Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Looking for past RFC's or GA reviews where the "unscientific" slur was approved by the community

Seven of my good faith edits to this article have been reversed in one stroke with the following explanation: "We go through this every week: Refer to the discussion on the Talk page". One of these edit simply moved a citation to the correct sentence, I sincerely hope that reverting WP:WikiGnome activities is not something that happens every week. If it is, it would indicate that Wikipedia has deteriorated into biting Wikignomes not just newcomers.

I looked at the talk page and saw nothing relevant before making my edits. After my edits were reversed, I examined the last two archive sections on this talk page only to confirm that the use of the word "unscientific" was controversial even before I noticed it independently. I am not sure how far back I am expected to read before the people who WP:OWN this article accept me into their Cabal which obviously does not exist.

As a relative newcomer to editing Wikipedia, I am not familiar with the intricacies of finding where the relevant past discussions about whether "[going] through this every week" is POV pushing. I would appreciate any pointers, not only to the relevant RFC's and GA reviews but to any tools or techniques that would allow me to find them on my own without burdening the community. Annette Maon (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll find recent discussions in Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 10 § Lede comment on "unorthodox or unscientific stances" is unsourced editorial opinion and should be removed immediately and Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 10 § This should be deleted "Musk has been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox or unscientific stances and highly publicized controversies. " (as well as other threads on that archive page). The purported consensus is rather slim IMO, and seems contrary to BLP guidelines. Perhaps a proper RFC or a discussion on the BLP noticeboard is called for.

Note that I've restored the uncontroversial parts of your edits. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: there were at least two prior discussions from last January and last September; for something like this, searching for keywords in the talk page archives using the search box in the talk page header is probably the best way. Neither was an RfC, but both established rough consensus. Per WP:BRD, you should work to establish a new consensus to change the line.

The talk page header also notes this article's GA status, and if you expand the 'Article milestones' you can check the version that attained GA. It included 'unscientific'. Firefangledfeathers 16:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The "unscientific" speaks to the misinformation claims he has made about COVID immunity, his dabbling in the Simulation Hypothesis (see https://bigthink.com/thinking/why-the-simulation-hypothesis-is-pseudoscience/), etc. The article passed a GAN with that language and is warranted. QRep2020 (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiRosbif73 Thank you for trying to restore my edit that eliminated the controversial "unscientific" slur. Regretfully, that controversial slur has already been added back to the article.

I had already read all the links mentioned above as well as the last GA review before I created this section looking for RfCs or GAs where the "unscientific" slur was approved by the community. I am looking for something more than polling without discussion that could justify a WP:BLP violation on the most viewed BLP Wikipedia article of 2021.

I am still looking for relevant WP:RfC's (or proof that they do not exist) and all GA reviews (According to the Article milestones there is more than one but don't know how to find the reviews) to help me understand the history of the article so I can make better contributions. I would also appreciate pointers to any tools or techniques that would allow me to find them on my own without burdening the community. Annette Maon (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

"Unscientific" is not a slur. QRep2020 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The GAN was first initiated on February 28, 2021. As one can see, "unscientific" was used in the article at that time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1009510167 QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Axiarchist, Eroche, Sawyersx, ToZero, BoMadsen88, Mfb, and Rosbif73: There is no consensus! It would seem that quite a few people have expressed the opinion that the word "unscientific" is controversial and does not belong in the article. The last (and only) GA review that I could find was performed by a single reviewer (Elli) and did not address the appearance of the word "unscientific" one way or the other. It was not there prior to 2018 and I have seen no evidence that it was ever approved by the community. As a controversial POV expression that is "contrary to WP:BLP guidelines" I ask for all current appearances of the word "unscientific" to be removed promptly from the article and that it not be brought back in a similar context without an RfC that explicitly approves it. Annette Maon (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will note that I did not find issue with the wording at the time. "Unscientific" is an accurate summary of some of his views as presented in the "Views" section, with sufficient backing of reliable sources. Per WP:BLP policy I think it's reasonable to require a source for the claim in the lead, too, but it doesn't make sense to require an RfC to maintain what has been the status quo for quite some time. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What I take issue with is not the words "unscientific" and "misinformation" per se; it is quite right to include them per WP:BLPBALANCE. However, that policy section says Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone and that is where the problem lies: we should not be using those words in wikivoice. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I read Musk has been criticized for unorthodox and unscientific stances and highly publicized controversial statements. as calling him unscientific in Wikivoice, more that it's noting that other people have called him unscientific. It's up to interpretation whether the sentence is us calling him unscientific. You could make it more clear by writing Musk has been criticized for stances that others have considered unorthodox and unscientific and highly publicized controversial statements. I guess? But that's a much clunkier wording. Something like that might be a reasonable compromise, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Musk has been criticized for allegedly unorthodox and unscientific stances and Musk has been accused of spreading misinformation would work IMO. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It would not work for me. I agree that words like "misinformation" could be quoted as long as they are attributed to a source that is not in Wikipedia voice. If WP:BLPBALANCE is to be maintained the original tweets being criticized as misinformation should also be quoted. For example: "In November 2020, the Washington Post criticized Musk for spreading misinformation when Emma Bell's viral meme "Space Karen" trended on Twitter in response to Musk's tweet that he 'Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive'". Annette Maon (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder what the spike around Nov 14, 2020 in this graph tells us about the notability and/or relevance of the Space Karen meme to this article. Annette Maon (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not tell us anything. The notability is established by independent third-party sources reporting the matter - and such is the case with his unscientific and unorthodox remarks. QRep2020 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

"Unscientific" is not a slur. BeŻet (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You're playing with words. Maybe not a slur per se, but definitely disparaging when applied to someone with a scientific background. And hence to be used with care here. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

He is not a scientist. He has never worked as an engineer for someone. Regardless, "unscientific" is not a moral term, so the point is moot. QRep2020 (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

He does not have a scientific background per se, he just has a bachelor degree in physics. Perfectly capable of making unscientific statements. It's not a pejorative, just a factual statement: he said things that are not in accordance with scientific principles or methodology. BeŻet (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The question of whether or not it is pejorative or a "slur" is moot. What is not moot is that this is criticism and that WP:BLPBALANCE requires a responsible and conservative presentation and a disinterested tone if criticism is to be mentioned. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It is balanced already. Nowhere are we saying everything he has ever said is unscientific, just that what he has said has been thus and that he has been called out for it. There is substantial, justified, critical descriptions of the man that has been made across different, established publications and especially in regard to his unscientific statements about COVID. QRep2020 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I beg to differ: the wording around unscientific and even more so the sentence starting Musk has spread misinformation ... are critical in wikivoice, and adding "alleged" or a similar qualifier would definitely be more balanced and impartial. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

But the sources point at the evidence of the misinformation, and this is not criminal conduct that would require a court to establish guilt. We don't say in modern flat Earth beliefs that the theories and assertions are allegedly not based on scientific knowledge. If Musk was spreading information that was factually incorrect and not based on scientific knowledge, regardless of his intentions, that's spreading misinformation, plain and simple. BeŻet (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Could not put it better myself. And the same reasoning applies to "unscientific". QRep2020 (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Except that "misinformation", by definition, has the connotation of intent to deceive (as per dictionary definitions at e.g. [1] or [2]). "Spreading misinformation" has even stronger connotations that the person was aware that the information was false. And we have no proof that Musk intended to misinform. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No. There is a distinction between disinformation and misinformation: https://www.dictionary.com/e/misinformation-vs-disinformation-get-informed-on-the-difference/, https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/misinformation-vs-disinformation/43752, https://examples.yourdictionary.com/misinformation-vs-disinformation-simple-comparison, etc. That is why we are using "misinformation" instead of "disinformation": The bad faith is not implied with the former. QRep2020 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like there may well be a British vs American usage difference here, at least partly explaining our different points of view. The two definitions I linked to are from British dictionaries, and both clearly say that misinformation generally implies intent to deceive – unlike, for example, Merriam-Webster. Hence there is a risk that we are misinforming at least our UK readers, and potentially other readers around the world. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As a Brit, I don't see misinformation as having negative connotation. Moreover, our article on misinformation defines it as such. BeŻet (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

How about we change the wikilink on the first "misinformation" to misinformation and the wikilink on the first "COVID-19 pandemic" to COVID-19_misinformation? That way, the usage is tied to the specific "American" understanding. QRep2020 (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

We should definitely change the misinformation link which is currently an WP:EASTEREGG, but not introduce another egg on the pandemic link! Rosbif73 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) 

How about just one link, like "Musk has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic"? Firefangledfeathers 18:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. QRep2020 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "spread misinformation" is controversial even if we have citations to several reliable sources that use those words. We can quote the named sources but it should not be stated in Wikipedia voice. Spreading misinformation is a crime in South Africa, which makes this a BLP violation as well. Please return the "According to whom" template or something equivalent until the issue is resolved.

I have seen several WP:RS accusing Musk of "spreading misinformation" for various things that he said. If any of those accusations included one of the examples listed in misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, I must have missed them. Can someone please point them out? Otherwise the link should be removed as misleading. Annette Maon (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Misinformation is spread, that is how it moves from person to person. Here is the linguistic evidence: ngram viewer And bringing up how it is a crime in South Africa is irrelevant - it is illegal to do a whole host of things in China that are not illegal in the United Kingdom. We reached a consensus earlier. QRep2020 (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Elon Musk has stated in an interview with Joe Rogan that he would like the word magnate to be changed to magnet on his Wikipedia page. Thekattywumpus (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Change magnate to magnet at the beginning of the article. Thekattywumpus (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No real reason for me to actually do so. You'll need to provide a reason for that, other than "Elon Musk wanted XYZ". --Ferien (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It would also be pretty bloody stupid, as he isn't a magnet. JBW (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to do what Musk "would like", especially when it was most likely a joke. I am wondering however if there has been any discussion about his comment that he does "zero investing" and that the word investor should be removed from the lede. Are there any reliable secondary sources that support calling him an investor? Annette Maon (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

"Investor" is used to describe what he did initially with Tesla - he was an early investor in the company. What is there to dispute? QRep2020 (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Tesla was not the only company he provided the initial capital for (Pay-Pal, Space-X and Boring to name a few). Musk's claim that he does "zero investing" highlights the distinction between the roles of founder vs. investor. Musk apparently sees himself in the role of a founder who is trying to recruit investors to his companies. This is not a denial of his own investment in these companies, it is a statement that he believes in these companies so much that he not looking to diversify.

As a subject of a BLP article, his objection to the term investor is relevant. If we want to go against his own claim, we should have reliable secondary sources calling him an "investor".

We have been over this. And no his objection is not relevant. Refer again to the archives. QRep2020 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2022

Elon musk is not an engineer , he has no engineering background . It is a criminal offense to claim to be an engineer without a degree 209.52.88.211 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See FAQ #2 for the explanation. RickyCourtney (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

"Alleged connection to Jeffrey Epstein" section

I'm curious why we have this... Epstein met hundreds or maybe thousands of influential people with Wikipedia pages and I'm not aware of any policy/practice of writing an Epstein section for each of them. 77.103.3.53 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Because it has received significant coverage from independent, reliable third-party sources. QRep2020 (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the two sources they look like gossip columns focused on name dropping. There does not seem to be anything notable about them, at least nothing to merit a section header. Do we really need this section? Am I missing something more significant? Annette Maon (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Vanity Fair and the New York Times? QRep2020 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is what the New York Times source actually had to say about Epstein and Musk.

When I pressed him on the purported email from Mr. Musk, he said the email wasn’t from Mr. Musk himself, but from someone very close to him. He wouldn’t say who that person was. I asked him if that person would talk to me, and he said he’d ask. He later said the person declined; I doubt he asked. ... It seemed clear Mr. Epstein had embellished his role in the Tesla situation to enhance his own importance and gain attention — something that now seems to have been a pattern.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/12/business/jeffrey-epstein-interview.html

Makes one wonder if whoever added this to the article in the first place actually read the source. Deleting article reference to Epstein's self embellished role per WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:BLPGOSSIP. Annette Maon (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The remaining Vanity Fair source supports the OP claim of this section. Epstein is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia articles on Talulah_Riley, Mark Zuckerberg or even Reid Hoffman. Makes one wonder why Wikipedia singles Musk out like this. Annette Maon (talk) 07:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems that only one source is making these allegations. While Vanity Fair is considered generally reliable, this particular claim seems dubious. It definitely doesn't warrant a separate section, and it seems to me that any mention at all is WP:UNDUE. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more sources that found it worth covering Epstein's "dubious" suggestion and other connections between the two:

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-denies-connections-to-jeffrey-epstein-and-ghislaine-maxwell
• https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/jeffrey-epstein-elon-musk-tesla
• https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/elon-musk-denies-knowing-ghislaine-maxwell-after-photo-surfaces/
• https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/12/nyt-column-epstein-said-he-was-helping-elon-musk-on-tesla-chairman.html
• https://observer.com/2019/08/jeffrey-epstein-death-elon-musk-tesla/

I will happily integrate them. QRep2020 (talk)

Those sources are all reiterating essentially the same story, and indeed several of them share large amounts of wording. Nothing else seems to have surfaced, all we have are unconfirmed allegations and firm denials. Again, a separate section heading is definitely undue, and indeed any mention at all seems difficult to justify, particularly given that the alleged links to Epstein aren't mentioned in the articles on the other people cited. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, it is not in a separate section, but rather in its own subsection. Secondly, it does not matter if sources are all reporting the same thing from the same source, what matters is that there are independent reliable third-party sources providing coverage of the matter. Tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable as article sources per WP:RSPRIMARY.QRep2020 (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me see why having any mention of this at all is appropriate. What is significant about it that must be included in his page? It's simply trying to tie him to someone who is horrible and drawing readers to conclusion that Musk must be horrible for associating with him. Not everything that is factual or well-sourced deserves inclusion. See WP:VNOT.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Influences section (Asimov, Heinlein and Harriman?)

Musk has been quoted saying that he was influenced by Issac Asimov's Foundation series and by Robert Heinlein's "Moon Is a Harsh Mistress". Asimov's psychohistory theme which prevades the foundation series foreshadows Musk's activities and influence on twitter. A google search for "Elon Musk Heinlein Harriman" returns many comparisons between Heinlein's Delos D. Harriman (The Man Who Sold the Moon) and Elon Musk who is using similar tactics to sell Mars.

While the parallels are obvious, I am not sure there are secondary WP:reliable sources that state them explicitly enough to be acceptable to the people who WP:OWN this article Annette Maon (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by my mention of WP:OWN or saw it as an accusation. As a newcomer I am trying to respect this part of that policy:

Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. ... being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or amend others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise the valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership.

WP:OWN

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette Maon (talk • contribs) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As a WP:NEWCOMER I am wondering if Wayne Hale's somewhat prophetic 2010 log entry can be treated as a WP:RS according to Wikipedia policies.

One of the best was Robert A. Heinlein’s 1949 story “The Man who Sold the Moon”. A brilliant American businessman (today we would say entrepreneur, then Heinlien called him a robber baron) devoted his vast wealth to building a moon rocket. Think Elon Musk but with Bill Gate’s fortune and Donald Trump’s ethics. Of course he succeeded, despite of all the difficulties, including the roadblocks set up by the government. At the end of the story Harriman famously tells his best friend: “I would cheat, lie, steal, beg, bribe — do anything to accomplish what we have accomplished”.

Where is Delos D. Harriman today? We sure could use him.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/waynehalesblog/2010/01/29/post_1264807222807/

This blog entry was written less than a year before Wayne Hale's retirement from NASA at the age of 56 after the government "decided to end the shuttle program (no later than 2010)".

I still can not find a recent secondary WP:RS saying that Delos D. Harriman is a much more likely role model for Musk than Tony Stark. I guess for now, this will have to stay on the talk page. After all, the "multiple" sources supporting Musk's relationship with a convicted sex offender are more notable and reliable than a notable NASA Engineer who somehow correctly predicted 12 years ago that Musk would need to exceed Bill Gate’s fortune and rival Donald Trump's tweeter popularity if we "really really really want to [get] humanity off this planet in a significant way". Annette Maon (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Do we need a WP:GAR to fix this article?

As a WP:NEWCOMER I am reluctant to post a "GAR request" without asking for feedback first.

I just figured out why Wikipedia singles Musk out for having a section titled "Alleged connection to Jeffrey Epstein". The section was created by User:Mrtarkin a sockpuppet of Elkridge.

As the edit history and the talk page show, I have tried to follow these guidelines:

Unless an article's issues are extensive, consider taking the following steps before initiating a reassessment:

1. Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems.
2. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix with appropriate template messages, if the templates will help other editors find the problems. Do not tag bomb the article.
3. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it.

WP:GAR

While I believe that the article's issues are extensive, I tried to tackle them one by one and avoid tag bombing.

• My attempts to fix simple problems have been reverted (see edit history and talk page discussions).
• My attempts to bring up issues in the talk page discussion have either been ignored or faced resistance.
• My attempts to tag a only a few of the many serious problems have had only minor effects because consensus can not be reached.

Even a WP:NEWCOMER like me can see that this article has serious WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues. When trying to fix things becomes an uphill battle, people like me who may outnumber the small vocal minority that frequents this page, get frustrated and leave. Rosbif73 should not have to work that hard to get simple and obvious fixes through.

A list of serious issues (not exhaustive).

• We have no section in Article space about the significant media coverage of Musk's "issues with his Wikipedia page" calling this article "insanely inaccurate", asking the community to fix it and then asking his twitter followers to "thrash me". This is not Wikipedia writing about itself, these are multiple secondary WP:RS writing about the most popular BLP article in 2021 at one of the most popular sites on the internet (which happens to be Wikipedia).
• But we do we have a mainspace section dedicated to Jeffrey Epstein.
• We have a hard time reaching consensus that BLP statements about unscientific stances and spreading misinformation should not be made in Wikipedia voice.
• A section about a sub in Thailand which raised WP:SUSTAINED, WP:RECENT and WP:DUE issues in a 2018 AfD before it was merged into this article has been reduced to leave mostly POV criticism.
• This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations (hidden under "Other talk page banners" at the top of "Talk:Elon_Musk" as well as this WP:RS that is not mentioned even in the hidden headers). A google search for the terms: 'elon musk wikipedia locks page "trash me"' seems to return significant and notable coverage of more tweets by Musk, but for some reason none of them are WP:RS - I am not sure what that means but something here makes Wikipedia look bad and I for one want to see that fixed. This issue is unrelated to the first point about the need to create an article section that covers what has already been published in the media.
• We have no coverage of Musk's self referential humor.
• Musk is calling this page "a war zone with a zillion edits. At least it’s obviously not curated!" and suggests that it is a "fictionalized version of reality".
• According to Musk: "My Wiki is such a dumpster fire. That’s how you know it isn’t curated." "History is written by…victors, except on Wikipedia, as your enemies are still alive and have lots of time on their hands"

Do we want to prove him right?

Does the Wikipedia community really want the most viewed BLP Wikipedia article of 2021 to look like it is dominated by the loudest and most persistent editorial voices or by an interest group with an ideological "axe to grind"?Annette Maon (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

References

This is outrageous, for the record. QRep2020 (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

How does delisting an article from the Good Article list "fix it" anyway?

edit: Here, his opinions about the article are now on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk#Other QRep2020 (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As a WP:NEWCOMER I am reluctant to post a "GAR request" myself, that is why it appears in quotes under this section instead of as a template at the top of this page. If creating this section resolves all the serious issues I see in the article, there will be no need for a WP:GAR. If it does not, anyone else (hopefully someone with more experience than me or User:Mrtarkin) would only need to reference the contents of this section when they eventually post a WP:GAR template at the top of this page. Annette Maon (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: I don't think you understand the neutral point of view policy: to give the article in due weight. Since his view is very much discussed at everywhere, it is appropriate that this article is lengthy about that. We don't tell, we follow, and that we cite all of the statements with sources that are known to say true stuff. I do really appreciate that you are discussing here instead of reverting like crazy though! Personally, I have a favor viewpoint of Musk, but the article has given me a more nuanced view of his companies/personalities. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that people view on Musk has becoming significantly polarized over the years (which we should definitely add), so the article may not reflect what you see on the news. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"If creating this section resolves all the serious issues I see in the article, there will be no need for a WP:GAR" sounds like a threat. There is no need for any of this as the article is perfectly fine as is, only one user - who issued the threat - has taken issue with the article in its entirety. QRep2020 (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, agreed, but I do feel that there are a reasonable amount of editors has complained about this issue, and the best solution is a section at NPOV noticeboard. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I filed at NPOV noticeboard to get some attention. Looks like everyone is disagreeing and stuff needs to be resolved: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Elon_Musk CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

And filed an ANI thread specifically about this user as well. Sigh... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: I haven't been following this debate closely, but I suggest you take a step back and reconsider the opposing view. If you're receiving significant pushback on your edits, it's very likely that there are some genuine issues with your proposed changes, not simply a conspiracy by a vocal minority to push a certain POV. I'd suggest familiarizing yourself with WP:DUE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, as some of your suggestions such as a section on Musk's "issues with his Wikipedia page" or his self-referential humor, are not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

The bottom line is that Musk doesn't have the final say on what warrants inclusion in the article, and his opinion on his own Wikipedia page isn't noteworthy. BLP violations are never acceptable, of course, but any legitimate, widespread, well-sourced criticism certainly warrants inclusion in the article. Musk has a well-documented history of attempting to control the narrative and portray himself in a more positive light (attacking journalists and whistleblowers[3][4][5], suing to be able to call himself a founder of Tesla[6] and Paypal[7] even though he was not one of the actual founders of either company, misrepresenting his involvement in Neuralink[8], claiming he donated ventilators rather than CPAP machines[9], enlisting the Sierra Club to deflect criticism over his donation to the GOP[10], asking China to censor social media posts critical of the company[11], etc.). In light of such, Wikipedia has an important responsibility to describe Musk neutrally, both the good and the bad. Stonkaments (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@User:Stonkaments Thank you for providing all those links in one place. They could come in useful someday, if I ever find myself editing an article where Musk supporters outnumber his critics. I do not need to see "a well-documented history of attempting to control the narrative and portray himself in a more positive light" to be convinced that Musk “would cheat, lie, steal, beg, bribe — do anything to accomplish what [he has] accomplished”.. There are people who admire and follow Musk specifically because they believe he draws inspiration from that quote, just like the Apollo astronaut were inspired by other quotes from the same Author. It took only a few of Musk's tweets to convince me that both you and those people might be right about him. I have read much more about Musk since then and none of it has caused me to doubt that conclusion. There might even be a way to phrase it as a consensus on Wikipedia if anyone wanted to try. I think it is sad that this consensus view is not even mentioned in our Article. Annette Maon (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

You talk about POV but what you say above is exactly what you are doing. You basically state that your POV formed by Tweets is what convinced you. No one should be editing Wikipedia based on their POV. Its not about pro or anti-Musk people editing. It comes down to editors adhering to WP:NPOV. As stated below in my other comment, feel free to start discussing but I am only reading complaints about editing at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon:, there are easier ways to start discussions. I would say leave out the threats of noticeboards and simply go there if you feel necessary, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. It should first start with a discussion of the content here and then work its way towards there. So, the simple answer to your quests is "no." If you would like to discuss content, please do so by starting sections with specific content you have an issue with, but leave out ultimatums as they never set a good tone for discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is immune from having a POV, but what we must not do is A, let that get in the way of how we edit and B. talk about content, not users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the simplest and best explanation of NPOV I have ever read on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Need Help with the Musk Foundation page!!!

How come Musk Foundation is not notable to have its own page when the indicated sources is pretty clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources to show notability of a foundation must meet WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out which references meet that criteria?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

it is here ---> ttps://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/musk-foundation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 22:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

but i think overtime the sources could improve itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

another sources ---> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/23/how-elon-musks-secretive-foundation-benefits-his-own-family to indicate WP:ORGCRIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 22:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I do not see how Influencewatch is reliable for factual information, let alone establishing notability. It is crowdsourced and I would treat it like using Wikipedia as a source unless there is previous consensus I don't know about. The Guardian is a good piece. I just fear that based on the person writing it being a contributor (non-staff writer) it may be seen as unreliable by others. Assuming that it is okay with others here, that leaves us with one source establishing notability. Unfortunately there needs to be more. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

how about this newly found piece of source? ---> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-flint-michigan-water-b2011633.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 23:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Paywalled sourced but can be seen here. What part of that meets [{WP:ORGCRIT]]? It is an announcement about a donation made by the foundation and not in-depth about the foundation itself. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

another source ---> https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/770587507 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Another source that does not meet ORGCRIT. This is what is considered trivial coverage under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong degrees?

“… a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics.[35][36][37][38]”

surely it’s the other way around… a BA in economics and a BSc in Physics ? 2A02:C7E:1E42:3C00:5904:8600:8FD1:19BF (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

No, that is correct, as attested by the references and confirmed by the fact that these degrees do exist at the universities in question. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the quote: "Musk holds a Bachelors of Arts in Physics and a Bachelors of Science in Business––an unorthodox combination in academics––but true to his education, Musk has turned physics into an art and business into a science". Too bad csq.com is not a [[WP:RSP] and neither is mercurynews.com. Even if thedp.com turns out to be WP:RS it only says he graduated from Penn (no degrees mentioned). I do not know if "Sarah Machajewski" is a WP:RS but her citation only mentions "Bachelor degree in physics and economics".

I am not suggesting any changes, just making sure the references are documented in case they disappear the next time someone goes on a link/references deletion spree. They could still come in handy to find google search terms for a WP:RSP if what the articles says about Musk's degrees is challenged again. Annette Maon (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Technoking, but not in the lead

Could this whimsical title perhaps be included somewhere in the body, as an alternative to having it in the lead? For example: 'Musk was forced to step down for three years as Tesla chairman but was able to remain as CEO. He would later, in March 2021, adopt the title "Technoking."[12]' A consensus case for this would be to have it there to refer to when users ask to put it in the lead, as is done with British titles granted to non-Commonwealth people. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

But it's not the language Wikipedians use. Perhaps “technoking” can be included down the article, mentioning that its from Elon. ToniTurunen (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm proposing, having it down the article. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Let us never speak of such boobery again. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with above comment characterizing it as "boobeery." 1) The Technoking is an official title, as it was filed with SEC and effective since then; 2) In the most recent Tesla 2021 annual report (10-K), Elon Musk is directly addressed as Chief Executive Officer 6 (Six) times, while addressed as Technoking 3 (three) times. Yes, it was a joke, but also an official title and there's nothing to prevent these two things existing side by side. It reflects who Elon Musk is and the culture of Tesla as a company. Therefore, it should be in the lead. Also, shouldn't the citation regarding this matter be the SEC filing, as that's the direct source?

There is no fact about Tesla that cannot be said to "reflect who Elon Musk is." The purpose of the lead is to summarize, and I don't see how a mention of this joke title would contribute substantially to a summary of Musk's life and work. I suspect that he would struggle to make that case himself. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

How do i check the size (bytes) of the article?

Slashlefty (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC):

https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Elon_Musk QRep2020 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

errol musk

whyisn't errol musk a link to his page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:F4AE:1000:D90:A992:4584:47A (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Being someones dad does not pass GNG.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There is not a separate article for Errol Musk, it is a redirect to a section on Elon Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

page for Elon Musk family

Should we consider elon musk family have its own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why, what are the famous for?Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't need to be famous, just notable. I am NOT suggesting that we create one but I can see a case being made for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No, but they do need to be notable in their own right, being part of his family is not in and of itself notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, I am not suggesting we do and as such won't debate the notability. However, you just made the case for it. Similar to the Cuomo family or hundreds of others on Wikipedia, there are quite a few family members who have pages as they are individually notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course if it can be shown it passes GNG we can have it.16:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Reason I am NOT suggesting it is because there are already 5,000,000,000,000 (give or take) WP:CFORKs related to Musk as it is. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

i think the best example is Murdoch family as to establish the notable, but should it be thou? Musk family is quite famous in their own fields btw --> https://youtube.com/watch?v=nLT1A6XtjZ8 here my reference.

Yes, as wp:n is a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated by Slatersteven, WP:N is the policy. It is not about who is and isn't "famous."--CNMall41 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

CNMall41 Why not something like Family of Joe Biden thou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 11:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please read my comments above for my opinion on the matter. I am not debating it. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You would need to ask there, but a few pointers, Hunter Biden is the subject of a major conspirracy theory, so he is notable in his own right. As to the rest of the Bidens, no idea, but I note a number of artlce linked to there about them. So they may be notable in their own right.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

So, should we create one then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 23:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I already provided my response. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Does not seem warranted to me. What remarkable events were the result of the family acting together? QRep2020 (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Look at CNMall41 —comment above for the explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 00:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

OK lets make it simple, provide one RS for each of three members of his family that covers them in their own right.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That's not the guideline but you can go to each of their pages and find the links. What's more important is if there is significant coverage about the family and not just Elon Musk. There is. But again, I don't advocate for a page. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If we have pages on other Musks I see no reason to not have an overview page on the family.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If we end up creating such a page, I recommend that a link to it should supplant the Maye Musk link on Template:Elon_Musk_series.

if this is correct Musk family, should we put it into infobox relatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 07:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@MrHerii:, please make sure to sign your comments as I see that SineBot spends a lot of time doing it for you. Also, I am not sure what the purpose of this whole tread is at this point. Feedback has already been provided. Are you asking for consensus, advice, permission, at this point? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Add this

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/17/elon-musk-criticised-for-comparing-justin-trudeau-to-adolf-hitler-tweet-auschwitz. 2001:4455:364:A800:5993:2694:1BE8:B0AF (talk) 22:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We don't make lists of every mention of someone in the media. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Feel free to discuss. The original is disappointing as it is POV-pushing. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This particular tweet caused a special kind of uproar, one from individuals and institutions who normally have no relation to Musk. I agree that listing every single "edgy" tweet of the man's is unwarranted and frivolous, but this case he pissed off a lot of people. QRep2020 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it did make an uproar (although a lot of what he does causes the same). I also agree it was edgy and unwarranted. However, that is more of WP:IDLI than a policy based reason for inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess WP:NOTNEWS is clear on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHerii (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Age is unnecessary 👶🏼👴🏼🧓🏻 Short description

Age is the most redundant bit of information to add to an article description of a prominent, living, White man. You can tell it from the face very easily in a good enough accuracy. Whereas the birth year is an interesting part as well, it is visible in the first paragraph so nothing is lost. ToniTurunen (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree nhinchey (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal for a Neutral wording for the last lede paragraph

First I would like to Thank Rosbif73 for his bold change which inspired my attempts below:

Musk’s unorthodox and controversial views have earned him both criticism and applause. Common criticisms of Musk’s views accuse him of making unscientific statements, spreading misinformation about COVID-19, and holding unpopular or dangerous views on artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and public transport. Some of Musk’s tweets explicitly indicate awareness that highly publicized controversial statements increase both his twitter following and that of those he disputes with. According to Forbes, Musk leverages the popularity of his twitter posts to increase media coverage and save on PR department costs.. In 2018, Musk was sued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for falsely tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla at $420/share. He settled with the SEC, temporarily stepping down from his chairmanship and agreed to limitations on his Twitter usage. In 2019, he won a defamation trial brought against him by a British caver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue. In November 2011, Musk pledged via Twitter to sell 10% of his shares for around $1,080/share to pay his taxes.

References

I have tried to include in this proposal, all the WP:POV statements from the current last paragraph of the lede, without stating them in Wikipedia voice. We seems to have consensus that Musk's views are controversial and unorthodox. The only issue is whether Wikipedia should be taking a side in these controversies in its own voice. If I missed anything please suggest a correction. Annette Maon (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that some of Musk's views are unorthodox and controversial, but your wording suggests that all of his views come under those categories. For that matter it can also be taken as implying that all his views on AI, crypto and public transport are unpopular or dangerous. I'm sure this isn't what you intended, but this comes across as more POV, not less. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Rosbif73 Thank you for pointing that out. I thought it was clear that the paragraph refers only to "Musk’s unorthodox and controversial views" while taking no position on the rest of his views. However, since you read it differently, adding "Some of" at the beginning of the paragraph would be an improvement. Similarly, I thought it was clear that only some of his critics accuse him of the "unpopular or dangerous views" linked to. I was thinking that people who follow the link could make up their own mind about his views as long as that section follows WP:NPOV as well. I was also trying to comply with WP:EASTEREGG and include a longer phrase inside the piped link. I did not realize the implications that you noticed. I would appreciate any suggestions to improve the phrasing. Annette Maon (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to start Musk's sometimes unorthodox and controversial views... Also, remember that this is the lede, which is supposed to summarise the body rather than introduce new information. The sentences mentioning awareness of the effects of being controversial, and leverage, should be added to the views section of the body but not included in the lead IMO. Oh, and as an aside, check out MOS:CURLY. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY off topic

Rosbif73 I didn't realize I was using curly quotes. I am struggling with some curly brackets left over by the citation tool which I do rely on. Am I missing something about your reference to MOS:CURLY? My use of the box-quote template was rather cluncky, is there a better way to put a whole paragraph like that in "quotes"? Annette Maon (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC) The mention of MOS:CURLY is because you have some curly apostrophes, e.g. in Musk’s and in the title parameters of some of your cites. Your box quote is just fine. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Rosbif73 Thanks, that explains it. I never typed these apostrophes, the citations were automatically generated using the editor cite tool. They were probably copied directly from the sources cited which apparently do not follow MOS:CURLY. I assume the curly in Musk's came as a "cut and paste" from one of those titles because I rarely use curly apostrophes myself (i.e. when a programming language requires it). I am now conflicted between following the MOS and quoting each source "as is". Using the original apostrophe style can become significant when links are broken and we need to do a google search for a new link based on the quoted phrase. If we do want to apply MOS to citations, it would make more sense to have the automated Cite Tool do it instead of expecting editors to manually edit the titles every time the tool is used. Annette Maon (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC) MOS:CURLY does say Quotation marks and apostrophes in imported material should be changed if necessary. I agree it would be nice if the cite tool did that for us, but this is not the place for that discussion! Rosbif73 (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion above is a rough draft as a basis for discussion in an attempt to reach consensus. As a newcomer, I do not feel comfortable posting it to the article myself. This is my attempt to reflects the concerns of both sides in the discussions I have seen up until now. If I have missed more things, please point them out here. Annette Maon (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I can live with the way the article is now in terms of the given portions, but not much more. QRep2020 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current wording of the lead too. I do think that some rewording along the lines of Annette Maon's suggestion above would be an improvement, but realistically I think that reaching consensus on changes is going to be tricky. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The article still states: "He spread misinformation about the virus" in Wikipedia voice. Rather than fixing it myself only to get reverted, can someone please fix that as well? Annette Maon (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

RS say it is misinformation, as far as I know no RS have said its not, so we go both what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

We now define what we mean.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

While I find the lede needs work with regards to the statement you are trying to revert, I do NOT agree with the WP:BLUDGEONing attempt to do so. Please stop. Either discuss here to gain consensus or cease editing the page altogether. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

THis is indented as a reply to me, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Nope. It was indented because my brain wouldn't catch up to my eyes. I confused the edit history of the page between you and TheBalance. Saw your message here and related it to the edit history and was making a comment here for TheBalance. Hopefully my day gets better. Apologies and striking. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

If this keeps on being reverted I will ask for page protection. Stop and get consensus to change it.10:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Honestly the one presented here is a lot better than the one that is currently present in the article. Lmagoutas (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

SEC investigation

I said this above so please let me reiterate my contention here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we do not include everything printed in reliable sources about a subject.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Musk being under investigation again by the SEC is a serious development and belongs in this article. I find it difficult to imagine how it is not appropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is a serious "development" but what is your policy based reason for inclusion? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, can you tell me why you felt it worthy of being added to the lede? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@QRep2020:, are you able to respond to this insertion as well? In addition to it being NOTNEWS (at least at this point), I am unsure of the justification to add it to the lede but would be happy to discuss. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The fragment in question:

In February 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that both Elon and Kimbal Musk were under investigation by the SEC for possible insider trading. The impetus for the investigation involved Kimbal Musk selling Tesla shares a day prior to Musk asking his Twitter followers to vote if he should "unload 10% of his stake in Tesla".

Going through WP:EVENT:

• WP:LASTING: The event is likely to last as the investigation is ongoing.
• WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE: The event is widely covered by many sources with articles dedicated solely to the sobject (The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph etc.)
• WP:PERSISTENCE: To be determined, but per guidelines: That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

All in all, it seems to me that it should be included, as there's nothing in the guidelines suggesting otherwise. BeŻet (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing a notability guideline for events. See WP:RECENT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is not a guideline. BeŻet referred to the appropriate guidelines and made a fine case. The report of the SEC investigation deserves inclusion. QRep2020 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose reincluding text and adding an additional clause referencing Reuters's secondary source article, which provides an interpretation of the situation: In February 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that both Elon and Kimbal Musk were under investigation by the SEC for possible insider trading. The impetus for the investigation involved Kimbal Musk selling Tesla shares a day prior to Musk asking his Twitter followers to vote if he should "unload 10% of his stake in Tesla" and the probe constituted an escalation of "Musk's battle with regulators". QRep2020 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

We can wait for @BeŻet: to respond as I believe they are making a case that it should have its own article since WP:EVENT is notability guideline (as previously stated). So no, it is not "the appropriate guideline" unless they are arguing that it deserves its own article. I am not sure how you would dismiss WP:RECENT as not being applicable. It is a policy-based argument. While not a guideline (you are correct there), it is an exploratory supplement which is "intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms." It explains what is and is not generally accepted on Wikipedia. With that aside, it is not on me to justify why it should not be included, it is up to you to justify why it should and I have not seen any policy-based argument at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The text at the top of WP:RECENT reads: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." (emphasis added) Guidelines are what matter and even then there is the 5th pillar.

So is it your contention to ignore RECENT because it isn't a guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not break up my comments. If RECENT was a guideline that supplemented EVENT, then we ought to virtually always abide by it - but it is not, and EVENT is enough to provide the warranted justification for the inclusion.QRep2020 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I am just not sure what you mean by "break up [your] comments." I am replying within the thread that the comments pertained. If something wasn't done correctly, let me know and I will gladly correct it. Now turning back to the discussion. RECENT is a an explanatory supplement which summarizes practices and norms (basically how the community has decided things) based on Notability, Not, and NPOV. I also still don't see how EVENT is applicable as it is a "Notability" guideline so arguing it as a policy-based reason for inclusion outside of it having its own page is puzzling. I am just trying to get clarification on your argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, @BeŻet: provided the justification. Musk's interactions with the SEC are already recorded on the article so it makes sense to follow up on related actions. Not sure what else needs to be said. 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is not policy. Furthermore, you can just point at it without justification. I made my case above. BeŻet (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

We can wait until the charges result in something.Slatersteven (talk)

I think it all depends on whether it is something that the news eventually ignores or if it becomes something that will be lasting (regardless of charges). The main issue here is that one news outlet reported it and within 5 hours it was added to Wikipedia (including the lede). Of course all other publications are going to follow with their own version of the same story since it is Musk and everythign he says or does gets coverage. Question is, is there more to the story that will be written about and will it have a lasting effect? --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I only included it in the lede because the lede talks about his SEC history already. I did not say anything when it was removed from the lede. QRep2020 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Where are we with this? @BeŻet: provided the justification and I suggested a new sentence that incorporates an additional source. QRep2020 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

His justification is rooted in a notability guideline. So, I don't see the policy based argument. You will need to get consensus for the addition and its not there in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I removed mention of this SEC investigation from the lead, but I think a short mention in the body is due. This is not just recentist coverage of routine controversy. SEC investigations are rare and worthy of mention regardless of how they turn out. Top-tier reliable sources appear to agree and there is plenty of significant coverage in RS for us to summarize. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The removed content as well as the one proposed above by QRep2020 is editorializing. What would you suggest on wording that isn't and where would you propose to include it? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What was written hardly counts as editorializing in either version as the conveyed facts, whether about the event or an interpretation of the event, all came from the references.

"In February 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that both Elon and Kimbal Musk were under investigation by the SEC for possible insider trading involving Tesla stock sales in November 2021." would fit nicely under Wealth (as would the other versions) given the section already mentions his buying of TSLA shares in conjunction with his award tranches. QRep2020 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I prefer QRep2020's original, as it clarifies whose stock sales are at issue. I don't see any editorializing, just straightforward facts. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I see clarifying as editorializing. However, looking closer this, it is associated with an event that does (and is) deserve inclusion which is the exercising of his options based on the Twitter poll. There is currently already a paragraph under "Tesla" that states: "After more than 3.5 million Twitter accounts supported the sale, Musk sold $6.9 billion of Tesla stock in the week ending November 12,[122] and a total of $16.4 billion by year end, reaching the 10% target.[124]" Adding a single line at the end of that along the line of QRep2020's proposal would probably move us past this. Something along the lines of "In February 2022, The Wall Street Journal reported that both Elon and Kimbal Musk were under investigation by the SEC for possible insider trading related to the sale." That way we don't have to rehash what it is for, it is inline with other content in which it is associated, and gives appropriate weight to what is currently reported. Just my thoughts. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. QRep2020 (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Stick to the facts

How about cutting out the personal feeling of Elon and just stick to the facts! You critique him for “misinformation” while you doing spread “critized for” statements as fact when they are personal views of some idiot that just don’t like him! Fact check or don’t fact check stop cherry picking with your political ideologies and cancel culture bullshit! Other than that great job guys 👌🏻 2601:203:101:9BD0:DCB2:82DA:F9B3:7A83 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, and they base this on what he has publically said. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Bio Description Error - Please Change per Elon Musk’s Request

In his original interview with Joe Rogan on The Joe Rogan Podcast (Episode #1169, 10:17), Elon Musk requests that his Wikipedia page be changed from business magnate to business MAGNET.

Please update at your earliest convenience. Thank you so much!

Jamie Harvey (Redacted) 68.119.194.53 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done see FAQ. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

College degrees

Econ would be a BA degree, physics would be BS. These are transposed in the article. 75.87.71.230 (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_11#Wrong_degrees%3F QRep2020 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done

Philanthropist?

Why is he categorized as a philanthropist?

He’s donated less than one percent of his net worth. 107.122.157.27 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Because the word does not mean "gave most" or even "gave a lot". Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

CEO -> Techno King

Musk has stated in the following clip that he's made an official SEC filing to change his position from CEO to 'Techno King' of Tesla. 220.236.105.164 (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

We need RS for this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please consult the Talk page archives for discussion about why the title of Technoking has not been used. QRep2020 (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Never going to happen. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk Engineering title

I see Elon Musk does not have "Engineer" on his profile. Which is strange as he certainly works as an engineer and other famous engineers such's as da Vinci, Braham Bell, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla all have "engineer" on their profile without having an actual engineering degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 17:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We need RS calling him one. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is statements from former SpaceX employers and others like Robert Zubrin, and John Carmack

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/k1e0ta/evidence_that_musk_is_the_chief_engineer_of_spacex/ Warbayx (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt this is an RS (please see wp:rs). Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

There have been discussions about this before that you can find in the archives. The definition of an engineer by trade is a little too stringent for this profile. He is listed as "Chief Engineer at SpaceX" in the lead and infobox, since that is one of his titles. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

And I just noticed there's an FAQ at the top of this page that does a good job explaining it. While I agree that much of Musk's regular work could qualify as engineering work, being called a professional engineer requires licensure in many countries, including the US, where Musk primarily lives and works. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting he be called a Professional Engineer. That is obviously false as he does not hold an engineering degree.

But like i mentioned there is other famous engineers who has "engineer" on their profile without actually having an engineering degree. Warbayx (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It is possible that is because when they were alive it did not exist (and indeed possibly even degrees period in some cases). Thus (in those cases) we go with common convention. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure what more reliable sources you refer to as there is statements from NASA themselves about Elon being an engineer.

There is also The National Academy of Engineering who elected him to membership (literally nominated and voted in by a group of 2,000 engineers

https://www.nae.edu/?id=270224 Warbayx (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh now that may be better, as they do say it is an award awarded to engineers. Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

. You could still only say in wiki voice that he has been awarded an award that the organisers state is only for engineers, this clealy would not not be worthy in the lede and would, does not increase the addition of Engineer in the header . Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be WP:OR in my opinion to call him an "engineer" (trade name) using the election to the organization. We already say he is the chief engineer (job title) in the lede which is in secondary reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Election to the National Academy of Engineering is among the highest professional distinctions accorded to an engineer.

This should make it pretty clear. Warbayx (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you want you can add it, as a comment rather than a qualification. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but that is us determining that from WP:OR. What do the reliable sources call him? An engineer? No. They say he is the chief engineer and that is what is stated in the page already. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

They mention him being a chief engineer at SpaceX. But the election also included sustainable transportation and energy systems which is obviously Tesla related, so would that not qualify him as an engineer for Tesla. Warbayx (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Obviously Telsa related" is exactly the kind of OR we want to avoid. Per [{WP:ONUS]], you would need consensus to add it. I would be against it but I am just one opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

No need for OR, there are plenty of reliable sources that call him an engineer – see the previous discussion on this topic. But that lengthy discussion concluded with a lack of consensus, and I see no point in reopening what has been a highly contentious issue in the past. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You previous discussion might have concluded lack of consensus, but this new evidence is hard to ignore. When it explicate says he is elected for sustainable transportation and energy systems. Unless you want to pin this somehow to SpaceX. Again this is something 2000 engineers voted. So unless you can give me better RS than this please lead me to it. Warbayx (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

"Election to the National Academy of Engineering is among the highest professional distinctions accorded to an engineer"

"elected for sustainable transportation and energy systems"

Again how can this confuse anyone here? This makes it quite clear. Please explain to me how you can overrule 2000 engineers decision, and what makes you think you qualify to do so. Warbayx (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

In the previous discussions I have always supported calling him an engineer, and his election to the NAE is certainly an additional source pointing in the right direction. But previous experience tells me that it will not be easy to build consensus for the change. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

It is fine the way it is now. QRep2020 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The entire premise of him not being an engineer because he is not a licensed 'professional engineer' makes zero sense. You don't have to have a license to be an engineer within a company. The title of engineer dictates that you're an engineer in a company. For instance, a software engineer is a TITLE, it isn't some legal definition UNLESS you are providing services DIRECTLY to the public, which Elon is not; the COMPANY which he is an Engineer FOR provides services and products directly to customers because it is legally allowed to.

Net worth

$232 billion per Bloomberg (currently):

https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/elon-r-musk/

107.122.161.36 (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

“Criticism” paragraph

I don’t feel that the following criticism paragraph is top notch encyclopedia form:

“Musk has been criticized for unorthodox and unscientific stances and highly publicized controversial statements.”

A big problem is that this has no reference. When you passively say “he has been criticized” it could mean anything from by society at large to a single ranting and obscure, unqualified blogger. More likely, it is the interpretation of one or some of the people who control/edit this article - that a “fair” or “unbiased” synthesis and interpretation of various facts in public circulation about Musk is that he is indeed “a controversial figure” with a penchant for “pseudoscientific statements”. But that’s not an impartial assessment whatsoever. It is a highly subjective act to settle on what a definitive summary or characterization of a person is. Someone could have chosen to mention marital problems or relationship to parents or something in the introductory paragraph, if that was a matter of interest or concern to them. It wouldn’t be a universally agreed upon choice. I think standard encyclopedia practice aims for characterizations that are not just true but have other merits like facts that are relevant, complete, and also in scope / “proportional” - like even if it’s true, a relatively obscure detail doesn’t deserve to be in the introduction.

It seems way too simplistic to say “but Wikipedia policy says we have to be balanced so we have to say some good things and some bad things.” I don’t think Musk is definitively known to the public as “that famous guy espousing pseudoscience”. “Highly publicized controversial statements” I can get behind as common knowledge but “criticized for unscientific stances” doesn’t meet that bar for me and it seems misleading and biased. It’s not a standard and canonical representation of who he is; if it’s true it needs evidence and even if it’s true it’s not relevant enough for the introductory bio.

“In 2018, he was sued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for falsely tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. He settled with the SEC, temporarily stepping down from his chairmanship and agreeing to limitations on his Twitter usage. In 2019, he won a defamation trial brought against him by a British caver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue. Musk has also been criticized for spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and public transport.“

Sorry to be pedantic but after reading through this I guess I feel like if that one mentioned sentence clause were omitted I feel like the rest is fair because at the end it lists specific topics he has been in public debate about which is more concrete. I do think citations could be good here though. I also think “Covid misinformation” might get historically dated because it sounds semi-ideological, like we’re coming out of a time where a certain political group wants to take a hardline stance against anyone with a deviating opinion so it must be branded starkly as “misinformation”, whereas this strict adjudgment of accuracy wouldn’t be applied to other topics. It seems politically inflected and I think a more neutral phrasing would be “non-standard views” for example. 2A02:3032:405:6DB8:9420:4B46:CC2F:33AD (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

All of it is sourced in the body of the article - the lead does not need to first feature the citations - and has been discussed dozens of times. QRep2020 (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced does not meant we should include it. And, if we do, it must be balanced and NPOV. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree this whole misinformation part is ridiculous and does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia. Warbayx (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times it has been discusses, but has there ever been consensus and if so can you provide a link? I see several discussions in archive but nothing that shows consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The article seems to be skewed a lot since the GA nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, is it a coincidence that the most active maintainers of the article is anti-Musk? Just saying. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

This is also something that is explained in the FAQ at the top of this page. It's not only okay but necessary to include criticism of notable people in their WP articles for a neutral point of view. GrammarDamner how are things? 15:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And we apply WP:BLPBALANCE which tells us Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

They are' Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Which praise is included in the lede?--CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It is balanced. All of the statements are backed up. The article passed a GAN. Can we please stop trying to sanitize this article of justified criticism? QRep2020 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Please AGF. Accusing someone of whitewashing isn't appropriate for the discussion of content. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was just trying to explain that to the OP. We have differed in the past about whether the criticism is presented neutrally, sure, but the current state of the article is OK in that regard. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for clarifying. I had thought you had tacitly agreed to the last round of discussion and therefore we had a consensus. 16:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:soap and wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

So again (no one responded to my request above), I see previous discussions but where was consensus gained? Thinking may a RfC would be good at this point.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It becomes a display of article ownership pretty quick. I do like what Musk's company do, but that does not mean that I immediately have a COI on him. The "Views" section has become really long and should be cut back. WP:RS is only for what is eligible to add, but WP:DUE exists to make sure the info added is balanced. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment is made below. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2022

I would like to change some areas such as dates to current ones, as well as updates and other necessary items. 86.45.177.48 (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2022 (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. casualdejekyll 14:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Musk's election into the National Academy of Engineering

I was given permission to add in Musk's election to The National Academy of Engineering by Govindaharihari But QRep2020 seems to have a problem with Musk being elected for the sustainable transportation and energy systems part. Any reason why you're leaving out this part? If you want to add SpaceX had a key factor for the election i think that's fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The issue is primarily with the source you used, a press release - refer to WP:PRSOURCE. In addition, the proposed text does not use quotation marks despite using verbatim language. The source I provided (from a independent, reliable third party publication) does not use the litany of adjectives that the press release featured, nor are they needed to adequately describe the election, so I removed them. Finally, undoing my perfectly reasonable edit could invite edit warring, though I will refrain from making any further changes to the portion in question for now. I recommend getting more familiar with how to edit Wikipedia articles. QRep2020 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the press release that's not problem there is multiple WP:PRSOURCE that does not leave out the sustainable transportation and energy systems part, i can change that if you want. Warbayx (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, let's see them. QRep2020 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

https://digitnews.in/elon-musk-became-an-academic-he-joined-the-us-national-academy-of-engineers/ is hardly a good source and even then it manages to put the line in quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What i care about about is including the sustainable transportation and energy systems part that Musk was elected for. The press release from Benzinga does not mention any of that, so i don't see how that source is genuine either. Your edit made it sounds like his only contribution was for reusable rockets. But Benzinga only mentions it was a "key part" Warbayx (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Benzinga article is not a press release. How about: "Musk was elected as a member into the National Academy of Engineering in 2022 for, in part, his contributions to the designing of SpaceX's reusable launch rockets." QRep2020 (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright fair enough. Warbayx (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

But can we not add https://www.nae.edu/?id=270224 as a additional source together with the Benzinga one? Warbayx (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NO issues with including it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong

Elon Musk was born on February 14th, 1952 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:C3 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording for RfC, cleanup, NPOV, etc.

Prior to launching a formal RfC, I would again request someone show me where there has been consensus for the wording of the lede that talks about controversies. No one has yet to do so. As stated, I see previous discussions but nothing amounting to more than possibly WP:LOCAL. In the meantime, I think a basic RfC asking about one of two versions (the current plus a proposed which we can discuss here prior to launch). For those who have been advocating that it isn't balanced, please propose wording here. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I have a few initial thoughts. First, I keep hearing that this went through GA. Great, but GA also has an option for reassessment. This is an option (it was brought up by an SPI recently but they were bludgeoning the process so I for one never gave it a serious thought). If someone feels it is a good idea, please discuss here. Keeping inline with some of the other richest people in the world who have reliable sources discussing their controversies (most notably Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates who have GA status), should we include a paragraph about controversy and/or praise at all or do the first three paragraphs provide an already neutral summary? Just a thought.

Next, I read some people saying that the lede paragraph about criticism is balanced. I call BS. As much as this guy is hated he is also loved. I am not sure if there are too many people in the middle of the road on this one. Absolutely no mention of Time Person of the Year but we will include the defamation lawsuit brought (and lost) by Vernon Unsworth? Wikipedia doesn't push praise or criticism per WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT. I realize the lede is a summary of the body, but that leads me to think we may need to spend more time evaluating the content of the body as well (an example is how there was a single sentence about him not paying taxes for a single year while leaving out how much tax he did pay all other years).

Finally, there was comment about people here mainly being anti-Musk editors. There is always going to be a tendency for some editors to be "pro" or "anti", but let's leave the accusations out of the talk page so we can discuss content. If someone is continuously POV-pushing (one way or the other), please take it to their talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. The majority of editors here are experience and should be familiar with how to deal with WP:NOTHERE editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we are somehow required to provide you with evidence of prior consensus on issue in order to stop you from calling an RfC? QRep2020 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No. In fact, I didn't suggest anything. I asked a question trying to determine previous consensus. That was question was not answered until now. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A consensus was reached on the wording surrounding mention of misinformation in the lead paragraphs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_11. The consensus was between myself, User:BeŻet, User:Firefangledfeathers, and User:Rosbif73. Rosbif73 did not specify their agreement there, but did not object to the new wording proposed and later stated their acceptance of the current state of the article (and therefore the wording proposed) with "Yes, I was just trying to explain that to the OP. We have differed in the past about whether the criticism is presented neutrally, sure, but the current state of the article is OK in that regard. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)". Annette Maon did not give their agreement but was engaging in disruptive editing already throughout the Talk page and elsewhere. QRep2020 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do not see this as a consensus per se. More of local consensus, but not a formal one. That is why I previously asked the question. If there was a formal consensus, then it makes no sense to go with an RfC. If it is just local consensus between a couple editors, then it may be good to go with RfC since a few people have dissented. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

You did not ask for evidence of a "local", "formal", or "global" consensus, only a consensus. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

If you read WP:CON it says "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus unless it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit then the new edit will have presumed consensus unless it meets with disagreement. In this way, the encyclopedia gradually improves over time.". As this article has been edited by many users to reach it current state that means we have "consensus through editing", which the RFC clearly shows is the case. Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so. Just because something is done by the status quo does not mean it is the best way to do things, and when someone try to highlight this on the article's talk page they are usually referred to the penultimate "consensus". That's not how consensus works. I disagree that this article is neutral (not because I love Musk and want to defend everything that he said) because having a large portion of the article for some controversies is just ridiculous. The argument that this article is GA does not even hold up when that version have like only 3 subsection about his viewpoints and such. I do agree though that I don't come here without any flaws, so I would like to retract my statement about "anti-Musk" accusation to long-term editors of the article. However, it should be clear by now that there is a serious content ownership and this should be resolved as soon as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is one way consensus works. Someone edits, no one objects, etc., etc. That is how the encyclopedia is built. However, we have gone beyond simple WP:EDITCON. "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit." Simply saying that it exists so editors must agree is one thing, but since there has been back and forth that leaves the option of building a more formal consensus. I think it is important to know where we are in the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, I can see the GA negating WP:ONUS which means those who feel it doesn't belong in the lede would be the ones needing to formally address it (not the other way around). Another reason why I was asking if there was a formal consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised above about consensus. There were more discussions on the lead wording before the one linked by QRep2020. Slatersteven is correct on there being quite a bit of implicit consensus here as well. As for the GA status, I encourage everyone to review the version that attained GA, which includes a near-identical lead. That said, I would be open to discussing changes to the lead. I do think the caver defamation suit is getting less due as time passes, and it might be time to remove mention from the lead. I presume there might be space somewhere for a short mention of Person of the Year, though most of the businessperson bios of awardees I skimmed don't have it in the lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 02:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

And that is really the point of the discussion here. Thank you for that. Things do change which is why GA has a route for WP:GAR. Some things that may have seen as lasting simply aren't any longer. So the question becomes if there is a need for GAR, RfC, more discussion, etc.?? --CNMall41 (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Twitter shares were purchased before Twitter critcism, not after

"On March 14, 2022, Musk bought 73,486,938 shares in Twitter, 9.2% of Twitter's overall shares... The decision to purchase shares followed Musk's comments in March that he was considering developing a rival social media site." This statement is incorrect.

Musk's tweet "Am giving serious thought to [new social media platform]" was on March 26th. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507907130124222471?s=20&t=zBKpGHoi34W1iz6D0dWzvQ Musk bought his Twitter shares on March 14th. So, the decision to purchase Twitter shares preceded Musk's twitter poll about Twitter adhering to free speech principles, and his subsequent statement that he was considering building a new social media platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.162.34 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This person is right, there are many articles noting that he has been buying since January. This section needs a serious refresh. I would fix it myself, but the article is locked by you know who.2600:1700:1111:5940:2D09:1DD6:32F:4314 (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022 (2)

The article says Elon musk has a BA in economics and a BSc in physics but the sources quoted after say it's the other way around. A bachelor of arts in physics and the bachelor of science in economics 188.37.96.121 (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Should this material on racial discrimination be included?

LA Times article "Black Tesla employees describe a culture of racism: ‘I was at my breaking point’ and from NPR"Judge cuts the payout in a Black former Tesla contractor's racial discrimination suit" Doug Weller talk 08:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like more sources, to establish this is really a major issue and not just one angry worker getting his own back. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A very quick search, this has been covered for some time.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] There are more. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be an ongoing issue at Tesla, so we can add this. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I say include. That's a lot of high quality sources covering a good span of time. This appears to have moved beyond mere news and into the realm of encyclopedic notability. Generalrelative (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If one employee publicly says there’s a culture of racism, then it’s much bigger than what’s being publicized… Trillfendi (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I took a crack at it, open to changes. QRep2020 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The accusations are of racism at Tesla, but I see nothing that suggests Musk might be personally implicated. In other words, this belongs in the Tesla article, not here. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see what this has to do with Musk. Endwise (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong information typed in education section.

There you can see that, when you scroll to eductaion section, there's problem. The physics degree is included in bachelor of science and economics degree is included in bachelor of arts, but there is vice versa. Can someone solve that problem ? 2409:4041:612:EEBA:CE7C:A76F:3C73:450E (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That section is correct. Musk was awarded a Bachelor of Arts in physics and a Bachelor of Science in economics. At UPenn, the physics department is part of the "School of Arts & Sciences", which only awards BA degrees. The economics department is part of the Wharton school which awards both, but has more course requirements for a BA than a BS. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think this question and answer set is deserving of its own FAQ entry above at this rate, what do you say? QRep2020 (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

request for extended protection to protect against vandalism.

{{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit/Request|page=Elon Musk

|request=

I've come across a reddit thread that feel the page has a "bias" tone to it https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u69f22/elon_musks_wikipedia_page_is_seriously_biased/. i request that the page be moved to extended protection to prevent newer accounts from making unnecessary edits to the page to suit their narrative. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cannolis (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is the user Qrep2020 still allowed to make edits to this page when he/she has showed bias time and time again

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 have been following this article for quite some time, and the user Qrep2020 has consistently made edits that often paint Elon in a negative light. These edits often have a very biased and NOT very Wikipedia friendly tone.

His biased edits are apparent once again: The following line has just been removed from the article: "Another described him as exhibiting total and complete pathological sociopathy". This has been discussed in a section above. QREP2020 did (of course) not see any problem in having this in the article. But when he had to concede, he swiftly added another line that would still make sure to paint Elon in a negative light: "As a former executive put it in a WIRED article, “[E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon.”"

All these edits gets even more problematic when we look at the places where QREP2020 is most active: in the "Criticism of Tesla" article and in the "TESLAQ" article. This coupled with his very negative and non-wiki edits there is a good chance that he is a short seller in Tesla. I am not saying he/she is, I am only stating that with all the factors taking into consideration the chances are not insignificant. If look at the talk page on QREP2020 we can also see that other editors has questioned whether there are COI.

Many people have during the last 2 years pointed out the negative biased tone in multiple places and each time QREP2020 has defended the tone. I would like to tag these people that have experienced this here: @ Annette Maon, Rosbif73 , Mfb and Elephanthunter

This is a problem that should be dealt with asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2022

Elon asked for his title to change to “ business magnet” on the Joe Rogan show. Please comply. 174.61.160.16 (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

No. QRep2020 (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

But its more fun :) Warbayx (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a valid reason. Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Pretty please? JettaMann (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

How can you claim that the estimated worth of Elon Musk as current "April 2022", when your citation is archived from 2012, yet you obtained it in December 2021? That isn't accurate. You're claiming that it's current, and yet your source it's a decade old. 173.206.17.20 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2022 (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. The current source is the Forbes real time net worth. Not sure what the objection is. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Did Errol Musk REALLY own an emerald mine?

There are problems with the story:

None of it was corroborated, the quantity of wealth that came from the supposed emerald flow was never quantified, in a 2018 Business Insider South Africa article, the journalist suggested a direct link between the emeralds, the family’s overall wealth & Elon’s later success One of the resulting articles had a US headline that claimed the family still owned the mine (despite there never having been formal ownership, despite any emerald supply having died out some 30 years prior, despite Elon & his father being quite famously estranged)

This story then mythically mutated which grew to include the idea of apartheid (or blood emeralds), despite Zambia not being a conflict gem country, having been a regional ringleader of anti-apartheid activity at the time. (furthermore; Errol was also a city councillor in Pretoria back in the 70s having run with an anti-apartheid affiliation.)

While there's no reason to question Errol's word that he acquired some emeralds from various sources in the 80s (which he most likely sold & was only a hobby), the total resulting income was at most a 2.4x return on his investment (over some 5 years) & had nothing to do with Elon’s success to which he strongly denies as he put it "BS", I find it abhorrent that (some) editors here feel it acceptable to add this claim onto his article WITHOUT showing Elon's defence, by NOT showing this, the article seems bias. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed extensively already: Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 5#The Mine of Musk and Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 10#Added back emerald mine detail per corroboration by multiple outlets since 2009. QRep2020 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

last edited 2020, many new information has come about since then regardless if it was discussed 'extensively', yet (some) editors continue to push it as true when it is flawed journalism. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The whole story is a myth, and the only source is Errol who claim it's true. https://savingjournalism.substack.com/p/i-talked-to-elon-musk-about-journalism?s=r

The fact that this slander is allowed on Wiki says alot about how biased it is. Maybe it was banned user QRep2020 who added it to being with idk Warbayx (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2022

Elon Musk is currently dating 25 year socialite Victoria Hyer. Beautifulmixedgirl (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment about due coverage

Is the information in this article balanced, and if not, what should be added or cut back? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a thought here before rushing to create a RfC. Asking a simple yes or no questions is unlikely to reach a consensus. I would actually propose two versions and allow people to chose the one they feel is more neutral. Just my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, feel free. I am not involved in this RfC from here to ensure neutrality. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, but that doesn't make this attempt an an RfC any more viable. It's way, way too general. The question you asked is basically "should the article be like this or different?", without mentioning any specifics that could be engaged by other editors. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it seems balanced to me. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

How exactly has it changed so much since it received Good Article status to warrant a RfC? It is perfectly fine in its current state.QRep2020 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

literally 1/4 of Musk's front page is dedicated to criticism, how can anyone think this is unbiased and fair? Warbayx (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That sounds about right. This is by no means meant to disparage Musk in any way or discredit all the work he has done in various fields. GrammarDamner how are things? 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say that more than 1/4 of the coverage Musk receives in the media is critical of him, so if anything Wikipedia is under-criticizing him, if that's a thing. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Is that 1/4 just a guesstimate, or have you actually done some sort of analysis? My expectation (not backed by any analysis whatsoever) is that the proportion of criticism is going to vary depending on the type of media, so you'd need to ensure that your sample includes mainstream news as well as specialised business media (probably more critical) and specialised electric vehicle and space media (probably more praise). Quite how you'd get the right balance between media types I'm not sure, but you'd probably need some sort of weighting akin to that used by opinion pollsters. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I will add, that means that 3/4 of it is either positive or neutral, that seems balanced to me. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying 1/4 is too much or too little? If that ratio reflects the ratio in reliable sources, then the article is unbiased and fair. Despite how Fox News uses the word in their slogan, "Fair" doesn't mean "Only contains the stuff that agrees with your point of view". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes the information in this article is balanced. The information regarding Musk's views, criticisms, controversies, etc. are relevant and properly sourced. GrammarDamner how are things? 17:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This RFC needs to be framed with greater specificity; Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Open ended questions are inappropriate for RfCs. The open ended question should be first asked on the talk page, discussed, and narrowed down to a specific close-ended question before being made an RfC. Fieari (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see anything on this article that would require urgent modification. Agletarang (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Elon Musk purchase of Twitter into 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.

---

Not a notable topic on its own, though I do believe it might warrant a section in Elon Musk's main article. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Article definitely needs to be developed a lot more but that can be worked on but this is definitely notable XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I was thinking it should perhaps be moved to Elon Musk and Twitter. A separate article from the biographic article detailing his history with Twitter would be appropriate, given its prominence in his career and now his ownership of it. Thriley (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'll retarget the merge request. Kirbanzo ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:35, 25 April 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Change citizenship to “unknown”. The source used to confirm Elon Musk’s citizenship states “citizenship OR location of company”. In this case, it is likely that the response “United States” is likely the location of Twitter, as Elon was born a South African citizen and Twitter’s headquarters are located in the US. Please confirm with additional sources and edit. 2601:1C0:6100:5980:93B:F8A1:D456:D44 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(c) Citizenship United States seems pretty solid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Some edits need to wait for the deal to close

The transaction, which has been unanimously approved by the Twitter Board of Directors, is expected to close in 2022, subject to the approval of Twitter stockholders, the receipt of applicable regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions.[20] (bold is mine) Until the deal closes, the article should not say that he is Twitter's owner or that he has actually bought Twitter. It's like player trades between teams; we don't say they happened until they actually happen. Schazjmd (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Note: I am amazed a page notice is required to explain that the phrase "business magnate" used in the article to describe Elon Musk will not be changed to "business magnet". Bizarro.;-) Carlstak (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk's Nationality.

per MOS:OPENPARABIO "The first sentence should usually state Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable" is he American or South African. most articles like Bill Gates first paragraphs starts with "is an American business magnate". Elon's article starts with "Elon Reeve Musk FRS is an entrepreneur," no mentioning of nationality whatsoever.

what's the reason for this? CharlesViBritannia (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr: His nationality is complicated, see above discussion. Also notice the word "should" on the Manual of Style: some rules can be broken provided that it helps the encyclopedia. Adding his nationality would clutter the first sentence more than it benefits. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not really complicated. He was born in South Africa.. That makes him a South African end of story. Warbayx (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Born and raised until he left at age 17. Warbayx (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I would personally write "South African-born Canadian–American". But having no nationality seems to be the consensus. cookie monster 755 23:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes he is African. And his father was African. "White South African" is racist. Is Sadiq Khan a "Brown Englishman"? Musk has moved around but he was born in Africa to an African father so there is nothing complicated about it. 98.144.81.175 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Obviously Bill Gates is only an American citizen, hence American business magnate. When people, like Musk, have multiple nationalities, Wikipedia can never seem to agree on how to write it out even when it can technically be as simple as South African-Canadian-American. Trillfendi (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOLD: I am going to rewrite the first sentence. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not complicated. He was born in South Africa to a South African-born father, which according to South African Nationality Law, makes him a South African citizen. He was born in the first generation abroad outside of Canada to a Canadian-born mother, which according to Canadian Nationality Law, makes him a Canadian citizen, and he naturalized as a citizen of the America, which makes him an American citizen. All three citizenships have been listed for months, but suddenly, someone says we need consensus after randomly changing his citizenship to just American. The truth is if Wikipedia is to function objectively, all citizenships for any individual should be listed because they exist legally. The articles become subjective when people start editing them to conceal citizenships in the info box or in the lead because they somehow perceive them as having more of an attachment or relationship to one, which is irrelevant since the concern should be with providing factual information and maintaining objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talk • contribs) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree i think it's kind of silly none can come to any conclusion about his nationality when it's pretty clear. Xpenz (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

For anyone with any doubt as to whether or not he has Canadian citizenship, just read these two articles, and you will clearly see that is a Canadian citizen.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/act-changes/rules-2009-2015.html?msclkid=f1fc9428c56911ecb3fc3d3de9a8f172

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/how-elon-musk-obtained-two-additional-passports-and-you-can-too/?msclkid=0bd845a4c56a11ec8009b65b9fb1497f

citizenship

Seems odd to me he is only listed to have US citizenship. I know his South African citizenship is complicated But there should be reliable sources somewhere to prove he has Canadian citizenship as Canadians are allowed to take foreign citizenship while keeping their Canadian citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 20:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Deducing things from what each country allows in the way of dual citizenship would be WP:OR. We would need specific reliable sources before changing anything. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't need reliable sources to prove he is not a Canadian citizen? The only reason he obtained citizenship in US was because of his Canadian one. Warbayx (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The article currently does not state he is not a Canadian citizen. Furthermore, the InfoBox only calls for positive statements. QRep2020 (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.sovereignman.com/international-diversification-strategies/how-elon-musk-obtained-two-additional-passports-and-you-can-too-26658/

does this suffice? Warbayx (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable source with promotional content. Government agencies are a reliable source for citizenship. Aoito (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

the article's infobox only shows "united states" under citizenship. it doesn't show "Canada" CharlesViBritannia (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's sorta backwards. There is no government sources on the internet to prove he has a Canadian citizenship. But like i said above the only reason he has a US citizenship is because of his Canadian one.. So it's pretty silly. Warbayx (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not complicated. He was born in South Africa to a South African-born father, which according to South African Nationality Law, makes him a South African citizen. He was born in the first generation abroad outside of Canada to a Canadian-born mother, which according to Canadian Nationality Law, makes him a Canadian citizen, and he naturalized as a citizen of the America, which makes him an American citizen. All three citizenships have been listed for months, but suddenly, someone says we need consensus after randomly changing his citizenship to just American. The truth is if Wikipedia is to function objectively, all citizenships for any individual should be listed because they exist legally. The articles become subjective when people start editing them to conceal citizenships in the info box or in the lead because they somehow perceive them as having more of an attachment or relationship to one, which is irrelevant since the concern should be with providing factual information and maintaining objectivity.

There is proof. The fact that many articles state he has a Canadian passport is proof since only Canadian citizens can obtain Canadian passports. In addition, even though he received Canadian citizenship by applying for recognition in 1989 so he could attend university, the 2009 law effectively retoractively and automatically recognized him as a Canadian citizen since birth. All you need to do is google Elon Musk Canadian and articles will appear showing that he has Canadian citizenship when he applied for his Canadian passport. Plus, if you knew anything about nationality law, all you have to do is read the 2009 amendments to Canadian Nationality Law to know that he is a Canadian citizen since the law granted retroactive and automatic Canadian citizenship to all people born outside of Canada in the first generation abroad to a Canadian-born parent. Again, numerous articles show that his mother was born in Canada and that he therefore is a citizen. Not complicated, but people don't bother to research anything at all or study anything.

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/act-changes/rules-2009-2015.html?msclkid=f1fc9428c56911ecb3fc3d3de9a8f172

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/how-elon-musk-obtained-two-additional-passports-and-you-can-too/?msclkid=0bd845a4c56a11ec8009b65b9fb1497f

Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Aoito (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Why doesn't it show wealth per min?

250,000$ Roughly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangejuicefoxboy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source supporting your statement and a relevant place in the article and it can be included. (Subject to the protest of others but this is the way content is added) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 22:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Ahetesham Momin and Elon Musk

Ahetesham Momin by Transparent Pixels Technology to Elon Musk 117.228.207.170 (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

What? Can you please explain this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Taxation

There is a section about taxation, however it doesn't cover anything material. The only significant event in his tax history is that he's paid the largest tax in US history, 8.3 billion dollars. https://fee.org/articles/freeloading-elon-musk-to-pay-largest-federal-tax-bill-in-history-an-estimated-83-billion/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/elizahaverstock/2021/12/15/elon-musk-is-likely-paying-more-than-8-billion-in-taxes-this-year/?sh=1d59681d4db3 and it's allegedly even higher including state taxes, although that wasn't included in the statistic https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/how-much-will-elon-musk-pay-taxes-elizabeth-warren-stocks-2021-12 We should include this fact if we're to have this section at all, although I'm not convinced the section needs to exist 72.33.2.225 (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Vijaya Gadde

At no time did Musk encourage others to attack this person. --JShark (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not say he did. Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording to make it more clear that Elon Musk was a correlative force and not a causative force. Also, the WaPo article only mentioned him criticizing her policies, and his current Twitter feed matches this, so I adjusted that wording as well. -- sarysa (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)