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 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. 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involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later.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.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.246.2 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 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 [[1]] 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 [2]. 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)

@Zagreus99 in the Twitter Q&A, Elon just referred to himself as a technologist Shane04040404 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So, he is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 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)

Side note: do people really hate Musk to that point? I know that he is a really controversial person, but jeez... demoting an article that is solely based on hate on a particular person is not ok. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:39, 10 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)

CEO of Twitter?

CEO of Twitter? 107.11.111.59 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, https://www.slashgear.com/1083592/elon-musks-latest-twitter-poll-puts-advertisers-on-the-spot/. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change on the last two paragraphs

What do you think about these three paragraphs:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. As of 2022, Tesla and SpaceX has a market capitalization of at least US$840 billion and US$127 billion; both of the companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation.

In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He has proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system and is the president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education.

Musk has promoted contentious perspectives regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate. He has also been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down from his chairmanship.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean, of the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. I've made the changes to the last paragraph to be more comprehensive of his scandals and public perception. The first two paragraphs however I think are too drastic to be added to the article without discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with, "As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate." I would suggest instead, "He is the subject of a cult of personality as well as a figure of serious ridicule." We should get rid of the "also" in the following sentence as well. QRep2020 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, with slight modifications. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Which are? QRep2020 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"As such, he is both loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly oppose. Why did you chop off every thing pre-SpaceX? ~ HAL333 04:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Because Tesla and SpaceX are the most known companies and are the ones that "revolutionize" industries. The other companies, not so much. OpenAI only make groundbreaking neural networks after Elon left the company, Neuralink has not have a human implant yet, the Boring Company has not done anything really groundbreaking yet and of course, Elon's Twitter ownership is just getting started. All of these companies are not influential to the industries when Elon is around. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hugely disagree. The lead needs to be an accurate summary of the article. It needs to cover all the major points. You're being subjective and overemphasizing certain things. To draw a comparison, Churchill is thought of by the public as mainly the savoir of England during WWII, but look at the relatively little weight given in the lead. ~ HAL333 04:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Merged the two paragraphs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing your original proposal: it makes it unclear as to what is being discussed. Paste new drafts below. Also, inserting the market capitalization of Tesla is a bad idea as it will quickly become dated. It's highly volatile, and we will never actually be able to give readers an accurate number. ~ HAL333 04:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I restored my original proposal. Here's the updated one: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He has proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system and is the president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education. Musk's companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation.

Musk has promoted contentious perspectives regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he is both loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down his chairmanship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Musk's companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation." is fluff and not really necessary. I've changed "...president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education." --> "president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation". It's more concise, and "donates to scientific research and education" isn't even accurate as it has donated to a lot more than those narrow fields. I know this isn't your change, but I really don't like "promoted contentious perspectives". It seems like such a bloated roundabout way to say that he has said controversial things. Also, I think the current "cult of personality" wording is more concise and accurate than the "loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public". I'm also not sure that that can be supported by the current article's body. ~ HAL333 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, also the "As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate" is said in the public perception section. So that would be:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He has proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system and is the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has said controversial statements regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down his chairmanship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Boldly added to the article as it is now good enough. No need to wait for perfection – stuff improves faster there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not like "hate". Also, what is a cult of hate? The closest source I can find about such a thing is https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults. Are we suggesting that Musk's critics are violent? QRep2020 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

People hate Musk, that's a fact, and there's no prejudice of violence here. Not saying that there're tons of people hating Musk however is airbrushing the situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The statements might not be inaccurate, but they are perhaps worded a bit strongly, especially insofar as the CoP reference associates him with political tyrants. Another possible wording would be: "As a result [not "as such" because there is nothing before to which "such" would refer] he inspires highly polarized reactions from the public, ranging from admiration to hostility." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. QRep2020 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Same, added. The lead now looks much better than before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

The Characterization of Errol Musk as "half-owner of an emerald mine"

The claim for Errol Musk being half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine is completely unsubstantiated and denied by Elon himself, therefore the wikipedia article should reflect that ambiguity. As this is a widely-contested claim, with obvious far-reaching implications, this must be addressed as soon as possible. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not completely unsubstantiated. There are four citations after the claim. There's also this Business Insider piece that quotes Errol Musk on how he came to own half the mine. And, Elon can deny it all he wants, but per WP:MANDY, we don't have to give that weight. Of course he would deny it. That doesn't make it false. Here's a story about Elon selling the emeralds to Tiffany & Co. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Elon's claim should not mean removing Errol's. It does not make it true either, the claim needs to remain in the wikipedia article, but as worded now it does not reflect the fact that the only evidence in any of the sources is that Errol Musk "says" he owned one, there are no actual records, no tangible evidence. To your point, Elon "says" there was no emerald mine, but this contention is not reflected in his wikipedia. If hard evidence comes to light that he truly did own one, the article should reflect that.

As far as your point about motives, fair enough. But one can easily see why Elon's estranged father would portray himself as an emerald magnate.

What it comes down to is the facts of this matter are hearsay, from both sides, but must be reflected as such. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. QRep2020 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship

A few weeks ago, I add "naturalized American" to the first sentence, and yet it got deleted. Why? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Because his nationality is complex. If his naturalization is to appear in the lead, it might be better placed at the end of the second paragraph, since it happened the same year as the eBay acquisition. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article?

I think that this article is pretty good now, should we nominate it in WP:FAC? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No. The page is still lacking in quality in many areas. It is also highly volatile and subject to broad editing warring/reversions (failing FAC criteria). I will "oppose" any FAC opened. ~ HAL333 04:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with HAL333. It's not there yet. Many issues with undue weight. The lede is also a mess imo. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Schierbecker May you clarify what sections are still undue? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Um… in order for an article to be Featured quality it has to be stable and that will never happen here. Trillfendi (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Stability means "editors don't make fuss with each other about content", not "people kept replacing magnate with magnet". It does not mean the lack of vandalism in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Essentially nothing has changed since you torpedoed the nomination. Why the sudden, random change of heart? ~ HAL333 18:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

HAL333, sorry if I've confused you. My intent is to ask what is still missing from the article that is preventing this article from being a FA. Once again, I sorry for my harsh oppose in the last FAC. I should've been more gentle with my response, considering how much work you have pour into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Education

Bachelor of Science in Physics and Bachelor of Arts in Economics. Instead it is written Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Bachelor of Science in Economics. However it can also be Bachelor of Science in Physics and Economics. Please verify. 2A01:E0A:5F5:9F90:9F6E:9559:D0BD:2535 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Man has a degree in economics from Penn. There is no evidence that he has a degree in physics and he did not take the opportunity to provide it.

The registrar of Stanford can find no record of his application there.

See Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al State Civil LawsuitSuperior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No. CIV484400

document 52 (contains degree certificate in Economics and correspondence from Stanford Registrar) 2003:FB:E72E:B168:687A:DFAA:F9C1:EBF2 (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He does not seem to have any sort of physics qualification. He had been enrolled in Business school at Queen's University, dropped out, and then received a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Penn in 1997. It'd be important to look further, but there's a pretty detailed explanation of his degrees here [3]. 134.226.214.223 (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The degree in arts is a different one of Science in Economics as Penn issues a separate diploma for both (see page 164 and 165) Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV484400 Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al

Why does it still say that he graduated from his Physics degree if per Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al he didn't complete his studies? Promoting lies from a man who constantly lies himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:150:156:3877:A19F:D09D:11DE:3F21 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Elon Reeve Musk FRS is a business magnate and investor. He is the founder, CEO and chief engineer of SpaceX; angel investor, CEO and product architect of Tesla, Inc

X-Please remove "Business" Magnate and just leave Magnate and investor, this as behalf of Elon musk on a interview with Joe Rogan he ask to someone edit that, please let me know if you will correct this.

Thank you. Richard Medina G (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we do this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done, business magnate is more specific and is commonly used by other sources to refer to Musk. --Mvqr (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Should he be referred to as a chief engineer when he is not an engineer? If it is a self given title we should probably be explicit about that. 2601:602:8100:AE10:A021:F1D8:C10D:9A6D (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As long as it's qualified with "of SpaceX," sure. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Musk doesn't have a decisive right to request changes. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead improvements

User:HAL333 I had posted my proposal here, and I have gained consensus. What do you want from me? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want us to discuss, develop a consensus, and most of all be civil. I'm all for improving the lead, just in a coherent and consensus-supported manner. ~ HAL333 04:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, please give feedback instead of just reverting. I think that the revised lead is good enough to replace the old lead, but we can have a chat together and make it better :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, the current lead is somewhat of a mix of the status quo and your proposal. Could you make a bullet point list of what you want to change and we can discuss each one? ~ HAL333 05:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to make the lead more compact at Elon companies and mention public perception about Elon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for concision in the third paragraph as long as it still covers the basics. For example:

• Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.) --> Tesla
• eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008 --> becoming CEO in 2008
• I would also be fine removing the hyperloop mention from the lead. He didn't invent the concept or coin the term: he just talked about a lot in the early 2010s and never did anything with it.

In my opinion, the fourth paragraph already gives weight to the public recognition section, but my ears are open. ~ HAL333 06:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, here it goes:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. As a result, he is a highly polarizing figure, being admired and detested by the public. He has also been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk for tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, which the SEC described as false. Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333, @QRep2020, is the lead ok now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The first paragraph here looks good except for:

• "that was later acquired by Tesla" -- > Let's remove "later". It's redundant.
• Let's put also before "the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation" for flow.

The second paragraph has some issues:

• "As a result" : he is not polarizing just because of his statements. That's undue weight and just false. The current Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a highly polarizing figure. does it fine imo
• "being admired and detested by the public" should be cut. It's redundant and repetitive. That's what "polarizing" means: some people like him and some don't.
• "and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue" should not be lumped with "unscientific and misleading statements". There's nothing scientific about it. Calling somebody a pedo is a different thing from Musk spouting random crap on Twitter to grab headlines. Also why remove the mention of the submarine fiasco? That needs to be given weight.
• "which the SEC described as false" is wordy fluff. Just say "falsely tweeting" or nothing at all.

That's all. ~ HAL333 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I admit the fourth paragraph isn't ideal and might be missing a few things. A little clunky. When I have the time, I'll propose a revised one. ~ HAL333 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

"falsely tweeting" as the tweet was indeed false. QRep2020 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all of your suggestions, so the revised lead would be:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is also the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. He is a highly polarizing figure and has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation and tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. The false Tesla takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to force Musk stepped down temporarily as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. He has also been involved in a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. (I don't know how to add the submarine part)

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add mentions of the Ad Astra School

Please add mentions of the Ad Astra School. FlavioPTFerreira (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, here is some of my sources:

• First space, then auto—now Elon Musk quietly tinkers with education
• The three questions on the application for Elon Musk’s private school
• Elon Musk is reportedly running an exclusive private school out of SpaceX’s headquarters

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

more sauces:

• If you want your child to become the next billionaire industrialist, Astra Nova might be a good place to start.

And along the way, sources about thinking in first principles:

• Why Elon Musk wants his employees to use an ancient mental strategy called ‘first principles’
• Elon Musk calls this a ‘powerful, powerful way of thinking’—but is ‘hard to do.’ Here’s how it works

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Engineer?

quote this week from his case regarding pay: "At SpaceX it’s really that I’m responsible for the engineering of the rockets and Tesla for the technology in the car that makes it successful. So, CEO is often viewed as somewhat of a business focused role but in reality, my role is much more that of an engineer developing technology and making sure that we develop breakthrough technologies and that we have a team of incredible engineers who can achieve those goals.”

he is making a claim that appears, on the surface to be that he is primarily an engineer. however, i dont see any evidence that he is actually an engineer. i suspect that the general public assumes he is an actual scienties/engineer. he doesnt NEED to be an engineer to run a tech company, clearly, see steve jobs for that, but are there reliable sources that can elaborate on the apparent split between his engineering claims and his actual engineering chops?12.232.253.67 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you want us to change or say? Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can assume that Elon is de facto an engineer, in the sense that he actually know his stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that he is not a professional engineer. But as a lead of the biggest space company that's kinda irrelevant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Source:

• "He’s obviously skilled at all those different functions, but certainly what really drives him and where his passion really is, is his role as CTO" – Garrett Reisman
• "By 2007 he knew everything about rockets - he really knew everything, in detail." – Robert Zubrin

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, he is a member of a professional body. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to assume anything so long as every reference to him as "engineer" is qualified with the context. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with business magnet Streisand effect

I noticed that a lot of people requesting "business magnet" less because of the podcast itself, and more because that has become a meme of how Wikipedia is biased/imcomplete/lack of humor/braindead/etc. The more we say no to it, the more people will keep requesting stupid shit. We should ignore them instead per WP:Don't feed the troll and use our effort instead to improve the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I dislike ignoring what may be honest requests/misunderstanding of policy, maybe a FAq, so we can just say "see FAq". Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Something like Talk:Elon_Musk#Frequently_asked_questions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that requests are posted intentionally to troll. I only see a man so intensely publicized as the boss of the world that people are inspired to come here and represent him. If you see a "business magnet" request delete it. Due prior notice has been given through the edit notice and FAQ. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Education error

Article says Musk completed studies for a BA in physics. This is unclear and implies receipt of a degree. Alternatively it implies he completed all coursework but did not earn the degree. Neither statement is true.

Article claims his economics degree was earned in 1995. This is inaccurate.

Musk does have a degree. A Bachelor of Arts with no field of study stated. The date on his degree is 1997. 2600:4040:7E4F:8E00:437:483:B69C:B0B3 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Musk appears to have two degrees: a BS in Economics (awarded 1997) and a BA (no field listed). See https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307729522835459?s=20&t=HU_edtbj7JP-MnaYPsjkZQ. Will make appropriate change(s). Omega132 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an RS? No? Then don't add it. ~ HAL333 02:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the court documents not reliable sources? Omega132 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." If capitolhunters' analysis is correct, other sources are likely to pick up on it. Wikipedia is not the kind of place to be the first to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Apologies for the mistake, clearly I'm new here. Omega132 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=255379940&z=51348f41 actual PDF from court 45.48.248.6 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This document goes on to say that Elon also never payed course fees or studied at Stanford as he had claimed. He obtained an honorary degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. What's interesting about this is that this degree may have been obtained Illegally as part of a plot to prevent him from losing his residence in the United States as a result of overstaying an expired student visa. 45.48.248.6 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

page 164 of this court filing contains both diplomas, they are dated MCMXCVII (1997). [4]https://magazine.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/fall-2010/he-wont-back-down/ this article from Wharton Magazine lists him as class of '97. Appendix 1 of the 2015 edition of the Vance biography (available for free on open library) acknowledges the education controversy:

"While playing detective, O’Reilly unearthed some information about Musk’s past that’s arguably more interesting than the allegations in the lawsuit. He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk’s degrees in 1997—two years later than what Musk has cited. I called Penn’s registrar and verified these findings. Copies of Musk’s records show that he received a dual degree in economics and physics in May 1997. O’Reilly also subpoenaed the registrar’s office at Stanford to verify Musk’s admittance in 1995 for his doctorate work in physics. “Based on the information you provided, we are unable to locate a record in our office for Elon Musk,” wrote the director of graduate admissions. When asked during the case to produce a document verifying Musk’s enrollment at Stanford, Musk’s attorney declined and called the request “unduly burdensome.” I contacted a number of Stanford physics professors who taught in 1995, and they either failed to respond or didn’t remember Musk. Doug Osheroff, a Nobel Prize winner and department chair at the time, said, “I don’t think I knew Elon, and am pretty sure that he was not in the Physics Department.”

"At first, I, too, felt like there were a lot of oddities surrounding Musk’s academic record, particularly the Stanford days. But, as I dug in, there were solid explanations for all of the inconsistencies and plenty of evidence to undermine the cases of Musk’s detractors.

"As for his academic records, Musk produced a document for me dated June 22, 2009, that came from Judith Haccou, the director of graduate admissions in the office of the registrar at Stanford University. It read, “As per special request from my colleagues in the School of Engineering, I have searched Stanford’s admission data base and acknowledge that you applied and were admitted to the graduate program in Material Science Engineering in 1995. Since you did not enroll, Stanford is not able to issue you an official certification document.”

"Musk also had an explanation for the weird timing on his degrees from Penn. “I had a History and an English credit that I agreed with Penn that I would do at Stanford,” he said. “Then I put Stanford on deferment. Later, Penn’s requirements changed so that you don’t need the English and History credit. So then they awarded me the degree in ’97 when it was clear I was not going to go to grad school, and their requirement was no longer there."

I believe later editions of this book do not include this appendix. 2601:646:C600:7060:517:9A71:9D4A:8CA0 (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all very intriguing but original research. Perhaps if it got compiled in a reliable, notable independent publication then its inclusion on Wikipedia would be on the table. QRep2020 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious if this complies with Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources:

It appears that there is pretty strong disagreement between sources on the exact date of the degree. Encyclopedia Britannica lists 1997 as does the Wharton Magazine and one of the articles cited for the 1995 claim begins with the sentence.

SpaceX, founded and led by 1997 College and Wharton graduate Elon Musk, successfully launched two astronauts from a Florida launchpad Saturday afternoon.

The Vance Biography seems to be the basis of the 1995 claim, but it acknowledges the controversy. I think some SEC filings made by musk also list 1995. I don't know if there are other soruces. 2601:646:C600:7060:517:9A71:9D4A:8CA0 (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: The court document is not an authoritative source. It is not a judgment but a series of documents produced by Musk and the plaintiff's lawyers. As mentioned by other comments, it should not be used as a source as it violates WP policy and constitutes original research. Additionally, in light of this information being unusable, there shouldn't be changes to the current page as there are very good and much better sources to support the current content than the one here. Just because the degree doesn't say it's field does not mean that it's not a degree "in physics" or otherwise. I am by no means a Musk supporter, but it would not be appropriate to change his education based on a twitter thread. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is a controversy over the date we should remove them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We follow what the RS say, regardless of what the truth may be. We're editors, not sleuths. ~ HAL333 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

But if RS contradict each other then what do we write? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What RS are you referring to? The court docs? ~ HAL333 13:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the Britannica source, and the one we already use that says "SpaceX, founded and led by 1997 College and Wharton graduate Elon Musk". Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What Britannica does is irrelevant--it's a tertiary source. What is the latter source? ~ HAL333 14:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite 38. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So can we have a quote he both graduated in 1995, and with a physics degree? Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a valid source: https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-lying-liar-lies-lies-martina-navratilova-blasts-elon-musk-amidst-fake-degree-illegal-immigration-allegations  ?