least part of his notability must derive from being an engineer, for that descriptor to be featured first, and so prominently in the lead sentence. But yet the description of Musk as an engineer is not a significant viewpoint found anywhere in the body of the article that is supported by multiple reliable sources that describe him in that capacity. The source in the lead supporting that descriptor is an opinion piece, and WP:NPOV advises against stating opinions as facts. Is the author of the source qualified to proffer that opinion, sure he is, but he's certainly not qualified to state it as a fact, without other multiple reliable sources (independent of the subject) being used in the body of the article that share that opinion, in order to make it a significant viewpoint. We shouldn't be misleading the reader by stating in wiki-voice in the lead sentence that it's an established fact and significant viewpoint shared by multiple reliable sources that he's an engineer. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Remove - as far as I know, Elon Musk is not licensed to practice engineering in any state of the Union. And, as far as I know, he holds no engineering degree, no Engineer-In-Training license, and no professional engineering license. So, that means, Elon Musk cannot legally sign off on any engineering project. He's a smart guy, no doubt about that, and he may be an engineer at heart, but he's not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but as has been pointed out previously, that’s a US-centric point of view. He’s not advertising himself as an engineer for hire - which would require a qualification in your country but not in mine. He’s just a guy who’s doing engineering and he’s admired for that by some serious engineer dudes. And actually he can sign off an engineering project and does so with considerable frequency.

To call someone an “engineer” does not necessarily mean that they have a formal qualification. Start practicing as a brain surgeon without a qualification and you’re in trouble, but building rockets doesn’t require a vocational qualification. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

You Andyjsmith are mistaken. In all 50 states, it is illegal for a non-licensed engineer to sign off on any engineering project. Elon Musk does not sign off on any engineering project because that would be illegal and the state agency who reviews the sign off would flag it and the project would be prohibited from moving forward. To be clear: in all 50 states, you must be a licensed engineer in order to sign off on any engineering project and in order to take the licensing test for engineering the applicant must have an engineering degree from a 4 year college or university. And, by law in all 50 states, the engineering license must be renewed every year, annually. Foreign engineers are not allowed to sign off on any engineering project without the proper engineering degree, engineer license, and permission from the Board of Licensing from whatever US state they are trying to sign the project off in. Meaning, Elon Musk is not an engineer, he does not sign off on any engineering projects; but he does hire engineers to do work he helps design. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The lede right now says Elon Musk “is an engineer” and that is provided without qualification. The fact that engineering is a regulated profession in the US but not in some other countries does not make the statement true but rather shows how it is incomplete. If I say “Johnny picked up bread from the store” but what Johnny did was pick up a loaf and then leave the store without paying, what I said is true in some way if you go back and reinterpret it knowing I meant it as a description of what his physical action. But my statement is still not true if you go with the usual interpretation.

Leaving the description about Musk as it is and without qualification is analogous; it conceals information about how he is not an engineer at least according to the laws of the US and likely other countries. This information is especially important since he operates his businesses in the US and lives in the US. If we want to say he is an engineer according to what it is to be an engineer in some specific country then that proposed change can be debated too, although I will do my best to argue against that change too but for different reasons. QRep2020 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

To QRep2020 - I like your style! You give fantastic analogies. And you are spot on! If we want to make the engineering claim for him, the sentence should be something like, "Elon Musk is not an engineer, does not have an engineering degree, and no license to practice engineering in America. But! BUT!! He is an engineer in countries where they don't give one dang if their so-called engineers cause buildings, bridges, and skyways, to fall down or cause planes, cars & trains to explode." In all seriousness, the lead should say nothing about engineering at all because Elon Musk is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We have plenty of reliable sources (including US sources, to pander to your US-centric view that Wikipedia is supposed to avoid) that label Musk as an engineer. No claim is made that he is licensed as such (he isn't), but the sources are extremely clear that he performs engineering tasks. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Isn’t there also a point that if the removers prevail and the word “engineer” is either removed or heavily qualified the article will simply be wrong? Reliable sources say that he’s an engineer and I’ve been unable to find any sources that say he isn’t, or that qualify it, so it seems to me that (on both sides of the argument) WP editors are setting themselves up in judgement on the reliability of sources in respect of this one point - sources that would otherwise have been accepted without question. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To Andyjsmith - Elon Musk is not an engineer so this article is already wrong - in fact, this article is so wrong, it is fiction and whould come with a warning label "Reader beware, this is a fictional biography, not to be taken as truth." Oh, and here is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website [13] he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon leads all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not is). If this were a blog about Elon Musk, I would not care if he were falsely called an "engineer." But because this is an encyclopedia, facts matter. I feel, that if this encyclopedia wants to use the word "engineer" with Elon Musk, then we should at least word with some morsel of truth and use the same wording Elon Musk uses to describe himself on his website: "Elon Musk leads a team of engineers but has no formal education in engineering and is not licensed to practice engineering." BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Update: in Florida at least (see above) Musk can legally call himself an engineer so long as he doesn't offer to fix your boiler. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's a moot point. Unless we can arrive at a consensus (or at the very least a rough consensus) to modify the article, then the article will not be modified. That aside, the comments so far have strengthened the case for not modifying the article. Lklundin (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see how the comments here have "strengthened" the Keep position as the vast majority of them are retreads of previously made ones with one or two contributing a little bit more nuance. I do see a few Remove commenters arguing passionately and convincely in succession. In any case, it is neither here nor there to comment on the status of a Rfc that is still in progress as parties were quick to remind me previously. QRep2020 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove As a professor of engineering, it is clear that none of Elon Musk's degrees are engineering. After scanning the above comments, is there any jurisdiction in the world that would condone one's self-appellation as an engineer without training? Would we allow a description of someone as a physician without a medical degree (let alone license) or of an attorney without a law degree (or where applicable, someone who "read" law where that is an appropriate route? User:Professor water 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• "is there any jurisdiction in the world that would condone one's self-appellation as an engineer without training?". Well yes there is - the United Kingdom at least. But more importantly I think you've missed the fact that he has not hung out his shingle as an engineer. He's not selling his services to the public. He's not claiming to have engineering qualifications. He's working as an engineer in his own factories which is permitted many states in the USA under the "industrial exemption", and major engineering societies are happy with that. See WP's comprehensive article on Regulation and licensure in engineering which states:

The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety or safeguarding of life, health or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education and government need not be licensed.

IMHO that's pretty clear! Andyjsmith (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've added a wikilink to the US engineering license requirements into the article per my comment above. However this discussion resolves itself, if it ever does, it seems reasonable that when Musk describes himself as an engineer the article should explain what that means. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit: It is not given that the meaning of engineer in Musk's statement matches this interpretation - and engineer is already linked to. Lklundin (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder: any editor on here who is somehow connected to Elon Musk should disclose that.

To Andyjsmith - The quote you gave in green above confirms, Elon Musk is not an engineer. I will highlight the words in your green quote that confirm Elon Musk is not an engineer.

The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety or safeguarding of life, health or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education and government need not be licensed.

keywords: "practicing engineer" and "while engineers" -- the former, "practicing engineer" refers to licensed professional engineer; and the latter "while engineers" refers to men/women who have graduated with a 4-year engineering degree and who work for a licensed engineer as is required to become a licensed engineer. Engineers get licensed through the National Society of Professional Engineers. [14] In order to take the license test, the engineers engineer applicant must have:

To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree, work under a Professional Engineer for at least four years, pass two intensive competency exams and earn a license from their state's licensure board. Then, to retain their licenses, PEs must continually maintain and improve their skills throughout their careers.

Elon Musk lies when he falsely calls himself an "engineer." The sad part is, everyone on here knows it's a lie and Andyjsmith just admitted Musk is not an engineer, and even though he/she admit he's not an engineer, he/she wants this online encyclopedia to write/keep a fictional biography for Elon Musk so that essentially, wikipedia will be knowingly lying to readers. This topic, deciding on whether to keep a known lie whereby the person perpetrating the self-promoting lie is the subject of the article -- is truly depressing and appalling on many levels.

There are no RS that supports Musk being an engineer, because Musk is not an engineer.

Keeping Musk's "I am an engineer" lie violates WP:BLPSELFPUB, violates WP:BLPSOURCES, violates WP:SELFPUB violates WP:BLP, violates WP:V, violates WP:REDFLAG, and is WP:ABOUTSELF -- heck, at this rate, we may as well just have Musk write his one wiki page & then we'll publish for him -- because that is what we are doing right now.

The encyclopedia Britanica does not list Musk as an engineer, because Musk is not an engineer. Oh & BTW, as for Musk being an "inventor" -- well, it's pretty clear that Musk has invented this fictional biography of himself right here on this wiki cite. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything but I read this again and have to comment. You're taking this very personally, as if you have some skin in the game. Sure, Musk is not at all a nice person and sure, he's a liar. Happy to agree with that and I wouldn't weep if he fell under a Cybertruck, but that's no reason for ad hom attacks. Despite what you say there simply are reliable sources that refer to him as an engineer. Lots of them. I've not seen a single one that says he's a licensed engineer because he obviously isn't - but no-one, not even the man himself, has claimed that he is. But you can't simply dismiss these sources - for example the one mentioned below where the Royal Society, the world's oldest and most prestigious learned organisation, honoured him as an engineer. And Wikipedia itself says that not all engineers are licensed. So please support your arguments with facts - for example are there some reliable sources that throw the other sources into doubt? Andyjsmith (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per Royal Society, which calls him a scientist and Elon Musk FRS, Engineer, inventor and entrepreneur. Arguments above are that he isn't an engineer. It's not for us to determine who fits into the dictionary definition. Do RS' call him that? Apparently, they do. And the Royal Society does too. So the label seems appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• remove I'm really struggling to understand the keeps here. Isn't this obvious that he isn't?? I don't wanna get into a whole weird profession elitism thing here, it just... I... what? A person who makes medical equipment isn't a doctor. A doctor can't fix an MRI machine. A genius mathematician isn't necessarily a teacher. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

QRep2020 Could you please provide links to the previous discussion at the top so we don't have to look for them? I can't really answer the question unless I see all the purported WP:RS that proponents of calling him an engineer have provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I've archived some of the discussions to reduce talk page clutter; I think the principal one QR might have been referring to is Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5#Introductory_Sentence_is_Misleading RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Other past ones:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_4#Elon_Musk_is_not_an_engineer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_3#Inventor?_Engineer?
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_2#%22Engineer%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Engineer?

QRep2020 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@QRep2020: Some of the links above are no working. I'm making a new section below with links that work in a simpler form. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions

• Talk:Elon_Musk#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_22_June_2020 -- 3 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Elon_Musk#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_18_June_2020_2 -- 3 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Elon_Musk#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_18_June_2020 -- 2 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Elon_Musk#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_30_May_2020 -- 2 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Elon_Musk#Please_remove_engineer_and_industrial_designer_from_first_sentence/occupation -- 3 participants as of 12:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5#RfC:_Should_Musk's_comment_about_Wikipedia_on_Joe_Rogan_be_included_in_the_Joe_Rogan_section_or_not? -- 1 brief mention by 1 editor
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_30_April_2019 -- 2 participants
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_4#Elon_Musk_is_not_an_engineer -- 5 participants
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_3#Inventor?_Engineer? -- approx. 10 participants (notified as of 02:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC))
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_2#"Engineer" -- 2 participants (notified as of 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC))
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Engineer? -- 4 participants (notified as of 12:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC))
• Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Inventor?_Engineer? -- 3 participants (notified as of 12:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC))

I had no idea there were so many places this was discussed! This RfC is definitely warranted. I didn't get them all. If you find another, please feel free to add it. I suggest we ping everyone who has been in the past discussions. I am going to start by simply leaving a notice on their talk pages, starting with the oldest discussions first. If you want to help with the notifications, please feel free to add your work to the information above in the same format I have. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I notified 11 more editors who have been in the oldest discussions. I know many have not edited in years. It's just easier to systematically notify everyone who has discussed this rather taking extra time to consider their edit history. That's enough notification for tonight. Again, anyone feel free to help out with the rest. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you notifying users by leaving a note on their user pages? I could probably help. QRep2020 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

QRep2020 Yes. Please see my contribs and you can see the format I was using--like this. I just go to each discussion, and to each talk page of each person who commented and just copy and paste that same text to their talk page.

Thanks for offer to help.--David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected: Elon musk claims he wants his wiki changed to describe him as a "business magnate"

This is the video On Youtube ID is watch?v=rx567LQO1N4& and &t=399 (399 seconds in aka 6:45) Title: "Elon Musk Funniest Moments Part 2"

I believe he meets the criteria reasonably. In the same way that he is acknowledged as a philanthropist and entrepreneur without strict criteria for how to be defined as such, I think in many ways he fits the societal definition of a business magnate, all his businesses have been successful (despite some rocky starts) and he has multiple companies in a diverse range of fields.

From wiki (you can obviously choose your personal favorite dictionary and any sources would be good for historical definitions of "magnate" but this is just for the lazy a reasonable definition):

"A business magnate is someone who has achieved great success and enormous wealth through the ownership of a multiple line of businesses. An Industrialist is an individual who starts a business with their own unique idea or concept, is a risk taker and innovative who is a market leader." Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBBOBLEYBOBSON (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (aghast) So wait a minute, Elon Musk "wants" wikipedia to "say" he's this or that -- so now wiki editors are turning themselves into pretzels to figure out a way to make this already fictional article say whatever it is Musk wants it to? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell Musk to write this article himself and then publish it for him? I mean, this whole article is filled with so much fiction & untruths as it is, that I'm surprised there's not "warning" label at the top saying "Reader beware, this is a fictional biography, not to be taken as truth." I don't know what's worse, Musk wanting a fictional biography, or wiki-encyclopedia actually publishing his fictional biography and with no warning label. SMH BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, funniest moments. Nobody uses the term "business magnate" since Laurel and Hardy made Me and My Pal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  

• I'm a bit of a Musk fan, but I don't see why, what he wants "his" wikipedia article to say carries any weight here? Dutchy45 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The above are all based on a misunderstanding. Elon was saying he DID NOT want to be called "magnate" he was mocking the term. And made a joke saying "please call me business magnet". 98.210.50.216 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of hometown in infobox

The infobox currently lists Hillsborough as the hometown of Musk. I think this is misleading. According to Oxford, a hometown is "the town of one's birth or early life or of one's present fixed residence." Google goes with the first definition as it lists Musk's hometown as Pretoria, South Africa, the place of his birth. The infobox's claim that Hillsborough doesn’t seem solid. Musk has multiple homes, many which are not in Hillsborough. The one which pops up the most is one in Bel Air. The word "hometown" implies that Musk lives entirely in that city and has made major contributions to the community, but this is not an apt description. An example of an actual hometown would be Elvis and Memphis, or LBJ and Johnson City. The validity of Hillsborough as his hometown is further weakened by the fact that Musk is selling all of his homes. The infobox is already bloated and I support its removal. Hopefully you agree. Thanks! ~ HAL333 01:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You make decent points. He lives in California, but I agree with you that his hometown is ambiguous due to his multiple primary residences in California since 1994. Will vote to remove it from the IB. Thanks. --Jaysmith5 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Education

There is more detail in the lead than in the article. Maybe someone could fix this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC).

Include Chomsky Tweet?

Does anyone else think that it would be appropriate to include his recent tweet about Noam Chomsky in the section about his political views? I think that it provides insight into the nature of his political viewpoints. DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I have removed it until someone can find substantial coverage of his tweet in independent reliable sources to support the relevance for this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't find any coverage of the tweet in any independent sources at the moment. I'll check periodically to see if anything new gets published, but it seems unlikely since it's been nearly two days since the tweet was made. I suppose it's possible that it will get featured in a source that is not entirely about just the tweet. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with HaeB, if its not covered by WP:RS its almost certainly not important. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

If this article had every Musk tweet, there would be no end to it. Free1Soul (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Nth Richest Person in the World

Benjamin Joachim's edit changes 22nd-richest person in the world to 31st-richest person in the world. When I check the source given, it says #22 with $46.3B as of 7/1/20. Whereas, www.forbes.com/billionaires/ puts him at #31 with $24.6 B. If we are going to update the net worth more often than once per year, then I believe the ranking should be updated at the same time. I think it will be confusing to any one who clicks on the link to keep it the way it is now. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020

Change “As of July 2020 his net worth was estimated at $46.3 billion and he is listed by Forbes as the 31st-richest person in the world.“

To: “As of July 7th, 2020 his net worth was estimated at $54.5 billion and he is listed by Forbes as the 19th-richest person in the world.”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/?list=rtb/#274cc9447999 UsaforPennies (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The edit request is no longer valid because the source has been updated and its no longer $54.5 billon. Trains2050 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: philanthropy

Philanthropy should include his efforts to donate ventilators, particularly to third world countries. For instance, he worked with the Bolivian Ambassador of Science and Technology, Mohammed Mostajo-Radji, to deliver many ventilators and equipment to Bolivia through Tesla . Could also go in COVID19 section which is tilted against Musk. Dankmusk (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It might be controversial to call this philanthropy given that apparently a bunch of countries asked Elon for ventilators and supplies and yet only Bolivia says they received them? Plus his recent tweet about the Bolivia coup? Gonna get the Lithium truthers going. Losojosdojos (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References