Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

More bias in the Wikipedia article "[...] Musk also claimed falsely that children "are essentially immune" to COVID-19[...]"

It misses that Twitter actually concluded that Musk's statement was not definite misinformation because of the context and therefore the tweet couldn't be deleted. It is also worth noting whether it is misinformation depends on Elon Musk's understanding of the word "immune". He posted a graph that showed that no children had died in Italy which suggests his understanding of immune was not the medical one. But the medical definition of "immune" isn't the only one. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/immune?q=immune definition 2 and definition 3 - these definitions are more open to interpretation. I know this is somewhat original research I'm carrying out here. But point is that we need more context here. -Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.130 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is the only definition that maters when we are discussing medical issues. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is also worth noting

"Twitter told Business Insider that Musk's tweets didn't violate its rules when looking at the overall context and conclusion. The firm said it would continue to consult its fact-checking partners to identify misinformation that was most harmful." As I understand it, the conclusion was not aligned with what he said - that makes sense because the graph didn't show that no children had been infected in Italy. It's definitely a problem that this context is hidden away. We need to embrace neutrality and cover both sides. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So? As we do not say he broke Twitter's rules the fact they say he did not is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't you adhering to the principles of biographies must be written conservatively and neutrally? Both sides shall be covered. It has been marked as misinformation by some sources - almost by no realiable sources by the way. BBC, for example, doesn't call it misinformation. You are reducing the matters here and ignoring that Twitter's rules were to combat misinformation. Twitter concluded also that the tweet was not definite. A statement that is not definite is not false (or at least not necessarily false) 130.225.188.130 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, so if you can find a source that says that Elon Musk was right we can include the as a counterpoint to him being wrong. But him not breaking Twitters rules is not a counter point to him saying something that was not true. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)@

Again, you are reducing everything. https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-misinformation-elon-musk-children-coronavirus-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

Twitter said it would suppress (emphasis ours): "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. But couldn't conclude it broke that ruling, but you know better than professionals, apparently. Also, you are implying a statement is either true or false, but that is not true, for example "I love the weather today". In mathematics, for example, a statement can be "undefined" or "not well-defined" - but that is not a false statement. I think it's important that a few journalists have called it misinformation. But it's also important that Twitter whose job, including, is to tackle down these issues couldn't conclude that the statement was definite or that it broke the rules that disallow the specific misinformation in question. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-wrongly-tweets-kids-are-immune-to-coronavirus-twitter-is-okay-with-it-1657807-2020-03-20

the word "definite" can be found here including. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon tweeted medical misinformation and was called out for it. Therefore, Musk also claimed falsely that children "are essentially immune" to COVID-19. is factual and neutral. The end. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't the end unless you ignore every source that cover this subject that talks about how Twitter couldn't conclude that.

Twitter said it would suppress (emphasis ours): "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. But couldn't conclude it broke that ruling which I told you.

You are cherry-picking information which certainly isn't a way of writing biographies neutrally or conservatively. Yes, it is factual that he wrote that. It is somewhat also factual that it was said in an overarching context where he contradicts himself - thus isn't actually necessarily stating that, but writing it, definitely, yes. That's the point. We need the context. We should not delete anything here, but we need the context. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter community notes is not the arbiter of what is or is not medical misinformation, and the sentence doesn't say anything about twitter. The full context is that Elon tweeted medical misinformation and was called out for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We have no sources of medical experts calling it misinformation, anyway. Twitter also said

Twitter told Business Insider that Musk's tweets didn't violate its rules when looking at the overall context and conclusion. The firm said it would continue to consult its fact-checking partners to identify misinformation that was most harmful. Strange, we can't find any medical experts calling it out in any sources. Instead we rely on journalists whose area of expertise isn't within that area 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TWITTER RULES BUT YOU. It is medical misinformation. Does "despite the fact that it contradicted information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" work for you as a "medical expert"? It should, because this isn't controversial in medicine. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The article you sent me doesn't say that anywhere. It seems unbelievably unintuive for you, but if you say x and later deny x, then you haven't said x. But if you insist on isolating the context only looking at the statement of x, then yes, then you can easily make Elon Musk look like an idiot. That's why we need the context instead of cherrypicking. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It literally says that in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Elon doesn't need our help to make him look like an idiot, he does it on his own when he says that kids are "essentially immune" to something that they are not immune to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You are right, my bad. But it doesn't change my point. The source that is used in the Wikipedia article from Axion already calls it misinformation and actually seems to be somewhat the only reliable source that calls it misinformation, so no news. Also you forget that Buzzfeed isn't a realiable source. It's a journalist who doesn't have any medical education. You also forget that Buzzfeed is very left-wing https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias . My point still stands anyway that Twitter, a team of employees who are educated in moderation (and not a, frankly, fucking journalist), couldn't conclude that Elon Musk broke their ruling on "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. ... they even refer to the conclusion of Elon Musk's tweets so that is somewhat the factual content side of Elon Musk's tweet.

And I have to stress a thing that I didn't see myself. Elon Musk said children were essentially immune.

"Essentially immune" isn't a medical term. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is a reliable source. Check WP:RSP, it's in green. And Musk using a non-medical term to say something medical just demonstrates the nature of the disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. They have two departments. Still doesn't change my point. It also appears like the media outlets that call it misinformation are overwhelmingly left-wing. I can only find Indiatoday who appears to not have a left-wing bias. No, it doesn't demonstrate the nature of misinformation - it demonstrates the nature of undefined statements and statements that reflect how people casually talk with each other.

Broadening our definition of harm to address content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Rather than reports, we will enforce this in close coordination with trusted partners, including public health authorities and governments, and continue to use and consult with information from those sources when reviewing content.

Twitter dealt with this professionally, in teams, in coordination with experts, but couldn't conclude what I have told you million of times. But I'm not saying that those individual journalists don't have a right to their interpretation, but clearly their interpretation doesn't stand alone. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

We have been over this many times. It stays. QRep2020 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears like you haven't read anything. I have never wanted it removed. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no bias. The part about misinformation is fine as is. There is nothing to correct or contextualize further. QRep2020 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess we could add that this COVID misinformation doesn't violate Twitter TOS, but I don't see the need for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Totally unneeded. QRep2020 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TOS on "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick." Yeah. But there is more to it. They have also made statements on the matter to the media. Why do I have to tell you this over and over, but you simply reduce it to "not breaking TOS"? Which TOS? How didn't it break the TOS when Twitter's TOS clearly state this? All those question? Every news article do adress these questions, but you don't. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be more biased than Buzzfeed News or than every single article on the matter. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't see the need for that, despite every single article that covers the subject sees the need for it? 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It is lovely how anything now, even the dryest, briefest descriptions of Elon Musk's online fails, gets called Wikipedia Bias, and the people doing it can't even point out anything unfactual about what they're objecting. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So you admit that it is the dryest and briefest descriptions of Elon Musk's fails, yet find it notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia article. Hmmmmm? Oh, you suggest it should be removed altogether? Yeah, possibly.

we will enforce this in close coordination with trusted partners, including public health authorities and governments, and continue to use and consult with information from those sources when reviewing content.

I still don't acknowledge that individual journalists have more saying here than a complex of professionals in social media moderation and public health authorities. - At least not to such an extent that it isn't worth including the opinion of a complex of professionals in social media moderation and public health authorities. But I can easily point out that it is unfactual, but we aren't allowed to do original research here, so I will refer to Twitter's statements on the matter. But to make it short, it's unfactual because the statement in question is not coherent with the context, his conclusion, and not even his statement is well-defined because he uses a word open for subjective interpretation "essentially immune" - somewhat in the same way as 1 divided with 0 is not false, but undefined. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, any statements about this on Wikipedia should be cited to WP:MEDRS. But for me, I cannot shirk from saying that my five year old unvaccinated granddaughter got COVID-19. Then her vaccinated parents got breakthrough cases. Then her double vaccinated and triple boosted grandparents got the virus after 2-3/4 years of studiously avoiding it. Her grandmother with significant preexisting conditions ended up in the hospital for five days and is struggling to recover another five days later. We do not know whether we got it from our granddaughter or a local grocery store. But extrene caution is still called for. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course, any statements about this on Wikipedia should be cited to WP:MEDRS

Agree! I understand you man. I do also find Elon Musk's statement unprofessional (also considering the context) 130.225.188.131 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter files should be linked to Elon musk

Linking of this story would be beneficial to readers

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394?refresh=1670024869 Wpow (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I just wanna say that, ofc., should the Twitter files be covered in the Wikipedia article at some point - perhaps already. The problem is that the recentist tendencies to cover every move Elon Musk has done in 2022 have introduced enourmous bias into the article from activists - something I have tried to cover too. If we continue to add information to Elon Musk that is recentist, this bias will continue to grow. Especially a case like the Twitter files that is very complex (as it stands now), activist will read into that what they will. When I heard people complaining about Wikipedia not adding Twitter files, I thought they actually got it wrong. If it was added, it would very likely not be covered objectively, but used as another tool to attempt to cause reputational damage on Elon Musk. We need the Twitter drama, etc., to calm down. It is also problematic that the Wikipedia article contains information that suggests that hate speech has increased since Elon Musk took over based on 2 weeks (or 1 month?) and after nearly firing the entire moderation team AFAIK. 2 weeks say nothing, and the information will likely be outdated next year. But I will not start that discussion. Just pointing out the issues about recency bias. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Copenhagen University IP

What is happening with the deluge of messages from Copenhagen University IP? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss user actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I have finally made an account. I deleted a comment from myself because I misunderstood something. I tend to sometimes not reading carefully enough. My bad, I lack some experience in talks. I will also start to use Grammarly after this post. Anyway, where is the right place to discuss user actions? Jatlin1 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Cave rescue in the lead

I commented above under "Lead improvements" but will start this as well. The last paragraph of the lead section is about controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. I removed the part about the cave rescue from this section. It seems sort of out of place for that section and minor compared to everything else in that section and the overall bio. Thoughts? Thanks. Malerooster (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the cave rescue story is significant enough a part of Elon's biography to be mentioned in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree, its is a minor part of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The episode constitutes a significant portion of the article and there was a highly publicized trial about the subject. It is worthy of a single sentence in the lead. QRep2020 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it's not major enough to include in the lead. – Anne drew 18:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. It is not a failed proposal either. It was rejected. And it's even unsure whether a rejected proposal is a failure. A proposal that is taken into use and fails is definitely a failure, indeed. I wanna comment on QRep2020. This person seems to be obssessed with Elon Musk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QRep2020 Obviously the person has also written https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSLAQ Every edit he makes on the articles related Elon Musk frame him negatively. The person also rejected two of my suggestions without giving any reason. I just want you to be aware of this person

- Copenhagen IP 130.225.188.131 (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's notable enough for the lead. There was a massive amount of coverage in the press. ~ HAL333 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In all instances, if it shall be put there, it should be rephrased or reflect sources in a neutral way. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It fails to cover the efforts (or "actions" is perhaps more neutral) that Elon Musk put into the situation by anonymizing the efforts under the word "proposal" which easily can be misunderstood as another random and awkward Elon Musk tweet. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17576302/elon-musk-thai-cave-rescue-submarine It wasn't unambiguously a failure eithe " While Thai rescuers praised Musk’s technology, some said it wasn’t “practical” for their plans. “Although [Musk’s] technology is good and sophisticated, it’s not practical for this mission,” Narongsak Osatanakorn, the head of the joint command center overseeing the operation, told the Guardian. " "Fails" is a subjective interpretation by QRep2020 - who spends all his/her/they time on adding negative information on every matter related to Elon Musk - that is not reflected by any reliable sources. But I don't support that it stands in the lead. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal failed to be adopted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't introduce the language. QRep2020 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don’t think the pedo thing belongs in the lead. Most of the coverage in reliable sources occurred before Musk was found not liable, but after that the suspense was gone, and RS’s reduced coverage tremendously. This matter would more appropriately be in the lead of the pertinent article about the cave rescue, but not here in Musk’s BLP, because it’s a much bigger percentage of lifetime total RS coverage for the cave rescue than for Musk (presently neither Musk nor the “pedo” remark is anywhere in the pertinent article about the cave rescue which suggests they weren’t very significant according to RS’s). If Musk had been found liable, I assume coverage in RS’s would now be much greater, but that did not happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded. There is massive coverage of just about anything Musk says or does, but I don't see any significant lasting coverage of the cave rescue or the "pedo" lawsuit that would justify a lead mention. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• ok, it looks like maybe 7 editors think it doesn't belong in the lead, and 2 do? I know its not a vote but. --Malerooster (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Agree it doesn't belong in the lede. Schierbecker (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk's preferred pronouns

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Musk has stated today that his preferred pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci. Can someone with rights to edit please update the pronouns in this page? Currently it's referring to prosecute's old pronouns. 96.245.37.202 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No, normally I would say yes, but this is clearly such a piss take no way. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

What is your proof that Elon stated his pronouns in bad faith? Is there a metric that we're supposed to use to judge whether they are someone's actual preferred pronouns? 96.245.37.202 (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't waste people's time. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it a waste of time to update Wikipedia pages of people who have changed their pronouns? 96.245.37.202 (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

• Fuck off. Schierbecker (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia. Is there any avenue to report abuse such as this message? 96.245.37.202 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"[...] Shortly thereafter, Musk announced that SpaceX could no longer supply Ukraine [...]"

The combination of those two sentences are very critical

"It was reported that Musk allegedly spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin prior to the proposal, which Musk denied.[352][353][354][355] Shortly thereafter, Musk announced that SpaceX could no longer supply Ukraine with Starlink satellite units at its own expense,[105] but he reversed his stance a day later.[356]"

It is written in such a way that it suggests that Elon Musk stopped supplying Ukraine with Starlink satellite units because of Putin. The source tells an entirely different story: "Musk on Friday said that in asking the Pentagon to pick up the bill for Starlink in Ukraine, he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who responded to Musk’s Ukraine peace plan earlier this month, before the letter was sent to the Pentagon, with: “F*** off.” "

Obviously, this shall be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.130 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's actually terribly written. It's not even clear whether Elon Musk announced that he would stop the supply, just after talking with Putin, or just after the critique of the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• REPLY TO THE COMMENT BELOW ME(=IP 130.225.188.130) SINCE I CAN'T REPLY TO IT SOMEHOW

Alright. But we have to make it clear whether it was after talking with Putin or after the critique. We also have to include Elon Musk's own reason. Once again the Wikipedia article suffers from bias issues. It depicts him as he is sensitive to critique. That might be true, but we also have to cover that he was told to fuck off, and that is actually what he uses to explain his motivation behind his descision. We can't just assume that Elon Musk is lying. That's bias. But at the other hand, we also have to make it clear that the proposal was in general met with critique such that the reader can make his own opinion on the question "Was it because he felt mocked or is he just too sensitive to critique"? 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We say Musk denied it, and plenty of RS cover it. Nor do we say he did, it say it was claimed he did. 10:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We do we said musk denied it, we include his response. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I might mix stuff now. I talk about that Elon Musk's motivation behind stopping the financing of the satelitte units have to be included too. He expresses his motivation in a tweet that has widely been covered by reliable sources too https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

As I recall that came after the Uklrianian's response to his statement. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You mean his statement on withdrawal of Ukranian satelittes? Nope.

https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768?lang=en 3. October. He announced his withdrawal the 14. october. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I will not question whether the hypothetical conversation between him and Putin should stay there.

But we have to make it clear that he announced his withdrawal of satelitte units after the backlash of the proposal, not before the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

So he announced this because a Ukrainian official told him to fuck off, that is what you want us to say? And why did the Ukirians official say that? would we not also have to include that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 Yes, but it is a hint too that fits into the situation. He wasn't just met with critique, but anger https://time.com/6219480/elon-musk-ukraine/ - I'm pretty sure that is covered in many reliable sources. He points at this anger and somewhat hints "if you don't respect me then ...". That is my interpretation. But it is not my interpretation that he refers to the anger in his motivation behind his reason, that is Elon Musk himself.

Ofc. we can include the motivation behind the Ukranian official. But I'm pretty convinced he is just responding to his peace proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It might not be necessary to include his apparent motivation directly. But we can't just say "after the critique" ... We have to include "After critique and outrage ...". It wasn't just critique. Many reliable sources confirm this, and Elon Musk confirms that in his motivation behind the descision. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

But I have has my say, time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a very simple edit which makes it more clear. We don't have to state Elon Musk's motivation directly.

Replace "Shortly thereafter" with "Shortly after the condemnation to his proposal".

Replace "which was criticized by Ukrainian officials" with "which was condemned by Ukrainian officials with one of the officials telling him to 'fuck off' "

Makes it more clear. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Something like that. My english is not too good. It can also be more elaborate. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that reliable sources do not link Musk's peace proposal or his later announcement about discontinuing Starlink's services in Ukraine, with the Starlink outages that occurred around the same time. According to the Financial Times and other reliable sources, there were other reasons for the outages [1], so the current text looks like OR, or unbalanced. I recently tried separating the peace plan proposal from the issue, by moving the former to the Views and Twitter section, leaving the latter two in the Politics section [2]. I hope HAL333 and Slatersteven understand my reasoning now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
  • That was not the reason you stated, it was we needed to put his view. Are you now saying this is wp:synthases? Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I understand the context properly since I have had limited time to look at the previous talk pages. I didn't talk about the outages here, but, yea, that context about the outages also completely misses. There is a lot of contexts that misses here, and some of the information is misleading too, for example, how the backlash of his proposal just gets reduced to "critique". The context that doesn't miss here is, strangely, some very hypothetical conversation between Putin and him where we have no idea what they could have talked about either, that subtly and misleadingly can being readen (by readers) as the entire, only, or main reason why he had an interest in this withdrawal - which is not balanced in any way and actually propagandist, lol. It has to be rewritten Slatersteven Jatlin1 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, because the issue of expensiveness comes from the outages, but the Wikipedia article doesn't even talk about that - it just mentions the expensiveness (but uses a source that elaborates on that, yeah). The WK article says nothing. It even makes it look like he just didn't bother with the expenses any longer. The paragraph is terribly non-neutral, unbalanced, misleading, ambiguous, etc. It should definitely be rewritten. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The entire sentence "Musk's statements have provoked controversy [...]" is not backed up by any sources

Not backed up by any source. I have checked the two first sources and the third one for the two statements respectively. None of those articles refer to his statements as being a cause of controversy. The second statement (about the Canada convoy) is not just backed up in that way that the statement isn't characterized as cause to a controversy, the statement itself is not anywhere to find in the article! You might subjectively interpret the first statement as a controversy, but that's not allowed, and even if it seemingly is intuitively self-evident (which I don't agree with at all), it isn't allowed because the sources lose its reliability on this matter because that would suggest that many think it [Elon Musk's idea/opinion] is a bad idea according to Oxford Dictionary, but that statement is within the expertise of a polling institute (or something alike) because it deals with numbers. It's also a contentious label. Rewrite the bullshit. Ofc. this Wikipedia article information is also from 2022, lol.

EDIT: I have looked more into it. The story was written "elaborately" and sourced as well back in times: "In February 2022, apparently supporting the convoy protesters, Musk tweeted and later deleted a meme comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler." Later an activist shorted it down to Elon Musk comparing Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler without the context, and the source (a Reuters article) was also replaced with another Reuters article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlin1 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's sourced in the body. ~ HAL333 21:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."

WP:RS ? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is sourced in the body, it does not need to be sourced in the lead paragraphs. Perhaps consult WP:MOS more closely. QRep2020 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You link me a page dealing with WK policy, yet "Sourced in the body" isn't a term in the WK policy, please elaborate, instead of creating your own private language.

If I understand it correct, it is implicitly justified considering the entire context. Contentious labels are definitely not justified in the body. That's even directly said in MOS:LABEL "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Jatlin1 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Body" is the term and it is used many times in WP:MOSLAYOUT. The specifics of citation use in the lead are available at MOS:LEADCITE.

And the sources cited in the body of the article certainly establish the existence of controversies surrounding the man. QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

They need to connect controversies to the statements in question. Especially when they are contentious labels.

By the way,

Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Jatlin1 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would not describe what you are doing as a challenge. Regardless, there was a recent Talk discussion about the sentence where the consensus was that the current wording is fine. QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Go check out Donald Trump -- no source is required in the lead to support that he has made racist/racially charged statements. ~ HAL333 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not a statement about Donald Trump or label on Donald Trump, it's a statement that some people (where the subject some people is hidden away via the passive verb have been) have characterized many of his comments as racially charged, etc. That's indeed a more considerable way actually. It's also different because the sentence is general and don't refer to specific events. Anyway, why do you not have sourcing for statement 2? Elon Musk never said that according to the source in question. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

The article is full of well-verified controversy. "Have provoked controversy" is actually the understatement of the year. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so the entire article fails the WP:NPOV? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? ~ HAL333 22:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Jatlin1, you seem to have missed the "well-verified" part. I'm going to repeat some of the things that were said here, and I'll add a note or two for your and our benefit. First, citations in the lead are not necessary, but the lead should summarize well-verified material. Second, unsourced "controversy" isn't immediately a matter of POV; it's first of all a matter of being unverified, so if I'm reading your misreading correctly, you pointed at the wrong problem. Third, "have been" is not a "passive verb" (there is no "passive verb" in English, and "have been" is two verbs), but I understand what you mean; however, the lead should summarize, and if the material in the article is well-verified and properly ascribed, there is no problem with such a summary. The sentence is general: yes it, because it is the lead.

Since I left my note for you, a few hours ago, you made a dozen edits, and two editors had to come by and explain things to you. That's what I was pointing at on your talk page. Please be advised that uninvolved administrators (such as myself) have a variety of tools at our disposal to prevent or stop disruption on this and other such articles--the notification on your talk page, which you removed, provided valuable information about those tools. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your contribution. I can't find the term "well-verified" in the WP:G sorry. I have never questioned whether citations in leads are necessary or not. Second, I'm not sure about which "unsourced pov" you refer to. True, passive voice, I forgot the third verb characterized. Okay, the lead shall summarize, cool. I was not talking about the lead, but the first paragraph in Personal views and Twitter usage section.

Anyway, the inline-citation source does not back up the Adolf Hitler comparison story. Jatlin1 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"[...] and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

I guess this is a very uncontroversial suggestion. Fact of matter is that Adolf Hitler analogies are extremely common on every political party. If we wanna have an insight into Elon Musk's views, we need to understand how he uses the analogy. So insert something like this "comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler in the light of Canada convoy protest". - Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@HAL333

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not the first time I have seen you break neutrality policy. Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Cut it out with the aspersions bud. ~ HAL333 22:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's uncivil and if you continue to do so I will bring you to the Great Dismal Swamp. ~ HAL333 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, was this edit ever brought to the talk page? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. It was a revert to the status quo, which was agreed upon in a compromise. Visit the archives. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is my account. Nope, it was never agreed on. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is one hand. So what?

Consult the archives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_13 QRep2020 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

He voiced support for the 2022 Canada convoy protest and was criticized for comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. ~ HAL333 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah? Jatlin1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

If not, we could perhaps talk about it? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hitler comparisons don't actually come out often from the mouths of prominent people, and Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League often object to their usage as trivializing the Holocaust. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk as Chief Engineer of SpaceX

There doesn’t seem to be any source for this claim. I only see articles that refer to him as CEO/CTO of Space Exploration Technologies. DMonitor (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It's in the Atlantic article. ~ HAL333 06:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No longer the wealthiest person in the world

Forbes now lists Bernard Arnault as the richest, with Musk falling to second place.[3] — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I would let it sit for a few days as the Tesla stock price is volatile. QRep2020 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Why when it is presently inaccurate information? Bernard Arnault's page lists him as the richest person right now, so as of this moment there is conflicting information on wikipedia. Potatohead2000 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree here; as long as both lists are in agreement for the top rankings, the page should be updated as the information is available as this is often important to one's status and it doesn't hurt to stay on top of the data. Is there some policy against this? I like the version of the lead from here as a concise way to display the current standings as they are. BhamBoi (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WHy we should not include Newsy content, it changes. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is why we used to say "A centibillionaire, Musk is one of the richest people in the world." We really shouldn't have something that changes every day, every hour. To a certain degree, these net worth claims are just somewhat arbitrary estimates. ~ HAL333 17:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m in favour of restoring this phrasing (although change richest to wealthiest). Perhaps we should ask other editors? Asperthrow (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this. Schierbecker (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wealthiest" is an improvement. ~ HAL333 21:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Per my now-reverted edit: We think that the second he's no longer the richest person in the world, the information of his estimated net worth suddenly becomes irrelevant? Almost every other billionaire in the top ten has a net worth listed in their leads (an estimation per both--or either--Forbes and Bloomberg), but Musk, now the second-richest person, shouldn't have that same information listed? It's ridiculous. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Almost every billionaire has it in their lead. If you're going to take it off of here, go take it off all the others, Gautam Adani, Bernard Arnault, etc... it's not that big of a deal Nswix (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll even take it a step further: Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffett, Ellison, Balmer, Page, Ambani, literally all of them have net worths listed in their leads. lol. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And they shouldn't. I'll open a community-wide RfC if need be. But, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, that's an irrelevant argument. ~ HAL333 01:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The net worth estimate is constantly changing and is highly volatile (violating MOS:DATED). Thus, we will never be able to give readers an instantly accurate number. Wikipedis is not news. The exact value isn't notable. The reader doesn't care if Musk is worth $185 billion or $197 billion. The difference is arbitrary. What's notable is that Musk has a lot of frigging money (hence centibillionaire). Furthermore, Forbes and Bloomberg are in constant disagreement as to the exact value of his net worth. As of this writing, Forbes claims it $176 billion and Bloomberg claims its $164 billion. That’s a pathetically imprecise $10 billion difference. We cannot claim to know the true value to any degree of uncertainty and to do so is misleading to the reader. Choosing one over the other is ultimately arbitrary and violates NPOV. Let's leave the nitty gritty for the "Wealth" subsection, and grive the reader a summary in the lead. ~ HAL333 01:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that our colleague Britannica avoids doing this, the community-wide consensus on net worth values in IBs may also be of interest. ~ HAL333 01:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Replace "highly polazring" with "highly discussed" and remove extremely trivial story

Change "[...] is a highly polarizing figure" to "[...] a highly debated figure".

Why? What constitutes a "highly polarizing figure" is very subjective and is not based on any sources. It might also be problematic because any person who is heavily involved in the process of reforming the world in a way that is subject to a political discussion, which Elon Musk indeed is, can be labeled as a "highly polarizing figure".

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

Why? The fact that a person with one of the largest numbers of followers in the entire world and who is the richest person in the entire world - for example, 86 million followers on Twitter at the time - publicly criticizes a person and that at least 2 followers (=some followers) out of all those followers take that as an opportunity to post aggressive utterances is extremely, extremely trivial - trivial to an extent that you wouldn't expect anything else. If it had caused severe death threats, and Gadde had filed lawsuits (and eventually had won those lawsuits), it would have been a different story, put in another way, if she had been victim of criminal actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Because RS say it? Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is RS, by the way? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"I am unsure its already not overloaded, this (after all) is an article about him, Twitter is one recent acquisition. Nor am I sure what this new material tells us about him, as a person. "

Do you think this reasoning can be applied to "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" as well? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would argue saying he has "86 million followers on Twitter" is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that 43 million followers on Twitter are trivial or that the richest man in the world doesn't have a large following, frankly. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

We know that he's rich and he has lots of followers who aren't bots. We also know that reliable sources call him "polarizing", even in the headlines.[5][6] "Highly debated" is much weaker language. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I'm sorry, I replied on myself by accident below. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Another problem about the extremely trivial story is that it doesn't even relate to Elon Musk's biography. It doesn't even relate to the content of Elon Musk's tweet.

If something as trivial should be inserted, it should at least relate to Elon Musk's biography. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

But the evidence still lack though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked further into it. Even New York Times prefers to sum the situation up with the subtitle

"In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage"

So the source has not even been used properly, instead very specific details about the situation have been highlighted,

but what shall be highlighted shall ofc. be the general about the situation that is the outrage. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternative use outrage or verbal harassment instead of "sexist" and "racist" -

It is also worth noting that the source used to back up "which lead to ..." is from New York Times a left-leaning paper which makes it even more problematic

since these words "racist" and "sexist" tend to be buzzwords on the left. Scrolling down this wall https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1518664847768006656

which I believe to be the Twitter in question, it isn't my impression that there is any tendency of racism or sexism, but more like "bullying", "rage", "verbal harassment", "trolls", etc. Considering that Elon Musk's tweet didn't contain any sexist or racist content, it doesn't make sense to use these words in this context.

I talked about how this isn't relevant to Elon Musk or Elon Musk's critique in any way, but if he indeed is a polarizing figure,

then words such as outrage would fit better. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oops, wrong replied to the wrong person again, but I would like you to check my post "I have looked further into it ..."

The source isn't even used properly. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it can be formulated in many ways too.

A right-winger would probably prefer something alike

It led to "more people being open about their critique/opposition"

It "inspired more people to come forward and criticize ..."

All these formulations are true as well, but we have to pick the one that is most general.

The problem about words as "racist" and "sexist" is that they frame Elon Musk as "someone" who inspires racism/sexism which doesn't make sense considering his tweets was not about that.

I think creating outrage directed toward Gadde (formulated in a better way - my English sucks) is definitely the most neutral. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to source 14.

But I can see the gap in the level of trust between Democrats and Republicans was larger before Elon Musk took over - now it is more equal.

I would see that as polarization has reduced. But it depends on how it is defined.

But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!

It is worth pointing out that Elon Musk has just taken over Twitter, fired numerous people, and is in the process of trying to reorganize the entire organization.

We cannot in any way say that this is indicative of how it is gonna be in the long term. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!"

I must correct myself here. Maybe not, because this is a biography, not a social science article or anything alike, so the definition should rather fit the one we use in natural language (descriptive definitions, for example, definitions in Oxford Dictionary). 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

highly discussed is better though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can go with polarizing figure without highly. Degree adverbs along with attitude adverbs, etc., tend to be inappropriate for neutral articles. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I got you wrong about triviality! Yeah, we should probably reformulate "[..] to his 86 million followers" in a more cautious way. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree against both recommendations. QRep2020 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright. But I would really like to hear your inputs on

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

if you have some 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can definitely agree to removing "highly" as unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose both, but fine with removing "polarizing highly". ~ HAL333 07:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree, that is what I have done. The polarization criticism is referenced, but should not be made written about his person, in the voice of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I like those changes. Eruditess (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Jet

@Slatersteven:@Jatlin1: I am not sure how aware you are of the account ElonJet and its significance. It has been covered by national news media for years, sometimes several times in a row, and has been a personal target of Elon Musk since its creation. The account belongs in the mention about Musk's jet as it is intensely notable for tracking the jet's movements. As well, the account has a high degree of secondary notability for its relations to sustainability, freedom of speech, and how Musk has handled his new Twitter ownership. Any attempt to remove this oversight reads as a whitewash effort in line with Musk's own to ban the account. ɱ (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly notable and due. ~ HAL333 03:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What about mention of Musk's promise NOT to ban the account?

Also highly relevant, and probably worthy of inclusion:

In November 2022, after Musk bought Twitter, he said: "My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk". Quoted from the Jack Sweeney article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

In 2003, Musk said his favorite plane he owned was an L-39 Albatros. He uses a private jet owned by Falcon Landing LLC, a SpaceX-linked company, and acquired a second jet in August 2020. The jet's heavy use of fossil fuels—it flew over 150,000 miles in 2018—has received criticism. His flight usage is tracked on social media through ElonJet. The Twitter iteration of the account was blocked in December 2022.

It's not about whitewashing efforts, it's about putting the information in the right place. This entire paragraph doesn't fit into "wealth". Put it somewhere else. This information lacks tons of context too which you amusingly even point out yourself - you mention free speech, how Elon Musk has handled his new Twitter ownership, etc., yet this context isn't to be found anywhere. I still think the Twitter policies are on its way to be settled, etc., and we don't know what's really up and down before 2023 on this matter. But if you really want to include it, then cover the context properly. Jatlin1 (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

None of these are valid reasons to remove the content. If you disagree with the location, move it, add more context, or take it to talk. I agree more context could be relevant in this page, even if most of it is already covered over at ElonJet. And it is relevant to multiple portions of this article, from leadership of Twitter to personal wealth through his airplane usage, to his general controversies and criticisms. We can't list this in all those places, so we have to choose the most relevant area. For me, that was the area that already talked about his jet. ɱ (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially the supposed "free speech" claims by Musk. Important for the record on many fronts. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. But we have to cover it in its entirety. For example the unbans of the scientists who were critical of the lockdowns (many of which who signed https://gbdeclaration.org/) and the unbans of conservative voices is also an important subject that tell us about how Elon Musk look on free speech. He has also talked about deamplifying negativity just like the former Twitter organization somewhat did on hate speech, but in contrast he says he will make it transparent, though he hasn't proved that yet - we will have to wait til 2023. His views on doxxxing and impersonating are also important, but question is also whether these policies weren't already in place before he took over Twitter? My impression is that impersonation policies were already in place, but not doxxxing, that's actually something new he introduced. He did break his promise indeed, but we also have to include the context of how his family was stalked which led to the final decision. Jatlin1 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You should probably start a new thread to discuss these other issues. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a clear violation of WP:PROPORTION Jatlin1 (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see what this tells us about Musk. If the suggestion is "it tells us about his hypocrisy" then let's reword it to be about this, not one spat. But I do not see the relevance of just his dispute with one user on Twitter. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and if it is about hypocrisy which is the about the entire Twitter+free speech debate then the subject should be covered properly such that we don't violate WP:PROPORTION . And it shouldn't be covered under "wealth" lol. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

If anything this is really about Twitter, so should have a paragraph there with one sentence (here) linking to it. Something like "and after his claim of protecting free speech musk was accused of hypocrisy (link to twitter article section)". Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Some news this morning for assessment: Elon Musk’s Twitter bans CNN, NYT, WaPo journalists without explanation Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Or here. BBC has a far better reputation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061

And to adress WP:BALASP, the content of this article should be covered too

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-63963779 Jatlin1 (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

I suggest the following paragraph be added under media appearances.

"Musk made a brief appearance at a Dave Chappelle show in San Francisco,California."

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/dave-chappelle-booing-elon-musk-fans-react-twitter-1234646236/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221214235358/https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/dave-chappelle-booing-elon-musk-fans-react-twitter-1234646236/ (archived) Publicerination (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that it's of lasting significance. ~ HAL333 15:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Excessive subsections

@Country20: please discuss and gain consensus. Why are you adding dozens of subsections? ~ HAL333 14:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I deleted them...I thought it was more organized. Why did you delete my sourced content? Country20 (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Because it's poorly written, the sources are subpar, and there are potential BLP vios. The subsections don't make it more organized - if anything it's more cluttered. ~ HAL333 16:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk and his relationship with journalists covering him and his enterprises

I would like to propose a new subsection under Personal views and Twitter usage that expounds on Musk's history with journalists, especially ones who have either praised him or criticized him. Source material could include the following:

• https://slate.com/business/2018/07/elon-musks-attacks-on-reporter-linette-lopez-need-to-stop.html
• https://slate.com/technology/2020/05/kara-swisher-elon-musk-interview.html
• https://www.inverse.com/article/45319-elon-musk-erin-biba-daily-beast-twitter
• https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-business-dac21de7abb6167bb604f5317aeda10a

All (well-mannered and judicious) thoughts appreciated. QRep2020 (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

As this seems to be also discussed under Jet, it will get a bit confusing to also discuss it here as well. Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

But it extends way before and beyond ElonJet. QRep2020 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it's due to have a section solely for this, but I would be fine with interspersing (some of) the content throughout other sections. The Twitter stuff should go with Twitter, and we should also move the ElonJet fiasco there (something I wanted to do but decided not due to the edit war.). ~ HAL333 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just add a general new section as part of the timeline, called "2022 and his descent into madness"? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I was going to say that this is not the article on Caligula, but then...General Ization ^Talk 22:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You said it, not me! QRep2020 (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Could link to the Thursday Night Massacre article, which covers recent suspension of journalists from Twitter. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Tengoritmo (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider adding "South African" in the first sentence? So sorry if this discussion has already happened before and has already been voted on.

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RealAspects (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the consensus is not to include a nationality because of the confusion over what to call him. This should be added to the FAQ if so. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk discussed a goal of creating "X, the everything app"

This sentence has little relevance to the section about Musk's involvement with X.com and PayPal. It shouldn't be included there, or anywhere else until there is evidence of such a project beyond mere words. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is the "Public perception" segment portray a demonstrably false claim that Elon Musk supposedly served "as inspiration for the characterization of Tony Stark in the Marvel film Iron Man (2008)"?"

The basic character traits of Tony Stark / Iron Man have been known as such (technological genius, inspiring, playboy, risk-taking daredevil, philantropist) ever since the 1960's when the character was originally created. If anything, Musk aspired to create a public persona that resonnates with Marvel's modern day movie adaptions of Tony Stark. It is rumored that Elon Musk has even paid a substantial amount of money for his brief cameo in Iron Man 2. To me, this is a classic case of Musk's infamous flaw of trying to rewrite modern history by issuing demonstrably untrue statements in order to alter public perception of his persona. 178.197.221.183 (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: The same (false) claim is used again in the caption of the corresponding photograph (musk standing in front of an Iron Man wall art), reading "Musk partly inspired the characterization of Tony Stark in the Marvel film Iron Man (2008)". Only upon opening the photograph in the Commons database, the original caption reads more truthful "Caption incorrectly indicates Elon Musk was an inspiraiton for the Iron Man character and movies. Iron Man's first appearance was in 1963 an very early on the Tony Stark character showed "playboy" like behaviour based on Howard Hughes".

In essence: Musk cannot have influenced the cinematic depiction resembling well-established character traits of a comic character that have been conceived (and beloved) by fans almost 10 years before he [Musk] was even born. 178.197.221.183 (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Except the cinema and comic book version are not in many ways the same character. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Because one of the screenwriters said so in an interview. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This has to be fleshed out then in the Wikipedia article, as otherwise you create a causality loop that might destroy the universe. Adding a pretext "According to screenwriter Mark Fergus, Musk served as one of the inspiring real-world characters for the adaptation of Tony Stark in the Marvel film Iron Man (2008)" would be more truthful and informative. Elon Musk might embody previously well-established character traits of Stark in the comics today. But calling him an inspiration for the character is a little far fetched given the source material of over half a century - no matter what the mere screenwriter of just ONE cinematic adaptation might think or say in hindsight 13 years AFTER the film was made. I hope you get my point that the claim as it is written today is simply misleading and gives Musk way to much credit given the source material at hand. 178.197.221.183 (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There's no claim that he was an inspiration for the character. The claim is that he (among others) inspired the characterization of Stark in a particular screen adaptation. I didn't see the movie, but I've seen enough Batman adaptations to know that each writer brings a different take on the character. The claim is conveniently cited and I think you're overreacting. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We do not claim he was, we say he was an inspiration for the FILM character. We say nothing about the comic character. Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's in multiple sources and is due. ~ HAL333 21:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is this a good article?

He is not a good person or good at all, based on reliable source coverage. He is a pseudo-nazi and hates journalists. He hates everyone that doesn't like him, so why is Wikipedia glorifying him by locking down the page so actual evidence against him can't be added, and listing him as "good"? 68.129.57.252 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article indicates the article meets certain editorial standards and is properly written with verifiable information, not a suggestion that the subject of the article is a good person. Check out WP:Good articles for more info on this. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Added to the FAQ. As that's two additions in one day, I'm wondering if the "African American" entry should be removed. I don't remember that question being raised in a while. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling that if we remove that we'll get a few queries from IPs real quick. ~ HAL333`

The length of the FAQ for a such "animated" subject as this one should not be a concern really. QRep2020 (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

SEC lawsuit in lede

I think this could be pared down per WP:Summary style.

It currently reads: "In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk for falsely tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC."

$20 million is a paltry sum barely worth mentioning for a guy like Musk. Recommend replacing those two sentences with this: "In 2018, Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC regarding tweets that it labeled as false." Schierbecker (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with it. Being fined by the feds is notable. ~ HAL333 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine as is. QRep2020 (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

(BLP violation removed)

Elon Musk was paid in stocks for his position at telsa and held over 169 million shares priced over 900 dollars a share right before the company announced a stock split. 2603:7000:B901:8500:B5EB:C5F9:D42F:6318 (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do any wp:rs make this claim (and see wp:or and wp:blp)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Those facts by themselves do not constitute insider trading. N-for-1 stock splits are not changes in ownership. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Disputed physics degree

As per the Eberhard vs. Musk 2009 court case and other allegations made against him, it is heavily disputed whether Mr. Musk was ever awarded a Physics degree at the University of Pennsylvania. A brief history of these allegations can be found here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91 Luke Beall (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

See recent discussion on archive page 15. It's disputed, but not in the kind of sources that Wikipedia requires (edited and published ones). 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

At the very least the year should be corrected, the Britannica and the The Daily Pennsylvanian citations have graduation as 1997,

and Vance Appendix 1 both notes that Musk's degrees were from 1997, and that Stanford was unable to find record of Musk being enrolled there. Kamikkels (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The prevailing story is that Musk was admitted to a Stanford program (which he struggled to recall the name of) and relocated there to attend, but he did not attend for any length of time and the exact point at which he dropped out is murky. People writing about Musk are not necessarily familiar with the details of Stanford's graduate enrollment process, but it works something like this: you apply to a particular department program. The department extends an offer of admission for a particular course of study in that program. Then having accepted, you move there and enroll in classes. It is possible to be admitted for one course of study but enroll in another within the same program with advisor approval. Certainly one does not apply for graduate admission to "science" or to the university in general. I think Musk is full of it, but it doesn't surprise me that people avoid challenging him in print. I agree that the graduation year should be correctedm 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems there is an error in this section. It should be Bachelor of Science in Physics and Bachelor of Arts in Economics, not the other way around TheeFactChecker (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed before and BS in Economics and BA in Physics are correct - that is what UPenn awards. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead improvements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, here it goes:

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

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

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

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

The first paragraph here looks good except for:

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

The second paragraph has some issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I removed the part about the cave rescue from the last paragraph. It seems sort of out of place for that section and minor compared to everything else in that section. --Malerooster (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  George Floyd is a controversial figure but is not polarizing for the vast majority of people (the internet will tell you otherwise). However, Elon is both controversal and polarizing as there is vastly different views of him, swinging between admiration and detest. So I actually think we should keep "polarizing" and remove "controversal". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

One or the other ought to be removed, User:CactiStaccingCrane. “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” That would be fine, and implies the statements have been controversial. Alternatively: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This matter was brought up in another part of the Talk page already. No need to multiply discussions. 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have moved that other section to here as a subsection👇. These two proposals were not discussed in that other section:

• [A] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.”
• [B] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.”
  

Either one is fine with me. Both versions comply with WP:LABEL and avoid redundancy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I prefer A because it is shorter and more direct. B is also fine for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked, Slatersteven and myself took issue with such changes. Therefore, the discussion is ongoing and the latest edit is unwarranted.

If forced to, I could see B working. QRep2020 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’d be glad to change it to option [B] which seems to have unanimous approval. The two options were proposed at 23:12 on 10 December, and I’m not aware such changes were presented earlier than that. In any event, it seems important that we not transgress WP:LABEL, and also not beat the reader over the head by saying stuff that is already implied. Option [A] seems better because it doesn’t slap a label on him, but option [B] would still be an improvement. Per WP:LABEL, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

HAL, the discussion about polarity is over here now apparently. QRep2020 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it can be generalized as HAL333 hints "Musk took business actions and made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect." I'm not sure. The business actions that have caused polarization is mostly due to their political aspects anyway. In any regards, the number of contentious labels should be reduced Jatlin1 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Or

"Musk has made polarizing statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, along with his business actions [or business decision]"

Hmmmm. Jatlin1 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I oppose both and think the status quo: Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. is the way to go. Musk is not polarizing simply because of statements. His actions have irked a lot of people as well. ~ HAL333 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good idea. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Have you seen mine? We can still reduce it and say the same. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Second. QRep2020 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent sentence of BLP policy

The last paragraph of the lead says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” The propriety of this wording has been discussed at this talk page, but I would just like to also bring attention to this sentence of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” In my view, the sentence in the last paragraph of the lead violates this part of our BLP policy. The problem could be easily fixed by writing instead: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” Also keep in mind WP:LABEL. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought. Because even if Elon Musk is a polarizing figure, he is also something else. You might say, yes, the lead calls him CEO, founder, etc., etc., but these are all formal roles. "Polarizing" in the phrase "polarizing figure" says or suggests something about his psychology, but the notion that his psychology is defined by one trait, or overwhelmingly defined by one trait such that no other trait deserves to be in the lead, is completely absurd, and breaks at least with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Jatlin1 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It says nothing about his psychology. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

But suggests, yeah, at least Jatlin1 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to insert in-line attribution for the statement in the lead about being polarizing, but was reverted.[7] In-line attribution wouldn’t solve the problem, but would ameliorate it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, because it's not necessary. Gain talk page consensus and stop edit warring. ~ HAL333 22:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

For one, it is not only Vance:

https://dalquestnews.org/22614/commentary/opinion-why-is-elon-musk-so-polarizing/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/30/elon-musk-twitter-polarizing-conservatives-liberals/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2022/11/23/can-psychological-research-help-us-understand-elon-musks-polarizing-brand-of-leadership/

22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, your first source is explicitly labeled commentary and opinion. Your third source is a medical opinion of a psychologist who has evidently never met Musk, and moreover it does not use the redundant combination about being controversial and polarizing too (same for your second source). We cite a Washington Post article that says this:

“ He just decided to let much more of his personality loose on Twitter,” said Vance of Musk, “and to embrace this role as part philosopher, part troll.” “I think that’s complicated his life and complicated the stories around the businesses pretty dramatically,” Vance adds. “He’s become such a polarizing figure, almost this religious-type figure, where you either love him or hate him, and there doesn’t seem to be much room in between.” ”

The last paragraph of the lead says the tweets have been controversial, and it also says they’re polarizing. This is redundant overkill. Moreover, we say he’s a polarizing figure in a general sense, whereas the cited source only suggests he’s a polarizing figure on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck, or rather if it picks cherries like a Turdus pilaris

You're cherry-picking a single source to support this weird slant. Check out the list of reliable sources above. ~ HAL333 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your corncerns, @HAL333

You have, frankly, misunderstood WP:CHERRYPICK

In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.

By the way, we can't break WP:SYN Jatlin1 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the clarity Johnnie Cochran, but I was using "cherry-picking" as a word and not in reference to the policy, hence why it wasn't linked. ~ HAL333 02:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:HAL333, you seriously think the long blockquote in my last comment was cherry-picking? The body of this BLP only mentions “polarizing” once, when it says “Musk was described by Vance as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’.[448]” Therefore I quoted at length (not a snippet) from footnote 448. That seems like pretty much the opposite of cherry-picking. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that Musk is polarizing is implicitly stated throughout the article beyond Vance saying it outright. What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? And you are cherry picking if you're trying to refute that RS say Musk is polarizing when we have a whole basket of sources above. ~ HAL333 04:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? Controversial. So why are we being redundant in the lead, User:HAL333? We’re also over-generalizing, as the cited WaPo article says he’s a “polarizing internet provocateur” rather than polarizing in other contexts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Saying a controversial thing and being controversial yourself are two separate things. Clarity has never done a human harm. ~ HAL333 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizing

The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

They are not synonymous, I can say something controversial and if everyone but me thinks it's controversial it's not polarizing, as everyone agrees. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I still don’t get why this is lead-worthy. The only support for it in the article body is this sentence: “Celebrated by his fans and hated by critics, Ashlee Vance described him as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’”. So someone named Ashlee Vance says he’s polarizing, and we can just say so in wikivoice in the lead? That doesn’t make sense. Also, I would appreciate an example of a situation where he’s said something polarizing but not controversial, or vice-versa. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

We also have [[8]] and [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, sure, controversies are almost always polarizing. Your first link says that Musk's buyout of Twitter was polarizing. Other reliable sources say the buyout was controversial. If there is any difference in meaning there, it is not sufficiently great for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

To add on: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". It's entirely due. ~ HAL333 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Can't we too short it down to "polarizing statements"? Or that's too contrived perhaps. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this reply, HAL.

The Talk page is a convoluted mess right now. What can we do to streamline? QRep2020 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I love how every source you linked calls him that after he bought Twitter. But still none of the sources use the redundant wording Jatlin1 (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The wording is not redundant. Slatersteven explained this already. QRep2020 (talk) 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And I already explained him why that is redundant Jatlin1 (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree in that sense that there is some redundancy issue here. I'm not sure about in which way it should be reduced, but there is a redundancy issue, yeah. Your suggestion is better than status quo, definitely. - Copenhagen University IP [[Special:Contributions/130.2

We should keep both. ~ HAL333 03:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think we want to make such pronouncements in the lead of a biography of a living person in the voice of Wikipedia, without attributing it to a source. IMO, it looks quite distasteful and not in the style of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man. ~ HAL333 04:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Counts just as much as your opinion, User:HAL333. You also seem to have a misunderstanding about consensus in a BLP. Per WP:BLP (emphasis added), “When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.” Please read that last sentence closely. You too User:QRep2020. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and we have consensus. ~ HAL333 05:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there previous consensus? Or just this discussion and the one below?

If it's just here, I think there's consensus to say he made polarising statements, but labelling him polarising in Wikivoice, based on apparently just 5 sources, is quite flimsy. (I'm deliberately ignoring the Psychology Today piece about polarising leadership style & Bloomberg about a polarising mission, which do not support a statement about him personally) DFlhb (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Five sources are more than enough (and I strenuously disagree with your argument that we can ignore the two you mentioned, since in context those can reasonably be read as an overall descriptor of the reaction to him; to say that someone is on a "polarizing mission", for instance, is to describe them as polarizing, just with additional detail about why they are polarizing.) Usually, we don't provide more than three sources for a statement like that. --Aquillion (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

I started a section about this at the BLP Noticeboard. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

Change "from the Wharton School in 1995" in the Education section to "from the Wharton School in 1997" to match the year provided by the citations. Kamikkels (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Despite the UPenn student newspaper source, he recieved his degrees in '95. You can't get into a PhD program at Stanford without a bachelors... ~ HAL333 03:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. @HAL333: I see two sources that say '97, one that doesn't mention it, and one offline source I can't check right now. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude:, coincidentally, Snopes published an entry on the issue two days ago. I added a qualified sentence on the issue. Cheers, ~ HAL333 06:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Unlink province

@Handoto, MOS:GEOLINK indicates that the administrative region and country should not be linked in the article. Your change to "birth_place" in the infobox removed a comment instructing against this very change. Elizium23 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

LADD and his son info

I added the following on it, seeking consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1127860528&oldid=1127859361&diffmode=source Valery Zapolodov (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Not found. You presented hearsay as fact. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I concur. ~ HAL333 02:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Here is a source about his LADD blacklisted plane. https://www.protocol.com/elon-musk-flight-tracker Why are you hiding this info? Also stop pinging my home page. I though I opted out of your spam. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      • Not even Elon's tweet claimed his son was "attacked". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

        Thankfully we were not talking about his twitter account. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

      • Please read WP:ONUS. ~ HAL333 02:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
• So, the original edit didn't make the claim ("his son was attacked"), nor does the link here. I have blocked Valery Zapolodov for a blatant violation of the BLP: misrepresentation of what is in the sources. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The source they cited did use the word "attacked". But it looks like a bad source blowing things out of proportion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Muboshgu, the car, not the child... So if the bad source already blew something out of proportion, this user blew it up even more. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

      It's Terminology Time!

      assault, n. 1. Criminal & tort law... [T]he act of putting another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of an immediate battery by means of an act amounting to an attempt or threat to commit a battery.

      Black's Law Dictionary, 11th ed. -Dervorguilla (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

      Okay, but this editor didn't use "assaulted". He used "attacked". Here's the learner's dictionary entry for that one. ~ HAL333 08:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

      Your reply links to "Definition of attack noun". The original edit and source used it as a verb. It means

      • to set upon or work against forcefully
      • assail especially with force and weapons
      • assault

    See Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary (or the Collegiate). -Dervorguilla (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Muboshgu's comment erroneously treats Sky News as "a bad source". Wikipedia generally treats it as a respected mainstream publication. (Cf. RSPSOURCES.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• • • A confrontation between a member of Elon Musk’s security team and an alleged stalker that Musk blamed on a Twitter account that tracked his jet took place at a gas station 26 miles from Los Angeles International Airport and 23 hours after the @ElonJet account had last located the jet’s whereabouts.[10] This seems to make the debate between "attack" and "assault" pretty much academic in the context of this section. General Ization ^Talk 02:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• I thought the part of the article I read was poor, a misrepresentation. I was not speaking to Sky News overall. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  "the part of the article" meaning its lead paragraph? (Ending with: a "crazy stalker" attacked a car carrying his young son.) -Dervorguilla (talk) 03:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• • • Dear admins, please for the love of God give this article extended confirmed protection. Just look at the chaos in the revision history. It's going to give me an aneurysm. ~ HAL333 03:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

      Second. QRep2020 (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

      I have more than 500 edits, so that does not make any sense. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking to you. ~ HAL333 05:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • It is a good source, in fact WP:RSPS one. It has yellow mark, but that just means "no consensus". Valery Zapolodov (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it did. So you wrongfully blocked me. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless, that recentist addition appears to be a gross rush to judgement. The Guardian says that Musk's car may not have even been targeted and that one of Musk's security detail is the suspect. ~ HAL333 06:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • User:HAL333, so another storm in a teacup, courtesy of the editors who never took NONEWS to heart. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Longtermism

Longtermism is basically "do stuff because it matters a million year later". Should we mention this philosophy to the article? Here are a source that briefly talks about Elon's relationship with it: [[11]] CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I cannot add that information to the article, because I've relinquished by extended confirmed right to avoid getting involved with insanely controversial article. It's really sad to see how the talk page's discussion quality has been degraded in this month. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I added it. ~ HAL333 17:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You can relinquish extended confirmed permissions? Schierbecker (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Leadership style and NASA astronauts

Musk with astronauts Victor J. Glover, Doug Hurley, Bob Behnken, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, and Michael S. Hopkins

I've removed the image seen on the right from the section "Leadership style" as it's completely irrelevant. NASA is Musk's customer, he is not leading the astronauts, nor NASA. It seems quite bizarre to use a photo like this in that section. BeŻet (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, though I do not see the need for that non sequitur template. QRep2020 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The non sequitur template is the because I don't see the connection between managing a business and one's approach to engineering. Those are two different things. BeŻet (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Change "He" to "They". See: Tweet ShyveKf (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Putting aside the pretty obvious trolling from Musk, this is not a clear declaration of a preferred pronoun, nor is a non-cis individual automatically going to use "they" pronouns Cannolis (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cannolis: Shouldn't they be referred to using the pronouns "they/them" until they state otherwise considering that we are unaware of their preferred pronouns at this time, combined with their apparent outing? ImStevan (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We are aware of his pronouns from the official biography on Tesla's website. https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk Traz64 (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Traz64: Websites aren't updated regularly, and according to MOS:GID, they themself declaring their gender identity (being non-cis) is a more recent trustworthy source that should be used:

"...that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources..." ImStevan (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Stop trolling. "I know you are but what am I" is an elementary school playground argument, not a declaration of pronouns. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

So are we abandoning the manual of style? ImStevan (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, we are insisting on reliable sourcing for statements about a subject's sexuality, and in this case, a vague, ambiguous statement from a media-savvy entrepreneur known to say just about anything for attention is not a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 20:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We aren't discussing the subjects sexuality ImStevan (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

You are discussing changing the subject's pronouns based on a single tweet in which the subject stated that they are not cis, which pertains to the subject's sexuality and/or gender. General Ization ^Talk 20:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk most likely rejected the label "cis", as many "gender critical people" do by suggesting that there is no such thing as "cis". He never ever claimed he is trans or uses different pronouns. BeŻet (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eliza Bleu

Hello, recently created a draft for Eliza Bleu. She has worked with Musk on various issues on Twitter. Any help would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Worked" with him how? Has she been reported to make policy decisions for Twitter? Is she on the company's payroll? Lots of people tweet at or about Musk, and vice versa, for serious or frivolous reasons. If you have some verifiable info about her involvement please make it clearer in the draft. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"He spread misinformation about the virus"

I noticed the second sentence in the covid section cites an editorial by the Verge. My understanding of wikipedia policy is that makes it not reliable for statements of fact and puts it into the opinion category, meaning it must be attributed.

Please attribute it. Alternatively replace it with a reliable source. 2603:8080:200:5F90:0:0:0:4F64 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The Verge piece is a reliable source for the facts that it cites. So is Forbes (staff, not contributor), Business Insider, CNN, Buzzfeed News and others. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And [[12]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Policy the lead paragraph / introduction of the article doesn't need to include references, as long as it's a summary of a referenced paragraph further down. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

Elon Musk is once again claiming to be transgender, making them a person whose gender might be questioned. Article should not use masculine pronouns for them as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Gender_identity. Kagerou.Imaizumi.2013 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

See the discussion directly above. If you are referring to the same tweet mentioned by the OP in that discussion, the answer is the same. General Ization ^Talk 02:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

He also claimed to be an alien once.

If this misinterpretation of the recurrent joke shows up again here, then an update to the FAQ addressing it may be warranted. QRep2020 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and we should add a bold line saying that any trolling discussion opened about something in the FAQ will be summarily deleted. ~ HAL333 00:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

He is not trans nor is he claiming that he is. I don't know who the hell gave you that idea. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Kagerou.Imaizumi.2013 joined Wikipedia only 8 days ago, and first and, so far, only contribution to the community reads a lot like trolling. Can an adm fix this? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If it remains the only contribution then there is nothing much to fix. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Musk's nationality in the introduction

As we see, the Elon Musk article does not says any nationality or country where Elon Musk is from, and I understand that Elon Musk has 3 nationalities apparently, American, Canadian and South African. And the introduction of the article, does not seems like a Good Article introduction, I think we should put his nationalities in this order: "Elon musk is a South African Canadian and naturalised American business magnate etc etc..." This wouldn't have a impact but for a Good Article, more for a living person page, It's necessary to put their nationality at the introduction, as most of person article existing in Wikipedia. Also, in Wikipedia Simple English, Elon Musk page says "South African-Canadian-American". So there's no limitation to put his nationalities at the introduction. I know he has 3 nationalities, but well… What we can do about it? I'm proposing a solution of what I am saying, so my proposal is: "Elon musk is a South African Canadian and naturalised American". But well, naturalised can be removed, but it's the best because most people identify Elon Musk as an American and ignore his South African and Canadian nationality or simply does not know about it. Gabriel Ziegler • 📄 • 📜 03:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. There is a strong and longstanding consensus not to do this. Please visit the archives. ~ HAL333 05:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Too many Gabriel Ziegler (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The article states his prior nationalities very prominently. Look closer. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Degree Verifiability

Whether or not Musk has actually completed his BS, and whether or not he attended Stanford (he didn't) are in question. They should be removed from the introduction section of the page.

https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307541932474368

50.211.11.77 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. I have added this to the FAQ. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

PS: the intro does not say that he attended, and is clear that any attendance would have been negligible. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Emerald Mine citation has no reference to mine

Reference 17, "How to Raise a Billionaire" has no reference to an emerald mine in it. I read the article and searched the page, not a single word about a mine. This citation should be removed from it's current location. 70.112.151.4 (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not the only source, and is likely being used for one of the other claims. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship

Is it appropriate to add South African-Canadian-American or South African born Canadian-American? FireDragonValo (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Please read the "Frequently asked questions" at the top of this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)