Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cofounder dispute (collection)

Discussion #1

Brief discussion re SpaceX and Tesla

Recent edits by an anonymous IP SPA put Musk as a co-founder of SpaceX. The issue has already been resolved on that article's Talk page and discussed here. I've reverted twice and want to avoid an edit war so will someone else step in please? andy (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The "anonymous" IP aka me What "Andyjsmith" did was writing that Musk had been sued by some of the original founders of those companies while leaving out the fact that lawsuits like the Tesla one had already been settled, and editing that out several times is a sad attempt at defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.133.187 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC) This is a personal attack (WP:NPA) which is prohibited on WP. Please discuss content only on the talk page. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC) On a closer reading of the sources, what happened was that Eberhart sued over several issues, one of which was an allegedly false claim by Musk that he was a co-founder. The judge said the suit could proceed apart from the co-foundership issue. The parties then settled, Eberhart acknowledge that Musk was a co-founder and withdrew the claim from his blog site. Of course, an out of court settlement says nothing about who was in the right - it's simply a pragmatic agreement by both parties that it was in their mutual interest (presumably as shareholders of Tesla) to drop the matter. I've amended the article lead accordingly, but this should maybe be written up as a section within the article. andy (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion #2

Inconclusive discussion re PayPal history

Verifiable documents, information from Elon himself, confirm he was an investor who joined Tesla after it was founded. Not a co-founder but CEO after Tesla's original CEO/Founder was ousted, for good reasons probably. Because Tesla would't probably be here without Elon I think co-founder can be "awarded" even if it's not something to award but more of a legal thing. As for PayPal, PayPal was an existing and competing brand to Musk's X.com and owned by Confinity, one of its founders being Peter Thiel who is a big name in Silicon Valley, while Elon was competing with it (competing against PayPal/Confinity).. Thiel is also an early investor in Facebook etc and still owns one of the biggest VC funds in the world, among other stuff. He's lower key, not a me/me guy. Musk asked to meet with Confinity and proposed for X.com to join PayPal/Confinity to compete against eBay. After joining PayPal Musk was denied CEO and Thiel still led the company from its founding until its sale to Ebay. Musk was not a founder of Paypal and such must be reflected, it is mentioned in the news and Wikipedia too, but this page is really the only place still crying about the matter. Trust me Musk won't give two cents about you telling the truth (as you always should do as it makes your word more valuable). When in doubt consult legal docs, news published in the years pre-Ebay acquisition, before Musk started giving the all the boys the Musk juice to tap their fantasies. Have a good one everyone! PS: There was an actual correct edit in the intro section of the founding stuff but I see someone deleted that. Not nice censoring Ruskies. Let's keep it American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.137.218 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 22 October 2014‎ X.com bought Confinity, which had a product called PayPal. PayPal ended up being much more successful than other products that either Confinity or X.com had delveloped up to that point, so for branding purposes X.com changed its name to PayPal, the company. Musk didn't co-found PayPal, the product, but he did co-found X.com, which became PayPal. Confinity never owned a company called PayPal, so Thiel never founded a company called PayPal. He did, however, oversee important work, and his contribution shouldn't be diminished. He just didn't found a company that ended up being called PayPal, and sold to eBay. *shrugs*. — Gopher65talk 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion #3

Tesla again

I'm really tired of this. Why are some people so determined to show that Musk isn't the co-founder of some of his companies? Various editors keep inserting the phrase "considered by many to be the cofounder..." rather than just "the cofounder." This assertion - that he is not necessarily the cofounder of PayPal, Tesla Motors, and Zip2 - is not supported by any evidence. User Heuh0 is the latest, and he's very determined. He's even taken it to WNI and isn't put off by a rebuff there. Tesla's site states unequivocally that he's the cofounder of Tesla, and the only person who has ever seriously suggested otherwise has retracted the claim; Bloomberg is quite happy to count Musk as cofounder of Paypal as are all other news media. And there's never been any doubt expressed anywhere about Zip2. Despite requests no editor has ever produced a reliable source to support the "considered by many" perspective rather than simply "is". So... I'm going to remove the claim for what will probably not be the final time and giving a level 3 warning to Heuh0 for edit warring. If anyone has any views on this, please pitch in! andy (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC) andy There was no 'rebuff' on WNI, merely a request to redirect it to a content talk page. Secondly you clearly have a personal issue with me, there have been countless examples, recently for example what I would call a personal attack on me when I undid your edit of changing CTO to Chief Designer. You did not add a reference, I looked on the SpaceX website and there was no mention of him as chief designer, and you didn't even give a reason for the change leading me to make the perfectly reasonable assumption that you were vandalising. You undid this edit of mine and adding insult to injury, left an angry message on my talk page and issued me a vandalisation warning, despite the fact I kept to the rules of wikipedia. Please, at least for this discussion exclude any personal issues you have with me, as far as know on wikipedia it is unacceptable. Heuh0 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC) User talk pages are the place for this kind of remark, not article talk pages. WP:CIVIL. andy (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I'm just as baffled as you. There is nothing to substantiate that he is not a cofounder. This needs needs to be over already. Farquezy (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC) With Paypal, I think there is some confusion because it is both a product and a company. Musk didn't create the product paypal.com. He did, however, co-found X.com, which then renamed itself to Paypal after its star product (acquired by acquisition of a smaller company). I think that bit gets lost somewhere for most people. No he didn't create paypal. Yes, he did found the company "Paypal" that was sold he e-bay. — Gopher65talk 23:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC) andy, I think it a great idea to bring up on the Talk page; work through to consensus; and then use that consensus as the way it will be handled in the article; at least until some future time that new information or new sources become available and someone perhaps chooses to bring it to the Talk page again, in order to potentially develop a revised consensus. You (or someone) might want to make a bit more concrete proposal, probably on just one specific company at a time, and then we can work through it with the ordinary WP:!vote process of editors providing rationale along with SUPPORT or OPPOSE, and then asking some outside party to close the discussion after a week or more of discussion on the Talk page. I too am quite tired of seeing the article jerked around sans compelling evidence, and I think that serious Talk page consensus building efforts is the way to put each issue to rest. I promise I'll weigh in if I'm aware of the proposal(s). Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Sorry, no. If one or two people make edits with no supporting evidence the usual rules of wikipedia are more than adequate for dealing with the situation - WP:PROVEIT. andy (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC) BTW I've tidied up the ludicrous number of references in the lead. In particular I removed the ref to Eberhard's lawsuit, a source of confusion about co-founding status, as it is comprehensively covered in the main Tesla article. andy (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Andy, I agree with you on "the usual rules of wikipedia are more than adequate for dealing with the situation" as a general rule. However, this particular article has long had a back and forth on the article page in the mainspace about Musk's role. I simply suggested a method by which that could potentially be avoided in the future; when revert to consensus could happen every time rather than all the WP:DRAMA of repeatedly revisiting the issue and having the (apparently eternal) disagreement of some eitors keep messing up the article space. If neither you, nor any other editor, chooses to do that, I'm of course quite fine with that. But I will predict then that the frequent back and forth edits arguing co-founder terminology will continue to occur throughout 2015, as they have in recent years. N2e (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

FINAL discussion, to reach consensual agreement

Inconclusive discussion that led to two proposals, archived below

(as suggested by N2e above) - everyone post their reasons for or against, then we can come to a consensual agreement so that this does not occur throughout 2015 as N2e has said. The issue is with PayPal and Tesla Motors. The cofounding of Zip2 is indisputable. I agree that the general public consensus is that Musk cofounded each, I also fully accept the fact that most articles that are about the two companies name Musk as a cofounder, but this does not mean that it is true. My issue is that I believe the article (cofounder part) is highly misleading. Tesla Motors first. My view is that despite a court ruling, and despite therefore the company website having a legal obligation to state Musk as a cofounder, that Musk does not come under the regular definition of a cofounder, and for whatever reason (possibly due to his success) Musk has been given an exception. This is not a personal issue I have with Musk, but a matter of terminology, call it semantics but wikipedia has the responsibility not to mislead people. What is known as fact, is that Tesla Motors was started in 2003. That they received seed (the first round of) funding, and designs for the Tesla Roadster were in development/half-completed. I won't add a source for this as it is general knowledge, I have also added sources in some of my many talks with andy and I believe it may be in the article already, one however is: http://marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064. Musk's inception into the company was as an investor, in 2004 (1 year after the company was founded), as time went on Musk picked up more responsibility in the company, for example in light of the recession in 2008, Musk was forced to take up the role of CEO, this information has been given by Musk in numerous interviews (also adding how he had to borrow money from friends as he had to pour everything into Tesla and SpaceX). The Elon Musk article did originally contain this information, but has since been edited by andy who seems to have made one-sided edits possibly with a personal agenda that changed the original to something that portrays Musk more as someone who has been there since the beginning (I have since somewhat changed this back). Simply by searching on sites like Quora or having a general knowledge of entrepreneurship, you know that someone's inception into a compny as an investor (only later to become CEO and Chairman as he poured more resources into his invested company) a year after incorporation does not quality them for the cofounder status, and as far as I know, this is the only case where it does. It is because of this I do not believe he should be labelled as a cofounder on his wikipage but still to acknowledge the opposing view... "Musk is the founder of SpaceX, and some also consider Musk to be the cofounder of Tesla Motors" or at the very least... "Musk is the founder of SpaceX, and many also consider him a cofounder of Tesla Motors", in an attempt to stay neutral. I think not acknowledging the fact that there is a split decision, that undeniably by usual standards he wouldn't be considered a cofounder (due to his inception as a investor not CEO a year after the company's incorporation) would mislead those viewing the Elon Musk page who aren't part of the active up keeping and discussion. In regards to PayPal, Gopher65 has described the issue and again in the 'Regarding PayPal/Tesla founding confusion' section of the talk page. To add to it, claiming simply that he cofounded PayPal, may mislead people to think he straight up cofounded the company and sold it to Ebay, which he DID NOT. For fear of sounding aggressive and being interpreted as having a personal issue with Musk, I want to say I absolutely DO NOT, I just strongly believe that the article is highly misleading in terms of the cofounder thing. Thanks Heuh0 (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Is it in dispute whether or not he co-founded X.com? If not, then perhaps it would be better to say that "he co-founded SpaceX, ..., ..., and X.com (later renamed PayPal). I have no opinion on the Tesla issue at this time, but I feel like a simple rejigging of the words can solve the PayPal issue to everyone's satisfaction. — Gopher65talk 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) No, I completely agree that he indisputably cofounded X.com. I agree with "he founded SpaceX and cofounded..., ..., and X.com (which later became PayPal)". It tells of him confounding X.com and doesn't mislead the reader. This version somewhat suggests there was other contributing factors to PayPal other than exclusively X.com. I guess wait it out a bit for other editors to give their views before making edits (i.e. N2e). -Heuh0 (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Finally, agreed. (sigh) The Tesla thing is conclusively dealt with here. End of. PayPal is more complex because there's confusion between the name of the company and the product, but basically Musk founded a company which merged with another company that had a product called PayPal. So, genetically, both he and the founders of the other company were collectively the founders of the new company, now called PayPal after its product (which changed dramatically, anyway). All dealt with pretty clearly at Timeline of PayPal. You know, there's really nothing to see here. Move along please. andy (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC) No. Firstly it is not at all dealt with at Tesla_Motors#Founder_dispute, it is also a different wikipedia page entirely so is irrelevant to the discussion as such information does not appear on this article, nor is there any link to it of such. In Tesla_Motors#Founder_dispute it is merely discussed that a court agreed for Musk to be a considered cofounder, if you read my above post, you would realise I already acknowledge this, and that does not solve the issue. Secondly, you're editing attitude; "End of." and "You know, there's really nothing to see here. Move along please." is what is wrong with this discussion as a whole. There is something wrong, hence the point of this discussion, you're opinion isn't true by default. Finally, adding a timeline of PayPal in the talk page does not address the problem of misleading people in the main article. What do you think of the X.com/PayPal wording proposal in the above discussion by me and Gopher65? -Heuh0 (talk) 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC) OK, time for WP:3O. If you read the Tesla article properly you'd see that the matter is completely settled. Whether that's in a court or not is irrelevant - Musk is officially and legally a co-founder, whatever you may think. The company says he is, the other founders say he is, so he is. Like I said, end of. As for all the other stuff, I give up. I'm not strong enough to deal with this tedious debate about a mere form of words - is PayPal really PayPal, is a guy who founded company A a co-founder of the offspring of companies A & B? Really, what on earth does it matter anyway? I'll ask for independent input via 3O. andy (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) It matters (and this applies to Tesla) because it misleads people. THAT is my problem, I strongly believe that despite the fact that of the lawsuit, and despite the fact that the information of PayPal is somewhere on Wikipedia (as buried as it may be), the current information on THIS page does not give the full picture, it creates misinformation, and as far as I'm concerned one of the uses of wikipedia is to dispel misinformation. Heuh (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC) Initially I was with Andy on this one, but reading at all, I do think the wording misleads the reader and gives some people (Musk more credit than others (other original cofounder). Probably best to clarify so doesn't mislead as Heuh0, despite being legally a cofounder in court. Dirac740 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC) COMMENT: Okay folks, I'm not going to take a position either way right here, but just make a point on process, and how we might (and in my opinion, would) more likely get to a consensus with a slight change to the process. I don't think this discussion has much chance to get to a clear consensus, one where an outside closer could come in and easily summarize and tie up the discussion. Why? Because it started entirely too vague and on too many widespread issues, which while it invites lots of discussion on esoteric nuances of the matter, requires many editors who might help us build consensus to spend way too much time to even figure out if they want to weigh in, and read too much history before getting involved. In my view, better would be a shorter, more-conscise, single-specific proposal: e.g., PROPOSAL — "Musk is the co-founder of __________ company, as shown in sources x, y and z." After that, the three or six or thirty-three editors who care to weigh in with their view and rationale can, each on a new line, either SUPPORT or OPPOSE the proposal. And after a week to a month or so, the outside closer can come in and rather quickly compare the rationales with policy and with editor viewpoints and formally close the discussion. I strongly recommend against having a single proposal that tries to resolve every question about Musk, with respect to every company. Watching what has gone on here for the past several years, I just don't think the WP:!vote discussion could possibly be concise enough to get to consensus. Let's just knock one item off at a time; and eventually, we'll be able to keep the article from getting edited back and forth multiple times a year on the issue of Musk as a co-founder for company xyz. Progress! Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC) I have now placed a request at WP:3O. andy (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Removed from list as more than 2 editors are involved. I see this is listed on the WP:DRN. Also, you might post an RFC. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Okay. Single-specific proposals for changing the wording of cofounders on the Elon Musk article. Reasons for such are some editors believe the current wording may mislead the reader (see discussion above).

Proposal 1: on Musk and PayPal

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.

---

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and sources.

PROPOSAL - Changing "Musk is the cofounder of PayPal" to something along the lines of "Musk is the cofounder of X.com (which later became part of PayPal)"

Reason (for proposal): Straight up naming Musk as cofounder of PayPal misleads the reader in thinking that Musk created the product of PayPal, and later sold it to ebay, this is false. Musk cofounded a company named X.com. X.com then either merged or was acquired by a company by the name of Confinity. Confinity at the time owned a subsidiary named PayPal. i.e. PayPal was created by Confinity and the founders of Confinity. However Musk and X.com came in after PayPal was created. Eventually the Confinity and X.com company was rebranded PayPal using the product that was created prior to Musk's involvement. The problem then is that naming Musk as a cofounder of PayPal is somewhat misleading. Changing this however to 'cofounder of X.com (which later became part of PayPal)' eliminates this problems. This may seem semantic to some people but, I believe wikipedia has a responsibility not to mislead people. Signed, proposer: Heuh (corrected version below)

Sorry, but you're wrong again. Please read the references - this one, for example, from the PayPal article makes it clear that Confinity never "owned a subsidiary named PayPal". PayPal was a service owned by Confinity. Huge difference - it was not a company and of course could not have had founders. Then Confinity (not PayPal) merged with X.com, which Musk definitely did found. Later, the company was renamed PayPal, just to confuse everyone. There are therefore two and only two options here: either the founders of both of the two parent companies were the founders of the company that became PayPal, or the founders of neither of the companies were founders of PayPal. Take your pick - both are easy for readers to understand and could be said to be technically correct, and they require no equivocation in the text. W either say that Musk was a cofounder of PayPal or we don't mention PayPal at all. But is is unquestionably not the case that "Musk is the cofounder of X.com (which later became part of PayPal)" because X.com did not become part of PayPal - in fact at the time of the merger no company called PayPal even existed. To me, the most logical and least misleading way to do it is to leave the simple statement that he was a cofounder in this article, which is not after all an article about corporate history, and leave the complexities where they should be, in the history section of PayPal. andy (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Confinity never 'owned a subsidiary named PayPal'. PayPal was a service owned by Confinity. Huge difference" I was wrong and I'll correct that, but it makes no difference. PayPal (product) was created by the cofounders for Confinity not cofounders of X.com. But naming Musk as a cofounder of PayPal misleads readers into thinking he created the product of PayPal which he did not. The wording is very difficult, but just as you can say X.com did not become part of PayPal, it works both ways, I can say that saying "Musk cofounded PayPal" is also wrong, as PayPal didn't even exist at this point, and even then, his company (X.com) didn't create the PayPal service, Confinity did. This is a problem. And technically, X.com did later become a part of PayPal, granted it wasn't as simple as merging with a company called PayPal, but PayPal today, does have a part in it that originated from X.com. Heuh (talk) 6:06 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)

X.com did not become PayPal. If this is your proposal, then the wording will be challenged and no doubt removed the moment anyone comes along who has read PayPal#Early_history. There are two alternate readings of the history, both supported by the references (you might care to read them sometime):

1 - X.com and Confinity merged. In that case the new company logically had two sets of parents, Musk being one.

2 - X.com acquired Confinity. In that case Musk was not a founder at all.

In addition, it's clear from the references that Musk's intervention was pivotal, including re-imagining and re-launching the product. I don't know if that makes him a founder, a guru or what. andy (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"re-launching" – Can you point to a source here? I'm pretty sure this isn't really true. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In either scenario you're missing the key event in the sequence. X.com and Confinity became one company. Confinity made a product called PayPal. The product was substantially modified after the merger. *Then* the combined company renamed itself PayPal. Everything else is irrelevant except that last sentence. Musk co-founded a company. That company ended up being called PayPal, which was then sold to e-bay. Whether that company was the one which created the product paypal or not is not relevant to this discussion. It's only relevant that the company he founded ended up being called PayPal. The product != the company. — Gopher65_talk 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

REASON (for proposal): Straight up naming Musk as cofounder of PayPal misleads the reader in thinking that Musk created the product of PayPal, and later sold it to ebay, this is false. Musk cofounded a company named X.com. X.com then merged with a company by the name of Confinity. Confinity at the time ran a service named PayPal. i.e. PayPal was created by Confinity and the founders of Confinity, not X.com (or Musk). Eventually the Confinity and X.com company's merged and they were rebranded PayPal using Confinity's service that was created prior to Musk's involvement. The problem then is that naming Musk as a cofounder of PayPal is somewhat misleading. Changing this however to 'cofounder of X.com (which later became a part of PayPal)' eliminates this problems. This may seem semantic to some people but, I believe wikipedia has a responsibility not to mislead people. Signed, proposer: Heuh (This is a corrected version of the original reason, which contained errors shown by Gopher65 & andy). Heuh (talk) This corrected version was made at 18:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposer's comment: As with Proposal 2 on Tesla Motors, the key part of this is changing "Musk cofounded PayPal", to something that better demonstrates the truth, if you do therefore agree with changing "Musk cofounded PayPal" but not necessarily to the example given, then do say and we can discuss the succeeding statement. Heuh (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - Heuh (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (Reason: see above)

• Support—He was instrumental in making Paypal what it became, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for him, and I know he thinks of himself as a founder of Paypal, but he simply isn't. He did not create Paypal: it was a popular service before he was at all involved in it. It is incorrect to call him a founder. There are some bios out there that call him a cofounder, so sometimes news outlets refer to him as a cofounder, but he is not: we need to remember that sources are only credible for the things they are credible for: if something is demonstrably, verifiably incorrect we ought not repeat it just because a bunch of news articles casually repeat something. I'd be ok saying he founded the company that became Paypal Inc. (Full disclosure: I worked there after he left.) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - Earlier in the week, I voted to 'SUPPORT', I am not changing this, I am merely adding a reason. This comment will also take into account the updated reason above, hence I have changed the date tag from earlier in the week to today. Unlike the proposal 2, I have always been in favour for this, and believe it is completely misleading to call Musk the cofounder of PayPal. He did not make the product, and only was part of PayPal as a result of his company X.com merging with Confinity. It is certain he contributed to the PayPal service post-merger, but so did many employees, and they are not named as cofounders. Naming him as a cofounder is highly misleading, and simply untrue. Dirac740 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT — with a number of the sources clearly showing the more nuanced view that Musk was a founder of X.com which later became a part of PayPal (which of course was then sold resulting in the major portion of Musk's liquid assets at the time for his subsequent investment in SpaceX, then Tesla and Solar City), I think this rises to the point where even the summary statement in Musk's BLP article needs to qualify the cofounder statement, as the proposer has done. This is supported by several of the sources that have been provided. That some journalists, even from respected news outlets, took the short-cut—either because they did not know the nuanced history, or because for editing and presentation purposes they wanted to not confuse their viewers/readers on a distinction they considered less essential to the story they were writing—and did not explicate the nuanced view, does not mean Wikipedia should not do it correctly. Wikipedia aims to be the encyclopedia of all knowledge; clearly we should explicate this distinction on Musk correctly. N2e (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• COMMENT - let's not forget that this is the lead paragraph, not a detailed exposition. WP:LEAD reminds us that "greater detail is saved for the body of the article" and points out that "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." The lead is now linked to a definition of co-founders as well as to the PayPal article which has a nuanced section on the company's history as well as further links. This is how it should be: a top level overview and the opportunity to dig down.

We should assume that anybody who is interested in the history of PayPal and Musk's role will follow the links. All we have to do in the lead is make sure that nobody is misled by an oversimplification. A lead is not the place for a nuanced view.

But if it does in the end come to attempting to clarify the history within the lead, let's have a look at the meaning of cofounder first, shall we? In all this endless discussion nobody has actually asked what the term means! We have lots of statements that Musk is/is not entitled to be called a cofounder. But what is a cofounder? Well, wikipedia has a very clear explanation here, which I've linked in the lead. It says some interesting things that pull the rug from under some of the arguments on this page:

1. "there is no formal, legal definition of what makes somebody a co-founder."
2. "frequently co-founders are entrepreneurs... and others involved in the ground level of a new, often high tech, venture"

etc, etc. In other words anybody who plays a major role in the early life of a company is a co-founder. PayPal had a whole bunch of these guys - the people from Confinity, the people from X.com, and probably some others for all I know - all of them cofounders, and that includes Musk. andy (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your first point, while this is usually the case, there is a general consensus that simple statement Musk cofounded PayPal is false, and so misleading that it needs to be clarified in ALL areas. "Musk was involved with the early success of PayPal" or "Musk cofounded X.com, which later became a part of PayPal, doesn't give a detailed story, if they wish to know the details then they can 'dig down', but at least this suggests there is a deeper level, which 'Musk cofounded PayPal' almost deliberately doesn't. This is about preventing people from being mislead. DocHeuh (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I can't accept that there is a consensus on this point. You've made so many changes to this "proposal" during the course of the discussion that we cannot any longer be sure exactly what it is that the supporters actually support. Some of them !voted before the proposal was in its current form. As I warned you some time ago you've destroyed the context. This "discussion" is a hopeless mess. I mean, just look at how many sections and subsections there are on this page - so many that it's now referred to as a "collection".

My proposal is that we abandon this discussion and start over with a simple and clear statement, and invite all previous participants to !vote.

The original discussion, ie this entire current one called a "collection", should be collapsed and eventually archived. andy (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus, consider that you just may not wish to accept it. I have not made ' so many changes ' to ' destroy ' the !vote. I have made one change to the proposal, and followed guidelines to do so. ALL of the !votes given, were made after this change with the exception of User:ErikHaugen, who I would assume still supports, but if you insist we can ask him to !vote again. All other votes have been made after the original proposal was updated. I see no need to start yet another !vote or discussion. The consensus is clear, whether you choose to agree with it or not. DocHeuh (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here's where I'm at: confused. You propose "something along the lines of "Musk is the cofounder of X.com (which later became part of PayPal)"". Now, we know that's not right because X.com did not become a part of PayPal. If anything it was the other way round. So what exactly is the proposal that we've been !voting on? andy (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The idea was first to get a consensus that supported the changing of 'Musk cofounded PayPal', which we now have, so we can finalise on what to change it to.

X.com is only related to PayPal (product) by association/merger with Confinity. Case in point: PayPal (product) exists without X.com. PayPal (product) doesn't exit without Confinity. X.com did not create PayPal (product), Confinity did.

In this case when X.com and Confinity merge, Confinity's product 'PayPal' essentially becomes the company.

I believe this can be summed up by "Musk cofounded X.com, which later became (a) part of PayPal" or more actually X.com is a piece of what is known today as PayPal, despite not creating the PayPal service/product. If editors believe they have a quote that better describes the situation, but doesn't mislead the reader then feel free to leave a suggestion. DocHeuh (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• (sigh) X.com did NOT become part of PayPal. X.com is NOT a "piece" of PayPal. And nor is it true that the product PayPal "became" the company. Please, if you don't understand the basics of how companies work do not venture into this area. andy (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

But if you want a sentence, the following is accurate: "Musk founded X.com, later rebranded as PayPal." You see, whether X.com merged with or acquired Confinity, the end result was a company called X.com that changed its name to PayPal a year later. Musk didn't found the product called PayPal - nobody did because you don't found products. But he unquestionably founded a company called X.com, at first and later called PayPal. andy (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

you don't found products–No, you can found a product. Using the normal English definition of the word "found" it is correct to talk about founding a product. And I think that is the problem: he didn't found Paypal the product. He could be considered a cofounder of the company that at one point became called Paypal Inc., but it is misleading to say he is a cofounder of Paypal without clarifying that he had nothing to do with the product's inception. I'd like to insist we don't mislead our readers in that manner. I think I'm pretty much ok with any wording that doesn't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• You can do pretty much anything you like with English - one reason why it's hard for non-native speakers to learn - but should you? I can find plenty of examples of products being created, designed, invented, produced and even born but "founded" is a very strange use and "co-founded" is even stranger. Likewise companies are founded, set up, started etc but rarely invented or designed. The average user, coming across a statement that X founded Y will assume that Y is a company or something similar and not a product. Thus: "Henry Ford founded the Ford Motor Company" but never "Henry Ford founded the Ford Model T".

Moreover we have these things called wikilinks, which are used throughout wikipedia as a means of expanding on and explaining concepts. We write "Musk founded SpaceX" rather than "Musk founded SpaceX (a privately held space launch company)" as you would in print, because we can add a link to the SpaceX article. Now look at what I've done to the article's lead: "cofounder" and "PayPal" are both linked to WP articles that explain and expand. That's how it's supposed to be done rather than lengthy yet inevitably incomplete parenthetical inline explanations. Wikipedia's Manual of style says "Appropriate links provide instant pathways to locations within and outside the project that are likely to increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand. When writing or editing an article, it is important to consider... what links to include to help the reader find related information." Moreover, WP:LEADCLUTTER reminds us that parenthetical details in the lead might be better moved to the rest of the article. In fact the lead is already pretty cluttered - I might do some tidying when I have a moment. andy (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are happy to mislead the reader for the sole purpose of simplicity. The most important issue is that the information is correct and not deliberately misleading, everything else is secondary. Simply naming Musk as the cofounder is misleading, the !vote shows this is the consensus, our focus should be on what to CHANGE it to, not whether to keep it. X.com was NOT rebranded PayPal. X.com and Confinity merged, and then THAT new company was rebranded PayPal. Confinity (a) and X.com (b) If a+b=c, then c consists of a piece of a and a piece of b, hence X.com later became part of PayPal. The reason you wouldn't say Peter Theil founded Confinity, which later became part of PayPal, was because the PayPal product came from Confinity. Musk did not create the PayPal product, the PayPal company (while consisting of X.com + Confinity) was 100% based on the PayPal product that Confinity created.

X.com did not create PayPal (product). X.com became a part of PayPal (company), as did Confinity. The difference is that Confinity created the product that the company (PayPal) uses. DocHeuh (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but Wikipedia disagrees with you, and so does the US Government in the person of the Securities and Exchange Commission!

"The X.com company was then renamed PayPal in 2001". That's a quote from Wikipedia's PayPal article. The article references PayPal's own history which states that (1) in March 2000 "Confinity merges with X.com, taking on its company name" and (2) in June 2001 "PayPal officially takes its name: X.com officially changes its name to PayPal, to match the name of its most popular product." I'd say that was pretty conclusive. But there's more...

Your comments about X.com and Confinity becoming part of PayPal represents a complete misunderstanding of how company law works. A company is a legal entity: there were two entities and then one of them was swallowed by the other and ceased to exist. If you're not sure about that just check the SEC here. This site is the definitive record so there's no getting round what it says. It shows TWO relevant companies called PayPal, not one (the third company listed, PayPal Asset Management, didn't exist before 2002). PayPal Funds Inc was formerly X.com Funds and is, essentially, a bagman for PayPal Inc. And this document supplied by shareholders states that "PayPal, Inc. resulted from a merger between Confinity, Inc.... and X.com Corporation". As for the name change, the document states that "We incorporated as X.com Corporation in March 1999... On March 30, 2000, X.com merged with Confinity, Inc., with X.com as the surviving entity... We formally changed our name to PayPal, Inc. in February 2001." So there you have it, from the horse's mouth and accepted as fact by the SEC: X.Com Corporation swallowed Confinity Inc which ceased to exist. Some time later X.Com Corporation started calling itself PayPal Inc. X.Com's financial infrastructure became PayPal's financial infrastructure. It would be misleading in the extreme to say anything else. Musk didn't come up with the idea of a money transfer product called PayPal but he sure as hell founded X.Com Corporation, which we now all know and love as PayPal Inc. andy (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

PayPal = X.com + Confinity. using the product/service made solely by Confinity. Saying X.com was rebranded PayPal/became PayPal is deliberately misleading. A reader is made to think that X.com created the PayPal (product) which they did not, Confinity did. This is why there is a need for the change and this is why the consensus is for the change.

The original proposal, which myself, N2e, Dirac740 and ErikHaugen all support was to change it to 'Musk cofounded X.com, which later became part of PayPal. If it is believed that the statement is factually incorrect and this opinion is consensual then the correct course of action would be to find a statement that does NOT mislead readers (cofounded PayPal, rebranded PayPal) but is factually correct.

The aim is to not take the shortcut and over-simplify, but also to not mislead readers. 'Musk cofounded X.com, which later became part of PayPal', in my opinion is the best, most accurate and least misleading way of describing the situation.So far only you have an issue with the statement, but this is consistent with the fact that you oppose the whole proposal. Other editors should weigh in on the specific wording of the replacing statement. DocHeuh (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Musk cofounded X.com, which later became part of PayPal" is simply untrue and must not be put in this article, nor any other form of words that implies the same thing. I have already provided a reference to an official SEC document that refutes it - did you read the reference? Musk founded X.com; Confinity ceased to exist (having been taken over); X.com renamed itself as PayPal. The people who did the rebranding say so. The United States government has accepted their statement.

Anyway, that's enough from me. There are only two people left in this "discussion" and I'm leaving it now. I would like to point out that although you may (debatably) have a consensus for some sort of change there's very little clarity as to what that change might be. Editors seem to have !voted either on a confusion between the names of the product and the company, or the legal changes that turned X.com into PayPal. So I would say that you certainly have no consensus for any specific form of words. Further, consensus or not, any form of words that cannot be directly supported by a reference from a reliable source (which would have to be one that somehow refutes the SEC filing) is open to challenge.

Frankly, your best bet is to take this rambling mess of a discussion to ANI. andy (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The correct statement would therefore be. 'Musk cofounded X.com, which through a merger was rebranded PayPal.' While this may seem long-winded, this most important thing is that it is ultimately correct (though it still misleads the reader into thinking X.com created PayPal product) If "'Musk cofounded X.com, which later became part of PayPal' is simply untrue and must not be put in this article, nor any other form of words that implies the same thing.", then the same applies to 'Musk cofounded PayPal'. Simply stating Musk cofounded X.com would be understating and 'Musk cofounded PayPal' would be equally overstating. 'Musk cofounded X.com, which through a merger was rebranded PayPal.' would be in-between. The annoying this about the situation is that despite X.com being the surviving entity, the whole basis of the company of PayPal, the product behind their success was produced solely by Confinity. The 'new' statement therefore while correct and consistent with WP:LEAD, still somewhat misleads the reader into thinking X.com and Musk and more to do with creating PayPal then they actually did. However, I think any more description of events in the sentence would make it impossibly complex, and start to potentially violate WP:LEAD. I am therefore likely to settle with the above example, though this position would change should another editor come up with a 'better', more telling sentence. DocHeuh (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP is based on reliable sources

Please keep in mind the key WP tenets: WP:V and WP:RS. Content on WP must be verifiable via reliable sources. WP text summarizes those sources but does not synthesize (see WP:SYNTHESIS)) them or come to new conclusions (see WP:OR). With this in mind, here are what some reliable sources say:

• A year after selling his first company, his second startup bought what came to be known as PayPal. Only two years later, he sold PayPal (of which he had an 11.7% stake) to eBay for $1.5 billion.--Kyle Russell, Business Insider | October 25, 2013 [1]

• He started and sold a series of software companies, coming away with $165 million when PayPal was sold in 2002. -- NBC News [2]

• Founded X.com which turned into PayPal --Business Insider 2014 [3]

• Elon Musk is an entrepreneur known for co-founding Tesla Motors, X.com—which later became PayPal.................He went on to more early success launching PayPal via a 2000 merger.....................Also in 1999, Musk co-founded X.com, an online financial services/payments company. An X.com acquisition the following year led to the creation of PayPal as it is known today, and in October 2002, PayPal was acquired by eBay for $1.5 billion in stock. Before the sale, Musk owned 11 percent of PayPal stock. --Biography.com [4]

• Elon Musk, (born June 28, 1971, Pretoria, South Africa), South African-born American entrepreneur who cofounded the electronic-payment firm PayPal.....................Musk then founded an online financial services company, X.com, which later became PayPal, which specialized in transferring money online. The online auction eBay bought PayPal in 2002 for $1.5 billion.---Britannica [5]

• Elon Musk was a multi-millionaire by the time he reached the age of thirty-one thanks to his creation of the company that became PayPal, Notable Biographies [6]

• Mr. Musk co-founded PayPal and served as its Chief Executive Officer from May 2000 to September 2000. Prior to PayPal in 1995, he co-founded Zip2 Corp., with investments from the New York Times Co., Knight-Ridder, MDV, Softbank, and the Hearst Corp. After, he served as the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer since March 1999, he sold Zip2 to Compaq for the largest cash deal in Internet history. He founded X.com Corporation in March 1999, which merged with Confinity, Inc. in March 2000. Mr. Musk served as the Chief Executive Officer of X.com from March 1999 to December 1999. Mr. Musk has been the Chairman of SolarCity Corporation since July 2006. He served as the Chairman of PayPal, Inc. and Zip2 Corp -- Business Week bio [7]

• Although Musk is clearly known as a co-founder of the world -renowned PayPal service, there have been issues as to how relevant he was in the whole venture. When X.com and Confinity merged inthe year 2000, it was later renamed PayPal the following year. This pushes speculation that Musk was merely a head figure and only served as someone who funded the program, and that the PayPal idea was still largely from Peter Thiel and Max Levchin. -- the book Elon Musk by B. Storm [8]

• The giant names of Tesla Motors, SpaceX, PayPal and SolarCity are always attached to the name of Elon Musk. As the founder and co-founder of the said companies...............Elon went on a two-week [business] trip. However, a major change happened in the company when Elon returned. The co-founder of Confinity, being tired of his habit of micromanaging, convinced the board to relieve him from the CEO position. Subsequently, Peter Thiel took the position and renamed the company, PayPal.---- from the book, Elon Musk: A look inside the Life of a Mastermind Entrepreneur, Visionary & Self Made Billionaire Paperback – April 16, 2014 by S Rothschild [9]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Keithbob, I've found this, which match's the PayPal proposal:

'His most important role was ensuring that we didn't get shut down by eBay, Mastercard or Visa', recalls Elon Musk, whose X.com became part of PayPal. 'He was a very important ambassador." (an interview regarding Reid Hoffman) -- Wired Magazine [10] DocHeuh (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that in the lead we say something like "he is known as the co-founder of PayPal" and then in the body of the article we explain that he founded/co-founded X.com which later became PayPal and that Musk's role in the founding of PayPal has been disputed by some authors (and we add citations for all of this). I feel that both sides of this argument are correct: 1) he is known by the media and public as the co-founder of PayPal 2) sources that give more detailed examination of the matter question the applicability of the PayPal co-founder label. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would have to disagree. The reason mainly being, as the famous wikipedia user box goes “even if 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's still a mistake." What I mean is, glancing at wikipedia, is the general process of the media or public to gain a quick background knowledge of an individual. I think it’s important to make the distinction in all areas and I believe that by doing this, it would prevent people from simply naming him cofounder without have looking at the full story. I think wikipedia has the responsibility as the primary source of quick information to make sure its got the correct story in all places. To paraphrase the above user box.. If 300,000,000 people make the same mistake, it's wikipedia's job to set them straight. Obviously this is just my personal opinion. Thanks. DocHeuh (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2014 (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.

Proposal 2: on Musk and Tesla Motors

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.

---

Let's please keep the discussions of Paypal and Tesla separate. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on verifiability and sources.

PROPOSAL - "Changing "Musk cofounded Tesla Motors" to...

one of; "Musk is considered a cofounder of Tesla Motors (despite some dispute over his eligibility for this title)" or "many people consider Musk a cofounder of Tesla Motors" (Proposer: Heuh (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)) (corrected version below)

Proposer's comment as of 21/12/14: I realise people have already polled on the proposal, however the two options given were not suppose to be concrete, rather the proposal was supposed to be primarily concentrated on changing "Musk is the cofounder of Tesla Motors" to something less misleading, rather on than the specific wording of the succeeding statement. If you agree with changing "Musk cofounded Tesla Motors" but not specifically with the two examples given, please do say, and we can perhaps discuss the details of it later. (According to andy, I cannot change the proposal now, so I am writing it here.) Heuh (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I said nothing of the sort. I reverted your misleading edits which retrospectively altered the discussion and I pointed you to the guidelines for talk pages, which are pretty clear. andy (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

something along the lines of... 'Musk's came to/inception into Tesla Motors was as an early investor (though he's legally entitled to the cofounder title)'. Perhaps written following 'Musk is the CEO and Chief Product Architect of Tesla Motors'. Signed, proposer: Heuh (corrected version (better wording) made 01:54, 22 December 2014)

Reason (for proposal): Somewhat similar to PayPal, I believe simply writing "Musk cofounded Tesla Motors" is misleading. Tesla Motors was founded and incorporated in 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, they starting creating the product and financed the company up to Series A round of financing (generally 2nd round). Both men played active roles in the company's early development. Musk's inception into the company was as an investor in February 2004, Musk led (the primary investor) the series A round of investment. After said investment he then took on the role of Chairman of the board of directors. Musk invested a lot of time and money in the company, more so than a regular investor, hence his reason for thinking he should be considered a cofounder. As time went on he also picked up more roles such as CEO in light of the 2008 recession (a position he admitted he only took because no one else would). A court ruled in favour for Musk being labelled a cofounder however, I still think stating this straight up misleads the reader into thinking Musk created the company which he did not. The company was created prior to Musk's involvement, Musk did however largely contribute to the company helping it become what is is today, I am of course not denying that. To reiterate form the PayPal proposal, This may seem semantic to some people but, I believe wikipedia has a responsibility not to mislead people.

Main source: http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10

Other Sources:

• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1414616/Tesla-Motors
• http://marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064

Signed, proposer: Heuh

I am unable to find evidence to support the statement that there is an ongoing dispute over his "title" or any sufficiently widespread doubt that the use of the word "many" to indicate less than universal agreement is justified. As far as I can see the only doubters are a very few WP editors. There was a dispute but it was resolved in his favour and confirmed by the disputing party and all other founders. I hope you realise that without any such evidence any statement in the article implying doubt will be liable to challenge and removal per WP:RS and WP:PROVEITandy (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't necessarily supposed to suggest the dispute was ongoing, but that there has been (court case), and there was a need for one which lets the reader know it is obvious not a normal case, hence not misleading them so if they do want to quote him as a cofounder they may look into it more to check they are correct, which they wouldn't normally do (if read as it is. In regards, to the other quote would changing 'many people' to 'the majority' mean anything? Heuh (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no, no! People bring court cases to settle disputes, and after the case is over they are settled. That's what courts are for. One side may still feel aggrieved but a decision has been made and the outcome is indisputably the case: A did libel B; X did breach a contract with Y; and Musk is a founder of Tesla (even if Eberhard doesn't accept the outcome - and who are we to say that he doesn't?). That's the evidence, and we can say with certainty that there is no ambiguity in respect of Tesla. To use words such as "many" or "most" implies that something may not be the case, that there is a reasonable minority that have solid grounds for believing otherwise or, as you put it, that the reader may wish to check the facts and reassure themselves as to the truth of the matter. It's like saying that "many" people believe that a flame is made up of burning gases, because the matter was once in serious doubt and there was a reasonable debate about it, so even though the phlogistonists lost the debate the sensible reader should be aware that it was once a live issue and make up their own mind, just in case. With Tesla there was once a doubt and even though there is no longer any reasonable doubt it is covered in the main article for historical reasons, just as phlogiston is covered. andy (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with andy here. We can really only report the existence of a dispute if such a dispute is agreed to exist in secondary sources. No such current - non-historical - sources exist (due to the court case naming Musk a founder), therefore we can't report it in a "this is a current event" sense, which is what this proposal does. The only thing we can report is that there *use* to be a dispute, and that has already been done, just as andy says. Historical information like that shouldn't be in the open sentences, it should be in the body of the article (or even in a secondary article, like it is here). — Gopher65_talk 13:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added reason and sources to back up my arguments now (which I apologise as I should have done earlier). Heuh (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - Heuh (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (Reason: see above)

• OPPOSE - Musk is widely considered a founder of Tesla Motors, and has even been found by a US Court to be a founder following a lawsuit by one of the cofounders. While there is some debate on this point by some editors, verifiable and notable statements in reliable source media have not been shown by those who take that position. There is no strong reason to introduce the qualifications proposed by the OP. N2e (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support—It doesn't seem accurate to describe him as a founder. Some careful wording here along the lines of the proposal might be appropriate to indicate that he has that title but didn't actually found the company as the word is normally taken to mean. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have any evidence for that claim, especially in the light of unequivocal statements by the company and all its founders that he did? andy (talk) 11:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence was given above. Heuh (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Erik, perhaps "Musk's inception into Tesla Motors, was as an early investor (though he's legally entitled to the cofounder title)", or something along those lines? Heuh (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  Something like that, yes! Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - While I was initially opposed this dispute, and in the past was in favour of naming Musk a cofounder, I have been swayed by the argument given by Heuh. I am now sure that naming Elon Musk as a cofounder of Tesla Motors would be wrong as it 'misleads the reader'. It appears to me that, regardless of court cases, by usual standards he would not be qualified as a cofounder and thereby naming him 'straight up' as one on wikipedia instead of making a distinction would mislead the reader into thinking he is, what he is not. It is indeed an unfortunate situation due to the court case, Musk has earned the right to call himself a cofounder, but a distinction on a site like Wikipedia must be made in order not to mislead the reader and deter them from the facts of actual events. Dirac740 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

For those wanting a direct quote against 'Musk is the cofounder of Tesla Motors', in this article by Tech Crunch, the idea that 'Musk is not a cofounder' appears in quotes in several variations:

• "Elon Musk did not found Tesla Motors nor was he the CEO until years later" (title)
• "What follows is a brief history of Tesla starting at its founding not by Elon Musk, but Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning" (page 1)
• "Tesla was founded not by Elon Musk, but rather by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in July 2003." (page 2)

It should be noted however that I never proposed changing it to 'Musk is not a cofounder Tesla Motors' -- DocHeuh (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The proposer lists three sources that he claims show that Musk may not be a cofounder of Tesla, despite that company's assertion that he is. Unfortunately it's not even that simple:

1. http://uk.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10, This source says merely that "everybody thinks Tesla was created by... Elon Musk... The truth is way crazier than that," and it goes on to supply a detailed narrative of the birth of Tesla Motors. I haven't been able to find any point where any parties are named as co-founders nor where Musk is said not to be a co-founder. It explains the convoluted story of the company at great length and is completely silent on who does or doesn't have a claim to be a founder. It's often said that there are five co-founders including Musk but this area is simply not explored. However, the article does unequivocally refer to Musk as "a PayPal cofounder".

The article assumes the reader has common sense, it shows you the story then leaves you to make the connection that Musk does not come under the definition of cofounder. It is often said there are five cofounders because Musk legally can call himself cofounder, which he does, and as Musk is a public voice, there are commonly known to be 'five cofounders'. This is not about that, rather straight-up naming him cofounder misleads the reader, which it does. (see my reply to ErikHaugen and the possible change of wording. Your views?)Heuh (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1414616/Tesla-Motors. Agreed, this article refers to the founders as being Eberhard and Tarpenning. It says that Musk was an investor and doesn't mention Straubel and Wright at all (the Wikipedia entry for Straubel refers to him as "part of the founding team" although the company website does not). The EB entry for Musk states that he "cofounded the electronic-payment firm PayPal".

Almost all websites name Musk as a cofounder of PayPal, this doesn't necessarily mean it is correct, it means it is that much more important for wikipedia to be correct.Heuh (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1. http://marketbusinessnews.com/tesla-motors/12064. This article says at first that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the founders, but then spoils the effect by stating: "Founders: Elon Musk, Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, JB Straubel, and Ian Wright." Couldn't be clearer!

If anything, this tells you that he isn't actually the cofounder, but that legally he can refer to himself as one, which he does. This is not any random website, wikipedia is up posed to be accurate (even if it's complicated), not inaccurate just for the simplicity.

So out of these three references one affirms that Musk is a founder, one says he isn't (or at least doesn't say that he is) and one is largely silent. And there is still the issue that the company and all of the other alleged founders agree that he is. A journalist might be mistaken but the founding team are surely not.

And two of the three references assert that Musk founded PayPal. andy (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As of my replies, as far as I can see, all 3 sources support my proposal. That, 'straight-up' naming Musk as a cofounder, MISLEADS the reader. Heuh (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. So you're saying we have to read between the lines, to draw our own conclusions? Sorry, but that is expressly forbidden in Wikipedia. If a reference says that X is the case we cannot read it as saying otherwise, and if it is silent on whether X is the case we cannot interpret it as either supporting or not supporting X. That's the rule and it's a very firm rule. Specifically, you must not "reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source" .You really must familiarise yourself with WP's rules of evidence. andy (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to be understanding the point of this discussion, despite your level of involvement with it. Naming Musk as a cofounder IS MISLEADING, despite the fact that legally Musk can call himself a cofounder, wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic, not inaccurate purely for the sake of simplicity. THAT is what this !vote is about, not whether legally he can define himself as a cofounder, everyone agrees he can, but this is about portraying the story in the best way possible as in a sentence on Musk's wikipedia page. It seems you are set in your opinions, and no amount of evidence, logic or reasoning will deter you. If this is true, then I would ask for you to simply state OPPOSE. Other than for reasons such as serving a personal agenda however, I simply do not understand why you would, the statement 'Although Musk's inception into Tesla Motors, was as an early investor (he's legally entitled to the cofounder title)' is 100% factual and gives a better picture than 'Musk cofounded Tesla Motors'. In fact the statement doesn't make any assumptions at all, it merely states facts as they are?! Heuh (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• No. It's your opinion that "Naming Musk as a cofounder IS MISLEADING" but we need reliable sources that say this explicitly, e.g "Musk is only considered to be a co-founder on a legal technicality". You are not a reliable source. Please read the section on Original Research that I linked, because that will be the basis on which future edits to the article may be challenged. I've seen many sources that say he's a co-founder, a few that don't say he's a co-founder, but not a single one that says that he can call himself a co-founder although he isn't really. That's just your reading of the material and it is in direct opposition to one of Wikipedia's central rules.

So what will happen is this: (1) you (or someone else) rephrases the article to imply that Musk's position is only a "legal" one (whatever that may mean) and that he is not really a co-founder as most people understand the term; (2) I (or someone else) tag that statement with {{citation needed}}; (3) everyone waits a while for a reference to appear where a reliable source draws this distinction and applies it to Musk; (4) after a few weeks no reference has been supplied and the phrase is deleted. All per WP rules, which you really must read.

And BTW what's this anyway about Musk being "legally entitled to the cofounder title"? It's not an official position, you know. Do you even know what it means? Well, Wikipedia has a good explanation here: "Co-founders are people involved in the cultivation of startup companies. Anyone can be a co-founder... but frequently co-founders are entrepreneurs... and others involved in the ground level of a new, often high tech, venture.". Come to think of it, I'll link that in the article so readers aren't confused about whether Musk co-founded any companies. andy (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Legally entitled to the cofounder title", There was a court case as you know, Musk won, hence legally entitled to cofounder title, if he had lost he would not be legally entitled to the title. The fact that there was a court case alone shows that there is opportunity for the facts to get mixed, which they have (which is not just my consensus, but the majority consensus of the !vote so far from what I can see.

There are two interpretations of the word 'cofounder' in this case, one is the literal sense, which Musk DOES NOT come under (fact), hence the misleading, the other is the legal version, where Musk legally can be called cofounder, but doing so on wikipedia without even some hint towards a more complex story is irresponsible on the editors part. Hence: 'Musk's came to Tesla Motors as an investor, (this can be verified (see sources)) though he is legally entitled to the cofounder title(This was the outcome of the court case, hence verifiable). However, I'll play ball. I think we can all agree TechCrunch is pretty notable, well... [11] from October 8, 2014. Direct quote: "Elon Musk did not found Tesla Motors nor was he the CEO until years later". And from the article itself "Tesla was founded not by Elon Musk, but rather by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in July 2003." and again: "...brief history of Tesla starting at its founding not by Elon Musk, but Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning". DocHeuh (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: this discussion seems to be dead. There are 3 !votes in support and 3 against (I'm assuming that Gopher65, from his comments, is against and I obviously am). andy (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Firstly you cannot simply assume another editor's position and close the discussion on the basis of that. Even then, Gopher65's views were on a previous proposal, not the updated proposal, his basis for original opposition was that no current up to date sources stated that Musk wasn't a cofounder, this has since been found to be false, his position therefore, may have changed.

Secondly, the conversation was in mid-discussion, it seemed your basis for disagreement was that no platform had ever noted that Musk wasn't actually the cofounder of Tesla Motors, I replied by providing a reliable example.

Finally even discounting the last two points, the consensus would have been split, hence there is no more reason to keep it as it is (oppose) than there is to change it (support). The correct course of action, would be to ask Gopher65 to SUPPORT or OPPOSE, for you to then SUPPORT or OPPOSE, providing a reason. AFTER this the consensus will either be SUPPORT or the consensus will be split. In the later case we can seek additional input from outside editors. And either way we could ask a admin to review the discussion/!vote, decide on an official consensus, take action if necessary and close the discussion. DocHeuh (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• In English "consensus" means "general agreement". Wikipedia has, of course, a guideline about consensus which explains that it's not simply a matter of counting !votes for Support or Oppose (so negative comments count just as much as use of the word "Oppose"). Indeed, "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view," and "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal." I suggest that you read the guideline. It also explains methods of resolving the issue when, as obviously in this case, there is no clear consensus. andy (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend you several who are most vocal just cool your heels for a bit. The general guideline at the Request for Closures page is to allow a full 30 days for the discussion to develop, evolve and mature. We will get there, eventually. N2e (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• You are of course correct - this has become a sort of death by memo (zipping sound). andy (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2015 (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.

Not "known for" Zip2

I argue that Zip2 should be removed from the infobox. Elon Musk is not "known for" Zip2, it's pretty much the other way around: Zip2 is known for having been Elon Musk's first company. So it does not make sense, in my opinion, to have it mentioned under "Known for". People know him mostly (by far) from one or more of his other projects. Sygmoral (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• SUPPORT - You seem to have made a valid point, perhaps initially at the start of his career he was known for Zip2, but now he certainly isn't, and as you say, if anything, Zip2 is known for having been Musk's first company. DocHeuh (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Graduate from High School

A South African does not graduate from High School, that is an American term. One matriculates.101.98.169.98 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The majority of people are more familiar with the term 'graduates' as opposed to matriculates, which is a word, mostly only South Africans know. Unless any other editors think otherwise, it is probably best therefore, to kept the word 'graduated' to avoid confusion. Thanks anyway. Heuh (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

"Matriculating" use to be common in many countries with links to Britain, but a couple of things have happened: 1) it has fallen into near complete disuse in some areas (like the US), and 2) it now often refers to one of several different events in universities (it can refer to the introduction day, or it can refer to graduation, depending on what uni you're at), not secondary schools. Apparently South Africa (and a few other countries) it still retains more or less its original meaning. The meaning of the word has really shotgunned out in most countries though, with a broad range of definitions.

That said, this is an article about a South African. It should probably use South African terms, where appropriate. — Gopher65_talk 12:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's say hypothetically that an article is about a native Pakistani. Should it be written in Urdu, even if the target readership is expected to be fluent in English? It's interesting to learn that, in South Africa, 'matriculate' equals 'graduate'. Nevertheless, if one wants to communicate to a readership, one must use enough of the Readership's language to get the message across. This isn't to say that I think it's entirely a bad idea to use the word 'matriculate', since it can encourage readers to learn a new word and broaden their vistas. Perhaps a good compromise would be to hotlink 'matriculate' to an online dictionary's entry on that word, whereat a reader would learn its definition in familiar terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:ENGVAR, which is definitive. andy (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Problem with line

"After initially co-branding PayPal with the X brand, including making X.com a subdomain of PayPal" - so.... whoever wrote that is implying that the domain became x.com.paypal.com? That doesn't make any sense. Also, that citation doesn't even back up anything of relevance. I'd like this removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanokyeah (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

A new biopic article on Musk from Bloomberg

A new biopic article on Musk from Bloomberg was published yesterday: Elon Musk’s Space Dream Almost Killed Tesla. Pretty interesting additional detail on the early days of his space project, including first-person accounts of people who traveled with Musk to Russia when (prior to SpaceX) he was attempting to buy launch services from the Russians.

Also includes mention of early involvement with, and donations to, the Mars Society. Mentions the consulting group of experts that Musk brought together to advise him in getting started in Space, which I've only heard publically discussed one other time (a Space Show interview a year or two ago). Mars Oasis gets a mention. The personal crises of 2007-2008, divorce, near-bankruptcy of both Tesla and SpaceX, etc.

Perhaps less relevant to the Musk article, but could be used to improve other Wikipedia articles: The naming of the Falcon 1 after Star Wars' Millenium Falcon (which is not currently included in the Falcon 1 article). A description of the early development work on the Merlin 1A gas generator power turbine. The destruction of the rocket body (during air transport) of what was to have been the first successful Falcon 1 flight. Substantial cost reduction in SpaceX in-house design of the avionic electronics. The design/development schedule and delivery of the original Merlin 1 turbopump, from Barber-Nichols. Early-years rocket engine development in California with 10-day trips to McGregor, Texas to test components and engines on the test stand. A somewhat detailed description of the inspiration for Robert Downey Jr. in the filming of the movie Iron Man. A descriptive paragraph on price competition in launch might be useful in Space launch market competition. 50 flight backlog, with book of business of over $5 billion.

Oh, and at the end of the Bloomberg piece, one learns it is excerpted from a new book to be released later this month. So there will be more to go through soon that might improve Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well this other article appears to be a very solid overview by a technical dude. Even better, it provides a list with hot links to a dozen previous interviews with Elon Musk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.114.5.130 (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

On Musk's boyhood in South Africa, by the South African press: Elon Musk: How a bullied boy became a man who can change the world, Praetoria, Sunday Times, 31 May 2015.

Iron man

Shall we mention that he was in Iron man and the inspiration for the actor.--88.111.129.157 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It already is mentioned in the awards and recognition sections. DocHeuh (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

subsidies

A new source for the article: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html#page=1 The LA Times reports that Musk has recieved $4.9 billion in government subsidies. The controversy over Musk's subsidies are ambiguously alluded to in the politics section. Some sort of reference would help make the issue a little less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. DocHeuh (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

CEO tactics controversy

There should perhaps be a subsection on Musk as a CEO, as he is widely known for being.... 'harsh'.

There are of course numerous examples and stories of Musk being verbally abusive to employees, asking for/making an employee miss the birth of his child, and numerous employees who have left because of it. In his recent biography, Ashlee Vance noted that numerous employees, and ex-employees "refused to be interviewed, or say negative things out of fear".

At the very least there should be a sentence, somewhere, concerning it.

What Its Like To Work For Elon Musk: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-work-for-elon-musk-2014-6?IR=T

DocHeuh (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Interviews

The interviews section needs more work. Some time ago I did a lot of research on this subject. I found all of Elon's video interviews. In most cases it took a while to find the original video. I didn't want to link to unauthorized reuploads of original interviews. So I found all the original ones. Then I sorted them by date and created the list here. However I'm not sure how to edit the interviews section of the article. When I click edit, the link tags I see there are not Html or BBCode. They are something else. I don't understand that. It would be great if somebody could go over that list and pick some of the Elon Musk interviews on that page and add them to the Interviews section in the article. T78 (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"Engineer"

@andy - A quick google search of "elon musk engineer" will reveal only one site (asme) that labels Musk an engineer on Google, or at least the first 5-10 pages of Google. Should we really be including "engineer" in the opening line just because a single website says so? vs. Business magnate, inventor and investor - which every other website labels him as such. DocHeuh (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• That "single website" is one of the world's major engineering societies and is unquestionably a reliable source. On top of that this article tells us that NASA treats him as an engineer and so do two top universities who have given him honourary engineering degrees. So, he may not have a read engineering as an undergraduate but a lot of serious people accept him as one. And if you're researching his work as an engineer why not check out Google Scholar - just type in his name. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant Political Activism Using Highly Biased Source

The section of the article about Musk's involvement in the political action committee "FWD.us" includes a quote from a highly biased source that makes completely unsubstantiated and highly irrelevant accusations about the Republican Party of the United States. These include the accusation that the Republican Party is "anti-science" and "anti-environment." It also labels a former representative as "far-right." This commentary about the Republican Party is completely irrelevant to this (Elon Musk) article and seems more like left-wing activist commentary than any factual statements. The quote is from an biased left-wing website Mic (media company) which has no credibility as a neutral viewpoint.

I erased this thinking it was so absurd it must have been some politically-motivated vandalism. User Heuh0 reverted my changes claiming the left-wing site is a reliable source and ignoring my concerns about the unsubstantiated nature of the claims and of their relevance. As far as I know, Wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased source of information and not a medium for left-wing political activism. Doorzki (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Doorzki "...completely unsubstantiated and highly irrelevant accusations about the Republican Party of the United States, including the accusation that the Republican Party is "anti-science" and "anti-environment."" If you 'deny' climate change, you are by default "anti-enviroment" and "anti-science" i.e. you are against the use of science to determine realities, and you are also against environmentalism, hence anti-enviroment (this vocabulary is reasonably widespread in the political world, in describing those who 'deny' climate change). In addition, the "anti-enviroment" and "anti-science" descriptions were not about the Republican Party as a whole, rather descriptions for particular Republican politicians i.e. Republicans who could be described as anti-science; "anti-science Republicans".

The 'commentary' is directly relevant to Musk, due to Musk's pro-enviroment ventures i.e. Tesla Motors and Solar City, and his voiced concerns over climate change. It would be then controversial for Musk to donate to 'anti-enviroment' political candidates (politicians who 'deny' climate change). FYI, all news outlets are slightly left-leaning or right-leaning - what relevance this has to NPOV in regards to Musk, I don't know. These are fact-based statements using common political vocabulary, made from a reliable source, and particularly relevant to Musk. Finally, I would ask you also to keep your personal political views out of the matter.

DocHeuh (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

One can be a conservationist or anti-pollution without subscribing to the theory of human-caused global warming (I am not here defending such people, I am just stating the obvious). The vocabulary is wide-spread in the left-wing media but not in the right-wing media so it is biased. The statements are written in such a way that they can be easily interpreted as representing the entire Republican Party. (In fact, I'm not sure how they could be read any other way, but I'll leave you the benefit of the doubt on that.) More importantly, they are completely unsubstantiated outside your elementary deductions based on unsubstantiated ideas. Please cite some sources before making such ridiculous conclusions.

You can justify the relevance of these statements with any idea that meets the pattern "well he did do something related to this therefore it matters," but it does not fit the context of the rest of the section. The section is about the political action committee and not Tesla Motors or anything else that may or may not exist in other parts of the article.

It's laughable that you ask me to keep my political views out of this given the fact that you are defending this political cheer-leading. I am asking for the article to reflect facts, to be germane, and to be fair. None of these are represented by this quote in this context. Doorzki (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion (3O) about this. Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements Doorzki (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add the sentence immediately following what I deleted states that Senator Rubio is anti-enviornment with zero to substantiate that attribution. I believe it should also be removed. I must have missed it when I made my initial edit for some reason. Doorzki (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

"The statements are written in such a way that they can be easily interpreted as representing the entire Republican Party." If you believe this is so (which I do not), then you are more than welcome to try tweaking the sentence to be less misleading, without removing the information from the article; there is a difference between tweaking a sentence and removing the whole section entirely. However realise "anti-science republicans" is a direct quote from the article, and intended by the author to be read as I have described above.

"The section is about the political action committee and not Tesla Motors or anything else" - No. The section is on Musk's lobbying efforts; the PAC episode is one part of that section, the Mic article is an evaluation of Musk's lobbying efforts in regards to his PAC quote.

I only requested you keep your personal political views out of the matter to keep a WP:NPOV, as you seem to be making the issue increasingly political; focused on left-wing media vs. right-wing media. The article is not about left-wing vs right-wing, it is an evaluative article regarding Musk's lobbying efforts; in particular pointing out his contributions to particular politicians who deny climate change (who happen to be Republicans), all the while publicly voicing concern over climate change. The article uses the terms "anti-science" and "anti-enviroment" to describe such politicians - as I have previously explained, these terms are logically consistent and are reasonably widespread in the political world to describe those who deny climate change, par the deniers themselves of course.

FYI, the definition of "anti-science" is "a position that rejects science and the scientific method"; climate change denial is a denial of science and the scientific method, hence qualifies as anti-science. Frankly it doesn't matter whether the terms are widespread or not, this has nothing to do with 'political bias', only definitions.

DocHeuh (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Irrelevant Political Activism Using Highly Biased Source ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Elon Musk and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

There are several issues here. Biased and opinionated sources can be used as WP:RS, provided they are attributed. See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. In this case, the opinion that Michele Bachmann is "anti-science" is correctly attributed to the website Mic, and quotation marks are used to delineate the claims. The statement is a bit problematic because of the weasel words used "It created controversy". What is the evidence that there was any controversy except this article by Mic? That should be removed and simply the statements by Mic quoted. Whether the piece by Mic has enough weight to be included here is hard for me to say. Removal of such information would probably require wider consensus. The other statement, directly following this, that "Musk has contributed directly to anti-environment..." is not attributed to anyone and is invalid in the current form. It should, at the least be rephrased, and stating that Marco Rubio is "anti-science" should not be in Wikipedia's voice. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that "created controversy" is a weasel phrase, and should be removed. It seems the statement "Musk has contributed directly to anti-environment politicians, such as Republican Sen. Marco Rubio..." is original research based of the Sunlight Foundation paper, however such original research and extrapolating from sources should not be present on Wikipedia. Perhaps a rewording to something along the lines of... "Additionally, Musk has directly contributed to politicians such as Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who hold similar political positions in regards to climate change." - if not, I suppose it should be simply removed.

In regards to relevance, my point remains as before; I would argue that it is particularly noteworthy, that Musk has donated to politicians to who deny climate change, all the while leading two pro-enviromentalism companies, and frequently publicly voicing concerns over climate change. This fact becomes all the more relevant due to Musk's quote regarding "not giving in to politics". Either way, thanks for the 3O.

DocHeuh (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made the relevant changes. DocHeuh (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At a glance, looks fine to me. Discussion could be continued if others are still unhappy. Glad my input was useful. I am unwatching this page now, if there are any questions or issues, leave a message on my talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Real time net worth

Is it possible to automatically change the net worth to whatever it says here http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/#version:realtime or can it only be done manually --88.111.129.157 (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Has to be done manually. I know. His net worth is changing very rapidly. From 2 billion a few short years ago to nearly 13 billion now. SpaceX, batteries and tesla cars will change that figure in just a few months. It could even double again. 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

University of Pretoria

Does anyone have the Ashlee Vance biography to fact check whether the following is true

University of Pretoria (transferred)<ref name="auto">{{cite book |last=Vance |first=Ashlee |date=2015 |title=Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future |isbn=978-0062301239}}</ref>

It would seem to contradict the timeline (Musk travelling to Canada age 17, then entering Queens University in Canada). It would mean Musk travelled to Canada at 17/18, travelled back to South Africa for university, travelled back to Canada for university, then to US for university.

Musk has also failed to mention anything about University of Pretoria, nor does any University of Pretoria page list Musk as alumni. A quick Google search will also produce zero results for pages linking Musk with the University of Pretoria, aside from this wikipedia page.

DocHeuh (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I read that book a month ago. I don't have a copy now. I do not recall anything about the "travelled back for South Africa fro university" part; just Canada, then to US for that part of his story. Someone with the book can confirm. N2e (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Motivations

To me the article looks too weak in regards to Elon's motivations, goals and perspectives. Why is Elon doing the things that he is doing? There is nothing in the article that explains this. After having watched lots of Elon interviews, I would pick this quote if I had to pick one which explains Elon's motivations more than anything else:

Elon Musk (2008 Sep 29): "Here we are, it's the first time in the four billion year history of Earth that life has been able to go beyond Earth and that window may be open for a long time and I'm optimistic that, I hope it will and I'm actually fairly optimistic about the future of Earth but something may happen that closes that window and prevents us, prevents life from extending beyond Earth and that risks the extinction of life or at least consciousness as we know it and that would be a terrible thing. Life is a terrible thing to waste." Source: Elon Musk from 18:15 to 18:43 in the video on this page: http://www.inc.com/inctv/2008/09/a-conversation-with-elon-musk.html</ref> T78 (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. His oft-repeated personal motivations and life goals for himself does warrant a mention in a Wikipedia WP:BLP:BLP. I recommend you be bold and add something. N2e (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

IF TWITTER IS OK THEN SO IS FACEBOOK?

A vandal is repeatedly removing the Elon Musk Facebook Group. Elon's official page is on twitter and is listed on the Wikipedia page. It would be hypocritical to allow one social media link and not the other. The facebook link was up for perhaps a year before this troll started vandalizing the page. 202.86.32.122 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Except of course it's not official, but another random and non-notable fansite. Vandals aren't removing it, but regular users following policy. So unless you can somehow prove it's official, it will continue to get removed. And if you keep trying to add it, you will likely get blocked. Oh wait, you have been. Cheers. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 04:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Divorces

Did the second divorce from Talulah Riley occur in 2013 (as the infobox says) or in December 2014 (as the text says)? MaynardClark (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Criticisms"

At the time of writing the article is protected because of a dispute over a section titled "Criticisms" which states:

Musk has been criticized for selling himself as a singular mover of mountains and not liking to share credit for his success, while in reality depending on people with more technical expertise in rockets, cars, aeronautics and energy. Musk also regularly fails to acknowledge the importance of public-sector support in success stories of his ventures, and is known for an entitled behavior and brutishness to employees similar to Steve Jobs'.

There are several problems with this section. Basically it's an attack on the subject based on an interpretation of a single source which does not present itself as a personal criticism of Musk, and it's therefore OR.

1. The purpose of the referenced article is to look at the "Great-Man Myth" of technocracy and the damage that it can do through an analysis of Musk. Steve Jobs is also taken as an example.
2. The article argues that placing Musk and others on a pedestal is "inaccurate and unfair" to others.
3. It is claimed that Musk has an "unwillingness to look beyond himself" that is typical of such technocrats and can lead to nasty behaviour. Examples are given.
4. The article's conclusion is that "Rather than placing tech leaders on a pedestal, we should put their successes in context" - in other words the thrust of the article is not criticism of Musk as an individual but as an example of a type.
5. "entitled behavior and brutishness to employees similar to Steve Jobs" is a misreading of the source text which actually states that Musk is brusque and similarly Jobs was brutish.

So this proposed section takes a general analysis focussed mainly around Musk as an attack on Musk himself as an individual, and presents a particular OR interpretation. If we're to have a section of personal criticisms of Musk it should be balanced.

Alternatively, if this excellent reference is to be quoted it should be in a section about the mythology of Musk (Ironman and all). Now that would be an interesting read. Andyjsmith (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

References

I have to agree with Andyjsmith that a single article last month by a single non-notable author in a university magazine about "Tech’s Enduring Great-Man Myth", which is not a criticism of Musk but rather an exegesis of the "tech is driven only by great men" concept, does not constitute widespread noteworthy criticism of Musk. Someone would need to make a much stronger case, and cite actual criticisms by NPOV notable independent well-known WP:RSs, to include such a paragraph in a WP:BLP. This is even above and beyond that fact that such paragraphs, per NPOV policy, need to be factored into the body text of the article rather than in call-out sections, especially on WP:BLPs. Softlavender (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 September 2015

I accidentally added a link to a disamb page and just got an alert. Can you please change the link to Regina to Regina? Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Fansite

Just to be abundantly clear, I've taken out the link to the Facebook fan page per WP:LINKSTOAVOID. If there's disagreement, it can be hashed out here. agtx 04:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

No argument here. User:202.86.32.122 has been trying to add links to Facebook fan sites for Peter Capaldi for some time. If it were possible to indef block an IP for WP:NOTHERE, it would be this one. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 14:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this Wikipedia page is a dandy fansite all by itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring by Senorcanadiense

Senorcanadiense is edit warring. S/he has been reverted by multiple different editors on several occasions, and has continued to add back the disputed material.

I don't have the time to write up the case for the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring noticeboard just now, but I believe it is clear that the good Senor is in violation of the three-revert rule.

I have twice encouraged Senorcanadiense to develop a clear consensus on this Talk page, which to date, s/he has not done. For the record, I have also suggested that the IP-editor User talk:173.2.122.196, who may very well be related to Senorcanadiense, stop edit warring and develop consensus first.

I have, myself, reverted Senorcanadiense twice, so I'll not do so again just now and leave the case for other interested editors, at least for now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Senorcanadiense is correct in his edits. See the thread up above. Softlavender (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that, now, the discussion on Musk and Canadian citizenship, or no refs to say he does not have Canadian citizenship, is closed. That's fine by me.

For the record, the issue/discussion above was not closed at the time of Senorcanadiense's multiple/repeated changes to the article, and therefore, did constitute edit warring. Viz, s/he was not merely changing the article to reflect Talk page consensus, as there was not, at that time, any consensus achieved. I trust, however that the good Senor may have learned something in the process and will do less of that in the future. Cheers. 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

University section

The University paragraph has Elon at 24 years old in 1992 at the University of Pennsylvania and then at 24 years old in 1995 at Stanford.: Donhess (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

At the age of 19, Musk was accepted into Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, for undergraduate study, and in 1992, after spending two years at Queen's University, Musk transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where, at the age of 24, he received a Bachelor of Science degree in physics at Penn's College of Arts and Sciences, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Musk stayed on a year to finish his second bachelor's degree.[36] While at the University of Pennsylvania, Musk and fellow Penn student Adeo Ressi bought a 10-bedroom fraternity house, using it as an unofficial nightclub.[32] In 1995, at age 24, Musk moved to California to begin a PhD in applied physics at Stanford University, but left the program after two days to pursue his entrepreneurial aspirations in the areas of the Internet, renewable energy and outer space.[30][37] In 2002, he became a U.S. citizen.[38][39]

No, it says he matriculated into QU at the age of 19, and spent two years there. Later, in 1992, he transferred to UP. Then later (year not stated but we can surmise it was 1994) at the age of 24 he received a BS. Then he moved to California in 1995, still at the age of 24. I'm not saying all of this is accurate date- or age-wise, but it doesn't say he was 24 in 1992. You can check the citations for accuracy. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Canadian citizen

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.

---

Musk is a Canadian citizen. He inherited Canadian citizenship through his Canadian mother. Canadian nationality is derived through parents for one generation born abroad. As a natural born Canadian citizen, he has no obligation to renounce citizenship upon naturalizing in another country (in his case the U.S.). The United States allows naturalized citizens to maintain their natural born citizenships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.196 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that removing the Canadian citizenship without a reliable source stating that he renounced his Canadian citizenship is violating Wikipedia policy. Beyers31 is currently edit-warring to remove it, and using this Entrepreneur.com article as his sole source. It says "Formerly a Canadian citizen and now a U.S. Citizen, Musk boasts more than a few successful tech startups under his belt -- including one you might have heard of called PayPal." It does not say Musk renounced his Canadian citizenship, and Canadian citizens do not renounce their Canadian citizenship to become U.S. citizens. There is no substantiation of anything in that article, and in my opinion it is not a reliable source on the matter of precise and full current citizenship (for instance, it does not state that he has South African citizenship), nor is it meant to be, nor does it state that he actively and legally renounced his Canadian citizenship, which is the only way he could have lost it. Softlavender (talk) 08:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC); edited 14:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is from a credible source, and you don't get to just randomly decide that a reputable magazine is somehow not reliable. The source itself is substantive because it comes from information given to them directly by Musk himself, do you really need them to show proof of every little detail in their article? How would that even work? Would they need to show pictures of him terminating his citizenship just to please/prove it to you? It says "formerly", which is the opposite of "currently", meaning he is no longer a citizen. That's basic English that you are completely misunderstanding to (poorly) argue your point. And you both miss the fact that the article never once even suggests that he HAD to give up his citizenship, it just says he is no longer a citizen and you are inferring the rest. You are able to terminate Canadian citizenship, so what was said in the citation is very much a possibility. Beyers31 01:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is unless we have a reliable source stating that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, there is no reason to assume he is no longer a Canadian citizen, and every reason to assume that he is still (and was in the past) a Canadian citizen, because Canadians do not renounce their Canadian citizenship when they become American citizens. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

This IS a reliable source, so there is no assumption needed. It comes directly from Elon himself, so it doesn't get any more reliable. And your comment is again completely ignoring the fact that Canadians can terminate their citizenship. Saying "Canadians do not renounce their Canadian citizenship when they become American citizens" is completely inaccurate because it implies that none of them have done so, which is simply not true. Beyers31 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It does not specifically state that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, and the only way he could possibly legally have lost his Canadian citizenship is to have actively renounced it. No matter how you read the article or what you read into it, it does not state that. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If he is a naturalized citizen, he of course legally renounced his Canadian citizenship. The naturalization oath he took states "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither U.S. naturalization or that oath require renouncing Canadian citizenship. As the poster below makes clear, the only way to remove Canadian citizenship is to go through the very lengthy legal process of renunciation. Softlavender (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's false. Reread the text of the oath. It requires renouncing all allegiances to countries of which you were a former citizen. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It says "allegiance", not "citizenship". A naturalized American citizen cannot renounce their Canadian citizenship except through the very lengthy legal process of renunciation. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm reverting it back to show he is a Canadian citizen. The article is not reliable. There are many "journalists" who incorrectly assume that by becoming an American citizen, you somehow lose your native citizenship. These journalists never bother to research nationality laws, which vary considerably from country to country. An incorrect assumption that he is a former Canadian citizen does not show enough evidence that he is no longer Canadian. There are no direct quotes from Musk on this subject, no date listed when he supposedly "renounced" citizenship, and no other information on this supposed event. There are also no other articles corroborating this information at all. Again, simple research into nationality law shows that by becoming an American citizen, there is no automatic renunciation of Canadian citizenship since Canadian Nationality Law explicitly states that Canadian citizens do not lose citizenship through naturalization. The only way to lose citizenship is through renunciation, which is a lengthy process and it's very difficult to believe that Musk engaged in this process with no other sources mentioning it. Moreover, Musk went out of his way to officially have his Canadian citizenship recognized since he had to prove to the government that he inherited through his Canadian-born mother, which he clearly did. Therefore, there clearly isn't substantial information to prove this man is a "former Canadian citizen." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.196 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, funny how the article that is being cited as reliable evidence that he is a "former citizen" incorrectly referred to him as an immigrant to Canada. He was not an immigrant to Canada. He was automatically a Canadian citizen since birth since his mother was a Canadian citizen. So a citizen cannot be an immigrant (even if he was born and raised in another country). This is yet another example of poor journalism. Too many "journalists" believe that the process he went through was to become a citizen, which it was not. The process he went through was to prove to the Canadian government that he in fact was already a Canadian citizen through the first generation born-abroad law. He was always a Canadian citizen but only had to provide evidence in order to receive his passport, which he did. Yet another example of why the source is unreliable, in addition to the fact that it it provides no evidence of how/when he ceased being a citizen, for example no date, no quotes from him, no other articles indicating the process that took place, etc. "Journalists" just using incorrect language in their poorly researched articles do not prove that the man is no longer a citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.122.196 (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Beyers31:Hi, can you provide any other source which states that Elon Musk is no longer a Canadian Citizen? And I would request you all that don't make changes in the main article until this matter is resolved.It may lead to Edit Warring.Thanks.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 12:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't even have one single source that says Musk is no longer a Canadian citizen. Read the article. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Here are the facts about Canadian citizens who become naturalized American citizens (this is a direct quote):

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, Canadian citizenship can be lost only for specific reasons listed in the statute. There are currently only three ways that Canadian citizenship may be lost:

• failure of second-generation citizens holding citizenship on the basis of birth to Canadians themselves born outside the United States to apply to retain citizenship before reaching age 28 (inapplicable to dual nationality);

• renunciation of citizenship; and

• revocation of citizenship which was obtained by fraud (inapplicable to dual nationality).

One might think that taking the renunciatory oath required for U.S. naturalization would constitute a sufficient renunciation to result in a loss of Canadian citizenship. However, this is not the case. Subsection 9(1) of the Citizenship Act requires a person to formally apply to renounce Canadian citizenship. Where an application to renounce is approved, a certificate of renunciation is issued and the applicant ceases to be a citizen after the expiration of the day on which the certificate is issued or such later date as the certificate may specify.

In other words, taking the U.S. oath of allegiance will not result in a loss of Canadian citizenship. A formal application must be filed and approved before renunciation will be effective. If no formal application is made, a Canadian citizen who subsequently naturalizes in the United States will continue to be a citizen of Canada.

-- Softlavender (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Thank you very much for presenting facts here Softlavender but i think that Beyers31 should be given some time to prove his point.I hope you also agree with that. --Param Mudgal ^talk? 17:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyers31 has not proven his point. He only keeps referring to that one article that refers to Musk as a "Former Canadian" as the sole basis for editing out his Canadian citizenship. It is completely unsubstantiated. He hasn't provided any other sources to indicate this is true. The source used does not even refer to the events/process of the citizenship being lost, specific dates, Canadian Nationality Law, direct quotes from Musk or anyone else involved in the situation, etc. Canadian Nationality Law is very clear (as mentioned earlier here) that citizenship is not lost through naturalization in another country. There is no reference at all to Musk taking part in any process to renounce his citizenship. It cannot be assumed he lost citizenship based on one journalist using the term "former Canadian" without any evidence that he is no longer Canadian. This is a poor source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senorcanadiense (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case then there is no issue of elon musk's nationality.If Beyers31 doesn't provide a reliable source other than the one mentioned above in 1-2 days then we shall close this discussion and make necessary changes in the article.Thank you Senorcanadiense and Softlavender for providing facts and suggestions on this issue.--Param Mudgal ^talk? 18:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Beyers31 is a U.S.-nationality warrior who was previously blocked for over a month for nationality-warring. He has now been blocked indefinitely. Softlavender (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As the Consensus is reached that there are no reliable sources to prove that Elon Musk is not a Canadian Citizen, and with the opposing Editor being blocked indefinitely for disruptive activities, and with the help of sources and facts presented above, I on behalf of all Responsible Wikipedians is hereby closing this discussion. The issue is resolved. This discussion will be closed. Thank you once again, everyone for your cooperation. Cheers. --Param Mudgal ^talk? 09:51, 14 December 2015 (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.

OpenAI

I've replaced the prior sentence about OpenAI, which was inaccurate, unreferenced and had MOS problems to boot. I've substituted a bare-bones sentence that needs to be expanded upon. I've also put in three refs. Would someone who understands the topic of AI and Musk's concerns please add a sentence or two, using the sources I've provided and/or additional references? This topic is way outside my comfort zone. I've solved any BLP problems caused by the prior language, so this isn't a very time-sensitive request. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@David in DC: I expanded the section about the company and added a little background about his opinion on AI, which I think is appropriate since this is the article about Musk, not the company. Currently his opinions on AI are described in more detail in the subsection 'Artificial intelligence' further down, in Elon Musk#Opinions. Since the sections partly overlap, it may be better to merge them into the upper section (the one in Career). What do you (and others) think? Gap9551 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Elon Musk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091017115314/http://www.thestar.com:80/iphone/article/Business/708847 to http://www.thestar.com/iphone/article/Business/708847
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111128000058/http://www.bloomberg.com:80/video/79124654/ to http://www.bloomberg.com/video/79124654
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090629052954/http://www.nwf.org/about/connieawards2008.cfm to http://www.nwf.org/about/connieawards2008.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Facebook.com/Groups/ElonMusk

Your ridiculous dictionary is still choking on social media links. When is Wikipedia going to enter the 21st century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.97.82 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Welcome to Wikipedia.

2) New stuff goes at the bottom.

3) We're an encyclopedia.

4) We don't have any control over Facebook or what they do (or don't do) with our content.

Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Public policy and Musk: villification and exaltation..., from different groups, and differing groups at different times

There is an interesting policy analysis pieces on Musk that looks at some of the reasons Musk is both villified and/or exalted by various groups, left and right. Here's a cite, with a key graf included:

Hagemann, Ryan (2016-05-08). "The Vilification (and Exaltation) of Elon Musk". Niskanen Center. Archived from the original on 2016-02-12. Retrieved 2016-02-12. Liberals and progressives will laud Musk's commitment to addressing climate change, as well as his support for projects that attempt to wean the U.S. off an addiction to fossil fuels. Indeed, that is a goal well worth applauding. However, he is also hoisted up by writers such as Richard Eskow at Salon as an example of what happens to someone who casually hangs out with Silicon Valley style libertarians like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen: they end up contracting second-hand libertarianism. This is unfortunate for folks like Eskrow, who believe "government is how we create a better world," and any infusion of libertarian style market-based economics would only sully the good work government is already doing. And it's not just the Left that complains about him. On the Right, conservatives and libertarians complain Musk is addicted to government subsidies, tax breaks, and easy government-backed loans—the antithesis of everything a disruptive innovator from Silicon Valley should be embracing. Some praise his entrepreneurial spirit as quintessentially libertarian, while others contend he's a "pretty shady dude" who "exhibits a clear pattern of cronyist behavior" and argue that "Musk is no libertarian. He's just damn good at playing the game." But if the major complaint against Musk is that his empire is fueled by government subsidies, then surely those complaints also apply to major conservative and libertarian donors whose companies also receive government handouts, despite stating their avowed opposition to subsidies. The reason for this position is clear: no company ever wants to place itself or its employees "at a competitive disadvantage in the mixed-market economy in which [they] compete." Musk's businesses are no different. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

— Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't personally think this is applicable to the Wikipedia article. It's a longwinded opinion piece on a blog of a libertarian website. Not really a WP:RS. Softlavender (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a source; of course it is "applicable"—but then, you may have meant something else besides "applicable" and just written the wrong word.

It is a somewhat broad-view source, one that looks at some of the criticisms of Musk from both the right and the left. If the encyclopedia article on Musk never covers such criticisms of Musk, at all, then it won't ever be used in the article. If, on the contrary, it does, then there is no wiki-policy reason that this article might not serve as a source for some criticism or other. But that would depend entirely on how any editor chose to write the prose and what they said; then it might, or might not, be a good source for that particular statement. That's all I said in the beginning. N2e (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Elon Musk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130705210907/http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/ado/SG/SG24.pdf to http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/ado/SG/SG24.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in this paragraph need fixing

Could people please fix and accurately cite this very mixed-up paragraph? Otherwise I think the entire paragraph will need to go (or be commented out) until it is made accurate and verifiable. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In 2006, SpaceX was awarded a contract from NASA to continue the development and test of the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft in order to transport cargo to the International Space Station, followed by a US$1.6 billion NASA launch contract on December 23, 2008 for 12 flights of its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to the Space Station, replacing the US Space Shuttle after it retired in 2011. SpaceX is one of two contractors in the Commercial Resupply Services program, which replaced the cargo transport function of the Space Shuttle. Astronaut transport to the ISS is currently handled solely by the Soyuz, but as of 2014, SpaceX is also one of two companies remaining in the Commercial Crew Development program, which is intended to develop a US astronaut transport capability. SpaceX is both the largest private producer of rocket motors in the world, and holder of the record for highest thrust-to-weight ratio for any known rocket motor. In two years, SpaceX has produced more than 100 operational Merlin 1D engines, currently the world's most powerful motor for its weight. The relatively immense power to weight ratio allows each Merlin 1D motor to vertically lift the weight of 40 average family cars. In combination, the 9 Merlin engines in the Falcon 9 first stage produces anywhere from 5.8 to 6.7 MN (1.3 to 1.5 million pounds) of thrust, depending on altitude.

References

Yes, I see the problem that is present in the first phrase of the first sentence (and that one is explicitly tagged), but before I or someone looks at the entire paragraph in more detail, what are the particular issues you see with the rest of the paragraph? The rest of the statements appear to be sourced. Perhaps you could tag/comment on specifics. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to ensure that every single statement or sub-statement in the entire paragraph is directly substantiated via citations, and that any single statement or sub-statement that cannot be directly substantiated via a citation be removed. Softlavender (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way I added some more citation-needed tags to it above to show other items that lack citations. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Sean Becker

Why should anybody care what Sean Becker thinks? It appears that comment should be removed. In addition, if you are going to describe someone as anti-science who considers themselves to pro-science than you should have some facts to support your statement. User:Barca — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.102.240.67 (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Investor or inventor

Which one does it talk about in the start?78.144.41.239 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Musk, investments, and inter-company investment of personal assets

The Wall Street Journal article provides interesting information about Musk's personal investments, and includes a view of what some see as (a bit unorthodox for a CEO) extraordinarily-large personal investments and stock investments (the latter, subject to margin calls under some circumstances) across and inbetween his several companies. http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-supports-his-business-empire-with-unusual-financial-moves-1461781962#:XeaG9aBZ2_nvwA Perhaps useful for improving the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

pay walled. peterl (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Facebook.Com/Groups/ElonMusk

How do I add links? I've tried to add this popular social media club with nearly 20,000 members but for some bizarre unfathomable reason it refuses to work. When are you cabal members going to fix these glitches? It's been like this for years. Plenty of time to rectify such a simple programming error. All social media sites are impossible to load. I've tried with several machines so I know the problem isn't at my end. Does Jimmy Jimbo money bags Wales even know about this or is he too busy trying to learn german? It's not that hard a language Jimbo. Both English and German have close roots and belong to the Germanic family. Honestly, this is getting beyond a friggin joke. I mean, you hacks do realise facebook is one of the biggest websites on the net right? You do leave Wikipedia occasionally right? I'm starting to think Jimbo has a feud going with Mark Zuckerberg or something. It's not deliberate is it? If so I'm going to advice Zuck to press charges. Its clearly a case of biased selective editing to exclude social media. Get your act together! Its a wonder anybody bothers with this fourth rate dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.96.199 (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and it is precisely because Facebook is so popular that we had to block it because almost every attempt to add it is just a spam link to "if you like (X), buy my mixtape" shit that we don't allow. Learn something about how things work before declaring they are broken. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying you exclude sites because they are popular? WTF? That's insane. How can you pretend to run an inclusive accurate dictionary when it's biased against half the internet? Do you even understand how bizarre your statement is? Elon Musk does everything on twitter. All his news announcements. How can you possibly be an up to date resource when you are wearing blinkers? No wonder everyone online has forgotten Wikipedia. You never get any media attention nowadays and Jimbo is too busy counting his personal finances to bother with the place nowadays. Wikipedia is dead and the funny part is it committed suicide. Oh well. That frees up a big chunk of the internet. The next time you get mentioned in the mainstream media it will doubtless be the announcement that you've gone bankrupt. Have fun in the 1990's guys. Is Disco still going in your comfy little parallel universe? 1.132.96.59 (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, one of the huge problems with Facebook is that literally anybody can create a "group", and often there can be more than one on the same topic. There is literally no way to point out which is definitive unless it is something coming from the person or company as their "official" Facebook group. Why don't you start at that point and show some link (for example, something from his official Twitter account or a website Elon Musk has personal control over) that there is an official Facebook group page. Is it some place Mr. Musk (or one of his trusted assistants in his behalf) regularly posts at? That might be useful. As a page for where people merely talk about Elon Musk, it is of dubious quality at best... especially if it is just a bunch of fans. Keep in mind we are trying to write articles in an encyclopedia, not to make favor with the latest hip trends in the internet. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You want his official social media? Why didn't you say so earlier? http://www.twitter.com/ElonMusk is his main page. He closed his facebook account years ago. It has since been hijacked by an imposter. The group using his name that we are discussing has a SpaceX founder and Elon's biographer so is the closest thing to an official group. Groups are the sum of their members rather than a page held by one person who can uniquely post topics. The owner is a professional science writer. It's also the largest group about Elon Musk on facebook. 1.132.96.14 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Various IPs have been trying to add this non-notable Facebook site for some time now. Until such time as it can be shown to be notable, it's not going to get added. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not a rationale for links though with Wikipedia policies. Irrelevancy to building the article is a rationale I'm using here though, and as I said if you can't find posts actually written by Elon Musk or content useful for building this article in that group, it is pointless to be including links to web pages like that. Any links on an article ought to be something which can enhance the experience of the person reading the article and importantly finding source material to back up statements made in the article. A link to a random Facebook group page does not help the reader's experience here. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)