Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Heard

Allegations that Amber Heard abused Elon Musk in their relationship are not mentioned, although they gained widespread media attention when Musk's biography was published. In that biography, several of his family members testified that Heard was abusive to him during their relationship.

https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/12/elon-musk-biography-relationship-amber-heard-brutal-19488551/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12509267/Amber-Heard-despised-Elon-Musks-family-drew-Tesla-founder-dark-vortex-book-reveals.html

https://pagesix.com/2023/09/12/elon-musks-brother-grimes-friends-hated-amber-heard-bio/

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/elon-musk-amber-heard-friends-dating-reaction-b2409694.html

https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/elon-musks-friends-hated-amber-heard-new-bio/

https://www.geo.tv/latest/511896-amber-heard-toxic-and-abusive-to-elon-musk-a-nightmare

https://www.skynews.com.au/lifestyle/celebrity-life/elon-musks-friends-and-brother-hated-his-toxic-ex-amber-heard/video/b3bcc06a30e82f4e097506cea11b815f

https://www.eonline.com/news/1385474/elon-musk-reflects-on-brutal-relationship-with-amber-heard-in-new-biography

https://radaronline.com/p/elon-musk-friends-family-hated-ex-amber-heard/ Eenchantedd (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A quote saying she abused him from one of the few RS here would be nice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Biography writer Walter Isaacson claims the Tesla CEO was drawn ‘into a dark vortex’ around the time they made things official. He added: ‘That lasted more than a year and produced a deep-seated pain that lingers to this day.’

According to The Los Angeles Times, Isaacson further claimed that Musk’s ‘brother and friends hated her with a passion’ and described it as a ‘hellacious’ period.

Kimbal Musk, Elon’s brother, said his brother ‘falls in love with these people who are really mean to him’, calling it ‘very sad’. The chef added: ‘They’re beautiful, no question, but they have a very dark side and Elon knows that they’re toxic.’

Isaacson claims that the SpaceX founder admitted the relationship ‘was brutal’ while Heard confessed she still loves him ‘very much’. The Danish Girl actress added: ‘Elon loves fire, and sometimes it burns him.’

Aware of his own downfalls, Musk said: ‘I’m just a fool for love. I am often a fool, but especially for love.’

https://metro.co.uk/2023/09/12/elon-musk-biography-relationship-amber-heard-brutal-19488551/ Eenchantedd (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

Change the sentence "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" to "A member of the South African Musk family." There is no evidence that the family was wealthy, and in fact, his father declared bankruptcy at some point. 72.80.249.97 (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: present-day, inclusive. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not present-day inclusive. The sentence is about his birth and early life. If the family wasn't wealthy in South Africa at that time, then saying "wealthy" is flagrantly misleading. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:4C96:F586:9E76:D8D0 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Musk a US citizen?

In the info box he is apparently a RSA - Canada - US citizen; but there is no reference cited for his US naturalization. Cross Reference (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a sentence to "Personal life" with a citation, that he became a U.S. citizen in 2002.

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggested addition to Politics section before/after paragraph discussing Elon Musk's views on Israel-Hamas war

On October 11, 2023, Elon Musk directed Tesla to halt charging fees for its 22 supercharger stations in Israel for nearly three weeks. By making it free for Israel's 17,120 Tesla car-owners to charge, Tesla's free charging policy helped facilitate travel during Israel's mobilization for the Israel-Hamas war. When asked if he would aid Gazans as well, Must stated that "I would like to help those in Gaza who want peace but have no way to do so. In general, I want all humans to be happy and prosperous, without regard to race, creed, religion or anything else."

Reputable Sources:

https://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/energy-and-infrastructure/article-767885

https://www.cnbctv18.com/auto/elon-musk-makes-tesla-superchargers-free-in-israel-amid-tensions-18025061.htm Noamthinks (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Not everything he does should be here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

"The tweet was widely regarded as echoing white nationalist sentiments[429] " The statement should be modified to offer more concrete evidence supporting the claim that the tweet was widely perceived as echoing white nationalist sentiments. The current citation refers to an article in the 'Ideas' subsection of The Atlantic, a news outlet with known biases, authored by Yair Rosenberg, whose work has been criticized for its highly opinionated perspective. This weakens the reliability of the content on Wikipedia. 115.98.235.148 (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The Atlantic is a reliable source and we don't care for your concern trolling. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Remove FAQ Q5: Why does the article state that Musk's father partly owned an emerald mine, which Musk has disputed?

I recommend we remove the question

Q5: Why does the article state that Musk's father partly owned an emerald mine, which Musk has disputed?

and its answer:

A5: Because journalists with access to them have reported it as part of Elon's background. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon.

My reason:

- The article now reads: "Despite both Musk and Errol previously stating that Errol was a part owner of a Zambian emerald mine, in 2023, Errol recounted that the deal he made was to receive "a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines."

ReferenceMan (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Or we change the article back? Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this. Errol even says in the Daily Beast interview that everything he knows about (including the mines) was wrongly addressed by Isaacson.QRep2020 (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. A reliable source (Business Insider) from September 2023 has the headline "Elon Musk really was telling the truth by saying his father Errol never owned an emerald mine, biographer says". https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-father-errol-never-owned-emerald-mine-telling-truth-2023-9

So, if a reliable source say it is not true, Wikipedia should not state the contrary.

We know that Errol is not a reliable source. From Walter Isaacson's book "Elon Musk", page 39:

"You’ll be back in a few months,” Elon says his father told him contemptuously. "You’ll never be successful." As usual, Errol has his own version of the story, in which he was the action hero. According to him, Elon became seriously depressed during his senior year of high school. His despair reached a head on Republic Day, May 31, 1989. His family was preparing to watch the parade, but Elon refused to get out of bed. His father leaned against the big desk in Elon’s room, with its well-used computer, and asked, “Do you want to go and study in America?” Elon perked up. “Yes,” he answered. Errol claims, “It was my idea. Up until then, he had never said that he wanted to go to America. So I said, ‘Well, tomorrow you should go and see the American cultural attache,’ who was a friend of mine from Rotary.” His father’s account, Elon says, was just another of his elaborate fantasies casting him as the hero. In this case, it was provably false. By Republic Day 1989, Elon had already gotten a Canadian passport and purchased his airline ticket.   [emphasis added].

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Elon musk 206.219.78.222 (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

About Amber Heard and Elon Musk's relationship

Firstly, Amber Heard is listed as Elon's partner in this article's infobox yet she does not qualify as one. According to Template:Infobox_person, "partner" means "unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership" [and "A domestic partnership is a relationship, usually between couples who live together and share a common domestic life, but are not married (to each other or to anyone else)"]. Yet according to the source provided for the inclusion of Heard as Musk's partner in the infobox, Musk and Heard were only ever in an "on-and-off" relationship and there is no evidence whatsoever that they were ever in a domestic partnership.

Secondly, Musk and Heard's relationship is indicated in the infobox as having began in 2015. Yet according to the source provided, "Though [Musk] first met Amber after seeing her in 2013's Machete Kills, the book said that their romance didn't take off until four years later, after the she filed for divorce from Johnny Depp." This places the start of their relationship, according to this source, in 2017. As such, the 2015 date is unsupported by the source. And there is no reliable source anywhere on the internet that places the beginning of their "on-and-off" relationship in 2015.

For these reasons, I request that Amber Heard be entirely removed as Musk's partner in the infobox section of this article. There is no evidence that supports this inclusion.

Regards. Abu Wan (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why no qualified editor has responded to this request for almost a week now but I'd like to emphasize it more now that an edit was recently made to the referenced content in the article.

While the edit improves the factual accuracy of the content, it still does not address the primary issue that I raised: That is, that Amber Heard should not be listed as Musk's partner in the infobox because, as per Template:Infobox_person, Heard and Musk were never partners. That is, they were never "unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership".

The source added to accompany the recent edit only underscores the latter fact because now both sources attached to the content show that Musk and Heard were only ever in an "on-and-off" boyfriend-girlfriend (months-long) long-distance relationship. No evidence exists, or has been provided, that proves that the two were ever in a domestic partnership.

So, again, I request that Heard be removed as Musk's partner in the infobox section of the article.

Kind regards. Abu Wan (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The sources seem to say that at one point they considered each other life partners, quibbling about what constitutes a domestic partnership when both parties are extremely wealthy and have multiple residences seems like a lost cause. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"... quibbling about what constitutes a domestic partnership when both parties are extremely wealthy and have multiple residences."

I don't think there is any room for quibbling over this because it seems like a rather straightforward thing.

Indeed, the definition and description of who a "partner" is supposed to be by Wikipedia standards is pretty clear: "unmarried life partners in a domestic partnership (of any gender or sexual orientation)."

Plus, it's likewise clear, on Wikipedia, what a domestic partnership is: "an intimate relationship between people, usually couples, who live together and share a common domestic life but who are not married (to each other or to anyone else)."

The linked sources are also clear on what the nature of Musk and Heard's relationship was: an "on-and-off" girlfriend-boyfriend relationship that lasted for months and that was long-distance. Whether or not Musk or Heard or both considered each other a "life partner"—a contention unsupported by both sources by the way—is immaterial because even if this were true, the fact that none of the sources supports the contention that they ever lived together and shared a domestic life disqualifies the relationship from being considered a domestic partnership.

Therefore, I don't see any room for any quibbling over this because, it seems to me, the sources and the facts all speak for themselves. As such, I sincerely don't understand why Heard was ever included in this article as Musk's partner, let alone why she continues to be included as such when there is no source supporting this inclusion.

For these reasons, I still request the removal of Heard as Musk's partner from this article's infobox section because there is literally no source or evidence to support this inclusion while there are several to support its reversal. Abu Wan (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't use wikipedia backwards like that... What the article says and what a policy or guideline mean can often be very different. Do you also object to Grimes' inclusion or just Heard's? I agree that this isn't a cut and dried situation, but I think there's an open question as to what "share a common domestic life" means when you have that much money and where the majority of our domestic lives take place on devices. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by using "wikipedia backwards like that" but if anyone is guilty of this charge, then it is the person that added Heard as Musk's partner in this article's infobox despite it being against Wikipedia's guidelines. Also guilty may be the person trying to argue against Heard's removal by trying to expand these guidelines' meaning to impractical proportions.

While I agree that there is some measure of discretion available to editors on Wikipedia, there are also guidelines that they should strive to abide by if they are to produce articles that meet Wikipedia's standards. I mean, if it is allowed that any editor can simply justify contravening a policy or a guideline with the retort that "what the article says and what a policy or guideline mean can often be very different," then Wikipedia could descend into editorial chaos. Indeed, what use would the guidelines be in this case?

Moreover, what is the case in life is not always what ought to be. That is, just because Wikipedia articles often contravene Wikipedia policies or guidelines does not mean that this is how the articles ought to be.

What all this means in this context is that whoever added Heard as Musk's partner clearly contravened a Wikipedia guideline; and to excuse this violation merely because sometimes "what the article says and what a policy or guideline mean can often be very different" would be fallacious, biased, and improper.

All that said, you seem to use Musk's wealth and multiple residences to imply that because of these, it is a subject of debate what "share a common domestic life" means. I disagree. I mean, even with multiple residences, it is often not impossible nor arguable to determine whether two wealthy people are in a domestic partnership or not because they often will share a life in one or two of these residences. Take the cases of Shakira and her partners for instance. Or of Johnny Depp and Vanessa Paradis. It is hardly disputable that these are all clear-cut domestic partnership cases, no matter how many homes Shakira, Depp, or even Paradis own.

You mention Grimes and ask whether I dispute her inclusion as Musk's partner. I do not dispute this primarily because: 1. The two were together for a number of years, not just months, during which time they had several children together and; 2. There is public evidence that they've shared a domestic life together in, among other possible locales, Texas.

Now, let me turn this around and ask you about another one of Musk's partners. We know from sources that Musk had a year-long relationship with a Jennifer Gwynne in 1994 and that the relationship was mostly long-distance. Would you be OK if I included Gwynne as Musk's partner in the infobox too? If not, why do you seem to find it complicated or a subject of debate to not include Heard as Musk's partner?

On my side, I would dispute Gwynne's inclusion for the same reasons I dispute Heard's: there is no evidence that the relationship was ever a domestic partnership, as per the "partner" guidelines on Wikipedia. Abu Wan (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Would it surprise you to learn that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is actually policy? Our discretion is almost absolute, I have removed Heard for now... Lets see what other people think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be reverted. Court testimonies, court evidence, Musk's own verbalized regrets, etc. suggest they had a serious relationship. QRep2020 (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree because your reply has several problems. For one, the partners section in the infobox is for domestic partners, not merely people with whom the person had a "serious relationship". In addition, even if it was for the latter, Musk's expression of regret over the breakup, I contend, does not constitute enough evidence that the relationship was "serious". Indeed, we have no evidence that Heard felt the same way about the relationship and, I'd argue, if the relationship was actually serious, it would have evolved into a domestic partnership and/or it would have lasted much longer than it did. As such, it seems to me that Musk's words reveal more about his own feelings and character than it does about the relationship itself.

So, I maintain that Heard should remain unlisted as Musk's partner. This seems like quite a straightforward and uncontroversial position to take so I don't understand why some are trying to find all sorts of dubious reasons to force the opposite. Abu Wan (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is he currently in a relationship right jow? Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

Change "Owner, CTO and Executive Chairman of [[Twitter|X (formerly Twitter)]]" to "Owner, CTO and Executive Chairman of [[X (social network)|X (formerly Twitter)]]" (the article about the present). J3133 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ART4+ most valuable artwork for auction

Elon Musk will launch and announce the auction of the most valuable artwork titled ART4+ created by Daryush Shokof at start price of 11 Billion USD. 84.174.149.43 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

When it is announced and it achieves some notability we might be able to add this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Conduct dispute

No suggestions for article improvement here.

Ergzay's history shows extensive Elon Musk related edits across Wikipedia, either burying negative information, or injecting weasel words. He's been warned before, but doesn't seem to have learned. Zone10 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) @Zone10 Please don't misrepresent my edits in the way you have here. If you have specific issues with my edits address those on the relevant talk pages. Secondly, I have not been "warned before" about anything you're referring to. Finally, what you're doing here is violating wikipedia policies, making personal attacks. Please don't do that. If you continue it may result in administrative action after discussion at a notice board. Ergzay (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Your edits are WP:TE and 90% centered around Elon Musk. Zone10 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I'll also note that your account was created today specifically to write this comment, which likely means you're a sock puppet account, something very much against wikipedia policies. Ergzay (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Submit your evidence to SPI then. QRep2020 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family"

This is what I'd expect when describing the Kennedy's. It's a bizzare opening considering just how inconsequential Elon's family was. His father had an $80k share in an emrerald mine? But even that's disputed. Tikaboo (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend we remove or rewrite to remove "wealthy". There are several citations in Walter Isaacson's book which don't indicate that the family was wealthy.

- Page 19: "They divorced when Elon was eight. Maye and the children moved to a house on the coast near Durban, about 380 miles south of the Pretoria-Johannesburg area, where she juggled jobs as a model and dietician. There was little money. She bought her kids secondhand books and uniforms. On some weekends and holidays the boys (but usually not Tosca) would take the train to see their father in Pretoria. “He would send them back without any clothes or bags, so I had to buy them new clothes every time," she says. “He said that I would eventually return to him, because I would be so poverty-stricken and wouldn’t be able to feed them.”

- Page 23: "At age ten, Musk made a fateful decision, one that he would later regret: he decided to move in with his father. ... His [the father's] career had many ups and downs, but at that time he was feeling flush."

- Page 41: "A myth has grown that Musk, because his father was on- and-off successful, arrived in North America in 1989 with a lot of money, perhaps pockets filled with emeralds. Errol at times encouraged that perception. But in fact, what Errol got from the Zambian emerald mine had become worthless years earlier. When Elon left South Africa, his father gave him $2,000 in traveler’s checks and his mother provided him with another $2,000 by cashing out a stock account she had opened with the money she won in a beauty contest as a teenager. Otherwise, what he mainly had with him when he arrived in Montreal was a list of his mother’s relatives he had never met."

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's one source dude. I know he might want it splattered all over the place, but let's keep up appearances. QRep2020 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source for the statement "The family was wealthy during Elon's youth." is also just one - the single The Independent article. So I don't see how this is a good argument. If anything, given how sourcing works, text should be left out if contentious and not having enough sources to verify it. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wealthy family is well sourced and not contradicted by a divorced mom having financial troubles or Musk having $4k as a student. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources say a bunch of stuff, we have to decide what's appropriate to go in the article, how much emphasis should it have, and how to say it. As I said, the current version in the lead is just bizzare given the actual family circumstances and it's something I would expect to see in an article on the Kennedy's. I propose cutting it from the lead and just have it as "Elon was born in..." It's already mentioned (and in a much more appropriate way) in the childhood and family section anyway: "The family was wealthy during Elon's youth." While we're on the topic, I would also like that to be less vague. Were they upper middle class? Or wealthy as in travelling in private jets? But perhaps we have to keep it vague considering the dearth of good sources. Tikaboo (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

From the lede, maybe, but not form the body. Its relevant to his life that he was not poor. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source I see for the word "wealthy" in the article is the October 2022 https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-made-money-rich-b2212599.html. That reliable source relies on statements from Errol Musk that the family was wealthy.

But the Walter Isaacson biography came out a year later, in September 2023. The biography is a reliable source. In the biography, Isaacson gives proof that Errol is not a reliable source in at least one case ("In this case, [a story by Errol] was provably false"; see below and above for the details). Isaacson also casts doubt on ANY statements from Errol being reliable. And the Isaacson biography has several statement that indicate that the family was not "wealthy".

Elon has said that he grew up in a "lower, transitioning to upper, middle income situation". https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1654971702571331584?lang=en

One reliable source said the family was "middle class" (https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-says-he-did-not-have-a-happy-childhood-mom-reveals-they-stayed-in-a-one-bedroom-apartment-2376225-2023-05-08)

So, I believe that we should follow the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability and "immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced", because (1) it is contentious, and (2) it is poorly sourced, given that a reliable source was relying on a now-proven unreliable source for the conclusion that the family was wealthy.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope. QRep2020 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Elon MUsk a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Elon Musk is a reliable source. I'm saying that the material is contentious, and poorly sourced.

ReferenceMan (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The basic story of the mine from Isaacson (page 15):

"Like the Haldemans, he loved flying. He bought a twin-engine Cessna Golden Eagle, which he used to ferry television crews to a lodge he had built in the bush. On one trip in 1986, when he was looking to sell the plane, he landed at an airstrip in Zambia where a Panamanian-Italian entrepreneur offered to buy it. They agreed on a price, and instead of taking a payment in cash, Errol was given a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines that the entrepreneur owned in Zambia.

"Zambia then had a postcolonial Black government, but there was no functioning bureaucracy, so the mine was not registered. “If you registered it, you would wind up with nothing, because [sic] the Blacks would take everything from you,” Errol says. He criticizes Maye’s family for being racist, which he insists he is not. “I don’t have anything against the Blacks, but they are just different from what I am,” he says in a rambling phone discourse.

"Errol, who never had an ownership stake in the mine, expanded his trade by importing raw emeralds and having them cut in Johannesburg. “Many people came to me with stolen parcels,” he says. “On trips overseas I would sell emeralds to jewelers. It was a cloak-and-dagger thing, because none of it was legal.” After producing profits of roughly $210,000, his emerald business collapsed in the 1980s when the Russians created an artificial emerald in the lab. He lost all of his emerald earnings."

So basically we have Errol here recanting/retracting his prior claims that he "owned" the mines. He claims that it can't be proven one way or the other because the whole thing was below-board out of necessity. He claims to have made significant amounts of money on black/grey market transactions which dried up when synthetic emeralds were invented.

The whole thing is "The dog ate my homework" levels of verifiability. The only support for any of this being true that I can find is tangential anecdotes from other members of the Musk family.

Errol's claims should be mentioned because they have received significant coverage, but I suggest that the article should hold any version of the story at arms length and avoid endorsing it as true, including the version where he owned the mine. Foonix0 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be contentious, its not poorly sourced, it has received wide coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the argument that he's also lying about having a plane and building a lodge in the bush? Because newsflash: poor families in South Africa at that time had dirt floors, not airplanes and hotels. There isn't a way to spin this where the family isn't wealthy, at least in relative terms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The argument is not that he was poor. The argument is that the article's stated basis for claiming that the family was wealthy and the source therein is contradicted by other reliable sources and is a dubious story to begin with.

And yes, an airplane was obtainable on something like an "upper-middle class" engineering income at the time. Foonix0 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

An airplane was obtainable on something like an upper-middle class engineering income in the US... Not in South Africa which was radically poorer and where the exact same level of income in dollars would put someone solidly in the upper class. In 1980 when the plane was bought for apparently 50,000 dollars the average South African laborer made under $500 a year... Making it a hundred years worth of average income. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, by that standard, the average person in the US at the time was "wealthy" then. Few people in the US lived in dirt floor huts. The average income in 1980 was $7,787, making 15x the $500 figure every year.

The question boils down to where do you split the cohort lines? If you lump the Musks in with oppressed, poverty stricken South Africans, sure. If you count them closer to US/Europeans, not so much. The argument for the latter is because they were in the SA "ruling caste."

But this whole discussion is getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. To try to get back out if it: The whole point here is multiple RSs have contradicting information. I'm just saying that the article could be potentially improved by something like clarifying that they were "wealthy" by SA standards, or as pointed out above, including well-sourced material indicating there is more to the story. As it stands, there is a large information gap between stating that claim, and other related interesting things such as how much money musk had when immigrating to Canada. Foonix0 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've clarified that they were either wealthy (by American standards) or very wealthy (by South African standards). Again, try explaining to someone in the US that your dad has a private plane and owns a safari lodge (in addition to a day job) but that you're not wealthy... Just the very very upper edge of middle class. I don't see the information gap between "stating that claim, and other related interesting things such as how much money musk had when immigrating to Canada" just because you come from a wealthy family doesn't mean they pay for everything or that your path is shoveled with a silver spoon. Musk can be both self made and from a wealthy family, there is no contradiction there unless the argument is that he inherited his wealth from his family which as far as I can tell exactly no-one argues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"just because you come from a wealthy family doesn't mean they pay for everything or that your path is shoveled with a silver spoon. Musk can be both self made and from a wealthy family, there is no contradiction there unless the argument is that he inherited his wealth from his family which as far as I can tell exactly no-one argues. "

Right, I agree, but the article doesn't say that. Why not? Foonix0 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Say what? If no-one is arguing something why would we need to say it wasn't true? We don't call Musk an heir, we call him "a businessman and investor" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Would adding something along the lines of "According to Elon his father ceased to support him financially when he graduated high school." to the body alleviate your concerns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would help a lot. Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at with bringing up the other side of the wealth story.

It might also be worth mentioning the quote above about getting $4k when moving, potentially in the Education section that discusses moving to Canada. (Isaacson is the source.) But I'm dropping the stick. So thanks for at least hearing me out. :) Foonix0 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Except, according to our current article text, his father helped finance Zip2. Feoffer (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's him supporting Elon financially. It looks like that was Elon helping his father by getting him into a sought-after funding round. Tikaboo (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that is a bit of a pickle, probably best to leave out Musk's claim then as unduly self serving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why we go my what RS say, please provide one RS that disputes the claim they were wealthy. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it was already stated in this thread, but here you go:

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-says-he-did-not-have-a-happy-childhood-mom-reveals-they-stayed-in-a-one-bedroom-apartment-2376225-2023-05-08

See also the quotes from the Isaacson biography above, which is also an RS. Foonix0 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Indiatoday.in story is repeating what Musk tweeted. It's hardly an independent reliable third party source. QRep2020 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As for Isaacson, I encourage editors to step back and consider why the story of the qualities of Musk's childhood changed drastically from one biography (Vance) to another when their subject is living and contributed to both. Especially since the second one came after Musk started pushing his rags to riches narrative. In the face of contradictory sources, we sometimes need to consider context. Hell, Musk has even accused Isaacson of getting things wrong: https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-biography-musk-review QRep2020 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Isaacson acknowledged a mistake and made a correction weighs in his favor in terms of reliability. Foonix0 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

How? It shows Isaacson might want to get things right, but doesn't mean he did or does. QRep2020 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest."

The same concept is applicable here. Foonix0 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this change due to agreeing with this reasoning and, given that user QREp2020 has not replied in 9 days, assume there is no argument against this change. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

given that user QREp2020 has not replied in 9 days, assume there is no argument against this change. That's not how it works. Multiple editors have opposed the proposal, they don't have to restate it every week. Feoffer (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 If you've read Vance's other books, he doesn't treat his books as biographies, he treats the people in them as "characters" (that's the term he uses). They're written in a certain style that embellishes rather than tries to remain factual. It is not the first time Vance has written things that disagree with multiple other sources. I can't speak to Issacson, but Vance certainly isn't very reliable for intricate details. His most recent book about other space companies is full of this type of content with multiple provably incorrect things in it, or at least things that disagree with other sources. Ergzay (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The article's current source is also just repeating what Errol said. Foonix0 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It also does not say they were not wealthy, just that they were middle class (which does not preclude being wealthy} and at some point in 1989 (the year he moved to Canada) he stayed in a "one bedroom apartment", which tells us nothing (I believe he still does, is he not wealthy?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also clarification, are we talking about removing this from the lede, or the whole article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell Foonix0 and Tikaboo want to remove it from the whole article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I want it removed from the lead, and if possible be less vague in the body. Tikaboo (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the statements are vague though... QRep2020 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't imagine people reading know what we mean by "wealthy", especially since we're talking about South Africa. I suppose if his father was worth millions of dollars during his childhood then just keep it as "wealthy". If it's less then that then maybe just "wealthy by South African standards". Tikaboo (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We also say that he was an "enthusiastic reader" - should we clarify how much reading he did relative to the average person of his age group at the time? What about him being "estranged" from Errol? Should we say slightly? Fully? Unequivocally? Some words are quantifiably vague and but convey meaning regardless. They had enough money for a plane, multiple houses, a computer when it wasn't a ubiquitous consumer good yet - they were wealthy. QRep2020 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It all depends what those things were worth. Today a small single engine plane can be bought for the price of a car, was it different back then? Multiple houses, were they small and in average areas or big mansions in expensive areas? Figuring this out makes the difference between "wealthy" and "wealthy by South African standards". Also "upper middle class" could be an option depending on the answer to these questions. Tikaboo (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is why we by what RS say, as we can assume they did some research, how much did Musk pay for his plane? Also upper middle class and wealthy are not exclusive, you see, to be thinking of rich.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If they've done research they seem to say what it is, I don't think there's any unsaid info. Yes wealthy and upper middle class aren't exclusive, the second is less vague though. Anyway, just for the lead are we all in agreement that this should be removed "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family"? Tikaboo (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about his family and childhood in the lead, we should characterize the family as wealthy, per RS. (Also, per Horse Eye's Back's, let's remember a typical family in 1971 South Africa had dirt floors. ) Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why "Wealthy by South African standards" might be more appropriate. We really don't talk about his family and childhood in the lead, the bizzare "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" precedes just this: "Elon was born in Pretoria and briefly attended the University of Pretoria before immigrating to Canada at age 18". Tikaboo (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems perfectly ledeworthy to me. Solution in search of a problem. RSes say wealthy. Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that it isn't bizarre or unsupported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I recommend we remove it from the lead. Tikaboo wants it removed from the lead.

Slatersteven said: "[Remove] From the lede, maybe, but not form the body. Its relevant to his life that he was not poor.

The lead is supposed to be "summary of [the article]'s most important contents". The lead currently says: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family,..."

The article body only currently states:

"The family was wealthy during Elon's youth. Despite both Musk and Errol previously stating that Errol was a part owner of a Zambian emerald mine, in 2023, Errol recounted that the deal he made was to receive "a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines."

Whether the family was wealthy isn't an important aspect of the article. And by putting it into the lead plays into all of the discussion as to whether Errol owned an emerald mine, which is no longer in the article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. By putting it into the lead plays into the much-discussed perception that Errol owned an emerald mine, which is now refuted in article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction between "owning a mine" and "owning the gems it produced" is a subtle one. Precision is important, but it's hardly a "refutation". Feoffer (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats not a refutation by any reasonable expectation. Whether or not one thinks it should be in the lead is also separate from whether or not it is "bizarre or unsupported" but you appear to be directly conflating them in a misleading way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to do an rfc regarding its inclusion in the lead? It seems obvious to me that it doesn't belong in the lead (failing the requirement of a "summary of [the article]'s most important contents") and just the phrase itself is strange considering the actual family circumstances. Again, something I'd expect to see in an article on the Kennedy's, not a fairly bog-standard upper middle class family. Tikaboo (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have never run into a "fairly bog-standard upper middle class family" with a private plane (not a starter plane either, pressurized twin prop) and investments in a safari lodge. Thats not in any sense standard until well into upper class. Middle class families by definition aren't making significant investments in businesses they don't run, the families who do that are by definition part of the capitalist or upper class. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The next step would be Dispute Resolution.

Also, note that the first sentence for Musk family mentions their wealth. And rightfully so: Elon is wealthy, his brother is wealthy, etc. If we are to bring up that he is a member of the Musk family and their wealth is mentioned by the article elsewhere, then clearly their wealth is something to state early. Or is there reason to think the family is not at least currently wealthy? QRep2020 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the plane or safari investment was worth. If his net worth was in the millions then sure, wealthy, if it's less then they're best described as upper middle class imo.

It's notable that Elon is the richest man on earth, that should be mentioned in the lead. His father's wealth is pretty irrelevant, certainly too irrelevant to mention in the lead. Tikaboo (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say anything about his father's wealth specifically, then or now, it only says the family is wealthy: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family". QRep2020 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in Pretoria..." Because of what follows it reads as if he was born into this Kennedy-like family. Tikaboo (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have to start with "Born a member of the wealthy..." to convey that. Right now, all that clause does is state that he belongs to a wealthy family.

If it helps, we can simply change it to "Elon is a member of the wealthy South African Musk family. He was born in..." QRep2020 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It definitely already conveys it. It shouldn't precede "he was born in..." at all, because it sounds like he was born into a famous wealthy family (Kennedy-like). Perhaps later in the lead you could link to the article noting that there are other notable family members. Again though I question the reason for that given they are largely irrelevant, and the Musk family article is the first link in the body. Tikaboo (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If we said that they were prominent (as we do at JFK) that would convey famous and wealthy... Wealthy just conveys wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in..." sounds like he was born into a notable wealthy family, which isn't true. At the most we can say his father was wealthy, though again we run into the issue that it doesn't belong in the lead. Are we at an impasse here and need to do dispute resolution? Tikaboo (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There are other ways to frame it, we could follow The Independence lead and talk about being born into a position of financial privilege rather than into a wealthy family[1]. Would something like that be more amenable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For the lead it's better than what we currently have. A better forumation imo is "Elon was born to a wealthy father in..." The whole wealth thing is an issue too though since we don't seem to know his father's wealth, was it millions of less? If it's less then options are "somewhat wealthy", "upper middle class", "wealthy by South African standards". I still find it out of place to put in the lead though. Tikaboo (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven said: "This is why we go my what RS say, please provide one RS that disputes the claim they were wealthy. "

Here's an interview with Ashley Vance (Elon's biographer) where Vance says "He [Elon] grew up in South Africa and had the good fortune of doing so in an upper-middle-class home. But that's more or less where the good fortune ended."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-05-22/elon-musk-speaks-frankly-on-coronavirus-spacex-and-rage-tweets

With that as additional evidence, I would like to remove "wealthy family" from the lead. We will continue to work on the phrasing in the body of the article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Upper-middle clas does not say "not wealthy". And an interview only means we can say "which Elon Musk has denied" (nor am I sure that a COVID denier could even by an RS). Sorry, none of this says he was not wealthy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the wording in the body of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I will remind users of wp:v, if an RS says it that is what we say, to challenge it an RS must EXPLICITLY challenge the claim, not merely not make it. RS saying "water can turn into ice," is not saying water is not wet, nor is saying "it can turn into steam", we would need a source saying "water is not wet". Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we're confusing multiple things here.

1) Elon Musk is certainly a member of the wealthy family that consists of himself, his brother Kimbal, and his cousin Lyndon Rive, all of whom are wealthy, on or after the year 2000 (when Zip2 was sold to Compaq). I believe that is why the article on the Musk family says that the family is wealthy. See Musk family.

2) It's not clear (to me, anyway), that any of Errol or Maye's ancestors were wealthy.

3) It is not clear (to me, anyway) that the family of Errol and Maye Musk and their children were wealthy before Errol and Maye divorced in 1979.

- Ashley Vance says Elon "grew up in an upper middle-class home". "Upper-middle class" is NOT wealthy. See: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system "One way some researchers divide individuals into economic classes is by looking at their incomes. From that data, they split earners into different classes: poor, lower-middle class, middle class, upper-middle class and wealthy"

4) Is is not clear (to me, anyway) that Errol or Maye Musk were wealthy after 1989 (when Elon left for college).

5) The debate (to me, anyway) is whether Errol was wealthy after he and Maye divorced, from about 1980 to about 1990.

To me, the lead saying: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in Pretoria ..." implies #2 or possibly #3 above, for which I have found no citations.

I recommend the phrasing in the lead of "Elon is a member of the wealthy South African Musk family, which includes his brother Kimbal and his cousin Lyndon Rive", and put that sentence at the end of the first paragraph, NOT immediately before "Elon was born..." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The recommendations keep changing. Is this the final version, the one that's been signed off on? QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The linked article cites Pew... Pew defines down middle as "two-thirds to double the median family income" with upper being those with more and lower being those with less. Double the median family income in South Africa in 1980 was about a thousand dollars a year. We're talking about a Musk family income that is on the lower lever an order of magnitude greater than that. For *white* South Africans they would possibly have been upper middle class, but for South Africans they were wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why "wealthy by South African standards" would be a good option. Tikaboo (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not engage in wp:or if a source says X, we can't say Y. For all we know they did not mean "by the standards of South Africa". Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone object to ReferenceMan's phrasing? If not, should it go in the lead or the body? I don't think the family is notable enough for the lead so should go in the body. I'm fine either way though. Tikaboo (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Because we'd also have to add white if we're saying "South African standards" and "A member of the white wealthy by the standards of South Africa South African Musk family" is just too wordy. It would also be inherently US-centric because it assumes US as normal, which is not how English wikipedia works... We're a global encyclopedia which reflects global standards, not British or American ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It goes without saying that this wealth would be within the context provided, as per "the meaning of wealth is context-dependent". It's inherently US-centric to think that this reference is based on US standards, hence the wording is unnecessary. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; it would be perfectly reasonable (from a reader's point of view) to assume US or worldwide standards for the statement about the family's wealth, particularly given the context we have established in the first paragraph of the lead which tells us that Elon is one of the wealthiest people in the world. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" which is the only context here. If readers misunderstand the obvious context, and instead attribute it to the first paragraph, then they will likely struggle to understand most of the article that is based on the format of WP:PARAGRAPH: "When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that context we invited, I am not sure any RS say that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I had. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The current wording in the body (The family was wealthy during Elon's youth) is backed by a single source and contradicted by others, so should probably be removed or at least qualified. The current wording in the lead (A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born...) reflects the current body, but I'm far from convinced that any mention of a wealthy family is DUE in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some other sources to consider from an initial search:

• https://time.com/6127754/elon-musk-net-worth-person-of-the-year/ "Musk's family was well-of" GREL
• https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/11/17/elon-musk-emerald-mine/ "The wealth earned from the investment in the mine was quantified to be about $400,000 USD, taking into account inflation when Arnold's piece was written in 2021, according to Errol." GREL
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-tells-bi-about-the-familys-casual-attitude-to-wealth-2018-2 " the family’s considerable wealth" MREL

As a side note it'd be worth including Musk's denial of the Emerald mine in the body per Daily Beast:

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-dad-errol-shares-deadly-secrets-of-the-fabled-emerald-mine-in-zambia?ref=scroll "Later that year, Elon began to distance himself from the emerald mine story, arguing that there was no proof it ever existed." MREL

Edit: Do you have a list of RS that refutes this claim, other than Musk himself? I couldn't find it in the body, it should be added to make informed decision over the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, until I say yes, just assume I am saying no, it is easier. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We're at a bit of an impasse for how to discuss the wealth of his father. For now though does anybody object to removing it from the lead and just having it in the early life section? So instead of the current lead A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in... it changes to Elon was born in... We leave the current early life section as The family was wealthy during Elon's youth and for the word family we link to the Musk Family article. Tikaboo (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

does anybody object to removing it from the lead Yes, many. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What dispute resolution should we go to? This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Tikaboo (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I spend a lot of my time reading Wikipedia articles but have never edited anything or felt the need to use the talk page but this article is clearly absurdly biased. It's deeply unsettling to me that this is allowed. This sentence and particularly the location of it is very clearly designed to degrade Elon by making it seem that his "membership" to the Musk family is one of the most notable things about him, and implies that it is a primary reason for his notability. I am not disputing whether his family was well off or upper class, but this sentence is clearly deceitful, incredibly degrading and ultimately nonsensical. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the degradation of the mention of belonging to a wealthy family. Obscene. QRep2020 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not that it was mentioned that he belongs to a wealthy family. That is okay although I'm not sure if "wealthy" is the best description. The significant issue here is that it's said identically to the pages of the Rothschild's. It's clearly designed to imply that the Musk family is notably wealthy and that his membership to the family is a primary reason for Elon's notability. The usage of "Musk family" and the fact it has it's own page implies they're the Windsors or the Rothschilds where in both of those cases the family is more notable and significant than any one member. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the Musk family not notably wealthy though? And is Musk being the primary source of that wealth not notable? If we want to make that second part clearer, I could see that working. QRep2020 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see his family being notably wealthy enough to talk about it in the lead, especially since Elon himself is like 95+% of that wealth. It's also a problem considering it's followed by "was born in..." so implying this wealth was from before he was born. Tikaboo (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. ReferenceMan (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard agree. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Do not mock people on talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"In one incident, after having called a boy whose father had committed suicide "stupid", Elon was thrown down concrete steps."

I don't understand the relevance of the father suicide comment. There's no indication in the sources that the father's suicide had anything to do with Elon calling the boy stupid. The source of this is Elon's father and he only mentions it as a reason why he didn't go hard on the boy who attacked his son. Tikaboo (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend we remove the "whose father had committeed suicide" phrase. We know that Errol's comments are not reliable.

From Walter Isaacson's book "Elon Musk", page 39:

"You’ll be back in a few months,” Elon says his father told him contemptuously. "You’ll never be successful." As usual, Errol has his own version of the story, in which he was the action hero. According to him, Elon became seriously depressed during his senior year of high school. His despair reached a head on Republic Day, May 31, 1989. His family was preparing to watch the parade, but Elon refused to get out of bed. His father leaned against the big desk in Elon’s room, with its well-used computer, and asked, “Do you want to go and study in America?” Elon perked up. “Yes,” he answered. Errol claims, “It was my idea. Up until then, he had never said that he wanted to go to America. So I said, ‘Well, tomorrow you should go and see the American cultural attache,’ who was a friend of mine from Rotary.” His father’s account, Elon says, was just another of his elaborate fantasies casting him as the hero. In this case, it was provably false. By Republic Day 1989, Elon had already gotten a Canadian passport and purchased his airline ticket.   [emphasis added].

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

lol QRep2020 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Please don't mock people on talk pages. That's against Wikipedia policies. Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We should mention that Musk sustained injuries required hospitalization along with the circumstances that reportedly triggered the incident. Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Separate issue. Also, not needed. QRep2020 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention him getting malaria. Honestly, I think all mentions of this "incident" should be removed. QRep2020 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources say a bunch of stuff and we decide what's relevant to include. Could you make an argument why it should be included? Tikaboo (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

None I am responding to "We know that Errol's comments are not reliable", I want a better argument as to why we should remove sources long-standing content than "well I think its a lie". Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, I just think the "dad suicide" part of the story should be removed, I'm indifferent to the rest of it. Tikaboo (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is someone able to do this? I don't have enough edit history to do it. Tikaboo (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If no one has done it, it may mean no one agrees. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about removing mention of the suicide part of the story, which I've only seen agreement on here. Tikaboo (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Either the entire mention of the incident should go or the article should continue to provide the context for the event per the reliable sources. QRep2020 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

From the source we're using the dad's suicide has nothing to do with Elon calling him stupid so I don't see why we would include that. Tikaboo (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the suicide has nothing to do with Elon calling him stupid and therefore has no bearing on the context, do you still object to its removal? Tikaboo (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it. BoldGnome (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why has this even been necroed, nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the well-sourced text about suicide. Feoffer (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer, The Business Insider article requotes Errol Musk's statement in the Isaacson book. The Isaacson book does not adopt Errol's claims as fact and says of Errol's account: "Both Elon and Kimbal, who no longer speak to their father, say his claim that Elon provoked the attack is unhinged and that the perpetrator ended up being sent to juvenile prison for it. They say their father is a volatile fabulist, regularly spinning tales that are larded with fantasies, sometimes calculated and at other times delusional."

And that's without going into the implication that Elon Musk called the boy stupid because his father suicided, or that he was deserving of the beating he received.

I'd suggest that the text is not well-sourced and this account should not be included in wikivoice in the biography of a living person. Interested in your thoughts. BoldGnome (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

They say their father is a volatile fabulist We could include that rebuttle, though Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. There's also probably room to polish the language, but it's longstanding and supported, so just deep sixing the whole issue probably isn't viable. @Slatersteven could probably answer better than I. Feoffer (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer Could you clarify what you mean by it being supported? The relevant pages (3-4) of the cited book are available on google books and there's a quite clear distinction between what the author believed to be verifiable and what he attributes to the contested account of Errol Musk. The source contradicts Errol's account of the cause of the fight that you've restored in wikivoice: "a student who was horsing around with a gang of friends bumped into him. Elon pushed him back. Words were exchanged. The boy and his friends hunted Elon down at recess...". The source doesn't even verify that the boy lost his father to suicide. Also according to the source, the brother, Kimbal, was an eye witness to the assault and is not Elon Musk, so Mandy Rice-Davies doesn't apply. BoldGnome (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to BI, not Isaacson book. Feoffer (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the sources or at the very least read the discussion about the sources before restoring contentious material to biographies of living people based on those sources. BoldGnome (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if we allow that Musk did not provoke the other child, that hardly precludes him saying it. Provocation turns on the intention to FAFO - maybe Musk intended to just be mean?

As for fabulist stuff, plenty of people have said the same about Musk himself and it wouldn't be difficult to see why. If you want to argue for an inclusion that Musk disputes the history, at least then there are facts to lean on, though I disagree it warrants mention. QRep2020 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As we do not know what relevance it has, but RS seems to think it has, it is logical to assume they know stuff we do not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to the attention of the BLP Noticeboard: [2] BoldGnome (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in, as I saw the note on WP:BLPN. This is far from well-sourced material and should be removed. The Business Insider article directly quotes Errol Musk's words to the author of the book – Isaacson. They did not make an editorial judgment to represent the quotation as fact; rather, they present it as a claim made by Errol, which is what it is. The second source is the very Isaacson book referenced by said BI article. Neither source represents Errol Musk's claim as factual; including it as such, in Wiki voice, is WP:OR. Normally, I would wait for discussion to peter out, but this is a BLP and WP:BLP applies, so I'm going to go ahead and introduce more neutral wording from the same source until/unless there is consensus to restore the content under discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Also here from BLPN, just noting that I agree with AlexEng's reading of the sources and their edit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer Did you see this comment? Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I did, and I concur the article is improved by direct attribution of the quotations about the incident to Errol and Elon themselves. Feoffer (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You concur with whom, sorry? Your text solely quotes Errol Musk's claims regarding the "cause" of the beating. The version included by the third party BLPN participant and agreed to by another third party BLPN participant, and by myself, and presumably by Ergzay, is more neutral. Please stop, you are testing the limits of the assumption of good faith. BoldGnome (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

you are testing the limits of the assumption of good faith.

It's clear this is a topic you have both a lot of knowledge about, and also a lot of passion about. But understand that not everyone here brings that same level of energy and expertise; I'm just learning about Elon's bio as we go, and we're all doing our best. Feoffer (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"It's clear this is a topic you have both a lot of knowledge about, and also a lot of passion about." I actually have neither, and seemingly less "passion" about this subject than yourself. I'll take it from this response that you'll drop the stick. Thank you. (Never mind, wishful thinking.) BoldGnome (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I see BoldGnome has removed the well-sourced material, even as it's directly attributed as a quote to Errol. My reading of the above is that the objection to the material was it being relayed in wikivoice, which I understood and corrected. It seems to me it should be restored, as both Isaacson and BI discuss it.

Additionally, that edit also deleted the discussion of Elon's wilderness school experience -- is there any actual objection to documenting that material or did it just get lost in the shuffle. Similarly, any objection to listing his siblings earlier in the section rather than after the hospitalization? Feoffer (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see the only relevance of the attacking boy's father's suicide is that Elon's father stated it as a reason why he wasn't too hard on the boy for attacking Elon since he was going through a lot. I don't see how that can possibly be relevant to include in this article. Tikaboo (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that can possibly be relevant to include in this article if the objection is about its relevance, a consensus for that change should be developed on talk. Its inclusion in BI and other sources establishes its relevance to Musk's bio. Now that material is directly attributed to Errol and Elon quotes in RSes, it is not a BLP violation. Feoffer (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"BI and other sources". Please acknowledge that The Business Insider article directly quotes what Errol Musk said in the Isaacson book, as has been explained multiple times. BoldGnome (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the BI source is clearly quoting the Isaacson book! I keep mentioning BI because it's not as if we, wikipedia editors, cherrypicked the childhoodhood assault and hospitalization as worthy of discussion from the totality of the Isaascson book -- BI and others are the ones who chose to highlight that section of the book, not us. Feoffer (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise you were referring to sources not used in this article. If you're going to refer to them to establish the noteworthiness of Errol Musk's statement could you please provide them here for us to see? BoldGnome (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well you seem to think I'm trying ot pull one over on you. Any source I cite WILL trace back to the Isaacson book, but BI is far from the only ones to give the significance to the childhood experience of being beaten and then berated by a father who sides with attackers. Issaacson himself has singled that incident out in his NYMag interview. Feoffer (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well a Wikipedia article is far more limited in what to include that an entire book biography, or an individual website article discussing one specific thing. Tikaboo (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion for just "born into wealth" part of "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" statement

The above discussion is trying to discuss too many parts of this statement at the same time like for example other statements of wealth elsewhere in the article. So lets break this down into more narrow issues. The statement as written implies that the family at the time Elon Musk was born was already wealthy. There is no source anywhere on this page or anywhere on wikipedia that implies that the family was wealthy at the time of Elon's birth. In multiple sources (ex: [3]) Errol Musk is described as simply an engineer that Maye Musk met when she was in high school. This is not a description of a "wealthy family". Further there is no source discussing any generational wealth from Errol's parents. Whether they were wealthy or not later in life is a separate discussion. @QRep2020 and @Slatersteven you two seem to have the biggest issues with changing things. Is this level of change acceptable? I'm going to go ahead and make a bold change. Revert it if you disagree. Ergzay (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Frankly, as this is a WP:BLP page, if sources can't be immediately provided, and revert is done again without sources I'm going to just take this to noticeboard, which is where it should have gone a long time ago.) Ergzay (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Remember to mention everyone who disagrees next time. QRep2020 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You were the only two I saw in a brief skim of the discussion (it's too long to follow), if there's others feel free to mention them. It's not my intention to leave people out. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

From my point of view there's already consensus for removal, at least that's what I saw in my skim of the discussion. It was mostly the two of you pushing back against many different people. Ergzay (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am no Musk expert, but we can all agree he is widely alleged to be a child of wealth. So far as I'm aware, that allegation is correct, but as I say, I'm no expert. At the same time, the "wealthy Musk family" language does feel a bit forced, and googling shows that the phrase is essentially unique to us: never a good sign. I wonder if anyone has ideas for some middleground solutions? Feoffer (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Group think is not a valid source for a wikipedia article. He was more well off by the time he was a teenager and went to live with his dad, but his mom is described as being too poor to be able to afford a personal computer and was stated as one of the reasons that Elon left to live with his Dad. However that has nothing to do with their wealth at the time he was born. Ergzay (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, an argument was made in the previous discussion that owning a computer was somehow a sign of wealth. While it certainly means you were not poor, at the time frame we're talking about it wasn't a sign of wealth either. These were not multi-million dollar machines. Ergzay (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is unsourced remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in the body (for the purposes of how I have read the statement). QRep2020 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a claim it is not, so maybe provide the source here? Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement as it was written was not sourced in the body. Ergzay (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus so I'll go clean up the previous edit I made. Ergzay (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there, I see one yes, one no and one maybe, that consensus does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources in this article are ridiculously bad

I don't get how this article seriously can have something like that as a source: https://newrepublic.com/article/177695/elon-musk-scoundrel-year-2023-new-republic

It's literally a straight up hater article on the level of an angry reddit user, where they claim he is the ultimate evil and make statements that almost hurt from it's stupidity like this one "The rockets from his rocket company, SpaceX, keep exploding".

It apparently does not matter what quality a source has, as long as it supports the point of view of the (generally left leaning) Wikipedia editors. Lrzw (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Amen! I was just reading the Wiki about Elon. Same hate on him in Wiki. Accusing him of misinformation about Covid (untrue). All of these writeups are incorrectly done on Elon. They list his accomplishments and then bash him for his opinions, which we all have and can change as one gets wiser to the world and the people in it. These lefties have not grown up yet and refuse to, because they act as though they already know it all. They dont seem to understand that people grow and change over time. Its called WISDOM. 2603:6010:1105:E395:8C1F:67A9:3A0F:D22D (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

He is good 204.111.243.146 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think some people need to read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Random editor passing by, I looked over that New Republic article and its use in this wiki article; it's only cited to support the claim that The New Repuublic labeled Musk as "Scoundrel of the Year", which they did. Now I personally disagree with the content of The New Republic's opinion piece, but in this case there's no need for this source to be removed, as the New Republic on the wiki has been described as opinionated but "generally reliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_New_Republic, and no one here has opposed including the New Republic's ""award"" for Elon Musk into the article. I'd say keeping it in actually helps the section its in (Public perception) keep towards WP:NPOV. Were there any other "ridiculously bad" sources you had in mind @User:Lrzw? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because a source is WP:GREL does not warrant inclusion. "Scoundrel of the Year" is a non-notable anti-award (no wiki page), so one can claim that it fails WP:DUE considering other listed awards/honors in that section have their own article. That is also probably why other "Scoundrel of the Year" winners (e.g. Zuckerberg, DeSantis) don't have it mentioned on their pages. Ptrnext (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. WP:NOTNEWS says information in Wikipedia should be enduring in nature and not content appropriate for a gossip magazine. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it given there appears to be consensus. Ergzay (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this edit. BoldGnome (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? No. I disagree, Slatersteven does, and clearly SpacePod9. Please change it back. QRep2020 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you articulate why you disagree, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Simply saying you disagree is not sufficient. And why you haven't previously responded to the above arguments if you feel strongly about the inclusion of the content? I'm noticing a concerning pattern on this article. BoldGnome (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I added it originally. And agree with SpacePod's argument. QRep2020 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Please be mindful of WP:OWN. You do not own this page. It's irrelevant who added it originally. Ergzay (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say your interpretation of what I attempted to convey is completely wrong and politely leave it at that. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You stated that you disagree with removing it after it had already been removed. When asked why you disagree with removing it, you stated that it was because you added it originally, which isn't a valid reason. If I am misinterpreting what you said then you'll need to clarify what you actually meant by that statement.

As to who agreed/disagreed. You had not offered any opinion. Slatersteven had not offerered any opinion just an unrelated comment. SpacePod9 was the only one who gave any statement against it and Ptrnext and JamieBrown2011 both disagreed with SpacePod9's argument and gave reasonable reasons to back their opinion up. Ergo, there was, and continues to be consensus as I am also in agreement with all the statements and reasonings given. Ergzay (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The New Republic is a reliable source per WP:RSP, though its opinions should be attributed, which they are/were in the Musk article. The publication references its award elsewhere in its publication history, so it isn't some one-off hokey attempt, and it specifically mentions the 2023 award again at https://newrepublic.com/article/179867/ceo-pay-tax-dodging-corporations.

The 2023 award is referenced by a secondary source, the Hindustan Times, at https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/elon-musk-dubbed-2023-scoundrel-of-the-year-by-us-website-evil-unserious-101703842084560.html. WP:NEWSORGINDIA contains a warning about using articles from the Brand section of the Hindustan Times, but that doesn't apply here. The Reliable Source Noticeboards offer discussions of the general respectability of HT, especially in its primary regions of readership.

Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mention - for example, the FAI Gold Space Medal doesn't have one (only the FAI Gold Air Medal gets that treatment). Its inclusion balances a paragraph otherwise devoted to how often the Times talks about his importance, which, if you think about it for a second, is probably one of the reasons TNR issued him this title.

As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source. QRep2020 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to better read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It states "Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media." If it's pervasive and deeply integrated you can't separate them. I would discard that as not really helping your point.

> As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source.

Sure and we should not make the problem worse.

My biggest issue with that statement is that it's so severe to fall to the level of violating WP:Libel. Putting in some other negative source to balance it I think would be fine, as long as it's an accurate criticism. Ergzay (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting TNR paid Hindustan Times? I think that would require some evidence. Again, the only reference to Hindustan Times' involvement with advertorial content points to its Brand section - the article isn't in the Brand section.

This is the first time you've brought up libel. How is it libel to state that a major publication called him a "scoundrel" and making it clear that it is a title by saying it was awarded, worded with capital letters, etc.? Its attributive in definitive form. He himself hasn't even accused them of libel, and its a pretty tame epithet with little legal actionability at that. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times is not a reliable source. BoldGnome (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected."

It should be noted that this source is not just "quoted" in other RSes as claimed by the above editor, but used as a source of information. Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information ("According to..." etc.), not just mention it. So actually there is an evidence, and the evidence is more than clear.

QRep2020 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you link this one? tsk tsk BoldGnome (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That section is supposed to summarize contents in Elon Musk filmography and List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk. There are many other notable awards (with their own article) in the main awards page that are not included in this section, so adding this obscure anti-award certainly appears to be undue. If you wish, you can add this obscure anti-award in the awards page. Also, note that all the awards and honors listed in the section have been awarded for decades and generally have a lasting impact. This anti-award has been around for what? 5 years, with no known impact? Ptrnext (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

SEC suit in the lead and the body

Should mention in the lead and in the body that Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle. - https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-us-sec-bastards-forced-settlement-over-tesla-tweets-2022-04-14/

Maybe something like this? In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk, alleging that he had falsely announced that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. To settle the case, Musk stepped down as the chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle as banks would not provide capital to Tesla with the suit ongoing. Tikaboo (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

IN the lede no, in the body yes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Errol Musk

Errol Musk redirects to Elon Musk. The link should be removed. --Achim Adotz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why, is he notable in his own right? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:CIRCULAR. CNC (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FAQ question removed

I removed the following FAQ question and answer:

What is the deal with Musk's father supposedly having partly owned an emerald mine? Both Elon and Errol have said as much in the past but recently changed their stories, leaving the facts murky. In terms of prior confirmation, journalists with access to them have reported it as part of Elon's background. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon. While today Elon disputes almost everything about the story, Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of emeralds from his dealings.

The rest of the questions and answers pertain to this article and the editorial decisions that have gone into its writing. This question has nothing to do with the article, and instead may be taken as a frequently-asked question about Musk, which it is not Wikipedia’s place or job to provide answers to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead: "an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website"

Should probably note in the lead that this allegation relies on just the number of hate speech Tweets, whereas Twitter says that the actual views these hate speech Tweets get has been reduced. Tikaboo (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean Twitter's response that there's been a decrease in views of hate speech should be included. Tikaboo (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning Twitter's suppression of impressions of hateful posts can go in the article but I don't think it belongs in the lead. It might work in the lead for Twitter under Elon Musk as it's part of the content moderation policy adopted after the acquisition. QRep2020 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"PhD" not supported by citations & "dropout" refuted by citations

With regard to:

"In 1995, he was accepted to a PhD program in materials science at Stanford University.[47][51][55] However, Musk decided to join the Internet boom, dropping out two days after being accepted and applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

The citations establish that Musk was accepted into a "graduate" program in Materials Science Engineering. That could be either a Master's program or a PhD program. It is not specified. The citations also establish that Musk did not enroll, which means "dropping out" was impossible.

I suggest the passage above be rewritten as:

"In 1995, he was accepted into a graduate program in Materials Science Engineering at Stanford University, but did not enroll.[47][51] Musk decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

Note that I omitted the Bloomberg [55] citation as it merely repeats the "dropout" claim without providing information contradicting the letter from Stanford that says he did not enroll [51]. StanfordMSME (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you for the clarification! Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the article (that he "dropped out after two days") should probably also be amended. According to the letter from the admissions officer, he did not enroll.

He failed to graduate from Penn after being admitted to Stanford, so it is possible that he was admitted but had his admission rescinded. 2603:8080:1301:16DC:618C:D41C:D0DC:6B3 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no room in the article for things that are possible but not established, nor for things that are impossible, such as "dropping out" of a school one hasn't attended. Suggested: "but instead co-founded Zip2, an online city guide software company, with his brother Kimbal." 2601:642:4600:D3B0:80D3:EA:68F8:1E43 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

He finished his coursework in 1995 and graduated from Penn in 1997,[4] but only one of his bachelor's degrees is from Penn.[5]

We may be able to find a source that says he didn't enroll because his degree was still pending until 1997 due to paperwork clearance. 173.230.86.127 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He received a BA from Penn in 1997 because he was missing a required writing seminar in 1995 and his BS in economics from Penn in 1995. The only reason it's two degrees is because he didn't qualify for the Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in econ in 1995. 140.228.133.253 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative ghost rider. BA in physics and BS in econ, both awarded in 1997.[6]

In 2019, Aaron Greenspan, owner of the legal website Plainsite, as well as a frequent critic of, and litigant against, Elon Musk, asked Penn for a statement on Musk's degrees. In response, the university's public affairs office stated that: Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics (concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May 19, 1997.

This source says the delay was due to a paperwork issue.[7]

It would be safe to assume that he decided not to do the PhD program and did in fact "drop out" because he took two years to sort out the issue preventing him from being award the degrees. 71.120.188.59 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"safe to assume"? That's not how Wikipedia works. I did grad school at Stanford. I was accepted at 5 other schools. Would you say I "dropped out" from all of them? 166.205.190.144 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, but could see why Musk would characterize it that way. He chose not to continue his education and you did. 2601:603:1200:15B0:30E4:422E:3C9:19B5 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Lead currently claims that Elon Musk endorsed (as in agreed with) antisemitic conspiracy theories

This is not backed up by the content of the article. He several times said that he was sorry for what he said and that he was sorry for giving a "loaded gun to those who ... are antisemitic". Pushing in the lede that he endorsed antisemetic conspiracy theories misconstrues the rest of the article's content. @QRep2020 please don't revert it again. Ergzay (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He apologized for what exactly then?

Also are you familiar with BRD? You made the change, I changed it back, we're discussing it now. Why change it again? QRep2020 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:BRB? I agree, we're discussing now. He apologized for making the tweet that implied he was pushing support for antisemitism. As written the lede implies that Elon Musk himself is an antisemite. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikidictionary, 'endorse' means "To express support or approval, especially officially or publicly". He publicly expressed approval of an antisemitic theory and then later claimed that it was a mistake. All we know for a fact is the utterance as we have no window into the man's mind. "Mistakenly endorsed" assumes too much.

Besides, reliable sources use that very language:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-actual-truth-antisemitic-post-backlash-advertisers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/technology/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-post-ibm.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/22/elon-musk-visits-auschwitz-antisemitism-twitter-x

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/elon-musk-begins-wartime-visit-israel-aviation-tracker-says-2023-11-27/

QRep2020 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, you can't put into wikipedia voice text that implies things through the writing that different things are happening. This is the point of the prohibition of weasel words, because they can misconstrue what happened. If you don't like "mistakenly endorse" then a different word can be chosen than "endorse" because he did not express support for antisemite conspiracy theories. Ergzay (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

But he did - he made a public expression of approval. And reliable sources covering the act described it as such. That isn't weasel wording - "appearing to endorse" is.

Can you provide the updated language you're recommending on the Talk page instead of making changes each time on the live article? It's more conducive to a discussion that way. Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally prefer to make edits to the page to propose changes rather than for them to get lost in discussions. It makes things more concrete. If you don't like a word choice, feel free to make an edit and comment why you chose it on the talk page. And I can do the same and we can continue to discuss and edit. As long as we're not putting the same thing back in the article there is no edit warring happening. Ergzay (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As to "But he did - he made a public expression of approval.". He made a vague statement that was easily open to various interpretations. As he said, "I gave a loaded gun to those who hate me and to antisemites". Ergzay (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The tweet he responded to ended with "You want the truth said to your face, there it is". Musk said "You have said the actual truth". It isn't vague in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Appearing to endorse" would be weasel wording if he hadn't afterwards clearly apologized and explained that what happened wasn't his intention, but considering he did, I don't see how it is. Ergzay (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten it again removing "mistakenly". Ergzay (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add even the words "support" and "approval" implies that the person actually likes what is being proposed. As you said, we cannot read the mind of Elon Musk so we should not imply that he thinks a certain way. That's why the article takes careful care to just use the quotations of the tweets almost in full. Ergzay (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hence the usage of 'endorsing', which denotes a public expression. His thinking doesn't factor in. QRep2020 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For someone to endorse something they need to agree with it. It's not a purely externally observable action. Ergzay (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's possible we're talking different definitions of endorse. You appear to be reading it in the sense that some person endorses a political candidate with a public statement. I'm taking it in the sense that someone is endorsing a viewpoint they agree with. This is why endorse is a poor choice of word. Ergzay (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the primary definition from Wikitionary: 1. To express support or approval, especially officially or publicly. The only other definition from there that applies to this circumstance would be: 3. To give an endorsement. You can't express or give something that isn't somehow available to others.

Here's Merriam-Webster's: 2. a. to approve openly, especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely. Again, you can't approve openly in the privacy of subjectivity.

Endorsement at its core is verifiable. Hence the other lexicography for the word: endorsing a check, endorsing a product, etc.

The attempt to use the notions I introduced against my own arguments is crafty, but keeps falling short. We're covering the same ground over and over. QRep2020 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You added the wording "that latter of", which I agree is a good change, but if we were to go back to your preferred wording without the "appearing to" it would read

He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation and endorsing antisemitic conspiracy theories, the latter of which he later apologized for.

If you endorse something and then you apologize for endorsing it, that's a confusion in terms as it presents an image of someone who's only sarcastically apologizing. Keeping "appearing to" is now vital to maintain clarity and match the rest of the article. Ergzay (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Right now it's "theories" as in multiple, but I thought it was just that one Tweet he agreed with. Also I'm curious if detailing that in the lead is the most appropriate. I feel like that was big news for a while but other right-wing (sometimes conspiracy) stuff has had more staying power and attention. Instead of specifying COVID-19 and that specific Tweet about Jews, how about something like this: Musk has expressed views that have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for promoting right-wing and far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. His ownership of Twitter has been similarly controversial, with studies alleging an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation posts on the website Tikaboo (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The "He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation" part came from a somewhat recent and lengthy Talk page discussion. We need keep that part. QRep2020 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the "theories" part, the tweet he affirmed as the actual truth bundles together multiple antisemitic arguments. QRep2020 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I just think he's engaged in such a varied array of right-wing/far-right/conspiracy stuff that we're kind of out of date by honing in on covid which is old news, and the antisemitism Tweet which is a singular moment without as much staying power. I think we can come up with better wording that encompasses it all. I'll leave the discussion here if others don't agree though. Tikaboo (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Doesn't using scare quotes violate Wikipedia MOS? Ergzay (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

QRep2020 edited on 27 June 2024 to put quotes "endorsing". I can't tell if they're scare quotes, it's so easy to look at quote marks and think they're somebody's actual wording. Anyway, the Vanity Fair source which uses the word "endorse" says it was endorsement of a single post rather than endorsement of all that's on the linked-to anti-semitic conspiracy theories page so it should be attributed to the critic(s) or deleted. By the way, WP:BRD is just an essay, WP:BLPUNDEL is a policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article clearly uses 'endorsing'. QRep2020 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

There, I included the entire clause from the article. QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

And, for the record, I disagree with any characterization of the tweet as endorsing a single antisemitic theory, but so be it. QRep2020 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Incompatible with MOS:LINKQUOTE if it's possible that the authors didn't mean what you linked to, incompatible with WP:RS/QUOTE if it doesn't make clear the actual source of the text, incompatible with WP:WELLKNOWN if he denied, and probably you won't get consensus but we'll see. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you read the source? QRep2020 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No I'm not a Bloomberg subscriber. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why this is even in the lede. If you need so many words to describe what happened, it is probably not lede-worthy. Schierbecker (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

change:

Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League university in Philadelphia, where he earned two degrees, a Bachelor of Arts in physics, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the university's Wharton School. Although Musk has said that he earned the degrees in 1995, the University of Pennsylvania did not award them until 1997. He reportedly hosted large, ticketed house parties to help pay for tuition, and wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books.

In 1994, Musk held two internships in Silicon Valley: one at energy storage startup Pinnacle Research Institute, which investigated electrolytic ultracapacitors for energy storage, and another at Palo Alto–based startup Rocket Science Games. In 1995, he was accepted to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford University, but did not enroll. Musk decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.

to:

Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League university in Philadelphia, where he earned two degrees, a Bachelor of Arts in physics, and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the university's Wharton School. Musk has said that he earned the degrees in 1995; the same year he was accepted to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford University. The University of Pennsylvania did not award his degrees until 1997 due to a paperwork issue and he never enrolled at Stanford. Musk describes this as dropping out, and said he decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.

While in undergraduate school, he reportedly hosted large, ticketed house parties to help pay for tuition, and wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books. In 1994, Musk held two internships in Silicon Valley: one at energy storage startup Pinnacle Research Institute, which investigated electrolytic ultracapacitors for energy storage, and another at Palo Alto–based startup Rocket Science Games.

paperwork issue 2600:1700:27C1:2AF0:6849:9128:8000:E145 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is this a good edit to make? I'm not sure what is significantly different here other than a re-ordering of the paragraphs. Ergzay (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Nuance in the wording in the lede on the term "early investor in Tesla"

Yes Elon Musk was an "early investor" in Tesla, however I think some additional clarification or wording is needed to avoid the default assumption that is made when people read that statement. As written it basically implies that Musk had no involvement in the company after investing and "early investment" brings an image of a company that already exists and is growing at the time of investment. Neither of which is true. Simply saying he helped found the company isn't accurate either but wording that represents the position somewhere in the middle is needed. Does anyone have any suggestions? Can we simply add "very" to "early"? What about "invested in and became involved with"? I'll make an edit and then we can discuss further changes. Ergzay (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The original wording in no way implies universal acceptance of Musk as making antisemitic statements, so the addition is superfluous. Additionally, the edit is paradigmatically weasel wording, so I recommend all invested editors (re)read the appropriate MoS section closely. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 It's the opposite of weasel wording. Weasel wording is when you use words to prop up a statement. What I'm doing is properly contextualizing wikivoice into closer to what the rest of the article states.

Quoting: "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Ergzay (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What part of "In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO." has weasel words? Ergzay (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing or making so many changes so quickly to this article that I ended up referring to changed text in the wrong place. As you could obviously tell, what with me discussing antisemitic matters instead of what he was doing in 2004. Take a breather. QRep2020 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The following text was reverted by QRep2020 claiming above that it contains weasel words:

In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO.

back to:

In 2004, Musk was an early investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, assuming the position of CEO in 2008.

Pinging some people to see if there is consensus for this change. If you have issues with it, be constructive. @Slatersteven @Feoffer @BoldGnome @ReferenceMan @Tikaboo. Ergzay (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no view on this matter other than that it's abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense or understanding of weasel words that neither text includes weasel words. BoldGnome (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the change, it's a little less vague with more detail. Tikaboo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a toughie cause I do see what we're trying to do by improving on "early investor". He wasn't just an early investor, he was (my OR words) early and pivotal. That said, the first text feels REALLY forced, like we're going out of our way to remind the reader how important he was.

My instinct is to try to find a RS quote calling him something more than an mere "early investor"? How much is "most", what is "heavily involved" -- we can pin that down more. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like "He was an early investor who provided most of the initial financing in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.)." Describing him becoming the chairman, etc. in the following sentence already implies his heavy involvement. QRep2020 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

Citation: Isaacson, p. 128. "Eberhard faced a problem. He had an idea and a name, but he had no funding...After a follow-up meeting that included Tarpenning, they agreed that Musk would lead the initial financing round with a $6.4 million investment and become chair of the board...The pieces thus came together for what would become the world’s most valuable and transformative automobile company: Eberhard as CEO, Tarpenning as president, Straubel as chief technology officer, Wright as chief operating officer, and Musk as the chair of the board and primary funder. Years later, after many bitter disputes and a lawsuit, they agreed that all five of them would be called cofounders." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice -- I think my favorite wording for the first sentence is yours: "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. " I think I would like to see the $6.4M figure included and "chairman" specified as 'of the board' for people readers who aren't familiar with corporate structure; see what others think. Feoffer (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should say he bought a majority stake rather than 'led the initial funding', which doesn't have clear meaning to most readers I think. Tikaboo (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. How about: "In 2004, Musk provided most of the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the chairman of the board. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

ReferenceMan (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tikaboo, "majority stake" sort of suggests maybe they had lots of funding already but Musk bought those funders out; I don't think that's the case.

I'm good with your first sentence if others are. Product architect is its own thing, I don't [yet] know what it means or when it happened. Feoffer (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Product architect is a good question. The earliest reliable source I've found is from 2009:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/24/plugged-in

"Musk, thirty-eight, is the chairman, C.E.O., and product architect of Tesla Motors"

which is corroborated by a tesla.com blog post from 2010:

https://www.tesla.com/blog/stanford-business-school-taps-tesla-motors-global-executive-program-customer-in

"said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk."

ReferenceMan (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer It was more than "majority stake". Majority stake just implies over 50%, whereas Musk was at 90%. I think it's important to clarify, in effect, the company was almost fully owned by him from the day the company really got going. Ergzay (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

More than the numeric value I think it's important that the percentage value be important, which was according to available sources, 90%. Ergzay (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure why not. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why add words? Slatersteven (talk)

I combined people's thoughts and have added the wording to the article as follows:

In 2004, Musk was an early investor who provided most of the initial financing in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.) becoming the company's chairman. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO.

Any thoughts @Feoffer @QRep2020 @ReferenceMan @Tikaboo @Slatersteven? Ergzay (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I only now noticed the inflected repetition of 'become'. What about "assuming the role of the company's chairman"? Minor thing, otherwise the edit works. QRep2020 (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah good point. I'll fix that. Ergzay (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually on second thought I think "assuming the role" has the wrong implication. A chairman isn't just a "role". Some other type of wording is needed. Ergzay (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to go with "assuming the position of the company's chairman" for the moment. Ergzay (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:America PAC

I have created a draft for America PAC, a newly founded political action committee that Musk has pledged to give $45 million a month to. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2024

Add sentence noting disputed immigration status of Elon and Kimbal Musk in section "Zip2" c. 1994. Ref links: Watch Elon Musk Talk About Being an Illegal Immigrant (Gizmodo)

Transcript for: Elon Musk and the frontier of Technology. TurtlyBurtly (talk) 23:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The second link does not dispute his immigration status. The first link is about a tweet, taken out of context, and it was Kimbal Musk obviously exaggerating for a crowd. (Also it's just poor journalism, the video has been publicly available on youtube for anyone to look up the entire time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgV2KzyWKx0 ) Ergzay (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Kimbal may be exaggerating, he may not be - not sure how you can assume his intent from the clip, and to be clear, I'm suggesting that a sentence be added acknowledging that there is disagreement, not conclusive evidence. Elon is very cagey about his past, particularly pre-PayPal. He claimed in a 2018 tweet to have arrived in North America around 1988 and per an interview quoted in Snopes was in the US with an H-1B visa. This would require him to be employed in a "specialty occupation" per the USCIS, which dropping out of graduate school to start a tech company would not qualify for. From H-1B Visa: "A person in H-1B status must continue to be employed by their employer in order to stay in H-1B status. If the person's employment ends for any reason, the person must leave the United States, unless the person applies for and is granted a change of status or finds another employer compatible with the H-1B status." Elon's own words indicate he probably was in violation of this. TurtlyBurtly (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

None of that makes sense though as an H-1B Visa is not what you are on when you're getting a college degree in the US. That would be an F-1 visa or something else. This is a page that is a biography of living persons. Just making vague statements that his immigration status may or may not be valid feels like it's standing on shaky ground. Anyway I've said my piece. I won't reply anymore on this and if other people want to add it we can discuss then on exactly what should be added. Ergzay (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I let this sit for about a week to see if anyone else wanted to jump in to discuss. I disagree with @Ergzay's assessment that the vagaries of the discussion make it not worth mentioning in the body of the article. The key point here, to me, is that Musk's interviews and tweets are inconsistent enough that establishing a consistent narrative of his immigration status from 1991-1995 is difficult, and he has been evasive in providing sources while providing plenty of metaphorical "smoke" to fuel conjecture. So:

Please add sentence: "Musk's US immigration status during this time is disputed." I have provided links from contemporary and subsequent sources, including Musk himself, above that should at least cover that claim. TurtlyBurtly (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

"Musk's US immigration status during this time is disputed." Disputed by what reliable secondary source? Wikipedians are not investigative journalists conducting WP:SYNTH and a Gizmodo article opining about how it would be "ironic if it turned out Musk himself was testing the boundaries of U.S. immigration law" is not sufficient. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Endorsement for 2024 presidency

There is a paragraph in Politics devoted to Musk's endorsements of American political candidates, mostly ones that ran for president. In one of its sentences, the article states Musk "has declined to endorse" a candidate for 2024. In the very next sentence, it states that Musk "endorsed Trump", the de facto Republican candidate. The language here is confusing to say the least. QRep2020 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That's because Elon's own wording is confusing. Lots of news agencies are inferring that he's endorsed Trump but all he has done was tweet something vague that sort of implied that. Not a full endorsement statement like many others have done. Ergzay (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What about this: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1812932793250509144 QRep2020 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe? It's not really a normal endorsement. But yeah maybe it counts. Still feels flaky. Ergzay (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not the word I would use to describe what he is doing. QRep2020 (talk) 06:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with QRep2020. Wikipedia has a well-known liberal/leftist bias, and this is shown once more. The whole article is clearly very critical of him. One could say the article is following the bias of mainstream media, which is adversarial towards him, except for Fox and a few others that are neutral on him. Each topic comes with a negative connotation. For example, when the topic is Neuralink, they brought up the "animal welfare" narrative. Then, regarding his acquisition of Twitter, there's selective information about his tweet on Twitter's former CEO. The text still accomplishes its militancy when it diverts the topic to his followers and supposed "sexist" comments (absurd comments follow the tweets of every worldwide famous person, especially someone as popular as Musk). On the problem raised above, admitting his CLEAR support of Trump in this election would help Trump, another highly criticized figure in this encyclopedia, which clearly has a bias against both for the reasons stated above. Musk has already called Wikipedia by "Wokepedia", so this 'accusation' of bias against him is not new and is far from being only mine. LeonardoXS (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Bordering on WP:NOTFORUM, but if you have specific improvements you'd like to make to the article, please suggest them. As for Musk's endorsement, the article has stated Musk has endorsed Trump for days now. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Macaddct1984 appears to be right, the article currently includes his endorsement and nobody seems to be trying to remove it wholesale. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

IMO, enough posts have been made by him now that he's clearly endorsing the the DT/Vance ticket. Ergzay (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

His endorsement is in the article: After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, Musk wished Donald Trump a speedy recovery and endorsed him for president. – macaddct1984 ^{(talk | contribs)} 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realize. Was not my point. Ergzay (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus about interviews with otherwise unreliable sources

Hey, quick question - Elon did an interview with Jordan Peterson recently that was streamed on the Daily Wire. Not a reliable source normally, but here it’s straight from the horse’s mouth. What are everyone’s feelings on using articles quoting that interview as a source for such? Snokalok (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait a day or two and see if a more reliable publication reports on the contents of the interview (as I suspect one will). QRep2020 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Since it is a video interview and it would pass the verifiability test, it seems good to me. Any other publication will simply repost the original video, no not sure how that improves anything. Just my thoughts. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2024

Much of the below paragraph is largely embellished and misrepresent the facts. The articles referenced are subjective opinion pieces. Much of what is written in the paragraph also echos the opinions of the articles, and whomever wrote the paragraph initially. This should state facts only, and not be embellished or stuffed full of unqualifiable opinions. Below is the original paragraph, and a rewrite:

Please change X: Musk has expressed views that have made him a polarizing figure.[5] He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation, promoting right-wing conspiracy theories, and "endorsing an antisemitic theory",[6] the latter of which he later apologized for.[5][7] His ownership of Twitter has been similarly controversial, being marked by layoffs of large numbers of employees, an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation posts on the website, and changes to Twitter Blue verification.

To Y: Musk has been seen as a polarizing figure. He has criticized COVID-19, made comments that would generally support right-wing ideas, and made a comment regarding a version of the “great replacement theory." He later apologized for this statement. Upon acquisition of Twitter, Musk laid off a large number of employees and make changes to the "Twitter Blue" verification system. Mst3kfan13 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Please educate yourself about the many Talk page discussions concerning this paragraph first. QRep2020 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Change noted as controversial due to response received above, changes to controversial topics are likely to need consensus on this page. ASUKITE 16:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Where do we want to cover the Errol stuff?

Errol has falsely claimed to have funded Zip2, was reliably accused of abuse of his wife and children, reportedly suffers from very severe mental illness, and fathered two children with his former stepdaughter. He also claims to have shot and killed multiple people.

On the one hand, Errol's primary notability (aside from 1970s politics) is from the abuse allegations against him. I created Familial relationships of Errol Musk try to get that info OFF Elon and Maye's respective BLPs -- you don't document an abuser on their victim's BLP; but that article has its own problems because it doesn't cover Errol's political career like a BLP should.

Where should we put what is known about Errol? If he weren't a media figure with famous family, perhaps we could just delete him away, but because he's become a media gadfly, it's not fair to Elon et al for us to NOT document his behavior somewhere. Could we put it in a sub-article of Elon's or Maye's BLP? Feoffer (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Errol's primary notability is being the father of Elon, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for scandalmongering even if is done in the name of fairness. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:F957:2BB0:729:9CD1 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that this is, quote, "Scandalmongering: promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping"?

I think you're confusing "scandalmongering" with "extremely widely covered scandals that have drawn massive amounts of public interest". Like, I'd wager that probably 20% or so of the US population have heard of "the emerald mine", even if they can't name Errol by name.

And while we're here, I'll add as an aside that I think it's wrong to mention Haldeman's move to South Africa and living like Indiana Jones, while omitting the fact that he moved to South Africa because he was a massive supporter of Apartheid. I'm not going to be [WP:B] without support from others on this topic, however. -- Rei (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that creating an article about Errol primarily to document his scandals would be an attack page. Being a rotten bastard isn't a ticket to having a Wikipedia page. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:188C:EEBE:3AC7:1073 (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Still alive"

I made this change because it seemed pretty unnecessary to specify this. First because the NBC interview makes it obvious, and also because it was evident that Musk spoke figuratively. It would have been obvious even he hadn't used the word "essentially".

Did anyone in the media or in the public think that his child was literally dead ? If so, the NBC interview would have been treated as some kind of breaking news, which it wasn't. What do you think ? Psychloppos (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The passage as a whole seems of undue length. I don't see why the Financial Times quote is there at all. If Musk believes in a neo-Marxist menace, it suffices to say that he believes it. Whether it exists or other people believe in it is irrelevant for the purpose of this article. More broadly, there is no basis in NPOV to quote directly so long as the sources are faithfully represented, and doing so makes for tiresome reading. 98.51.228.103 (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

What is most relevant is Musk's statements about his child, which have attracted media attention lately. The fact that he attributes the situation to a tangential menace is tangential. A direct quote may help avoid misquoting him. Psychloppos (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Change "12" in infobox ("Children") to "12, including Vivian Jenna Wilson", because an article has been created. J3133 (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

 On hold until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Jenna Wilson is closed. No point in adding the link if it will need to get removed shortly afterwards. If the article is kept, please re-open the request. Left guide (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Musk's daughter has gone public - time to include her name?

First she wrote a critical response on Threads to Elon's interview, then followed it up with [8] an interview with NBC - and under her name, not an alias / anonymously.

My read is that we should probably include her name now instead of just referencing her indirectly, now that she's no longer trying to remain private (indeed, she refers to herself as "an H-list celebrity" on her Threads account). -- Rei (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. WP:BLPNAME is for low-profile persons. I think going public with interviews etc. entails a choice to forgo the privacy of a low-profile, private person. Endwise (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Personal Life Section, Legal Issues After 2020 heading, 3rd Paragraph, final sentence grammar update.

Change “On July 27, 2024, Grimes' mother accused Musk for withhold passports of her grandchildren.” to “ On July 27, 2024, Grimes' mother accused Musk of withholding the passports of her grandchildren.” Moirathegoblin (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)