Talk:Elon Musk: Difference between revisions
Line 501: | Line 501: | ||
::::::@[[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] You are clearly only reading what you WANT to read, huge confirmation bias. [[Special:Contributions/70.18.209.50|70.18.209.50]] ([[User talk:70.18.209.50|talk]]) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::::@[[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] You are clearly only reading what you WANT to read, huge confirmation bias. [[Special:Contributions/70.18.209.50|70.18.209.50]] ([[User talk:70.18.209.50|talk]]) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Opinion noted, faceless IP editor. Please take any further criticism to where it belongs. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::Opinion noted, faceless IP editor. Please take any further criticism to where it belongs. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | ::::Two independent news sources have verified that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
:::::No. The participants were well aware of what the sources say when the agreement was arrived at in the previous RfC. You nor anyone else have even addressed the arguments therein. This discussion is going in circles and should be ended. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
:::::No. The participants were well aware of what the sources say when the agreement was arrived at in the previous RfC. You nor anyone else have even addressed the arguments therein. This discussion is going in circles and should be ended. [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::Your argument was literally contradicted by the source you provided. I would prefer to talk to anyone else on this matter, considering how much bias you have shown on this page. [[Special:Contributions/70.18.209.50|70.18.209.50]] ([[User talk:70.18.209.50|talk]]) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::::Your argument was literally contradicted by the source you provided. I would prefer to talk to anyone else on this matter, considering how much bias you have shown on this page. [[Special:Contributions/70.18.209.50|70.18.209.50]] ([[User talk:70.18.209.50|talk]]) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | ::::Two independent news sources have verified that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The article should reflect this fact, and restore Musk's co-founder of Tesla title as it was present on this article from 2009-2020. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== Reintroduce (a portion) of the previous text regarding Musk's statements about public transportation == |
== Reintroduce (a portion) of the previous text regarding Musk's statements about public transportation == |
Revision as of 20:56, 13 June 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elon Musk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 15 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | Elon Musk has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Frequently asked questions
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
- ^ "Joe Rogan Experience #1169 - Elon Musk". The Joe Rogan Experience. September 6, 2018. Event occurs at 9:53. Retrieved October 2, 2020 – via YouTube.
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).
Canada convoy protest
This section has been around for a while in some form, so I don't think it can be completely cut when there's a dispute over it unless there's a clear consensus to do so (per WP:NOCON.) I'd oppose complete removal, since Musk's views on the protest have had significant attention on multiple occasions, roughly comparable to similar amounts of text devoted to his other views in that section; and it seems well-sourced and neutrally-worded enough that it's hard to see how it could be a BLP violation that would justify immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support keeping the status quo language for now. As noted in the above section, I support a trim of the Views section, but I don't think wholesale removal is warranted for that particular view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Aquillion:, Regarding your edit summary on the reversal, that actually is EXACTLY how ONUS works despite your belief. I am aware there is currently a discussion about the conflict between ONUS and NOCON, but that has nothing to do with the current revert here. There is already another article where his views are stated, there is currently a discussion (see above) about the views section in this article being too long, and there is nothing stable about that section as I removed it a while ago and it came back. There is also nothing about "stable versions" being allowed to remain when there is a BLP violation. It is not my duty to go to the BLP noticeboard. It is your duty to get consensus if you want it include it. I am also surprised that an experienced editor would edit war to keep material in a BLP that is being disputed. You may not agree with ONUS, but that doesn't allow for adding the content without consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 Your memory is incorrect. Your edit warring history was at Views of Elon Musk to remove "Canada convoy protest", not at Elon Musk. In Elon Musk, "Canada convoy protest" has been long-standing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of months is not "long-standing". Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie:, Actually, I believe it was both. You will need to look through the history if you want an exact date. Regardless, it is being objected to now and ONUS applies. Also, as a new editor who seems to have a keen interest in editorializing Elon Musk on Wikipedia, I will be blunt and let you know I will not tolerate incivility. Do not accuse me of edit warring. If I have done so, ANI is that way. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I pointed this out below, but just to be sure that it isn't lost: While I object to your interpretation of ONUS, it doesn't really matter because there's a rough consensus to include at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You first removed "Canada convoy protest" at Elon Musk on 11 May 2022, very recently. I don't think I have been editorializing Elon Musk, just including information that had been omitted and belongs in the article. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's useful to repeat that discussion here (and besides, I'm seeing a consensus to include), so I'll just point out that WP:BLP only imposes the requirement to default to removal for that meets the requirements of WP:BLPREMOVE. Do you assert that that is the case here, and, if so, in what way? Note specifically that believing something is undue is not sufficient - you must assert that there is a problem with the sources or the way we are summarizing them. I don't think that that can reasonably apply here, since they're very straightforward and our wording directly summarizes them. In any case, given that I'm seeing (at this point) at least three people (myself, TechnophilicHippie, and Firefangledfeathers) who think it should be included in some form and only you arguing for complete removal, I think there's a rough consensus to include, so... rather than arguing about process, it would be more useful for you to focus on why you believe it should be completely omitted. As I said, if you want to assert that this is a BLP violation, you'll have to point to the specific part of BLP you feel this text violates. If you just think it's undue, that's not usually a BLP issue outside of truly egregious situations; and in any case if you focus on specific, detailed problems you have with the current sourcing, that will give us something to focus on in terms of answering your objections (eg. finding more / better sources, for whatever definition of "better" reflects your objection; or tweaks that address whatever problems you have with how the current sources are used.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You don't see an editorialization issue?? "which was founded and internationally funded by far-right activists, and associated with the QAnon movement." Why they hell would someone put that there unless they want to try to tell readers that Musk must support QAnon?? That's just the tip of the iceberg. And no, the fact that it was there does not mean ONUS should be ignored. It is a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose that line for sure. To be clear, the version I support (for now) is this one, which Aquillion recently restored. Firefangledfeathers ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]
- @TechnophilicHippie: would you still support inclusion if the line about far-right/QAnon is left out? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Originally, the line about far-right/QAnon wasn't there, but I added it after @CNMall41 first removed "Canada convoy protest" with a comment about "This is not lasting". I interpreted it to mean that they thought the protest was over and no longer relevant, so I added the context about the far-right and QAnon to show how it is still relevant. Later on, Bill Williams removed that line in particular, because they thought the connection between the convoy and the far-right/QAnon was contentious. This indicates that the meaning of "Canada convoy protest" is opaque, and readers will not know the political context of the protest unless it is explained.
- I support inclusion if that line about far-right/QAnon is left out, as that was how it was originally. However, there should be some improvements to be made to that section if editors of Elon Musk are surprised and skeptical that he endorsed a far-right movement. This indicates that the Elon Musk article isn't properly explaining his views. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am also unsure why we are reporting every Tweet this guy ever makes. They are also covered in-depth so should we make a page called "list of Tweets by Elon Musk?" Absolutely not. So why is this one being included? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)]
- I agree that subarticle would be a bad idea. Ideally Views of Elon Musk would include views (not necessarily tweets) that are given weight by reliable sources and this main article would summarize those views. Perhaps we could restore the content to the Views article (removed recently) and discuss how to shorten/summarize here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, we decide what's important based on what gets coverage, and this has received significant coverage. It doesn't mean we must include it, of course, but I at least think it's enough that it doesn't make sense to treat it as an obvious exclusion. And if I had to guess why his tweets get a lot of coverage, part of it is probably because Twitter was a large part of his branding and identity even before he announced he was going to buy it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, that's a more useful reply. Based on that objection, I've restored the rest and left that fragment out - I agree that it could possibly be WP:SYNTH. You'll have to be more specific about the rest of the iceberg, though, since I'm genuinely not seeing any other problems. But please don't remove the entire section again unless you can actually articulate how every single part of it is unsalvageable - I'm seeing a rough consensus to include in some form here, no real way the rest could be construed to be a BLP violation, and I'm making at least some effort to address your concerns. No matter how strongly you feel it's undue, that's not sufficient to let you just ignore three other editors on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose that line for sure. To be clear, the version I support (for now) is this one, which Aquillion recently restored. Firefangledfeathers ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]
- I think you see discussion towards some type of consensus, but not actually consensus so I guess I can agree that at least it is moving in the right direction. You are correct about SYNTH as well. I would be up to getting rid of the entire section until we come up with a summary for the views that link to his Views of Elon Musk page, but I know others likely will not agree on that. So, I would hope you have the same passion for the discussion above (reducing the views section) as you do about restoring the content specific to the Canada convoy protest. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You don't see an editorialization issue?? "which was founded and internationally funded by far-right activists, and associated with the QAnon movement." Why they hell would someone put that there unless they want to try to tell readers that Musk must support QAnon?? That's just the tip of the iceberg. And no, the fact that it was there does not mean ONUS should be ignored. It is a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 Your memory is incorrect. Your edit warring history was at Views of Elon Musk to remove "Canada convoy protest", not at Elon Musk. In Elon Musk, "Canada convoy protest" has been long-standing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@HAL333: "Canada convoy protest" isn't just about two tweets, but many tweets in support of the protest. Not all his tweets in support of the protest were listed individually, because the subsection is a summary/overview instead of a detailed description. I am not sure if you read the section itself when you removed it, because this and the fact that it's not a "trucker protest" was explained in the subsection text. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yet, unlike Musk's more infamous tweets like the 420 jokes, these few tweets have failed to display longlasting coverage in reliable sources. It is simply Undue weight to give in two entire paragraphs. Although as a compromise, perhaps one sentence may be due. ~ HAL333 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I already trimmed it in my latest edit. What you removed in your recent reverts regarding this topic was three sentences, not two paragraphs. One sentence for his support for the convoy protest, one sentence for his Hitler comparison, and one sentence where the Auschwitz Museum and American Jewish Committee criticized his Hitler comparison:
TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Musk tweeted extensively in support of the 2022 Canada convoy protest against COVID-19 restrictions and Canada's Liberal government, which was branded as the "Freedom Convoy" by its organizers.[1][2][3] Musk tweeted and later deleted a meme comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.[4] The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum accused Musk of exploiting the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the American Jewish Committee called on Musk to apologize.[5][6]
- Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. In the larger realm, there are myriad Musk tweet bursts that have garnered the same level of attention in reliable sources. We can not feasibly include each one. To have an entire paragraph is simply undue weight. Yet, in the spirit of compromise, I added one sentence on it. Does that work? ~ HAL333 03:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Multiple editors have argued here that it is due weight. How about this?
TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)He voiced support for the 2022 Canada convoy protest and was criticized for comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.[7][8][6][4]
- That's fine with me. ~ HAL333 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. In the larger realm, there are myriad Musk tweet bursts that have garnered the same level of attention in reliable sources. We can not feasibly include each one. To have an entire paragraph is simply undue weight. Yet, in the spirit of compromise, I added one sentence on it. Does that work? ~ HAL333 03:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Ljunggren, David (January 27, 2022). "Anti-vaccine Canada truckers roll toward Ottawa, praised by Tesla's Musk". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 27, 2022. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
- ^ Ling, Justin (February 8, 2022). "5G and QAnon: how conspiracy theorists steered Canada's anti-vaccine trucker protest". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 8, 2022.
- ^ Layson, Greg (January 30, 2022). "Elon Musk heaps more praise on trucker convoy in Ottawa to protest vaccine mandates". Automotive News Canada. Archived from the original on January 30, 2022.
- ^ a b Broderick, Ryan (February 19, 2022). "How Facebook twisted Canada's trucker convoy into an international movement". The Verge. Archived from the original on February 19, 2022.
- ^ "Elon Musk tweets, then deletes, meme comparing Trudeau to Hitler". Reuters. February 17, 2022. Archived from the original on February 17, 2022. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
- ^ a b Neate, Rupert (February 17, 2022). "Elon Musk criticised for likening Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler in tweet". The Guardian. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
- ^ Ljunggren, David (January 27, 2022). "Anti-vaccine Canada truckers roll toward Ottawa, praised by Tesla's Musk". Reuters. Archived from the original on January 27, 2022. Retrieved April 27, 2022.
- ^ Ling, Justin (February 8, 2022). "5G and QAnon: how conspiracy theorists steered Canada's anti-vaccine trucker protest". The Guardian. Archived from the original on February 8, 2022.
Commentary about father
I've removed Musk's comment about his father being a "terrible human being", as it caused another bit to be added about his parenting style as reported by Errol Musk as an attempt to neutralize the quote. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If someone is going to make a contentious comment about an alive parent that ends up in their biography, that parent has every right to state their own side of the story. That's what neutrality is. Trillfendi (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why the solution was to simply remove the contentious comment, rather than add something undue. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Caption on Tham Luang cave rescue image
This was updated and then reverted, and then reverted back to HAL333's preferred version. This image is from Tham Luang cave rescue and is described as an image from a newscast. There is no indication that any equipment pictured is Musk's device in the photo's description, nor in the newscast. If it is pictured, it is impossible to discern which orange part of the photo might be Musk's submarine in the thumbnail. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Tham Luang cave rescue is pictured.... The minisubmarine is not pictured, hence the fact that "(pictured)" is not placed after minisubmarine. ~ HAL333 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I suppose most people will probably understand your clarifier. Thanks for explaining. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries :) ~ HAL333 01:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333: How do you feel about the overall neutrality of the article? There has been much discussion regarding that. Welcome back by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This article will always have an anti-Musk bent, because that's how most reliable sources approach him. There's nothing wrong with that—that's how Wikipedia works. Yet, there is a little bit too much of "Musk did X. Person Y says this is bad." But that's more of an undue weight problem. Thousands and thousands of people have published works or issued statements against Musk and we shouldn't indiscriminately mention random ones. On the other side, some of the recent pushes for neutrality seem to have created false balance. There are places where we have "Person X says this is bad, but person Y says it is good", even when most RS and credible figures have the same view as X. ~ HAL333 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333: How do you feel about the overall neutrality of the article? There has been much discussion regarding that. Welcome back by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries :) ~ HAL333 01:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I suppose most people will probably understand your clarifier. Thanks for explaining. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Issue of undue weight with views section
Musk has made about 5000 tweets and a good portion of those have been covered RS. We can't feasibly cover every single Elon Musk shitpost. It's undue weight to include entire sections on relatively minor tweets—like the two regarding the Canada convoy—when we don't include similar tweets from Musk. ~ HAL333 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there are too many Musk shitpost tweets, but in the modern age, Musk's tweets are greatly influential, changing stock and cryptocurrency values, and spreading science misinformation. Musk giving an interview to the Babylon Bee probably has less influence than his tweets, despite interviews being more of a traditional platform for famous people. Controversies at least should be included, not random shitposts like wanting to be called a "business magnet". TechnophilicHippie (talk) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Controversies at least should be included
With Musk, there's a minor controversy nearly every day. We can't have a subsection for each one, and to give a relatively trivial Musk view an entire subsection is ridiculous and clearly undue weight. What makes two off-hand tweets from Musk about a trucker protest in Canada as notable as his views on climate change or COVID-19 or politics as a whole (all of which have received exponentially more coverage over a much more extended period of time and appropriately have their own section? ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- It was not a "trucker protest" in Canada. The Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) both came out against the convoy, saying 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The protest was endorsed by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. If it was a trucker protest, it wouldn't be notable. It's notable because it was a far-right extremist movement associated with QAnon, and there were elements trying to overthrow the democratically elected Canadian government. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, it doesn't make sense to create a new section to discuss the same thing when Talk:Elon Musk#Canada convoy protest already exists with a rough consensus to keep. It's like rebooting to get a different outcome from what previous editors already decided. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I do not oppose mentioning Musk's Hitler comment (as it is especially egregious), hence the fact that I did not remove its mention in the Twitter section. There is no need to have it duplicated. ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Views section: What to include and exclude
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to educate the reader on the topic, including controversies. Controversial views are more notable than uncontroversial views, because it indicates that people are discussing the topic. Thus, to achieve WP:NPOV balance, controversial views should be included in the Elon Musk "Views" section.
One of the main reasons I came back to edit Elon Musk was because I found that people on the internet are very divided on Musk. One group of people who follow Musk's tweets or (critical) reports of his tweets have one impression of Musk, while another group who think of Musk as only the one who makes electric cars and rockets don't understand why Musk is a controversial figure. Clearly, different groups of people follow different news sources, and Musk's Wikipedia article should give an overview that takes into account what other people outside of your circle/silo/echo chamber are talking about, so that a person who is unfamiliar with Musk can read his Wikipedia article and not make ignorant statements, such as suggesting that those who oppose him must be jealous of his wealth, because Musk has done nothing but good things.
This means that "I have never heard of this topic or tweet, so it's undue weight" is a subjective, and we should use more objective criteria, such as whether it is discussed in multiple secondary sources. Even if you are someone who wants to defend Musk, you should at least be aware of the criticisms and controversies surrounding Musk, so that you are prepared when debating someone whose position is that Musk is an a-hole, who follows mainstream news sources that tend to be critical of Musk. Even if it's a one-off tweet, it's notable because it's controversial and covered in multiple news sources. I'm assuming some editors disagree with including Musk's "Hitler" tweet and "TITS" tweet, because Musk likely spent no more than 10 seconds thinking about the former and no more than 10 minutes thinking about the latter (to come up with the "clever" acronym), and the objection is whether or not this is Musk's persistent "view" or a controversy covered by the media. If this is what the issue is, then the objection is more about the section being called "Views" instead of a different name. However, to achieve NPOV balance on Elon Musk, these should still be included, because they are controversies covered by the media. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- NPOV requires that we present material proportionately in regards to its coverage in reliable sources. Subsections should cover Musk's views that have receieved significant coverage over an extended period of time. Like his tweets about aliens building the pyramids or Bill Gates being an erection-killer, Musk's support of Canadian truckers has not received longlasting coverage. It is not on the scale of his COVID or climate change stances. ~ HAL333 02:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Musk wasn't supporting "Canadian truckers", but rather a far-right movement also supported by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated, and trucking organizations were against the protest. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The perception that this was about supporting Canadian truckers was intentional misinformation from the convoy protest organizers, and the majority of actual truckers were against it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. Controversy material should only be included if it raised a big response or had a long-reaching influence, like how his comments about us living in base reality being one in a billion was retorted by an scientist in a noteworthy discussion organized in response. QRep2020 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I do think the Public Transportation subsection deserves to be reintroduced. QRep2020 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- HAL333 removed all of the views with critical responses/backlash from Views, so a lot more than that should be restored for NPOV. However, I was informed that I would be blocked for edit warring if I continued reverting. I was unable to read your sources regarding his simulation view because of a nag pop up, but I didn't think I was stopping you from adding criticism if there are reliable sources. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on a self-prescribed break from editing the Elon Musk article until mid-July. If nothing about that particular part has changed by then, I will probably take another crack at it. QRep2020 (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a fair characterization. HAL333 moved them to Views of Elon Musk, which is not the same as removal. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Each article by itself should be balanced and not require another article to be balanced between them. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not true. There is still plenty of criticism of Musk in the COVID, Technology, Finance, etc. sections. Stop spouting crap. ~ HAL333 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- All right. You removed statements from specific people or groups demanding an apology. I thought the COVID section was just a description of what he said and did, but there is the one specific criticism from Politico. In the Finance section, there is the specific criticism from Nouriel Roubini. I subconsciously ignored Zuckerberg's criticism because I don't care about what he says, but it is there. I thought there was only the Finance criticism left, but there were actually two others. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And now the public transportation content has been removed. Can we please give it back its own sub-subsection? QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- HAL333 removed all of the views with critical responses/backlash from Views, so a lot more than that should be restored for NPOV. However, I was informed that I would be blocked for edit warring if I continued reverting. I was unable to read your sources regarding his simulation view because of a nag pop up, but I didn't think I was stopping you from adding criticism if there are reliable sources. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I do think the Public Transportation subsection deserves to be reintroduced. QRep2020 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Imo these should be mostly summarized and moved to Views of Elon Musk. The section feels overlong and undue weight as it is. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Views section is not that long, but the "feels long" is probably because of subsections instead of Views being one big wall of text, which only makes the table of contents longer. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it feels overlong because it is a disproportionally large part of this article to the point where splitting it off into its own makes sense. It makes sense to then summarize these views, mentioning the most egregious, and encourage readers to read more detail in the split article. I do not understand why this is contentious. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, we have to cover his views in a concise and condense manner or else we'll run into undue weight issues. ~ HAL333 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it feels overlong because it is a disproportionally large part of this article to the point where splitting it off into its own makes sense. It makes sense to then summarize these views, mentioning the most egregious, and encourage readers to read more detail in the split article. I do not understand why this is contentious. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Bullying claims
"Musk was bullied throughout his childhood and was once hospitalized after a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs after Elon made hurtful comments about a schoolmate's father's suicide."
This contradictory sentence is cited to Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, the Rolling Stone and an AFP article in Yahoo from just this Wednesday. Assuming the AFP article isn't talking about a different incident, Musk's father makes it sound like Musk was the primary aggressor. (The Rolling Stone article does not mention the stairs incident.) Needs to be reworded. Schierbecker (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's possible that Musk was bullied at school (unfortunately, plenty of children get bullied). It seems that the stairs incident either wasn't part of the bullying, or Musk made some offensive comments in response to bullying, which concluded in him getting pushed down the stairs. I doubt that he got pushed twice. BeŻet (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The second possibility you mentioned crossed my mind as well. Schierbecker (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet I removed your edit given that first of all it is at least second hand (and maybe third hand) information from Errol that he heard from someone else (who may have heard from someone else again), not something he heard from Elon directly and secondly Errol and Elon are estranged so anything Errol says must be put in that context rather than trusted outright. If you want to add it back in, please put it in that context. Ergzay (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Errol praises Elon in the same source, so clearly he isn't making stuff up to make Elon look bad. Nonetheless, I've attributed that fact to him. BeŻet (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources and neutrality
There is a user that has been heavily editing this page inserting information from dubious sources with an explicit biased intention to modify the page to discredit Elon Musk. This user is heavily biased. Quoting from their user page "Recently, my edits have been focused on countering misinformation that Elon Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject." I think something should be done about this as otherwise the page will become full of meaningless andecodes and character assassination on minor issues inflated into large issues. Ergzay (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- then report at wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Users are allowed to have focused editing goals. The fact that TehnophiliicHippie has 100+ edits on COVID-19 and N95 masks before editing the Elon Musk article kind of flies in the face of an SPA. Regardless, Slatersteven is right that this is not the proper forum for such discussion, a matter some editors easily forget about. QRep2020 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by dubious sources? I am using "green" reliable sources. Please point to something specific. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Saying that Musk is political isn't discrediting Musk. It is true. Musk is political, because he makes political statements. Saying that Musk is isn't objective and isn't "a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject" isn't discrediting him, unless you think Musk is god-like and smarter than everyone else in the world. I would argue that the idea that Musk should overrule scientists who specialize in the field itself is "heavily biased". Do you think Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject, and anyone who denies this is heavily biased? Is my statement even controversial to anyone who doesn't think Musk is God? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Whether people's views on Elon Musk belong on this page
This page is about Elon Musk, not what everyone else thinks of Elon Musk. In sections where his viewpoints are given, a brief summary of criticism is valid but opinions of the form "I don't like Elon Musk" or "Elon Musk is dumb" (but said in more words) are not relevant for the page (or frankly anywhere on Wikipedia). Ergzay (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've said this before but take a look at Jeff Bezos and then compare it to Musks. The anti Musk edits is getting out of hand. Warbayx (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most CEOs keep quiet and don't give their opinions on all kinds of topics unrelated to their company, so they are less likely to say wrong things about topics they don't understand. In general, people who are very vocal are going to be criticized for what they say by experts a lot more than people who keep quiet and rarely say anything publicly. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- True but that does not mean all that criticisms of what Musks says belong on wikipedia. You will always have people criticizing you when you're a popular figure. Warbayx (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but when Musk is spreading misinformation or encouraging discriminatory behavior among humans, it is worth noting and becomes notable. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Elon has never encouraged discriminatory behavior among humans. Ergzay (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but when Musk is spreading misinformation or encouraging discriminatory behavior among humans, it is worth noting and becomes notable. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- True but that does not mean all that criticisms of what Musks says belong on wikipedia. You will always have people criticizing you when you're a popular figure. Warbayx (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most CEOs keep quiet and don't give their opinions on all kinds of topics unrelated to their company, so they are less likely to say wrong things about topics they don't understand. In general, people who are very vocal are going to be criticized for what they say by experts a lot more than people who keep quiet and rarely say anything publicly. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why? almost (all?) of our biographical articles contain sections about image and reputation, why not Musk's? Here is Bezos [[1]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seconding position. QRep2020 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bezos frost page is not dedicated to criticisms though. How long do you need to scroll down to see any criticisms? pretty far. Warbayx (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because almost the entire article seems dedicated to adding criticism to every single section of anything he's ever done. Ergzay (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- People aren't saying "Elon Musk is dumb". AI experts are basically saying, "Elon Musk is dumb when he's talking about AI, because he doesn't know what he's talking about." This is important information, especially for some members of the general public who might mistakenly think that Musk is a reliable source of information on the capabilities of AI. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Problem is you can always find an expert who disagree with another expert. The sources provided only mentions two experts from Facebook a company Musk often criticize. Rest of the sources provided is not reliable. Warbayx (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- What sources specifically are not reliable? The sources summarize the AI community's poor opinion of Musk, and Wikipedia is just supposed to say what the sources say. You might be able to find an expert that disagrees with another expert in general, but Musk evidently doesn't even have a basic understanding of the topic that all AI experts would share as a common ground, if he is worried about AI as an upcoming existential threat. For some reason, you are convinced that Musk must have some AI expertise without evidence. If a guy knows about both electric cars and rockets, it does not follow that he knows about the entirety of human knowledge. The fact that he is a billionaire also does not imply that he more knowledgeable than everyone else. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a critique of his opinions on AI. It's just a statement that they don't like Elon Musk. They made no statement of WHY Elon's thoughts on the matter are incorrect. If they did we can include that. What they did write that you quoted was very clearly of the form "Elon Musk is dumb". Ergzay (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Problem is you can always find an expert who disagree with another expert. The sources provided only mentions two experts from Facebook a company Musk often criticize. Rest of the sources provided is not reliable. Warbayx (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @Ergzay:'s edit →Technology: Revert direct quotes. Summarizing opinions of others is all that's needed, directly quoting is NPOV. Direct quotes of their views on Elon Musk should go on their own pages—which I take be claiming that directly quoting AI experts' criticisms reduces the neutrality of the Elon Musk article—I would argue that it is the opposite. Criticisms need to be included to achieve a neutral point of view. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, Ergzay was not removing the criticism: just making it concise. Beyond the undue weight issues, it's awkward and lazy to have quotes every 2 lines. ~ HAL333 04:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the reason they provided in their edit, and you know it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie I made that edit because their opinions amounted to "I don't like Musk". To be frank they shouldn't even be in the section. They were not responses to Elon's critique of AI, they were just ridicule. Also I can't include it in the article because it's a personal anecdote but my own father was a researcher in AI in the in the 80s and became disillusioned with it because of the horrendous ways it can be (and was being) used to harm people and I grew up hearing a lot of attacks on it and then Elon comes along and says the exact same things. His statements are not wild and out of the norm. They are common and we should factor in the bias of scientists employed in leadership positions at large corporations who's future careers depend on critque not being allowed. None of this is wikipedia level but it's something I consider when curating how people are quoted. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, AI can be used to harm people, such as AI used to kill in war and AI bias (learning based on a biased data set causing discriminatory outcomes), but Musk wasn't talking about those legitimate threats, but rather an existential threat to humankind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie The negatives of AI also include over-profiling where private information is predicted from public information. Sci-fi likes to call that concept "pre-crime". Those existential threats are those same local effects translated into the future as more and more aspects of the control of such negative effects are handed over to automated systems. Ergzay (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, AI can be used to harm people, such as AI used to kill in war and AI bias (learning based on a biased data set causing discriminatory outcomes), but Musk wasn't talking about those legitimate threats, but rather an existential threat to humankind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie I made that edit because their opinions amounted to "I don't like Musk". To be frank they shouldn't even be in the section. They were not responses to Elon's critique of AI, they were just ridicule. Also I can't include it in the article because it's a personal anecdote but my own father was a researcher in AI in the in the 80s and became disillusioned with it because of the horrendous ways it can be (and was being) used to harm people and I grew up hearing a lot of attacks on it and then Elon comes along and says the exact same things. His statements are not wild and out of the norm. They are common and we should factor in the bias of scientists employed in leadership positions at large corporations who's future careers depend on critque not being allowed. None of this is wikipedia level but it's something I consider when curating how people are quoted. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the reason they provided in their edit, and you know it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources needed offering praise for Musk to counteract the criticism
This article has basically two types of content. 1. Basic dry facts about what Musk has done and what he's said. and 2. Personal criticism anecdotes added from numerous outside people with histories of attacking Musk publicly. People need to be adding more "personal praise anecdotes" to counteract such criticism and maintain a balanced article. For example there's a section on criticism of his management style, but I've read numerous articles years ago that I remember praising his management style, but none of those are in this article. We need more of such things. Were they lost over time as people removed them but people missed reverting them? Ergzay (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need to artificially balance an article out. If most sources criticise Musk's managerial style, then we include that. If you have a source with examples of praising his managerial style, by all means please include them. BeŻet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet There is a selection bias going on because of current recent events that is causing oversubmission of historical details. The article shouldn't be a random collection of every single person's opinions on Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the sources for the managerial style subsection are not even from this year. QRep2020 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 I didn't say that they were from this year. I said that they were being added recently. People are digging up old content and filling the article with it to portray Musk in a negative light. Ergzay (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is demonstrably false. That section has been created over a year ago, and the sources are mostly from 2021. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 I didn't say that they were from this year. I said that they were being added recently. People are digging up old content and filling the article with it to portray Musk in a negative light. Ergzay (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the sources for the managerial style subsection are not even from this year. QRep2020 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 You're extremely biased against Elon Musk yourself so not sure this comment is exactly relevant. Ergzay (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Qrep20202 You were banned for your anti-musk edits. Not sure you should have any relevance about any Elon Musk edits. Warbayx (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- They were blocked because the campaign from r/elonmusk redditors to defend Musk's honor by getting QRep2020 blocked on Wikipedia succeeded: Guys - we succeeded! QRep2020 is now indefinitely blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk!! (Archive 1) (Archive 2). TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not how Wikipedia works, a subreddit community does not get someone banned. Warbayx (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have had all rights and privileges reinstated. So, yes, my opinion does matter. QRep2020 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- They were blocked because the campaign from r/elonmusk redditors to defend Musk's honor by getting QRep2020 blocked on Wikipedia succeeded: Guys - we succeeded! QRep2020 is now indefinitely blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on Elon Musk!! (Archive 1) (Archive 2). TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not work that way. My block was rescinded anyway. 15:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Qrep20202 You were banned for your anti-musk edits. Not sure you should have any relevance about any Elon Musk edits. Warbayx (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 You're extremely biased against Elon Musk yourself so not sure this comment is exactly relevant. Ergzay (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet There is a selection bias going on because of current recent events that is causing oversubmission of historical details. The article shouldn't be a random collection of every single person's opinions on Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Issues with the Views -> Politics section of the article
The section of the article has become completely dedicated to recent events and doesn't contain any of the historical information on what his views in general are and have been. For example I picked a random old version of the article and this politics section covers a much wider breadth of topics than the very narrow breadth of the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1025661986#Politics
I propose wholesale bringing back this version of the section with a slight modification to include most of the current section reduced down to a couple sentences. Ergzay (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just overhauled it. Hopefully that's a little better. ~ HAL333 15:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333 Thanks, it's a definite improvement, though I think you accidentally cleared out him talking about voting Republican next election as well unless you moved it somewhere? Ergzay (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's the final sentence of the second paragraph. It's qualified in a note as well. ~ HAL333 03:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333 Thanks, it's a definite improvement, though I think you accidentally cleared out him talking about voting Republican next election as well unless you moved it somewhere? Ergzay (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of context quoting
I've noticed a lot of sources seem to quote Elon Musk out of context and even though they are direct quotes they miss the context in which he said things causing the source themselves to misunderstand the topic. What's the best way to handle these types of information in the article? People just revert the change when I try to clarify the quote with context. It's made worse by what seems to have been a mass replacement of direct links to his comments to said incorrect re-interpretations of what he said so it leaves the user having to click through several sources when verifying to find out the original source was quoted incorrectly. (This is common for example in almost every business insider/engaget/gawker/etc article included in this page.) Ergzay (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Such as? QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the recent change log with back and forth reverting by Firefangledfeathers for one example. Ergzay (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the cited secondary sources have it wrong, or are missing context, we should find better secondary sources. If the article's summary of the secondary source is misleading, we should change the article to better match. But we should definitely not be pulling out secondary sources and replacing them with our own analysis of primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm using primary sources, directly from the interview. There is no better source of truth than the words of the man himself. You don't need secondary sources for this kind of thing. It's not "my own analysis" it's the analysis of anyone who isn't interested in clickbait money making from spreading incorrect information that spreads a narrative. Elon Musk has never been "anti-vaccine" for the general populace. In fact he later got it himself. He (very correctly given information at that time) that younger adults and children with no pre-existing health concerns were at low risk for fatality. This was the opinion of almost half of the US population, including myself. Ergzay (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your beliefs on primary sources are unaligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline. See, just as a limited starting point, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Someone's own words are definitely not the best source of truth. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers You're misconstruing that page. Someone's own words are most certainly the best source of truth of the opinion of that person. A secondary source re-interpreting someone's words and then stating what their opinion is, is a distortion of the truth. The truth is rather best achieved by directly quoting or neutrally summarizing the words of the person at hand. The previous source piecemeal took only parts of sentences and then wrote an article around those few words and it wasn't even directly citing the interview, it was citing it's own summary of the interview so it wasn't even a secondary source anymore. Do note the primary thing about WP:BLP and that is "Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" which this article is unfortunately full of, including what I just edited.
- Secondly WP:BLPPRIMARY does not say to not use primary sources like you claim, it's entirely about the privacy of the individual and that is why care should be taken on primary sources. Ergzay (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and your edits have not been taking care with the primary sources. You've amalgamated parts of a primary source to present a narrative that is not in the original or in any cited secondary source. Insider is not a tabloid. I'm also adding a CNN and CBS source to bolster the secondary source coverage in the article. You have only been able to maintain your version of the article due to edit warring. Please self-revert and take the time to build consensus for your changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Insider IS a tabloid for most intents and purposes. They are the business equivalent of the paparazzi. Also it's not a green source on WP:RSPSS.
- I'm pretty sure I already have consensus, and someone who prefers to just revert any change I propose. But sure let's bring in more people... @HAL333 @Warbayx to start. Ergzay (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think your allegation about my preferences is unfounded and untrue. If you'd like to remove that part of your comment, you can delete this comment of mine as well (see WP:MUTUAL), provided no one else has responded by then. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers I'll leave it up, your actions in your repeated reverts of my good faith attempts at trying variations of the change and then bringing me to the administrators noticeboard over it in a failed attempt to silence me have left me with little faith left to assume that you're acting in good faith. Ergzay (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think your allegation about my preferences is unfounded and untrue. If you'd like to remove that part of your comment, you can delete this comment of mine as well (see WP:MUTUAL), provided no one else has responded by then. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and your edits have not been taking care with the primary sources. You've amalgamated parts of a primary source to present a narrative that is not in the original or in any cited secondary source. Insider is not a tabloid. I'm also adding a CNN and CBS source to bolster the secondary source coverage in the article. You have only been able to maintain your version of the article due to edit warring. Please self-revert and take the time to build consensus for your changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your beliefs on primary sources are unaligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline. See, just as a limited starting point, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Someone's own words are definitely not the best source of truth. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm using primary sources, directly from the interview. There is no better source of truth than the words of the man himself. You don't need secondary sources for this kind of thing. It's not "my own analysis" it's the analysis of anyone who isn't interested in clickbait money making from spreading incorrect information that spreads a narrative. Elon Musk has never been "anti-vaccine" for the general populace. In fact he later got it himself. He (very correctly given information at that time) that younger adults and children with no pre-existing health concerns were at low risk for fatality. This was the opinion of almost half of the US population, including myself. Ergzay (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPSTYLE,
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects
. Citing the primary source is fine, but we cannot add our own analysis of the context. That can only come from reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, quotes must follow WP:PMC, especially in WP:BLP. - For a specific example of where you are doing this, and I have also reverted per BLP guidelines (not only Firefangledfeathers, as you have stated), Musk's comment about not getting the COVID vaccine does not offer context that he meant at risk for mortality. You have violated the rules to stitch together (I assume in good faith) what you believe to be balancing the context with your analysis of what he said. The fact is that he does not clarify, nor does Swisher, the surrounding conversation on the podcast does not either, and neither does the source material.
- I've attached a transcript of the relevant portion of the podcast here, since it is hidden behind a paywall:
- If you think the cited secondary sources have it wrong, or are missing context, we should find better secondary sources. If the article's summary of the secondary source is misleading, we should change the article to better match. But we should definitely not be pulling out secondary sources and replacing them with our own analysis of primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the recent change log with back and forth reverting by Firefangledfeathers for one example. Ergzay (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Quoted from Kara Swisher Podcast .
|
SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok. I disagree with your assumption of bad faith, but this isn't the place to discuss it. As of this moment, which comments from other users would you point at to demonstrate consensus that you 'already have' for your version of the COVID quote content? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
On this removal of a reliable source, the CBS article is not unrelated. It verifies the "not at risk" quote, and demonstrates that there is lasting coverage. Please restore it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers What do you mean by "verifies the quote"? A quote is self-verifying. Further why is "lasting coverage" a relevant point? Of course there is lasting coverage. There is a tremendous vested interest in society at large to libel and slander this person. It doesn't matter on if it's factual or not. People have pre-concieved notions and seek to confirm those notions in absense of fact. Selective quoation by articles while ignoring context is one of the primary methods that such libel is created. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
If you believe Elon Musk is quoted out of context, this is precisely why we need good quality secondary sources, and primary sources are not enough. BeŻet (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't read secondary sources myself so it's hard to go out and find them. I read primary sources on Elon Musk constantly and have done so since around 2011. This is exactly why he constantly rants on the media because they misreport and misquote him constantly. (And seeing what they've done over the past decade it's put me in a position of passionate agreement.) This is what happens when the media is only written by people want to tear him down. I don't know what to do about it rather than try to use primary sources directly. Ergzay (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet Also, why are "primary sources not enough"? There is no rule that we must not use primary sources for WP:BLP just that we must be careful to avoid including personal information. Ergzay (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The language in Wikipedia:Primary sources is broader: "Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people[.]"
- The point is it is expressly difficult, some might say impossible, to say something is taken out of context without providing an interpretation of a text, which only a secondary or tertiary source can provide. QRep2020 (talk) 02:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The page says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." however I offered no "interpretation" in my later edits. They were DIRECT quotes with no interpretation added. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Adding more quoted text does not necessarily release the need for interpretation, especially if the concern is context. QRep2020 (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 And what is wrong with leaving the interpretation to the reader? There is no Wikipedia rule about that. Ergzay (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that presenting primary sources and leaving the interpretation to the reader inherently requires you to select the sources, which can result in POV issues even when you are merely intending to provide context in good faith. As set out in WP:PRIMARY, it is preferable to let reliable secondary sources do the selection and interpretation – and then take care to consider aspects such as WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:BIASED. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Rosbif73 Except I wasn't selecting sources. I was using the exact same source that was being used before, followed through to the original primary source. In all the source replacement I've been doing of replacing poor secondary sources with primary ones I've just been pulling out the original primary source that the secondary source used. Secondly, Business Insider is not a reliable secondary source (it's yellow in the source list). Ergzay (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that presenting primary sources and leaving the interpretation to the reader inherently requires you to select the sources, which can result in POV issues even when you are merely intending to provide context in good faith. As set out in WP:PRIMARY, it is preferable to let reliable secondary sources do the selection and interpretation – and then take care to consider aspects such as WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE and WP:BIASED. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 And what is wrong with leaving the interpretation to the reader? There is no Wikipedia rule about that. Ergzay (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Adding more quoted text does not necessarily release the need for interpretation, especially if the concern is context. QRep2020 (talk) 05:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The page says "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." however I offered no "interpretation" in my later edits. They were DIRECT quotes with no interpretation added. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because you can pick and choose quotes in order to convey an unintended meaning. A secondary source helps avoid this, as any interpretation can be attributed to a specific author. WP:PSTS explains this. BeŻet (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet Except in this case the secondary source themselves is doing exactly that. They are picking and choosing quotes in order to convey an unintended meaning. Ergzay (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you can demonstrate that current sources are doing that, you need to find additional secondary sources that don't. At the end of the day, it is your opinion that those sources are doing that, and what Musk's intended meaning was. These are the rules. BeŻet (talk) 08:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet Except in this case the secondary source themselves is doing exactly that. They are picking and choosing quotes in order to convey an unintended meaning. Ergzay (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLP very specifically states:
Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects
,Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person
,Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies
, andCriticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone
. - You should absolutely be reading secondary sources if you plan on continuing to contribute to Wikipedia. Per WP:PSTS, they are the most important part of creating encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @SquareInARoundHole I've seen WP:PSTS before, but it talks about analysis, but the edit in question before my inclusion of direct quotes, still is just a direct quote from Elon Musk, but just blocked through the secondary source. It's not an analysis by the secondary source. It's a direct re-quote of the primary source material. Ergzay (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Explict policy says "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." I was not making any of those. I was just copy pasting quotes (though I agree my first edit in the series was of that form). Ergzay (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The podcast was a conversation. You pulled quotes that were in response to other statements. You stitched them together and contextualized his answer to the question in ways that secondary sources did not. You clarified what he said in a way that secondary sources did not do (and the primary sources did not either). Further, you make it seem like you are acting in bad faith when you say things in your summaries like that I reverted what you did because "I don't like what [Elon Musk] said" and cast aspersions on other editors, like Firefangledfeathers. We are all doing our best to maintain standards here by writing what reliable secondary sources have said. Kara Swisher asked of Musk: "
You won’t get a vaccine. Why is that?
" and Musk responded, "I’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids.
" The other quotes were not in the secondary sources. You saying it was in the context of mortality is a synthetic claim, and using other parts of the podcast to attempt to contextualize it with that same claim is the same synthesis with a different vehicle. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- @SquareInARoundHole The podcast was not a conversation. It was an interview. It was Elon pontificating with prompting by the host. When a reasonable person says something they say something with the understanding of previously established context. By that point Elon was responding with very short one offs "Yes" and "No"s indicating he was already fed up with the conversation which is something people do when they think they've said all they need to say on the subject and are just trying to wrap the conversation to its end. When he thus said "I'm not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids" he was re-iterating what he had already said at that point. This is obvious to any listener of that interview (it's much more obvious when listening to it as opposed to reading a transcript). His tone of voice conveys a lot of meaning that simply does not exist in the secondary source. I'm not "syntehsizing" anything I'm carrying forward the information already in the primary source.
- And to maintaining standards, that's exactly what I'm trying to do myself. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The Wikipedia page on Elon Musk should not be a tabloid where quotes are selectively quoted to convey a meaning that does not exist about a living person. If we cannot agree I'm fine with completely deleting the quote entirely given it's sourcing by those who want to pigeonhole Elon Musk as a science denier or what not. Is that acceptable to people? Ergzay (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have no plans to let this rest until the aspersion and lies on this page that Elon Musk is an anti-vaxxer is purged from this page. It is utterly false. Ergzay (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- One route we could go with this is we can start bringing up sources that show the bias and lack of credibility of the writers of the various articles used as sources. It's dirty pool and I'd prefer not to go that route though. Ergzay (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. It was a conversational interview, as in a dialogue between two people that was published. A back and forth. Meaning, there was a question and an answer, and you took responses to other parts of that conversation to create a context that did not exist. That's against Wikipedia's policies. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The podcast was a conversation. You pulled quotes that were in response to other statements. You stitched them together and contextualized his answer to the question in ways that secondary sources did not. You clarified what he said in a way that secondary sources did not do (and the primary sources did not either). Further, you make it seem like you are acting in bad faith when you say things in your summaries like that I reverted what you did because "I don't like what [Elon Musk] said" and cast aspersions on other editors, like Firefangledfeathers. We are all doing our best to maintain standards here by writing what reliable secondary sources have said. Kara Swisher asked of Musk: "
- @BeŻet Okay what is wrong with the wording "According to some sources, in September 2020, Elon Musk said he would not get the COVID-19 vaccine because he was not at risk for COVID."? I've made more than sufficient point in this talk page on the problem with the secondary sourcing of this issue such that there is enough to discredit the secondary sources as being accurate. Several people here however deem that we MUST use secondary sources even when they are inaccurate so I am just clearly stating that it's the sources saying it rather than Elon Musk himself saying it. Why would you revert the change? Ergzay (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is completely unnecessary to state that since no other source denies this. Musk gets asked
You won’t get a vaccine. Why is that?
and he directly repliesI’m not at risk for COVID, nor are my kids
. It's clear as rain. Your change has been reverted so please follow WP:BRD. BeŻet (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- @BeŻet It's clear as day that he wasn't talking about his ability to get COVID if you actually look at the context. He used "at risk" right before that in the conversation. Exact same wording also talking about Covid. Ergzay (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is one sentence in the article about this.
In September 2020, Musk stated that he would not get the COVID-19 vaccine, because he and his children were "not at risk for COVID".
This is not implying any context. The interview does not contextualize what he means by "risk" either. "...what we have is something with a very low mortality rate and high contagion. And something that is of low risk to a young person is of high risk to an older person. Essentially, the right thing to do would be to not have done a lock down for the whole country. But to have, I think, anyone who is at risk should be quarantined until the storm passes
" we're not going to say hea meant "at risk" for death because it doesn't say that, nor do the secondary sources. We aren't implying anything by what he said. We're stating what he said. - If I were you, I'd open an RFC about whether or not it's WP:DUE, because repeatedly trying to add your analysis of what he meant is not going to make it, and it's become disruptive. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, that's your own interpretation, and it's precisely why we need good quality secondary sources, which is something that several editors have been trying to explain to you over the course of the last few days. Please listen to them. BeŻet (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. QRep2020 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is one sentence in the article about this.
- @BeŻet It's clear as day that he wasn't talking about his ability to get COVID if you actually look at the context. He used "at risk" right before that in the conversation. Exact same wording also talking about Covid. Ergzay (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The propose edit involves weasel-wording. It also makes it seem as if he said these things in private or at least not in a published interview. QRep2020 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because it is completely unnecessary to state that since no other source denies this. Musk gets asked
Truth Social quotes
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This series of edits removed a reliable, secondary Reuters source and replaced it with an undue amount of quotation from Musk's conference speech. Would others support:
- Restoring the Reuters source
- and removing quoted material that isn't highlighted by the secondary source?
- I would. The editor left a blatantly deceptive edit summary saying "fix typos" for a major change that removed the reliably sourced Reuters cite and replaced it with a YouTube video of an Elon Musk Interview that's 1:29:57 hrs long, as well as other major changes. Seems hypocritical to talk about the truth "quickly dying", and then to pull a stunt like that. Not good, and it doesn't speak well of the editor's modus operandi. The video is a primary source, but without an indication at what point in the video the attributed statement was made, it's worthless as a source. Carlstak (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Carlstak. FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately.
- Okay, thanks, apologies to the editor for the confusion, but my other points still stand. Carlstak (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Heads up for you and QRep: Hal333 moved all the content to Views of Elon Musk. I'm waiting a little while to see if it seems like that'll stick; if so, we should probably move this conversation there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Carlstak Which edit did I introduce a bunch of changes with the comment "fix typos"? It's possible I may have just forgotten to update the edit summary. I have in the past done that where I fix some typos, write the edit summary, preview the changes, and then find something that needs fixing and make the change and forget to update the edit summary. If that's what happened then I'm sorry. Unfortunately you can't go back and edit edit summaries. Ergzay (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please see above where Firefangledfeathers said "FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately." I meant to link to the relevant diff in my original comment, rather than to the page's edit history. I've just corrected the link in the text I wrote which says "deceptive edit summary" above. If you click it you will now see a mid-top notice that says "3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown". I was under the mistaken impression that you had made all these changes with an edit summary of "fix typos". I apologized for my error. Now, on the other hand, I do think you're going overboard with your changes. Carlstak (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply Carlstak. FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately.
- Third. QRep2020 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers I corrected the record as it incorrectly stated that Elon Musk wanted Trump back on Twitter when several things that I quoted clearly conveyed that he had no such interest. Thank you for further confirming your bias against any of my editing. I will have to revert this one as well. Sigh. Ergzay (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The general theme of Musk criticism commonly cited in this article and the job of Wikipedians
The general theme of the criticism that has started flooding this article is of the form 'if you shout it loud enough it becomes true' by using sources that selectively recast good things as bad things it conveys additional meaning that is not actually written in the words, namely that Musk is a bad person and everyone should join in on the dogpile of anti-Musk criticism. It is the job of wikipedia editors to curate sources to portray things accurately rather than join in as one more source of the mob attacks on this individual. The truth is quickly dying.
As an example Elon Musk created a $100M carbon capture fund, something hailed everywhere as a very good thing. However the source we use for this event is from NBC news website and is titled "Elon Musk to donate sliver of net worth for carbon capture". This is just one example of things that are common throughout this article. The general sourcing used on this page goes to great length to portray good things as bad things, and bad things as inhuman/devious/horrendous things. This page is in need of a massive cleanup. I have started on a few things but I am having to fight against reverts because of the hive mind not wanting to allow these types of changes in. Ergzay (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- You and HAL333 are doing a great job cleaning out the rubbish. Warbayx (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like the sources are all secondary reliable independent sources providing notable coverage. Feel free to introduce coverage of the same caliber that somehow prevents the truth from "dying". QRep2020 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's a vested interest in many journalists to tear the person down rather than convey truth. They know if they write Elon Musk articles they can make money off of them and praise doesn't get as many clicks as vitriol. Ergzay (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest slowing down a bit. You've created several threads here recently, and it's difficult to keep up with your comments. If you want a constructive discussion, let's go one by one, and try to improve things you think are wrong. Also, please refrain from suggesting that there's some conspiracy going on here - it doesn't create a constructive atmosphere. BeŻet (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree—let's avoid the broad strokes. I think we can get more down if we address each issue individually. ~ HAL333 16:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- So say we Hal
l. QRep2020 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- So say we Hal
- Wikipedia's mission is not to right great wrongs, including journalistic bias. If that is your intention, you should find another project to contribute to. Schierbecker (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Schierbecker Journalistic bias is not among that list. Journalistic bias can be corrected, with extra work on the sourcing, which if no one else seems interested in doing it looks like I will have to. Ergzay (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the rumour that Elon is dating Natasha Bassett from the section about his dating life. There is no proof that he is dating her and he has never said they are. They only had lunch together... that does not mean they are dating. He has never talked about her. Citing gossip articles is not real citations and is hugely disappointing to see happen. Gossip articles are not real sources. No wonder Wikipedia gets a bad reputation. Natashaisanobody (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Done per WP:BLPGOSSIP
Why does the article not describe Elon Musk as a co-founder of Tesla?
As a matter of court settlement he is a co-founder of Tesla, why doesn't the article fully state that he's thusly the co-founder of Tesla? Ergzay (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- And to jump ahead of the argument "he wasn't actually a founder because he wasn't there at time of incorporation", it's quite common for startups to add co-founders after the actual founding, sometimes for example the very first employee if impressive, will get "co-founder status" and can call themselves a co-founder. Ergzay (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh and here's a secondary source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=f4610af46272 Ergzay (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- And there's a huge list of reliable sources mentioning him as founder in the archive Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Ongoing_Debate_As_of_April_2014 Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- We covered this is in a RfC. Consult the archives. QRep2020 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. This has already been addressed in a strong RfC. ~ HAL333 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors knows better than a court settlement. Warbayx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- A court settlement, not unlike an NDA, is not always reflective of reality. Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in 2003. Musk did not become involved until the following year. I cannot understand how anyone can seriously claim that Musk founded Tesla. ~ HAL333 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- because nothing existed yet, no employers, no offices, no intellectual property, no trademark. EM and J. B. Straubel had already planed to start an electric car company until they realized a group was doing the same thing. Both of them planned to use AC Propulsion tzero technology and commercialize it. EM and J. B. decided to join up with Eberhard, Tarpenning and Ian Wright. Warbayx (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Does not matter. QRep2020 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- How could they have created Tesla when they didn't even own the trademark? Warbayx (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you know what an RfC is? QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- How could they have created Tesla when they didn't even own the trademark? Warbayx (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Does not matter. QRep2020 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- because nothing existed yet, no employers, no offices, no intellectual property, no trademark. EM and J. B. Straubel had already planed to start an electric car company until they realized a group was doing the same thing. Both of them planned to use AC Propulsion tzero technology and commercialize it. EM and J. B. decided to join up with Eberhard, Tarpenning and Ian Wright. Warbayx (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- A court settlement, not unlike an NDA, is not always reflective of reality. Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in 2003. Musk did not become involved until the following year. I cannot understand how anyone can seriously claim that Musk founded Tesla. ~ HAL333 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors knows better than a court settlement. Warbayx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
He is not the co-founder. The court settlement simply determined that he can call himself the co-founder without getting sued by the actual co-founders. Furthermore, there's already been an RfC which established consensus. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources on that? That's not what this settlement says https://www.cnet.com/culture/teslas-musk-gloats-over-eberhard-ruling/ Warbayx (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Discussing or arguing a position on a Talk page is not subject to the same restrictions as introducing edits on a Wikipedia article. QRep2020 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- CNBC in 2021: "Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk did not start Tesla." Case closed. ~ HAL333 01:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are plenty of sources in the article. The court case was about libel and breach of contract. It has no bearing on undeniable facts. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Open a new RFC or propose an edit. Here’s a source that may help you: [2] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- A judge had already ruled against Eberhard being one of two founders almost two months before the defamation suit was settled. Warbayx (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok? The source says this:
After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster.
It’s a reliable secondary source saying they agreed Musk is a co-founder. That’s a decent basis for changing consensus in a proposal or RFC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- @Ergzay can issue an RfC if he wants. Xpenz (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't be opening an RfC as it's obvious the outcome of such an RfC in this environment on Wikipedia, regardless of what the truth of the matter is. Majority rules in such places even if the majority is wrong. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then why bother mentioning it at all? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I won't be opening an RfC as it's obvious the outcome of such an RfC in this environment on Wikipedia, regardless of what the truth of the matter is. Majority rules in such places even if the majority is wrong. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly, this hasn't happened since the RfC, and secondly, this is an agreement between two men. BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- There’s no need to argue this. I was just giving OP an opening for building consensus should they choose. They choose not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ergzay can issue an RfC if he wants. Xpenz (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is most peculiar then how Tesla's blog post from 2010 refers to Eberhard as co-founder, but not Musk: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-roadster-%E2%80%98signature-one-hundred%E2%80%99-series-sells-out. Furthermore, it clearly states in the boilerplate that "Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive." QRep2020 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 Maybe because the blog post was written by those people. Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is really simple. Musk calls himself the co-founder. He gets sued. Then people settle in an agreement. This doesn't change any facts, though. Just rich people stopped arguing. BeŻet (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly the conclusion of the previous RfC and the rightful conclusion if I may be so bold. QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is really simple. Musk calls himself the co-founder. He gets sued. Then people settle in an agreement. This doesn't change any facts, though. Just rich people stopped arguing. BeŻet (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- A blog post are you serious? There is literally a court ruling that already made it clear Eberhard cannot call himself one of two founders. Warbayx (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a blog post from the company, are YOU serious? QRep2020 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This blog post could have written by anyone at Tesla it does not prove anything, and the fact that you believe it does speaks volumes about your bias. Warbayx (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Elon literally posted his "Master Plan" on the blog so I think we can trust it as an official communications channel.
- And I'll remind you that the Elon Musk Talk page is not the place to suggest that there is a bias or anything at all wrong with my editing/ writing. QRep2020 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 Since you are pointing to Tesla's website, I'll point you to this link: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk where the Tesla website very clearly lists him as a co-founder: "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company."
- You seem to be very motivated in muddling the truth in favor of anti-Musk claims on this matter, as well as other matters in this Elon Musk article. Please, leave your political leanings out of this article. It is probably best for the readers of Wikipedia if you spend your time elsewhere. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- This blog post could have written by anyone at Tesla it does not prove anything, and the fact that you believe it does speaks volumes about your bias. Warbayx (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a blog post from the company, are YOU serious? QRep2020 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @QRep2020 Maybe because the blog post was written by those people. Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok? The source says this:
- This was already resolved in previous RfC. Musk wasn't one of the founders of Tesla, and the majority of reliable sources don't identify him as such. See: [3][4][5]. Stonkaments (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is loads of credible sources that mentions him as a co-founder aswell. [1] [2][3][4][5] [6]
- [7] Warbayx (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. Agletarang (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @Warbayx that Elon Musk should have his co-founder of Tesla title restored on this page, as it has been from 2009-2020 before the "hive mind" stepped in and deleted objective truths from this page. Look at edit history if you don't believe me.
- Although Tesla's own website is not a third party source, I believe it is still a crucial supporting website. https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company." The court-settlement is further evidence that Musk is a co-founder.
- If none of that convinces you, I point you towards @Warbayx other six third-party sources. Surely, we as Wikipedia editors don't know more than all of these sources combined. It's time to have a little humility.
- We need to restore objective truths to this page. Not succumb to the "hive mind" who believes Musk has never worked a day in his life and received all of his wealth from a family-owned emerald mine. This is Wikipedia, not CNN or Fox. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- As has been stated multiple times in this section, inclusion will only be had with consensus from a new RFC. Listing sources in this talk section does not do a good job of building a changed consensus from the previous RFC. I encourage those of you who feel strongly about this to engage in the process. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- RFC is based on "majority rules" and as is clear from reading the rest of this page, the majority is clearly anti-Musk.
- The objective truth is that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. This is a fact, shown here: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/
- To say that a RFC must be issued to state a fact in this article just shows how poltically biased this page has gotten. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, that is not the "objective" truth. In actuality, the precise terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Tesla released a statement though: "Neither side disclosed details of the agreement. But a statement released by Tesla about the confidential settlement referred to the men as “two of the co-founders of Tesla." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your source and your opinions on this matter literally contradict each other. Your LA times source literally says: "After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster."
- @QRep2020 You are clearly only reading what you WANT to read, huge confirmation bias. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Opinion noted, faceless IP editor. Please take any further criticism to where it belongs. QRep2020 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. The participants were well aware of what the sources say when the agreement was arrived at in the previous RfC. You nor anyone else have even addressed the arguments therein. This discussion is going in circles and should be ended. QRep2020 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your argument was literally contradicted by the source you provided. I would prefer to talk to anyone else on this matter, considering how much bias you have shown on this page. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, that is not the "objective" truth. In actuality, the precise terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Tesla released a statement though: "Neither side disclosed details of the agreement. But a statement released by Tesla about the confidential settlement referred to the men as “two of the co-founders of Tesla." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two independent news sources have verified that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The article should reflect this fact, and restore Musk's co-founder of Tesla title as it was present on this article from 2009-2020.
- 1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html
- 2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- As has been stated multiple times in this section, inclusion will only be had with consensus from a new RFC. Listing sources in this talk section does not do a good job of building a changed consensus from the previous RFC. I encourage those of you who feel strongly about this to engage in the process. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Reintroduce (a portion) of the previous text regarding Musk's statements about public transportation
While I appreciate the values of concision and parsimony, I do think that something about Musk's stated views on public transportation should be brought back into the article under the Technology sub-subsection. Perhaps some derivation of the portion with the most citations? I.e, "At a Tesla event on the sidelines of the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems [...] he dismissed an audience member's response that public transportation functioned effectively in Japan. His comments sparked widespread criticism from both members of the public and transit experts. Urban planning expert Brent Toderian started the hashtag #GreatThingsThatHappenedonTransit which was widely adopted by Twitter users in order to dispel Musk's notion that everybody hated public transport." Towards that end, here are some additional sources discussing the events: https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-awkward-dislike-mass-transit/, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-20/elon-musk-doesn-t-understand-why-mass-transit-succeeds, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/elon-musk-versus-twitter-on-the-topic-of-public-transportation.html, https://fortune.com/2017/12/16/elon-musk-public-transport/ . QRep2020 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just added two sentences on it to the tech section, which I feel is due weight. Does that work? ~ HAL333 01:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- What you added back now was almost the same as my last copy edit consisting of only two sentences—which you reverted twice—except you moved a reference to the end. I thought I was copy editing to align with your edits for conciseness, so I am confused why you say the length of the description is due weight now but undue weight before. It often seems like you are just deleting criticism of Musk before reading the content. Anyway, since it is almost the same as my recent copy edit, I consider the current recent summary of his views on transportation to be appropriate. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks good, Hal. :) QRep2020 (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Elongate
Should the article mention Musk's request to call the flight attendant scandal "Elongate"? Though pop culture sources do verify the tweet, I don't the the major media sources mentioning this at all. If we do include it, we should include the criticism that he's received for the joke. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It shows the way that, in his reaction, he sought to trivialise the allegations. I agree that any reliably sourced criticism of this should be included. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've found this but the criticism is sourced to 'Twitter users'. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I found reference to his original tweet here and in reference to the flight attendant scandal here, so seems like it could be included, but weight seems to say no, unless others can find more. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, found another reference in Time. I'd support inclusion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mildly support. QRep2020 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, found another reference in Time. I'd support inclusion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose inclusion. It seems like trivia. But I don't feel all that strongly about it. ~ HAL333 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
False narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID
During the height of the pandemic, I saw some online interactions along the lines of:
Person 1: "Elon Musk is keeping the Tesla factory open during the pandemic and making things worse."
Person 2: "No, Elon Musk is using the Tesla factory to build ventilators!"
Later on, I saw debates like the following:
Person 1: "Elon Musk is a COVID denier."
Person 2: "How can Elon Musk be a COVID denier if he donated ventilators? He's doing much more to help the situation than you are."
In other words, there is misinformation floating around that Elon Musk was using his wealth and power to help the fight against COVID through his philanthropy. Currently, the relevant Wikipedia article passage says this:
In March 2020, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators for COVID-19 patients if there were a shortage.[1][2] After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio responded to Musk's offer,[3] Musk later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party.[1] However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.[4][5][6]
A reader who already thought "Musk donated ventilators" might think, after reading this, "Okay, maybe they weren't ventilators, but at least he was trying to help." Musk was not "trying to help", because a lot of the context is missing. Here is my proposed version with the missing context:
In March 2020, in response to a request to repurpose the Tesla factory to make urgently-needed ventilators, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators "if there is a shortage".[1][2] When Nate Silver responded that there was a current shortage, Musk replied, "Ventilators are not difficult, but cannot be produced instantly. Which hospitals have these shortages you speak of right now?"[2] After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio highlighted their hospitals' ventilator shortage and responded to Musk's offer,[7] Musk then later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party.[1] However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.[8][9][10]
In other words, given that he had to be told three times that there was a ventilator shortage before he accepted the reality, Musk didn't offer to build ventilators because he understood the gravity of the situation. He bet on the ventilators not being needed. Around this time, he was also tweeting that COVID cases were inflated by doctors, hospitalization rates were low in California, etc. The purpose of my proposed the change is not against concision and not about trying to give undue weight to Nate Silver. The purpose is to counter misinformation that Musk isn't a COVID denier because he donated ventilators, and that he should be credited for volunteering to help save lives during the pandemic. This is false, and Wikipedia should clarify this at the expense of conciseness. Conciseness is a virtue, but should not come at the expense of clarity. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC); edited to replace unsourced statement with sourced statement TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- First, this isn't a blog. Keep it short. And that's a strong no from me. Your proposal is not concise or well-written. I don't understand how bloating the first sentence improves anything, and the weird random choice to mention Nate Silver is clearly undue weight. And despite your reasoning (which is dangerously close to single-purpose), I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assumption, my purpose isn't to "paint Musk in a bad light", but to counter misinformation, which is in line with Wikipedia's goals, in that misinformation is not permitted. If you think I am against the current version because it hypothetically paints Musk in a better light, that is incorrect and has nothing to do with my objection. Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words, and maybe without Silver announcing to everyone on Twitter to contact Musk if their hospitals had a ventilator shortage, Musk wouldn't end up donating medical devices to hospitals. However, I don't care about mentioning Nate Silver as much as disagreeing with the article suggesting that Musk, unprompted by criticism and of his own volition, offered to build or donate ventilators. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words
Do you have a reliable source for that? If not, it's original research and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- I'm not exactly sure which part of this statement you find contentious, but the Engadget article directly quotes the Twitter exchange between Musk and Silver. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- So what? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Engadget is a crap source anyways. But my main point is that this narrative you're trying to construct here—that Musk only promised to make ventilators as a bluff as he believed shortages would not occur—is not well documented in sources, let alone to a level that would merit mention in this article. We need to adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you ask, "So what?" Engadget is a green reliable source for technology at WP:RSPSS and perfectly fine source for mentioning direct quotes. You are claiming without evidence that I am trying to "construct a narrative" when I am basically saying that I am trying to deconstruct a narrative. In my proposed change, I am using direct quotes without analysis, and it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusion given the wider context. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Engadget is a blog and subpar source. Note that RSP says all statements from it must be attributed. Regardless, I can promise you that FAC reviewers would demand its removal. (I've even had reviewers that made me remove Politico, which is taking it a bit too far.) My point still stands: if you can only get pissant sources thinly mentioning something about Musk (who is covered 24/7 by all top-notch RS), then it shouldn't be included. Once again: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ HAL333 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please, just think about the larger picture. Is this singular, poorly-covered Twitter interaction with Silver notable? Does it adhere to summary style? Are you getting into weird, vague minutiae? This subsection should summarize Views of Elon Musk, which curiously does not mention Silver or this slant of yours. Why don't you go write about it there? ~ HAL333 03:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
this slant of yours
You call it a "slant", yet you yourself admitted that the events I described are verifiable, responded with "So what?", and now your concern is that the green reliable source is not up to standards of Featured Article reviewers. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, especially points 3 and 4. I haven't done anything to warrant this kind of response. If it is because of the accusation at Talk:Elon_Musk#Sources_and_neutrality, note that this is the same person who appears to think that not calling Musk a co-founder of Tesla is editorial bias. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- I agree with HAL333, and I'm a particularly overly-wordy editor. I believe the passage is balanced and accurate as-is, and does not make Musk out to be
saving humanity from COVID
. I also don't see any aspersions, Hal did not say you were trying to "paint Musk in a bad light
", they said "I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light.
" SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)- The passage itself doesn't make out Musk to be saving humanity from COVID. That is just common misinformation floating around that isn't challenged by the passage. But the passage itself suggests that Musk offered to build ventilators by his volition and concern for the ventilator shortage, unprompted by criticism/someone calling him out to do it. HAL said my reasoning is close to SPA and suggested my objection is related to it hypothetically painting Musk in a better light, which implies my purpose is trying to make Musk look bad. They also said I was trying to "construct a narrative" and create a "slant". Also, I have no objections to the criticisms that my proposed change is badly written or wordy, and am trying to think of a better version. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Single-purpose editing is not misbehavior. Hal mentioned that because your reasoning does not seem aligned with the goal of the project, but rather serves a particular agenda.
- You claim Silver held Musk accountable (unsourced), and also edited in a narrative that while true, was not written by most sources. [6], [7], [8], [9]. These sources determined it was not necessary to clarify it was in response to a random tweet, and CNN specifically tied it to efforts from other vehicle manufacturers. You are writing into the passage that it says it was unprompted. That is not implied. The slant Hal is referring to is that Musk was prompted by the tweet he responded to. There’s no evidence of that.
- Your heading and section does suggest the passage is a part of a false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID.
- Try to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. He’s pointing you to SPA so you can read how editing with an agenda can skew your bias into synthesis, original research, and undue weight.
- Hope this helps. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well put, Square, QRep2020 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The passage itself doesn't make out Musk to be saving humanity from COVID. That is just common misinformation floating around that isn't challenged by the passage. But the passage itself suggests that Musk offered to build ventilators by his volition and concern for the ventilator shortage, unprompted by criticism/someone calling him out to do it. HAL said my reasoning is close to SPA and suggested my objection is related to it hypothetically painting Musk in a better light, which implies my purpose is trying to make Musk look bad. They also said I was trying to "construct a narrative" and create a "slant". Also, I have no objections to the criticisms that my proposed change is badly written or wordy, and am trying to think of a better version. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with HAL333, and I'm a particularly overly-wordy editor. I believe the passage is balanced and accurate as-is, and does not make Musk out to be
- You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you ask, "So what?" Engadget is a green reliable source for technology at WP:RSPSS and perfectly fine source for mentioning direct quotes. You are claiming without evidence that I am trying to "construct a narrative" when I am basically saying that I am trying to deconstruct a narrative. In my proposed change, I am using direct quotes without analysis, and it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusion given the wider context. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- So what? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Engadget is a crap source anyways. But my main point is that this narrative you're trying to construct here—that Musk only promised to make ventilators as a bluff as he believed shortages would not occur—is not well documented in sources, let alone to a level that would merit mention in this article. We need to adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure which part of this statement you find contentious, but the Engadget article directly quotes the Twitter exchange between Musk and Silver. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Contrary to your assumption, my purpose isn't to "paint Musk in a bad light", but to counter misinformation, which is in line with Wikipedia's goals, in that misinformation is not permitted. If you think I am against the current version because it hypothetically paints Musk in a better light, that is incorrect and has nothing to do with my objection. Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words, and maybe without Silver announcing to everyone on Twitter to contact Musk if their hospitals had a ventilator shortage, Musk wouldn't end up donating medical devices to hospitals. However, I don't care about mentioning Nate Silver as much as disagreeing with the article suggesting that Musk, unprompted by criticism and of his own volition, offered to build or donate ventilators. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c d Siddiqui, Faiz (April 29, 2020). "The return of erratic Elon Musk: During coronavirus, Tesla CEO spreads misinformation and over-promises on ventilators". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
- ^ a b c Lawler, R. (March 19, 2020). "Elon Musk: Tesla 'will make ventilators if there is a shortage'". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
- ^ Korosec, Kirsten (March 19, 2020). "NYC mayor pleads with Elon Musk to start producing ventilators". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
- ^ Johnson, Martin (April 17, 2020). "California hospitals say Elon Musk sent them BiPAP, CPAP machines, not ventilators". The Hill. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
- ^ Carville, Olivia; Hull, Dana (April 17, 2020). "Elon Musk's 'Ventilators' Arrived at Hospitals — With Some Assembly Required". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
- ^ Walter, J. M.; Corbridge, T. C.; Singer, B. D. (2018). "Invasive Mechanical Ventilation". Southern Medical Journal. 111 (12): 746–753. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000905. PMC 6284234. PMID 30512128.
- ^ Korosec, Kirsten (March 19, 2020). "NYC mayor pleads with Elon Musk to start producing ventilators". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
- ^ Johnson, Martin (April 17, 2020). "California hospitals say Elon Musk sent them BiPAP, CPAP machines, not ventilators". The Hill. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
- ^ Carville, Olivia; Hull, Dana (April 17, 2020). "Elon Musk's 'Ventilators' Arrived at Hospitals — With Some Assembly Required". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
- ^ Walter, J. M.; Corbridge, T. C.; Singer, B. D. (2018). "Invasive Mechanical Ventilation". Southern Medical Journal. 111 (12): 746–753. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000905. PMC 6284234. PMID 30512128.
Cheeseburgers
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Cheeseburger.png/100px-Cheeseburger.png)
Thanks for being calm and civil, especially those that has very opposing views to each other. It is really rare to see a civil debate about Musk on the Internet nowadays. Have a cheeseburger, you will like it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I want extra, extra pickles please. QRep2020 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- Wikipedia good articles
- Social sciences and society good articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles
- GA-Class Automobile articles
- Mid-importance Automobile articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Business articles
- High-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- GA-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- GA-Class spaceflight articles
- High-importance spaceflight articles
- SpaceX working group articles
- WikiProject Spaceflight articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- GA-Class South Africa articles
- Low-importance South Africa articles
- WikiProject South Africa articles
- GA-Class University of Pennsylvania articles
- High-importance University of Pennsylvania articles
- GA-Class Technology articles
- WikiProject Technology articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report