Elon Musk is currently an Economics and business good article nominee. Nominated by ~ HAL333 at 21:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.
Q1: Can I write a message to Elon Musk here? (No.)
A1: No. The "Talk:Elon Musk" page is not for writing messages to Musk. It is only for discussing changes to the Wikipedia article about him. Writing a message to Musk here is pointless and disruptive, and such messages will be removed as an improper use of the page.
Q2: Can you update the article to call Musk a "business magnet"? (No.)
A2: No. Musk once suggested in an interview that his Wikipedia article be changed to describe him as a "business magnet" rather than a magnate. The tone of that interview was not very serious; he also claimed to be an alien.[1] Wikipedia doesn't have to do what Musk says, and this request has been made and declined dozens of times already. New requests may be removed without a response so that other discussions are not disrupted.
Q3: Should Musk be identified as South African in the opening sentence?
A3: Musk is a US citizen (since 2002) born and raised in South Africa, and also acquired Canadian citizenship via his mother. Including these nationalities in the opening sentence in a balanced way would be complex, and the consensus is that they should instead be explained later in the lead.
Q4: Can you change "Tesla CEO" to "Tesla Technoking"?
A4: No, because he is still CEO according to company records and that is a common corporate title that readers will understand, unlike "Technoking". The goal of the article is to inform people, which would be hindered by raising a confusing technicality.
Q5: Should the mention of Errol Musk having an interest in an emerald mine be removed in view of Elon's denials?
A5: While Elon today vehemently disputes any history with an emerald mine, he formerly accepted and even confirmed it. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon. Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of emeralds from his dealings.
Q6: Should "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" be "Bachelor of Science" instead?
A6: No. Although it may seem counterintuitive, "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" is the degree that the University of Pennsylvania (among other schools) awards.
Q7: Should the article acknowledge doubts about Musk's academic record?
A7: Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons requires that negative information about a person must be attributed to reliable published sources, and excludes both self-published sources (e.g. Twitter threads) and court trial records. The article states that sources disagree about when Musk obtained bachelor degrees, and that he did not attend Stanford for any significant amount of time. Any doubts beyond this require appropriate sources.
Q8: Why doesn't this article describe Musk as an engineer?
A8: Musk is chief engineer of SpaceX, a title that applies within the company and that the press regularly mentions. He is not a professional engineer, a distinction within engineering that carries certain legal privileges in the United States, nor has he completed an engineering training program, nor has he ever been hired as an engineer. The article therefore does not include any of these claims. It does note that, from time to time, Musk has made initial product proposals at his companies that his trained engineers then research and develop. He does hold IEEE Honorary Membership.
Q9: Why doesn't the article identify Musk as co-founder of PayPal?
A9: Because that could mislead readers that Musk was involved in the creation of the PayPal service and brand, when he was not. Instead, as the article states, he co-founded a company (X.com Corporation) that acquired the company that had developed PayPal (Confinity Inc.) and then renamed itself as PayPal, Inc.
Q10: Why does this page include criticism of Musk's actions and stances?
A10: Musk is criticized/praised a lot in many reliable sources, and as such we need to talk about these criticisms and praise. To quote from Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
Q11: Why is this a "good article" when some people consider Musk a bad person?
A11: "Good article" on Wikipedia refers to the way the article is written, not what kind of person Musk is. Good articles have been found to satisfy Wikipedia editorial standards for accuracy, verifiability and balanced presentation.
Q12: Why doesn't this page call Musk African American?
A12:African Americans are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Reliable sources do not use this term to describe Musk.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I assume this RfC is talking about the information that was involved in an edit war recently, ending with a series of four edits summarised by the following diff [1] and discussed above. @JShark: could you please confirm that this is indeed the intended subject of your RfC, before we actually start discussing this? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's about that information above. And it would be good if people not involved in the dispute participate since some of those involved in the dispute such as users called BeŻet or QRep2020 are supporting inclusion. It would also be good if users who have never edited this article participate to have an impartial perspective.--JShark (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that uninvolved people shouldn't participate; nor am I suggesting that anybody should be debarred. I'm merely saying that if this RfC is follow-up to the Musk's treatment of employees section, it should be altered from level 2 to level 3, to make the connection clear. This will answer the questions put by PraiseVivec and Rosbif73. The {{rfc}} tag may be retained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support: His infamous managerial style and treatment of his employees has been reported quite widely in several sources, including WIRED and The Wall Street Journal amongst others. I think it's WP:DUE and should be included, provided we attribute the claims to sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The removed content is well-sourced and highly relevant to the article. The reasons given for its removal in the above discussion are comically biased and unencyclopedic. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support dependent on improved sourcing. WSJ works great but not too hot on Electrek or Yahoo... ~ HAL33313:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude - I differ - I think it not a major part of his life or coverage, and contrary to WP policy and good style. Suggest restraint here, read WP:BLP and the essay WP:CRIT. That diff content seems *not* a match for the meaning of “management style” and not what predominates in a Google search for his management style, e.g. said “transformational”. This seems just an WP:OR lead-in over a collection of a few criticisms of no particular note. Not a specific event that shows wide coverage and some significance. Not a biographically important significant life event or choice here. Should not be included much less get a whole ‘criticism’ section. There may be a line or two for these two topics suitable for his BLP, but this isn’t it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oppose (conditional) - I suggest to omit the following excerpt and/or move it into a relevant Tesla's company article (assuming the RfC's disputed revision is Revision as of 14:39, April 10, 2021). This doesn't belong to Musk's one:
Additionally, people working at Tesla's factories expressed concerns about working conditions and called them "a modern day sweatshop".[1][2]
Oppose -- doesn't reflect a major part of the guy's life, and would be undue to magnify a few voices in contrast to the many who news accounts would seem to show quite the opposite. Agree with the rationale of Markbassett. If this is strongly enough sourced, it might fit into an article on Tesla... but I'm guessing that even there an opinion of a few that something is a sweatshop doesn't get the only coverage where the balance would be to show others, and the US employment rules enforcement agencies, that reflect OT is being paid where it is required by law etc. N2e (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To address conditional support, we should remove the part talking about the conditions at the factories, and focus on Musk and his behaviour. This resolves both conditionals above. BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A week has passed and it seems the consensus is to include the information in general, but to exclude information about work conditions at the factories, which should be in a separate article. Closing and adding content. BeŻet (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Net worth arrow meaning
Musk's net worth changes every day with the stock price. The Infobox person template example doesn't show an arrow. If an arrow is included, and be meaningful to readers, it should probably show a trend, maybe of the last year, not each day's change due to daily stock prices changes. Thoughts? Pmsyyz (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The daily increase or decrease arrow in the IB is helpful imo. But, I agree with the need for a trend graph - it would be really helpful if someone made and uploaded it to Commons for use in the "net worth" section in the body. (If someone needs inspiration, the article for Jeff Bezos already has one.). ~ HAL33303:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Musk saying something about Covid that many voices in the media disagree with doesn't mean what he said is wrong. Simply stating that "Musk has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and has received criticism from experts for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence and public transport." is not sufficient. Explain how. And remember that there are experts who disagree with other experts. The term "expert" doesn't mean unerring knowledge. Experts can be wrong. If you're going to slander or accuse, you need to explain how. 2601:147:4102:C340:D87:3858:F582:6684 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We present what sources say. Several sources label Musk's tweets as "misinformation". Furthermore, we say that Musk received criticism, not that he is wrong. BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Article
This is a well structured, well written biographical article. Facts are referenced, quotes are specified, tone is neutral. Worth using as a good example.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In reference to a change reverted by @Lklundin: I don't think this content ("[Musk] covered the costs of Ad Astra School, a nonprofit housed inside a SpaceX factory") belongs here, because:
The Ad Astra School "non-profit" is now just a regular for-profit company (Astra Nova)
Media sources mostly just talk about Astra Nova and mention Ad Astra in passing
At the time when it was a "non-profit" it was just teaching a small group of children including Musk's own offspring (his 5 sons) and that of some Tesla employees' (raising questions about the purpose of the "non-profit" and whether it was anything else than a tax-avoidance scheme)
Currently resides within the "Wealth" section - it's irrelevant there; it's more relevant in "Donations and non-profits", but I don't think it's WP:DUE there either
I introduced the point about Ad Astra because although there is a ton of material describing Musk's access to and the extent of his wealth, a reality that is also reflected in the Wikipedia article, I could not find much about how he deploys it outside of what is in the Philanthropy section. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chomsky on neurolink
"While Chomsky thinks that using brain interfaces to help patients regain motor functions is a reasonable goal, he is seriously skeptical about the long term goals of Neuralink. Our knowledge about how we think is so limited, he says, that communicating with just your thoughts is far from being possible". https://www.inverse.com/article/32395-elon-musk-neuralink-noam-chomsky
Oppose as nomReliable sources do not describe Musk as an engineer. As far as I know, The New York Times or The Washington Post have never described Musk as an engineer. The only source used in the article to support this assertion is a 2018 blurb published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). It is shoddily written, with gross errors like "per say" instead of "per se". Note that the ASME has since taken the article down and the url is dead. Considering this single poorly written nonexistent writeup, it is not due to describe Musk as an engineer, let alone in the first sentence. One may also argue that he is not an engineer as he does not have a bachelors or masters degree in an engineering discipline. There is also no precedent for doing this on similar articles. Note that Jeff Bezos, despite his work with Blue Origin, is not described as an engineer. ~ HAL33318:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If he is an engineer, then should be possible to specify what domain(s) of engineer he is. "Practical engineer," the term used in the cited source, is not a domain. He might be identified as a software engineer if reliable sources regularly refer to him as one, but it's not clear that they do. I find sources that say he was a self-taught programmer who could hack things up quickly, but do not describe him building software within a structured process. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a real distinction in practice between being a "programmer" and a "software engineer". They're two job titles that are often applied to the same roles, in which people do the same tasks; the main variation is between what any given organization decides to call the person who writes APIs. In my experience, companies tend to describe employees as "software engineers", and the employees describe themselves as "programmers". It's similar to the difference between "truck driver" and "commercial motor vehicle operator", which are obviously different terms (which can indicate different things) but can usually both be used to refer to the same person. jp×g23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above A search of various sources does not show that he was identified as an engineer. I agree with the comment made above, if a title of engineer is to be given, then "software engineer" would be the most appropriate given his work experience and history. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the above. He's not referred to as an engineer by anyone other than himself (and the company he's in charge of). Although we can't know how much he actually contributes to the engineering of a Tesla car or a SpaceX rocket, the proper Wikipedia procedure is to go with what reliable sources are calling him. Quantum Burrito (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: He does not have any formal education in engineering, nor is he a licenced engineer. He simply owns companies which do engineering tasks. BeŻet (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As I put the point before: 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. QRep2020 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NOR - we do not base content decisions on Wikipedia editors' personal sophisticatedness ratings of patents etc. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know there is a particular streak on this website to engage in wikilawyering, but allow me to point out how the 5th pillar of this website is Wikipedia has no firm rules. Whether one wants to focus on some issue with the patents point, or with the argument of how there is little consistency across reliable sources, or both and then some, it is clear from the deluge of opposition presently and in many other Rfc's to maintaining this description (a description that the subject of this article has engaged others to maintain by the way) that there is something positively off about calling Musk an engineer simpliciter and right in the lede to boot. QRep2020 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping "engineer" in the opening sentence. There are many reliable sources, including mainstream news sites, that describe Musk as an engineer and/or use his title of Chief Engineer of SpaceX. Plenty have been mentioned before, notably in the previous RFC on this topic, but let me add just a few more:[1][2][3][4][5][6] Musk himself insists that he is an engineer, not a businessman or inventor.[7] There are even books that describe him as an engineer in their titles.[8][9] And, as discussed ad nauseam in that previous RFC, there is no requirement for him to have a formal qualification in engineering in order to be called an engineer. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I argue that this case is a special one because we cannot let the determination turn on neither what newspapers describe him as when the vast majority of them simply either reiterate his "official title" at one of his companies nor what the man wants to describe himself as. It is fallacious to rest an encompassing description of one of one's occupations in life based on job titles without qualification, especially those at companies that one founded and continues to control. Likewise, relying on how a person self-describes for their professional contributions without qualification is hardly justification. We have plenty of evidence of him being a businessman and a designer, but where are his engineering feats beyond a handful of examples? QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If references to him as an engineer mostly occur in reference to his SpaceX title, then I suggest that the article should use the word in that context as well. The two books that you've cited (Doeden and Machajewski) are inspirational biographies for children. They present a heroic and unnuanced portrayal. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juisdicta above Various sources does not show that he was identified as an engineer. "Software engineer" is the appellation he is better known by. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is he known that way, though? Ashlee Vance's book Elon Musk is the go-to source on his early career and it is specific that he was a "programmer" as contrasted with the software engineers that the company hired later on. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An aggrandizing job title parroted by some news publishers does not translate into encyclopedic information on what Musk is competent at and notable for. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Rosbif73 has demonstrated above, there are in fact plenty of RS calling Musk an engineer; a lot of "oppose" votes above are based on incorrect claims in that regard. (And no, it's rather pretentious to assume that e.g. Reuters, BBC, NPR and the Washington Post are all "parroting" "aggrandizing" titles and only us brave Wikipedia editors see through Musk's evil propaganda that these journalists have fallen for. Rather, we can trust these publications to distinguish whimsical trolling like "Technoking" from descriptive terms that are actually informative for their readers. Also, the WaPo article in particular is quite critical of Musk.) And whatever one thinks of Musk's latest silly tweet or his management style, by all accounts he has had way more direct involvement in engineering decisions and engineering strategy at Tesla, SpaceX etc. than CEOs of comparable companies. It would be a disservice to the reader to conceal that fact in the intro by just describing him as a "business magnate" or "designer". Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say that? Do you have any sources that equate the two titles? Or any policy-based reason for setting aside the "engineer" part of the title? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, come on Bezet. It's quite obvious that Musk refers to himself as chief engineer, not because he is the CTO, but because he is the lead engineering officer on a merchant ship. ;) ~ HAL33312:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We literally have a note at the top of the article explaining that, and it is current wiki consensus. "Chief engineer" generally refers to an engine officer, who is commonly referred to as an "engineer", but is not the type of engineer we are talking about here. The alternative meaning of "chief engineer" is CTO. This is all based on current wiki consensus which is reflected in those articles. BeŻet (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you seriously citing Wikipedia itself to discourage citation of actual RS? The claim "chief engineer [...] is a synonym for chief technology officer" is unreferenced and not even mentioned in the latter article. Also, unless you are arguing that, say, the lede should use "technologist" instead of "engineer", I fail to see how such synonymity would be an argument for an "oppose" vote. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am "citing Wikipedia itself" to show existing consensus, which you can only show by "citing Wikipedia itself". Also, we are discussing homonyms here - a ship "engineer" is called that because of the ship's engine. BeŻet (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you think you need to prove consensus on that point. It seems perfectly reasonable that a non-maritime title of "chief engineer" may in some cases be equivalent to CTO. But so what? SpaceX has chosen to call him "Chief Engineer" rather than CTO for a reason, and you can't just dismiss the use of the word "engineer" on the basis of that possible equivalence. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, SpaceX did not "choose" to call him that - he's SpaceX, he decides. Secondly, I am pointing out that any label with the word "engineer" in it does not necessarily mean that someone is in fact an engineer. BeŻet (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense to selectively use his "chief engineer" title to derive a description. Why not insist on describing him as an "executive" because RS call him a CEO? ~ HAL33316:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On that basis, we should be removing "industrial designer" too; nothing in the body describes him doing industrial design. But more to the point, and less WP:POINTily, it is perhaps just a sign that the body needs to be updated. Indeed, nothing in the body mentions any of his roles at SpaceX, not even the totally uncontested fact that he is CEO. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually planning to include the issue of "industrial designer" in this RfC but decided to keep it simple. But, yeah, it'll be the next to go. ~ HAL33314:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Accreditation is not relevant to this conversation as it is jurisdictional and subjective. The RSes describe him as an engineer and a chief engineer. We do not require the New York Times or Washington Post to state something before it gets written in a wiki article. SmolBrane (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SmolBrane Could you provide a reliable source(s?) that refers to Musk explicitly and without qualification as an engineer (not chief engineer)? ~ HAL33320:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the Washington Post:
Musk is head engineer, designer, salesman, financier and marketer, with full power over everything from global sales strategy to the look of the retractable door handles.
As has been discussed on Talk:Engineer for fifteen years, the definition of an engineer is not always explicit, and it is often qualified, so your expectation here may not be reasonable. Musk's role as an engineer is clear from the sources and it is SYNTHy to suggest that he actually maintains a CTO role as you suggest further up the page. The sources' usage of “chief” does make this cloudy but it does not negate the characterization as an engineer. SmolBrane (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the use of "engineer" is hedged and figurative. Wapo is describing his "full power" in each of these roles. He isn't actually a salesman, but he determines what and how his salesman do their work. He doesn't personally and directly design Tesla's cars, but he has complete influence over the design, and so on. To look at a similar figure, Bob Iger may have a great deal of control at Disney, but that does not make him an animator. With the absolutely massive amount of coverage on Musk, it is quite telling that no RS has simply and explicitly stated "Musk is an engineer" or "Musk, an engineer, is...". Furthermore, what they do at Talk:Engineer doesn't hold any water here as this will be determined by local consensus (i.e. this RfC). ~ HAL33300:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not difficult to find unqualified uses of the word "engineer" in reputable mainstream news sites: Washington Post: engineer and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk[10], Bloomberg: Over the past year the South Africa-born engineer has added more than $165 billion to his fortune.[11], The Independent: The billionaire engineer,[12] BBC: he still continues to spend 80-90% of his time working on engineering and design at both SpaceX and Tesla, leaving other executives to manage the business side of the companies.[6] What more do you need? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: When WP reliable sources talk about Musk, they rarely use the term "engineer" to describe him. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RELIABLEWritethisway (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not particularly invested in the outcome of this RfC, but in general I am not aware of a requirement that someone have a college degree to be an engineer (and I am not sure who or what, specifically, this is "required" by). I have hired people to work as engineers who didn't have college degrees, and they were better at it than a lot of the ones who did. I find the assertion that they were "fake" engineers (or that their work was less valuable than people who could afford degrees) distasteful, to say the least. jp×g22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
^Doeden, Matt (2015). SpaceX and Tesla Motors engineer Elon Musk. Minneapolis. ISBN978-1-467-76116-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Machajewski, Sarah (2018). Elon Musk : engineer and inventor for the future. New York. ISBN978-1-508-16056-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Some years ago certain authors (among them Simon Baron-Cohen and Temple Grandin) promoted the untested hypothesis that Asperger syndrome was a "genius syndrome" that was largely responsible for the innovations coming out of the San Francisco bay area. Subsequently it became the trend for seemingly bright and socially awkward people to be "diagnosed," or to diagnose themselves with AS without the involvement of medical professionals experienced in making such diagnoses. As a result, Wikipedia has avoided taking declarations of AS at face value, until it becomes clearer that a professional diagnosis was made. Making the declaration on a scripted comedy show further weakens its reliability. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@73.71.251.64 I somewhat disagree that the announcement being made on a "scripted" comedy show weakens its reliability. Technically any announcement is "scripted" unless it's a real spur-of-the-moment type thing.If Musk comes out later and goes "gotcha" then we can discard it...or comment on the ensuing criticism. We should also tread carefully around potential denial or hostility to someone being neuro divergent - there is a similarly "popular" movement of those who like to disparage and deny recognition to people who are bone fide diagnosed with conditions on the autism spectrum, with an insistence that anyone diagnosed and successful in life materially cannot possibly be on the spectrum, and that their diagnosis is a sham or attention seeking. Swings and roundabouts, as they say.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such a movement would not be relevant to anything I said. A reliable biographical source must first be a non-fiction source, and SNL isn't one. It is appropriate to wait for clarification as to whether he was serious, and whether he was diagnosed, as I have previously advocated at the Gary Neuman and Bram Cohen articles. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2021 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the personal life section, it states that “Elon Musk said that he had Aspergers”. It should be rewritten to “Elon Musk revealed that he has Aspergers” as he still has it. Aspergers doesn’t go away. It’s not a cold. 2607:FEA8:5520:BA30:A87F:5B6:6345:DA65 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the title of "engineer" from page. Misleading and inaccurate information. If proper citing of sources had been done, it would be noted that the referenced article literally states:
"Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree" which is required to be considered an engineer.
And yet, somehow, he is listed as an "engineer". If the qualification is based off personal ascribed definitions then you should also list him as a "Pedo Guy" as he actually fits this criteria. Grrhatesamaritan (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that's enough. Perhaps if more sources talk about it and evaluate the claim, it would be better then. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, widely covered in RS.
Elon Musk's Asperger's syndrome widely covered in WP:RS
But if we're starting to put in stuff the subjects say then isn't that different from the 'magnet' issue referred to in the FAQ? 80.42.7.96 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He said "business magnet" jokingly in the same conversation that he said he was an alien. The comment revealing his Aspergers wasn't jestful but rather sincere and is supported by many sources. Plus, let's be honest, the reveal wasn't that big of a surprise. Wretchskull (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be honest? No, to me it just seems like he's trying to brush under the label all the negative things he said, e.g. the vaccine nonsense, and that by implication in some people's minds all that nonsense is connected to every person on the spectrum... 80.42.7.96 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He does not mention a PhD program, and Stanford does not offer any PhD in Energy Physics, and there is no such field. So it should be taken out of Wikipedia that he was accepted into a PhD program in Energy Physics.
Applied physics and material science. Still no mention of Energy Physics. I agree, we should remove the term "Energy Physics". -- Eatcha20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stanford does not offer any PhD in Applied Physics and Materials Science. There is no such diploma. Musk is not very specific about what PhD program he supposedly was accepted into. I add that applied physics is actually engineering. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: Next time, bring sources. The sources in the article are a bit confusing, but this note published by Penn cites 1997. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Done Update: This has been added by someone. Wretchskull (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Done ~ HAL333 01:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)