Talk:Elon Musk

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

A2: No. Musk once suggested in an interview that his Wikipedia article be changed to describe him as a "business magnate." The tone of that interview was not very serious; he also claimed to be an alien. Reliable sources do not describe Musk as a "business magnate", and Wikipedia's policy is to follow reliable sources. This request has been made and declined dozens of times already, and 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 "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" be "Bachelor of Science" instead?

A5: No. Although it may seem counterintuitive, "Bachelor of Arts in Physics" is the degree that the University of Pennsylvania (among other schools) awards.

Q6: Should the article acknowledge doubts about Musk's academic record?

A6: 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.

Q7: Why doesn't this article describe Musk as an engineer?

A7: 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.

Q8: Why doesn't the article identify Musk as co-founder of PayPal?

A8: 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.

Q9: Why does this page include criticism of Musk's actions and stances?

A9: 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."

Q10: Why is this a "good article" when some people consider Musk a bad person?

A10: "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.

Q11: Why doesn't this page call Musk African American?

A11: African Americans are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Reliable sources do not use this term to describe Musk.

References

Nationality in the lead sentence

There really should be something there. I know this won't be easy, maybe that is why it isn't there now, but it should be worked out. Maybe, "is a South African born America-Canadian"? What citizenship(s) does he currently hold? Best of luck with this. Malerooster (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There is long-standing consensus not to include nationality in the lead sentence, in part because there has been some debate over which citizenship he still holds, in part because trying to do so leads to endless edit wars over the precise combination of adjectives needed, and more fundamentally because his situation is too complex to shoehorn into a single sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no debate. He holds three simultaneously, South African, Canadian, and American. Like any normal article, his citizenships (in this case, all three) should be there, but too many people are clueless about nationality law, so it's best not to bother.

I suggest adding a new section:

On October 3, 2022, Musk offered Ukraine to capitulate and follow the Kremlin's "peace" option on Twitter. The Ukrainians explained to him that he was relaying pro-Russian narratives in this way and scolded him for it. However, instead of stopping writing nonsense and apologizing, Musk lost his mind and disabled Starlink in Ukraine. He also stated that he allegedly spent 80 million dollars in Ukraine. Although only 20,000 terminals were actually imported. On the picture Ukrainian officials, models for home use with a round antenna, which in March cost $499, in October - $599. And the monthly subscription fee for each such terminal is USD 110, separately for Ukraine it is USD 60. 91.210.248.246 (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Like Elon Musk § Russia–Ukraine peace proposal? We obviously can't use the non-neutral wording in your suggestion (things like "Musk lost his mind"). Endwise (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For one you need reliable sources for whatever you believe should be included. Twitter is not a reliable source nor is original research. Trillfendi (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I added Elon_Musk#Russia–Ukraine_peace_proposal and Elon_Musk#Starlink_development. I think they might be combined into one section in the future if reliable sources draw an inference between them. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

His university

He has attended the Turin nuclear university. Not Kingston 2.199.94.153 (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

CEO of Twitter?

Isn't Musk the CEO of Twitter now? Shouldn't this be reflected in the side-bar? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If he were, I figure there'd be a news report somewhere saying so. But he isn't, so there isn't. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To those now edit warring, let's chill until we have a solid source. The Bloomberg articles attributes the claim to an anonymous source. Let's wait until we have official confirmation (which we'll probably have within a day or so). ~ HAL333 01:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022. Elon Musk doesn't yet own Twitter

Remove "Owner of Twitter, Inc." from titles. He has not yet acquired the company and taken it private yet. He will soon, but has not yet. Jso8910 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

For comparison, here are SEC current reports put out by companies going private [1] (board changes only) [2] (board and executive changes) 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How does this relate to the matter at hand? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

A report like those, and not reports from "a source familiar," will announce the transaction and any immediate executive changes. Under federal securities law, which Twitter's prior management will follow, even if Musk might not. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

High IQ?

Shouldn't there be some mention somewhere in this article about Musk's high IQ--- his EXTREMELY high IQ? 2601:188:C680:9810:A815:2765:FF46:738C (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Source required. QRep2020 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:188:C680:9810:A815:2765:FF46:738C no. like the other person said, they're a no source. Shane04040404 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

IQs are hard to get added to Wiki because they're usually guessed or self-reported, which makes it nearly impossible to verify. Nswix (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Should we remove investor again?

"Investor" was added back to the introduction when Musk bought 9% of Twitter, but now he owns the entire company. Investing isn't a thing he typically does and he isn't commonly referred to by himself or others as an investor, am I wrong? Shane04040404 (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

He secured 44 billion dollars to acquire a company whose primary product he uses daily. Sounds like a massive act of investing to me. QRep2020 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, an act, singular. Doesn't make it an occupation. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

So who did the investing, him, or the people he convinced to give him money? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven both technically, if you finance an investment, it's still considered investing. My argument is that while Musk does invest, it's not his occupation.

Are we also going to call him a singer or musician because he made a couple songs? Shane04040404 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Did not Musk himself once make some quip about how f**king a horse once makes one forever known as a horsef**ker? QRep2020 (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020 well he also released a couple of songs, so we should also call him a singer. We'll all call him an actor while we're at it, since he's been in a few movies and been in Saturday Night Live.

Elon's not known for investing, just like he's not known for his music. Most people don't know Elon Musk as the great investor. Shane04040404 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point: He did a massive act of investing (ignoring the investing he did with Tesla for the moment) and that's enough to make him an investor and therefore record him as such. QRep2020 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I concur with QRep. ~ HAL333 18:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be some fundamental misunderstandings here of what 'investing' means. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Musk as CEO of Twitter

HAL333 (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the Twitter CEO addition which is based on a Bloomberg News citation. Since they didn't give a reason on either occasion, could someone tell what is problematic to include it? Twitter and the Twitter acquisition article already includes it. Thanks, Ptrnext (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I gave a reason. Scroll up to the preexisting subsection on his CEO status... ~ HAL333 01:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Scroll up where? If you mean the infobox comment, that is applicable when the title is a self-appointed one like Technoking or Chief Twit. CEO is a legitimate title, and is sourced from WP:RS. I don't see what your problem here is. Ptrnext (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

To the discussion titled "CEO of Twitter?".... ~ HAL333 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article says the CEO part without attributing the claim to an anonymous source (first paragraph). The firing of the executives is the one attributed to anon source. Ptrnext (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure what the deal or argument against adding this fact is. This source [[3]] says he is CEO. --Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It says, "Musk plans on replacing ousted CEO Parag Agrawal for now". "Plans" indicates that it has not happened yet. QRep2020 (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The Hill provides a similar interpretation: https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3709000-musk-to-plans-to-end-lifetime-twitter-bans/ QRep2020 (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was first written on 27 Oct, which had "Elon Musk plans to assume the role of chief executive officer at Twitter Inc. after completing his $44 billion acquisition" in the opening sentence. So the summary was such. They then updated the article on 28 Oct to what it is now. "The billionaire appointed himself chief executive officer, dismissed senior management and immediately began reshaping strategy at one of the world’s most influential social media platforms as his $44 billion take-private deal closed". Seems they didn't update the summary (which still includes the 'plan'). Anyway we don't use the headline or summary from WP:RS, but rely on the substance. In this case, Bloomberg News consciously updated the wording to reflect that he is the CEO.

There is also no harm adding info based on WP:RS stating a fact. Ptrnext (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to be among the first to publish something. And, actually, there could be harm by adding it if it is not true. What we have is a single anonymous source. We have (yet) no confirmation from Musk, the company, or any legal filings that the Musk is CEO. It is not clear if he has officially assumed the position. Or if it is simply an interim position. No one is going to give you a medal for adding it first. I know you're champing at the bit, but just chill out. ~ HAL333 04:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the Bloomberg article states without attributing it to an anonymous source. For these filings, it is common knowledge that he is/was the Principal Officer, whether it is acting CEO or interim CEO. And now we have a published source that states he is one. It can be removed if a more recent source refutes it. I'm not here to collect medals, and no one is going to give you one to be the first in reverting a justified addition. Wikipedia is not a newspaper is an essay, not guideline/policy, btw.

P.S. I have no intention of adding this again, so sleep well :) Ptrnext (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no harm in waiting ~24 hours. Let's just chill until we have solid, reliable verification. ~ HAL333 02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The merger 8-K is up [4]. Some key points:

• Musk became the sole director, and signed all filings as an ad hoc officer, not as CEO or president.
• The updated articles and bylaws eliminate the duties of the CEO and the requirement to have one.
• The "departure of directors and officers" section does not mention the departure or firing of any officers, although it probably happened in view of the NYT article published over the weekend that cited multiple unidentified sources.

That leaves the situation clear as mud and Twitter doesn't have to issue any more reports. All that can be definitely said from this is that Musk is, or recently has been, the Director of the company. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Technologist" as initial sentence descriptor.

I understand not calling Musk an engineer. But he is very clearly a technologist: this is much broader and less rigorous than what encompasses being an engineer.

Definition: The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) in the USA summarizes the distinction as being that engineers are trained more with conceptual skills to "function as designers," while **engineering technologists "apply others' designs."**

He describes himself as such too, more so than an engineer if pressed on that - he himself is aware he isn't a true engineer.

Either way, to be faithful to his personage, he should be described as a technologist as well as a business magnate and investor. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Some definitions of technologists are erroneous and state it is "an expert in a particular field of technology". The NSPE definition is more accurate to the non-lay definition; it is above. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The text should be "technologist" with the link to the "Engineering technologist" wikipage. Excluding previous work in WW2 (no Nazi comments please, it isn't relevant here), a great parallel is actually that of Werner Heisenberg. At NASA, he would best be described as an engineering technologist - he didn't make engineering contributions but was the ultimate leader of a team of engineers. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Or is "a professional who physically builds what an engineer designs", he does not build anything. He pays others to build it (thus they would be the technologists) also (according to the WP article you referred to) "An engineering technologist is a professional trained in certain aspects of development and implementation of a respective area of technology". You need RS saying he is a technologist, not your OR that dismisses definitions you do not like. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, what exactly is the issue with the NSPE definition? How does he not apply the engineering designs of engineers? Be objective Zagreus99 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am, he does not apply them he tells others to. This is why wp:or and wp:v are policy, we have differing definitions, some of which he may fit (if we accept he actually does anything more than just say "build this"). So we need RS to say it, not how we interpetate RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There should (really has to) be some title to describe his connection to technology though. If not technologist then what? Zagreus99 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"chief engineer" is not enough? Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

His personage is that of a technologist in the second sense of the word mentioned (applies engineering ideas in the organisational sense) across the board: whether it's Tesla or Space-X or anything else. He is blatantly more than just a business magnate and investor: in a list of figures with those attributes he would stand out for his role as a technologist (2nd sense). Zagreus99 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven chief engineer is his title at SpaceX, that doesn't count as a replacement for Technologist, because it's just a title he gave himself. Shane04040404 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see there are two definitions: apply as in "(physically) put together" and apply as in "organise (together)". Zagreus99 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

He has two descriptors right now that fit just fine. QRep2020 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

He is not widely described as a "technologist" in RS. ~ HAL333 02:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding subsection to Tesla

Why do we allow "Early days" as a subsection at the top of SpaceX but not "Early days and growth" as a subsection at the top of Tesla? Breaking up large sections with mini sub titled sections makes it easier on the reader. If we're staying fair and consistent, we'll add this to the Tesla section just like we did to the SpaceX one. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure that you need permission. You can just do it if you want to. JOJ ^Hutton 23:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Tesla" already is a subsection in and of itself. It's about Tesla so let's call the subsection "Tesla". No need to overcomplicate it. Adding another sub-subtitle is redundant and pointless clutter. "Early days and growth" doesn't even adequately describe the subsection, as 20 years after the company's founding does not constitute 'early days'. You're not even breaking up the text by adding a redundant second subsection title. It's still the four paragraphs under a single title. ~ HAL333 20:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Describe title at Twitter as "owner and Chief Twit"

Musk has tweeted that he is "Chief Twit" and not CEO. While this is ostensibly humour, Elon is known for officially taking on non-standard job titles (e.g. his government filing as "Technoking" of Tesla Motors) that should be his Twitter title.

In addition, this article describes his Tesla title as "CEO" not "Technoking". However, he retains the title of "CEO" at Tesla Motors. Elon does not hold a CEO title at Twitter Inc.; therefore, the only justifiable title is "Chief Twit". SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That is using Twitter as source though. Which we cannot do. Until something better arises, use CEO or nothing. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no indication that this is his official job title, rather than a joke. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

1. There are non-Twitter sources, on Reuters and Bloomberg, that have reported the title change. 2. Elon is well-known for his disdain for the "CEO" title. He has already officially filed as "Technoking" of Tesla so it is reasonable to expect, given the secondary sources listed in point 1, that Chief Twit is his official title. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Then cite them. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources you're talking about merely said "Musk changed his descriptor to 'Chief Twit'". That is the laziest type of journalism and does not indicate that his actual title is "Chief Twit". As mentioned below, he's already changed his descriptor to "Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator". It's meaningless. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Musk is now claiming to be, "Twitter Complaint Hotline Operator" on Twitter. Do we really expect to change his title to each and every joke-title that he gives himself? :) — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 04:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We don't use his made up titles at SpaceX or Tesla. No need to use them here either. Nswix (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use contrived, self-declared titles like this. Note that we refer to Idi Amin as president and dictator, not as his preferred "His Excellency, President of Uganda, President President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji, Doctor Idi Amin, VC, Distinguished Service Order, Military Cross, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea, and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular." Stick to the common, widely understood term. ~ HAL333 13:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As with others, no what he called himself is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The first thing that should be mentioned is conspiracy theorist

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/31/1132906782/elon-musk-twitter-pelosi-conspiracy

47.229.152.107 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

see: Mike Lindell 47.229.152.107 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Elon Musk

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. No valid reason for delisting provided. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk is considered to be very influential to many, as he has contributed a lot to technological advancement in spaceflight and technology, most notably electric vehicles and near-future enhancements. Musk is without a doubt a respectable individual in these fields, but his recent actions and past comments on various social issues and perceived problems has generated a good amount of warranted controversy. A good article is meant to document various things that are well-received on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but by allowing him to have a good article status does not reason under our current social climate

Musk is known to have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. If Wikipedia aims to document individuals who are professorial in science, then including a denier of vaccines and lock downs as a "good example" is pretty strange. We have a zero-tolerance policy on fringe science and conspiracies, so why must we include a proponent of hoaxes as a "good article"?

Elon recently acquired Twitter, and fired an employee responsible from preventing a coup by Donald Trump. If Wikipedia aims to be a place to get accurate information on extremely sensitive events such as the attempted coup at the capitol, then why do we wish to promote someone who advocates the restoration of a major proponent of de-democratization in the United States? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Elon has made continuous references to far-right politics. Far-right politics in the United States have been recently responsible for many mass shootings and huge political disinformation, such as QAnon and Trumpism. If we aim to be a neutral space that presents individuals at their best, then why must we include a "meme lord" as a good article? It just shows how out of touch we are.

Musk no longer deserves a good article due to his behaviour and actions, which will unfortunately account for the restoration of Donald Trump on the biggest micrblogging website, which will be a direct threat to democracy. We need to reassess this article for the betterment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We care about the GA criteria, not "behaviour and actions". Unless you can show how this article doesn't follow the GA criteria, the article won't be delisted. The article is considered "good" because its content and quality is good according to the GA criteria, not because the person is good. Btw, QAnon is a GA too. Skyshifter ^talk 01:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody want to claim that this article no longer meets GA criteria and should be delisted? Otherwise we should speedy close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Go check out Adolf Hitler. Speedy close. ~ HAL333 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

Alohaidled (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is a Good article. QRep2020 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out above, an article's status as GA rests on the content of the article, not on the moral values of the person or other thing being described. X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Speculation on title as CEO of Twitter

I know some people are speculating the precise title of CEO at Twitter, but I advocate to adding the title of "Chief Twit" into the lead next to "CEO of Twitter". Maybe in parenthesis. Eruditess (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We discussed this at #Describe title at Twitter as "owner and Chief Twit". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And by proxy in the "Technoking" discussions. ~ HAL333 22:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eruditess considering the fact that they never let us at "technoking of Tesla" despite that being his official title, I doubt we can ever put "Chief Twit" Shane04040404 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

School

You don't "graduate" from a high school anywhere else in the world than America. A ridiculous claim. You graduate from a university.2A00:23C4:B617:7D01:881B:2261:CEC4:1B9D (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting claim but I'm rather sure it's incorrect, based on Wikipedia's own article on academic graduation by country. Graduations may differ from the US but they still happen. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)