Talk:Elon Musk

Topic code	Area of conflict	Decision linked to
{{Elon Musk|topic=aa}}	politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan
{{Elon Musk|topic=crypto}}	blockchain and cryptocurrencies	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies
{{Elon Musk|topic=kurd}}	Kurds and Kurdistan	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Kurds and Kurdistan
{{Elon Musk|topic=mj}}	Michael Jackson	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Michael Jackson
{{Elon Musk|topic=pw}}	professional wrestling	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling
{{Elon Musk|topic=rusukr}}	the Russo-Ukrainian War	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War
{{Elon Musk|topic=sasg}}	South Asian social groups	Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
{{Elon Musk|topic=syria}}	the Syrian Civil War and ISIL	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
{{Elon Musk|topic=uku}}	measurement units in the United Kingdom	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom
{{Elon Musk|topic=uyghur}}	Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide	Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

For the "Other issues and controversy" section: Elon Musk has made more tweets about pronouns.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-musk-pronouns-reaction_n_5fda9048c5b6102009874312

https://nypost.com/2020/12/17/elon-musk-slammed-for-whining-about-pronouns-on-twitter/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/12/16/elon-musk-mocked-on-twitter-after-poking-fun-at-pronouns/ Prizecolorolex (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Make explicit in the lede that Musk has no engineering degree

I propose changing "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate, industrial designer and engineer" to "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate, industrial designer and engineer (though he holds no degrees in engineering)" and using the reference at https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/elon-musk-has-a-problem-with-rocket-scientists-thinks-engineers-deserve-all-the-credit-3136538.html as the citation.

Additionally, in case no one saw it, this article appeared a while ago and directly addresses some of the conversations we have had on this Talk page about whether or not to describe Musk as an engineer. I recommend others read it and perhaps that we reinitiate the discussion. QRep2020 (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Why focus on engineering in particular? We list degrees people have. A list of degrees people do not have (thousands of them!) would be absurd. --mfb (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to refer to the many, many discussions in the archive for this Talk page about whether or not Musk should be labeled an engineer, let alone one without a professional degree. This was meant as a compromise. QRep2020 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

As there are no outstanding objections, though one could easily predict some uproar from applying that exact approach from above, I elected to add an edited version of the suggested clarification met with the given references as Note b. QRep2020 (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This matter has been dealt with ad nauseam. Please read the previous discussions and the clear conclusion. Musk being called an engineer breaks no laws and misleads nobody. Andyjsmith (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [1]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The Note that was added better reflects both the current status of the discussion (i.e. there is no consensus as Elephanthunter pointed out) and the remarks from the new sources provided. Therefore, how is removing it helping readers to appreciate the complexity of the issue? It should be put back. QRep2020 (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear: Yes, I objected to your proposed change. There was an outstanding objection, your reply to my comment did nothing to address it. If you want to add such an unusual comment about not having a specific degree you'll need a broader consensus to add this comment. --mfb (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my reply did address it; Musk's status as an engineer has been stalled by No Consensus judgment again and again. Reiterating: "Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [2]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)" QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Whoah! I had not even read this proposal from QRep2020. I am the user who added the "biased negativity" section below. If the proposal suggested here is not reason enough to see the obvious negativity spread around in the article from some of the major contributors then i do not know what is. As Mfb says: why would it ever make sense to add such an unusual comment? other than - in my view, to again disregard Elon wherever possible. Mfb, could you please see the examples I have given below? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some difficulty in following the comments being made that address these points: "Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [3]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)" QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• If there is no consensus to include ijn a BLP then the claim should be removed. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"Dropping out" of Stanford

As best as I can tell, Musk was issued an acceptance to Stanford, but did not enroll, attend class or "drop out." Can anybody find a legitimate source saying that he dropped out? I find many low-quality blogs, etc. that appear to cite Wikipedia, but no primary sources.

From Ashlee Vance's book "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future":

As for his academic records, Musk produced a document for me dated June 22, 2009, that came from Judith Haccou, the director of graduate admissions in the office of the registrar at Stanford University. It read, “As per special request from my colleagues in the School of Engineering, I have searched Stanford’s admission data base and acknowledge that you applied and were admitted to the graduate program in Material Science Engineering in 1995. Since you did not enroll, Stanford is not able to issue you an official certification document.”

There are plenty, e.g. https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk. Their ultimate accuracy is another matter. QRep2020 (talk) 16:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks QRep2020. I think Biography.com is the strongest sourcing candidate saying he did enroll at Stanford, but I'm inclined to trust the Vance book moreso, because it directly cites Musk and a Stanford offical. Thoughts from others? Editor-intern (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Greetings,

by sending this message, I am submitting my formal request to add a piece of data in the section of education of Elon Musk. Namely, Musk attended the University of Pretoria in South Africa, dropping out, however, after a single semester, endorsed by the following link of Times Live: https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-11-18-buddy-can-you-spare-a-billion-sas-elon-musk-becomes-worlds-third-richest-man/ 

Therefore, I think it would be suitable to add that Musk also attended the University of Pretoria in South Africa, however, leaving without a degree.

Sincere regards and happy holidays,

Dzida888 Dzida888 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Dzida888:  Already mentioned in the lead, in the second paragraph. Thank you for your input and Happy New Year! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Biased negativity on Elon Musk in this article

There is a great deal of biased negativity in this article. I will elaborate:

1: "After his submarine was rejected as a viable option for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, he called a diver advising the rescue a "pedo guy" While it is true that he has had a dispute with a British cave diver and called him these words in a tweet, this wording paints the whole incident in a more negative light on Elon's part. He did NOT tweet it because his "submarine was rejected". He tweetet it because the british cave diver told him to "stick the submarine up where the sun doesn't shine" (Reference). This puts the entire incident in a very different light.

2: The entire VIEWS section needs a lot of editing to make it much less biased. For each opinion that Elon has expressed publicly a source is in almost every single case found that sharply contradicts his statements while ALSO putting him or his opinion in a very negative light. This is a BIG complaint about this article in general. Elon Musk is known to be at the cutting edge of technology with his companies and has in the past proved time and time again that his opinions are often (but not always) correct even if there are a lot of "experts" who disregards his opinion as nonsense.

My point is that for every single opinion in a given field it is possible to find an "expert" that says it is wrong. That does not mean the article has to contain it - that would make for some really blurred articles on Wikipedia. And it does not help the matter that most of if not all the opinions used in the article to contradict Musk's opinion are very negative in their tone towards him.

Let us look at some examples:

In "Artificial Intelligence" A source used is a person from Facebook. "Facebook's AI head, Jerome Persati, said that Musk has "no idea what he is talking about when he talks about AI", with CNBC reporting that Musk is "not always looked upon favorably" by the AI research community". Is this seriously good enough for Wikipedia guys? Does this hold up to the unbiased standards that should be held for an important article as this?

In Short selling and subsidies Elon has a sceptic stance towards short selling. The sources used to counter his stance is very negative in their tone towards him. It is undeniable that their has been a LOT of false rumours attributed to the short sellers through the last 5 years that has been spread about Tesla. However, one does only have to look at the massive increase at the share price today to see how much it has risen in the recent year. One of the primary reasons for this rise is that short sellers has been able to keep the stock price down for a long time thanks to misleading and false rumours. Without these false rumours Tesla would have begun this massive rise many years ago. So one can argue that Elon has a very valid point. Anyway, in any case it makes for a very biased article to find sources that contradicts his statements so harshly. This is not needed and only includes their own irrelevant speculations.

All in all this article does not hold up to the standards that Wikipedia should hold up for its own articles. Again, one cannot deny that Elon is at the forefront on many technologies. And every time the boundaries are pushed there is going to be "experts" that disagrees. A great example is how Neil Degrasse Tyson expressed strong disbelief (as well as many other "expert" rocket scientists) that SpaceX would never be able to succeed with their private space endeavour, and that it would be utter impossible to land a rocket back on the earth. They proved them very wrong. Someone needs to make a serious editing of this whole article to make it less biased.

Disagree entirely. QRep2020 (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree as well. ~ HAL333 02:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You both disagree entirely and at the same time are major contributors to this article - this frightens me greatly to be honest. Are you seriously of the opinion that not even ONE of these examples i give are biased against Elon and tries to paint him in a bad light? Let us take the Facebook source for example - you use a source from a company that Elon has expressed dislike for and you do not believe this makes for a dishonest source? Seriously? The article uses a source that has every reason to talk negatively about Elon. I would also like to point out this sentence: “Musk has also been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox or unscientific stances”. Who is to decide that his views are unscientific? Do you have to read your own article through to be reminded what Elon Musk has archived? The guy who helped found Paypal (even that fact is eschewed to make it sound like Elon did not found Paypal but Peter Thiels team did), he created the worlds first private company to launch rockets, he and his team created the worlds first reusable rocket (which all the “experts” called impossible and dumb to even try - this includes Neil Degrasse Tyson and Neil Armstrong who was a vocal critic of SpaceX), then he helped create Tesla, the first new car company to succeed in more than 50 years from the US. Then he led Tesla to mass produce their cars which in turn has singlehandedly forced the entire car industry to make a shift into EVs. Tesla popularity is due in large part because of being at the forefront of many new technologies: they are far ahead (or at least at the very very front) on battery technology and on Self driving technology. My point is that a man who is unscientific in his world view does not archive what this man has archived and does not attract the worlds top engineers. Let us call it what it is: an insult to his achievements, and again, very negatively biased. You can even argue that his achievements are thanks in large part to Elon being extremely scientific and following first principles. This isn't rocket science guys - oh wait, it is: The founder, CEO and CTO of the worlds first private rocket company I would argue has to be extremely scientific - would you not and would you not in turn also agree that it is reason enough to remove the "unscientific" part? Besides all this, if you push the boundaries (and disrupts entire industries) there will always be ”experts” who will call your ideas impossible, unrealistic and even unscientific. That does NOT mean that they should be included in an unbiased Wiki article. [User:BoMadsen88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM—your personal views on Musk's achievements are off-topic and don't belong here. What matters is what reliable sources have to say about his views and achievements (note: they largely disagree with your claims; see for example [4][5][6]). Stonkaments (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Man, This is an uphill battle I can see: sir, please address the clear example I have used: how in the world would you call a person from Facebook a reliable source? Please answer this. And with THAT said then please do not neglect this as merely "my personal view" on his achievements. My whole point is that a lot of these sources are in themselves not reliable and only adds their own irrelevant opinion. It is not my "personal view" that he has succeeded in business that were deemed impossible to succeed in (shall I find a source to confirm this for you?). again this is not a "personal view" - "experts" have called his ideas impossible for the last 20 years (yes, we can find MANY sources for this) and yet he has succeeded again and again. To make for an objective and good article sources or not needed who contradicts and critics the source - where in the Wiki guidelines is that a requirement? Please answer this question as well. EDIT: I just found another great bit from the article - this is starting to get hilarious for the way the negativity is spread. In the section "PUBLIC TRANSPORT" there is this great line: "Afterwards, he dismissed an audience member's response that public transportation functioned effectively in Japan.[312][313]". If you read the source he actually gives quite a reasonable reply than merely "dismissing" it. He answered: "What, where they cram people in the subway? That doesn’t sound great.". Again yet another example where the wording quite deliberately (in my view) paints Elon as being rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources are perfectly fine, three separate editors have disagreed with the vast majority of your points, and I made an update to the Pedo Guy part in the lede section (see below): this matter is closed. QRep2020 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can't comment on the "views" section, but the description in the lead is misleading. He insulted Unsworth after Unsworth insulted him, that's clearly important context. --mfb (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The summarizing sentence about the Pedo Guy incident, "After his submarine was rejected as a viable option for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, he called a diver advising the rescue a "pedo guy", is factually correct: The insult occurred after the submarine was not used. Furthermore, the Twitter exchange itself is detailed later in the article and removes any misunderstanding of the "after" being somehow causal: "Vernon Unsworth, a recreational caver who had been exploring the cave for the previous six years and who had played a key advisory role in the rescue, criticized the submarine on CNN as amounting to nothing more than a public relations effort with no chance of success, and that Musk "had no conception of what the cave passage was like" and "can stick his submarine where it hurts". Musk asserted on Twitter that the device would have worked and referred to Unsworth as "pedo guy", causing backlash against Musk." QRep2020 (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? You believe it is "factually correct" to say that he called the diver "pedo guy" "after his submarine was rejected". With that logic we can obscure A LOT of the truth on Wikipedia. Whether or not it occurred after the submarine was rejected has nothing to do with his insult at the diver. He insulted the diver because the diver insulted him first, not because his submarine was rejected. EVERY single person who reads the header only (and let us be honest - the article is so huge that very few actually reads more than the header) is going to believe that the primary reason he insulted the diver is because it was rejected because of deliberate (as is clear from your answer) wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that the lead is obviously misleading. Per WP:MOSBIO "The lead section must summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. ... always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." If it is really determined that this controversy is noteworthy enough to remain in the lead, the wording should be updated to include the insult as context. For example, "In the aftermath of the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, he called a caver advising the rescue a "pedo guy" after the caver made disparaging comments about him and his rejected submarine idea." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4180:3DC0:6D1B:F83:345C:422A (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how the user who made the above comment about WP:MOSBIO apparently has no other contributions at that IP address...

I made an update to the sentences that added some of the proposed details. QRep2020 (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you implying that I made that comment? Which i would ask you to stop doing if true.

Anyway, this request is not answered. That was just one of many items in this article which has obvious negative connotations. should I give specific examples? We can start with the Facebook source example. I request to get this removed. BoMadsen88 (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's true that I'm not a very frequent editor, but Wikipedia is for the people, as I understand it. I appreciate you making the edit, thank you. As for BoMadsen88, thanks very much for for pointing this issue out; maybe you can take the other issues you see and put them in the "proposed edit" format? You've already taken a lot of time, and I'm just lazily asking for more, but it seems like changes definitely won't happen without that format. The most salient ones could be put as separate edit proposals. Also, I agree with some of your examples. The Facebook one might be okay, since there are also views included that agree with Musk. The train comment one does seem like an inaccurate summary, though, as did this lead summary. Thanks for your contributions. 2601:184:4180:3DC0:ED4B:7E3A:E43F:24AA (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 19:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not done. QRep2020 has made a subtle wording to once again paint Elon in the most possible bad light. QRep2020 has now edited the wording to: "Following the rejection of a prototype submarine from Tesla that Musk had offered to be used in the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, he called a diver who advised in the rescue and disparaged the prototype a "pedo guy". This is again misleading - and from what I gather of QRep2020's previous responses that is very deliberate. A VERY important thing to note is that the diver did not merely "disparage" the submarine. The diver insulted Elon personally by calling it a PR stunt while telling Elon to "stick his submarine where it hurts" (BBC). I hope we can agree that that is NOT just a little "disparaging" of his submarine. I request this edit: "Following the rejection of a prototype submarine from Tesla that Musk had offered to be used in the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, a caver advising the rescue disparaged the submarine and offended Elon personally to which Elon called the caver a "pedo guy". BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd be in favour of removing all mention of the "pedo guy" episode from the lead; it seems to me that we're giving undue weight to one incident, especially as Musk was cleared by the courts in this case. Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rosbif73: The lawsuit is not the primary reason this is notable. Reliable sources covering this topic do not focus on the damages to Unsworth, but rather the unorthodox nature of Musk's tweet and the drama that ensued. The lawsuit was specifically about whether Unsworth had experienced damages from Musk's actions that could trigger liability under U.S. law. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Considering the sizeable section of the body devoted to this subject, it is given its due weight in the lede. ~ HAL333 21:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @BoMadsen88: Please do not reopen the request if there is nothing to add since the request has already been responded to. This topic clearly does not have a consensus and so no edits are likely be made. Terasail^[✉] 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not acceptable. The edit made does NOT address the issues I address. Rather it is just worded differently to still paint Elon Musk in a bad light. Seriously, this is not even debatable: the diver did not merely disparage the submarine, he insulted Elon straight up. Again, that is undebatable and clearly important context. This is not done until I am sure that more editors have seen this. Rosbif73 replied earlier today with his proposal. This is way too little time to close it already. BoMadsen88 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this is a misunderstanding. Marking an edit request as "answered" does not mean that the discussion is closed. It means that there is no immediate action for an editor with elevated user rights to make, so the edit request should not appear on a list for those editors' attention. The edit request template is not intended to be used as a way to draw more contributors to a discussion. Please do not mark this edit request as unanswered until there is a consensus about what text, specifically, should be changed in the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Now it is starting to make sense! I just found out that the user QRep2020 is a major contributor to the TESLAQ article. He even created the article in the first place. For those not knowing TESLAQ is the community of short sellers against Tesla. QRep2020 has every reason and motivation to make this article as negative against Elon Musk as possible! Please take very good note of this and that is yet another reason for why we need more editors to chime in here. BoMadsen88 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct error: Elon did not "join" Tesla, he is considered as one of the co-founders.

Following my earlier complaint about the biased negativity spread across this entire article there is another serious error, which again takes credit away from Elon where it is due. Elon Musk is a co-founder of Tesla. And he did not "join it a year after it was founded" as it states in the header section of the article.

We can even take a look at earlier revisions of this very article. This version is from 2009. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=410379592 It clearly states that Elon Musk Co founded Tesla with among other Eberhard. They have even agreed legally that Elon Musk is a co-founder. Here is another source on the subject. https://www.fastcompany.com/90563199/did-elon-musk-steal-tesla-heres-why-the-ceo-is-rebutting-long-time-allegations-on-twitter Besides it states on Teslas own website that he is a co-founder. https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

To follow Wikis high standards of objectivity the article should truthfully refer to Elon Musk as co-founder of Tesla. If both parties have agreed on this there is nothing up for debate - and it again only serves to disregard the achievements made by Elon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPSELFPUB we do not accept primary sources that make self-serving and reasonably disputed claims. There are numerous sources that dismiss Musk's claims or name Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla's co-founders.

The sources you listed here would be considered primary sources, which are not really acceptable for this kind of thing. A secondary source would outright name Musk as a co-founder and not simply factually repeat the results of a settlement. Even if you did have some secondary sources, in the presence of conflicting sources Wikipedia policy is to look to tertiary sources. Here is what the tertiary source Encyclopedia Britannica says: Tesla, Inc., formerly (2003–17) Tesla Motors, American electric-automobile manufacturer. It was founded in 2003 by American entrepreneurs Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning and was named after Serbian American inventor Nikola Tesla. Nowhere does it state that Musk co-founded Tesla.

Quote from Wikipedia policy WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

One last thing. This doesn't hold much weight on Wikipedia (since it is self published by Tesla), but it might be helpful for you. In 2010 Tesla publicly stated that Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning are the founders: Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive. Later in the article Tesla names Musk a chairman, but not a co-founder.

Musk is a major influence on Tesla, but not a co-founder. Maybe we should say that Tesla claims Musk is a co-founder, but not without the WP:BALANCE of conflicting reports, not in the WP:VOICE of Wikipedia, and not without WP:INTEXT attribution. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the response. As stated this is critique is only one more example of the blatant negativity that is spread across the article. Please respond to the critique i have raised in the Section above. In response to this: it is a disputed matter - and it even says that on the Tesla wikipedia article (under Founders: Disputed). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#2003–2004:_Founding. If we do not change it to Co-founder then there still needs to be edited something to give Elon more credit. Right now it says: "He joined Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.), an electric vehicle manufacturer, in 2004, the year after it was founded, becoming its product architect that year and its CEO in 2008".This screams for a rewrite. He accounted for more than 85% of the series A funding (only 7 months after it was incorporated) with US$6.5 million (of a total of US$7.5 million, roughly 85%), thereby owning the majority of the company and becoming chairman of the board. The current version mentions nothing of this - again serving to discredit Elon at every possible place. He has retained majority and the control of Tesla ever since then and owning about 20% as the far largest shareholder. [User:Bomadsen88] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoMadsen88 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

There is already an open Talk page discussion about the so-called "blatant negativity" you have described, so please relegate related points to there.

Feel free to add how Musk provided 85% of the initial funding, though I fail to see how that makes a case for him being a co-founder. QRep2020 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove parts of Artificial Intelligence section

1

In the last part of Artificial Intelligence section it says:

"Facebook's AI head, Jerome Persati, said that Musk has "no idea what he is talking about when he talks about AI", with CNBC reporting that Musk is "not always looked upon favorably" by the AI research community.[309][310]"

First of: to uphold a serious standard on Wikipedia we cannot use a source as biased as a person from Facebook, who has every reason to belittle Elon Musk thanks to his stance on Facebook. This is should be removed asap.

Secondly, the next line refers to an article from CNBC which has also shown "anti Musk" behaviour in the past when commenting on his companies. When looking at the article the sources are never clear and are always referred to VERy vaguely. "Multiple AI researchers from different companies" and "A large proportion of the community think he’s a negative distraction, said an AI executive with close ties to the community who wished to remain anonymous". We have no idea who this AI executive is and what motivations he has to put out such a harsh statements on Musk's views on AI - and besides it is a pretty damn serious claim to make that "a large portion of the communist thinks he's a negative distraction" without any sort of proof or documentation to support that claim.

This entire part should be removed from the article.

2

Remove "Despite this," in the beginning of the second paragraph. The entire sentence reads: "Despite this, Musk invested in DeepMind, an AI firm, and Vicarious, a company working to improve machine intelligence."

This comes across as Musk contradicting his own beliefs. This is not true according to his own statements (source: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-maureen-dowd-ai-google-deepmind-wargames-2020-7?r=US&IR=T): "Musk was an early investor in DeepMind, which sold to Google in 2014 for over $500 million, according to reports. He said in a 2017 interview that he made the move to keep an eye on burgeoning AI developments, not for a return on investment.

"It gave me more visibility into the rate at which things were improving, and I think they're really improving at an accelerating rate, far faster than people realize," he said in the 2017 interview. "Mostly because in everyday life you don't see robots walking around. Maybe your Roomba or something. But Roombas aren't going to take over the world."

Remove "despite this" and explain his reason for investing. Else it once again only serves to - with deliberate wording, discredit Musk.

The sources for these establish that his claims as well as the man himself are often controversial with experts, which anyone would be hardpressed to disagree with. I fail to see why any of this is improper or unsourced. QRep2020 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How come I am not surprised. As one see from your revisions and earlier reply you clearly do not like this person. "as the man himself are often controversial with experts, which anyone would be hardpressed to disagree with". I disagree, strongly - the man speaks his mind and has proven to all of his detractors and sceptics throughout the last 20 years that he again and again does what other people say are impossible - do you remember my example with Neil Degrasse Tyson from before who was very vocal about his plans for SpaceX? Or when Jim Cramer (the stock analytic) or Sandy Monroe (expert automotive engineer) was very vocal critics on Elon? Until suddenly they acknowledges that the man was right all alone. But I digress: whether we agree or disagree on that is not important - it is not up to you to decide that "anyone would be hardpressed" to disagree. Let us get some Wiki editors who can actually remain objective unlike yourself. BoMadsen88 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit parts of Public Transportation section

1

In the middle of this section it reads: "Afterwards, he dismissed an audience member's response that public transportation functioned effectively in Japan.[312][313]". If this sentence should not just outright be removed then there has to be a clarification as to what he says. If not, this is yet again again again again an example of the way this article often tries to discredit Musk in subtle ways wherever possible. The source clearly states that he actually gives quite a reasonable reply than merely "dismissing" it. He answered: "What, where they cram people in the subway? That doesn’t sound great."

This should be added or the entire sentence should be removed.

2

In the last part of the section it reads:

"Jarrett Walker, a known public transport expert and consultant from Portland, said that "Musk's hatred of sharing space with strangers is a luxury (or pathology) that only the rich can afford", referring to the theory that planning a city around the preferences of a minority yields an outcome that usually does not work for the majority.[316][317][318] Musk responded with "You're an idiot", later saying "Sorry ... Meant to say 'sanctimonious idiot'."[319][320] The exchange received a significant amount of media attention and prompted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman to comment on the controversy, saying that "You're an idiot" is "Elon Musk's idea of a cogent argument".[316][321]"

There are several things that are wrong with this paragraph. First of: this part should be removed: "referring to the theory that planning a city around the preferences of a minority yields an outcome that usually does not work for the majority". Why is this explanation necessary? This again again again again again again comes across as a way to justify the tweet (which Musk rightly sees as an offend) in the first place, so Musk's reply looks even more harsh and unjust. This part should be removed as the tweet does not come with any other explanation. Who knows, what if - what if - Elon actually suggests this way of transportation because he actually believes in courses that will make life better for each individual, and not just himself. Also the tweets phrasing: "Musk's hatred of sharing space with strangers" is not very nice (i hope we can agree on that), so again who can blame Musk for taking this as an insult?

Second, this part should also be removed: "and prompted Nobel laureate Paul Krugman to comment on the controversy, saying that "You're an idiot" is "Elon Musk's idea of a cogent argument".[316][321]"". Who does seriously think that this sentence is necessary? Why in gods name is it relevant to hear this totally irrelevant person comment on the matter? Other than again again again again again to discredit Elon wherever possible? This entire sentence should be removed.

I propose that this entire part (or at least the parts i have suggested) be removed. It brings nothing of relevance to Musk's view on public transportation. It starts with an insult from a random person and continues with another insult by another random person. Guys, this is not good enough for a quality article on Wikipedia. BoMadsen88 (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, the sources for the statements establish that his claims as well as the man himself are often controversial with experts, which anyone would be hardpressed to disagree with. The statements are indeed relevant. And once more, I fail to see why any of this is improper or unsourced. More importantly, unlike the preceding comments, all of the targeted claims (if you will) come with citations. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Now it is starting to make sense! I just found out that you are a major contributor to the TESLAQ article - you even write it on your profile. For those not knowing TESLAQ is the community of short sellers against Tesla. QRep2020 has every reason to be so negative against Elon Musk then, and he should be all means not be allowed to edit this article as he is clearly not an objective contributor. BoMadsen88 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to these allegations as I have answered them in the past as lobbed by other accusers; I'll ask you not to attack me in multiple threads on a Talk page. My contributions on Elon_Musk match what has been said in the independent, reliable sources that I provided. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not attacking, i am stating the facts - which are very important to understand your motivations. You are the creator and major contributor to the TESLAQ article - the shortsellers of Tesla. You are therefore also most likely a shortseller yourself. This basically means that your opinion is with nothing. Your entire agenda is to make Elon come across as negatively as possible. I will continue making this point as long as you contribute to this article. To other WIKIPEDIA contributors: QRep2020 does clearly have motivations to not be objective here, can he be locked out from editing this article? BoMadsen88 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

BoMadsen88, your accusations are uncivil and border on harrassment. Please stop - it isn't constructive. ~ HAL333 20:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

Change net worth to 185 Billion (Ref:https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/07/elon-musk-is-now-the-richest-person-in-the-world-passing-jeff-bezos-.html) KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (2)

Change “ As of January 7, 2020, Musk’s net w....” to “ As of January 7, 2021, Musk’s net w...” Ahednashef (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (3)

Chiragshelat (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Update the Net Worth to $185 b as of 1/7/2021

 Already done Terasail^[✉] 20:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021 (4)

I am proposing two changes in line with the discussion on Talk:Elon_Musk#"Dropping_out"_of_Stanford regarding his affiliation with Stanford University. As stated by both Elon Musk and Stanford University, he was given an admissions offer, but never enrolled in the university. Many websites have since stated that he "dropped out" of Stanford, relying on Wikipedia and an erroneous Biography.com article. However, both Musk and Stanford have stated that he did not ever attend. This primary source material, reported in the Vance book, is more accurate than the current "drop out" myth presented on the Wikipedia article today.

Here are my proposed changes:

(1)

He moved to California in 1995 to begin a Ph.D. in applied physics and material sciences at Stanford University, but dropped out after two days to pursue a business career.

I propose changing to:

He moved to California in 1995 after receiving an admissions offer to a Ph.D. program in applied physics and material sciences at Stanford University, but decided instead pursue a business career.

(2)

In 1995, Musk was accepted to a Ph.D. program in energy physics/materials science at Stanford University in California.[50] Musk attempted to get a job at Netscape, but he says that he never received a response to his job inquiries.[51] He ended up dropping out of Stanford after two days, deciding instead to join the Internet boom and launch an internet startup instead.[52]

I propose changing to:

In 1995, Musk was accepted to a Ph.D. program in energy physics/materials science at Stanford University in California.[50] Musk attempted to get a job at Netscape, but he says that he never received a response to his job inquiries.[51] Instead of attending the Stanford program, he decided to join the Internet boom and launch an internet startup.[52]

Editor-intern (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Editor-intern (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this not the following also from Vance's book, on page 50?

"Musk found in Silicon Valley a wealth of the opportunity he’d been seeking and a place equal to his ambitions. He would return two summers in a row and then bolt west permanently after graduating with dual degrees from Penn. He initially intended to pursue a doctorate in materials science and physics at Stanford and to advance the work he’d done at Pinnacle on ultracapacitors. As the story goes, Musk dropped out of Stanford after two days, finding the Internet’s call irresistible. He talked Kimbal into moving to Silicon Valley as well, so they could conquer the Web together."

It seems like people got the expression from the very same book. I hope that is convincing enough. QRep2020 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this second quote! I guess my issue is how to square the circle when Vance's book says these two conflicting things. The second sentence of the quote you cite begins "as the story goes," and my reading of this is that it's indicating that his two-day stint at Stanford is Silicon Valley lore (not necessarily confirming its veracity). Regardless, I think the issue is most firmly dealt with in Appendix 1 of the book, in particular as it directly quotes Judith Haccou, the director of graduate admissions in the office of the registrar at Stanford University. Appendix 1 goes in great detail to this matter, without using the qualifier "as the story goes."

Sorry for being so pedantic about this. I don't hold a grudge against Musk, just want to make sure the record's as accurate as we can make it. Cheers, Editor-intern (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is at issue here? He wanted to be part of the program, applied, and then relented. That's dropping out as I understand it, and it isn't a technical term nor a necessarily negatively-connotated one.QRep2020 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

In two places, the Wikipedia article says he "dropped out after two days," and the two days of enrollment/attendance don't appear to have ever taken place. This is why I requested the edits above, to be more specific in that he earned an admissions offer but did not attend. Editor-intern (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

About him

He is now the richest man on this planet Abdullah.masood.001 (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ HAL333 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

Net Worth updated to $195 Billion (According to Bloomberg's Billionaire Index) Rahulpahwa99 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ HAL333 22:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Updates to net worth

I think it would be best if we did not include Musk's exact net worth in the lede. It is a constant state of change. I have noted in the lede that he is a centi-billionaire and the richest person in the world. From now on, his exact net worth should only be noted in the infobox. It would be easier for all of us. The GA Jeff Bezos already does this. Thanks! ~ HAL333 21:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

We should also use the Bloomberg Billionaires Index for the infobox from now on. It updates daily, so we can have have an accurate source. Just change the access date. ~ HAL333 22:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

Elon Musk became the world's richest person surpassing Jeff Bezos on January 7, 2021. Sagnikdebnath04 (talk) 13:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he did. It's mentioned at the end of the very first paragraph of the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

In the Elon Musk's page it is written that he has completed "BS degree in Economics and BA degree in Physics" please exchange subjects with each other. 2402:3A80:B7F:EB78:134A:E9C:8C1B:C682 (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it is correct as is. One can have a BA in a scientific subject and vice versa. ~ HAL333 19:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Elon musk education wrong date

It says he received his bach in 1997 but it is in 1991 based on the source mentionned. Please fix Bardeault (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think the source is incorrect. I'll try to find a reliable source that states otherwise. ~ HAL333 14:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Richest African?

If Elon Musk was born in South Africa, lived there for the first 17 years of his life and is a South African Citizen shouldn't he be included in the list of richest Africans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is not relevant to this page. ~ HAL333 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

some small stuff

in the lead it says "Musk has also been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox or unscientific stances and highly publicized controversies." what are the "unscientific stances" referring to? The COVID statements are already referred to in the same paragraph and I cant think of other major instances this would apply to.

after that "He settled with the SEC, temporarily stepping down from chairman and accepting limitations on his Twitter usage." shouldnt it be "(from his position) as chairman"?

also in the Popular Culture section, I'd change "In Iron Man 2 (2010), Musk met Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in a restaurant, and had a brief line regarding an "idea for an electric jet."" to "Musk made a cameo appearance in Iron Man 2 (2010), where he met Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) in a Monegasque restaurant, and had a brief line regarding an "idea for an electric jet."", the current wording doesnt really make it clear that its a cameo.

(also link cameo, electric jet as electric aircraft and monegasque) --jonas (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Addressed. ~ HAL333 23:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Is this section really relevant in the article?

The section appears to be just comments Musk makes to maintain his reputation online. I don't think these tweets should be taken very seriously. I think there are more important phrases that Musk has said. --JShark (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Musk tweets about a lot of things. Unless there is anything notable about the tweet, it won't be included. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject?.--JShark (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

JShark, there are four WP:RS provided. While I find the subject distasteful and I believe that media outlets are indolent and slothful when they report on Tempests in a Tweetpot, I can't argue with the WP:DUE paragraph in a long article with 4 RS and reactions from notable institutions. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

And I hate to sound like a broken record, but notability is not the standard for inclusion of facts in articles. Please re-read our policies. WP:DUE applies. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I added some more reliable sources. ~ HAL333 20:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I also support removal of this section per WP:SOAP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Twitter drama barely passes notability checks and it's clear this won't get a long-lasting encyclopedic value. --Loganmac (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure 9 reliable sources passes the notability checks... ~ HAL333 04:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, I think you mean WP:DUE Elizium23 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah - my bad. Thanks for catching that. ~ HAL333 01:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

non-NPOV in Politics section

There's a heavy WP:WEIGHT problem in this section, particularly on his views on AI, public transport and short-selling. I'm aware of the FAQ at the top of this talk page but editors should be reminded that WP:NPOV explicitly states:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources"

As you read through this section, you get one or two sentences of Musk's views, followed by paragraphs of critics on every topic, people as random as it gets (with only one source, without any care for judging the notability or relevance of these statements).

For example on the "COVID-19 pandemic" section there's one whole paragraph dedicated to him getting called "Space Karen" on Twitter for some reason, sourced by "International Business Times" and Newsweek (also a property of IBT, both posted in the same day) and "Evening Standard", which doesn't even mention "Space Karen" anywhere on the article.

• Valid concern. I have added reliable sources, like the Washington Post. ~ HAL333 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On the short-selling section, there's absolutely no mention of the record loses of short-sellers of Tesla [7][8][9][10], which you can get countless articles of by Googling "Elon Musk shortselling", and there's no mention of the company being the most shorted one [11], which would explain his negative views toward the practice.

In the AI section, the writing makes it seem like he's only person in the world that has these views, due to absolutely no positive voices being included, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. For example this VICE article mentions support or same views from Stephen Hawkins, Bill Gates, Max Tegmark (who has recieved the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science's Gold Medal in 2019 for "his contributions to our understanding of humanity’s place in the cosmos and the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence." There's mentions of several supportive voices here, here, here, here, etc. In this same section regarding his views on simulated reality, there's only one opinion to his statements: "Harvard physicist Lisa Randall disputes this and has argued the probability of us living in a simulation is "effectively zero", the source of this statement is this Fox Business article [12], which mentions support of the idea (as it being possible, not necessarily real) from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom, yet only this physicist's statement, which is included as almost a footnote, is included, in a blatant case of WP:UNDUE and bad faith editing.

• You cherry picked. Note the quote from Nature supporting Musk. ~ HAL333 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On the public transport section, there's a paragraph of criticism from one Jarrett Walker, which includes 3 sources, two of which are the guy's personal blog, and his Twitter

• Good catch. They have been replaced with RS. ~ HAL333 13:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This case of POV pushing is immediately more apparent when comparing articles of fellow billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Bernard Arnault, Steve Ballmer, etc. which all consist of encyclopedic language instead of tabloid-like content throughout. --Loganmac (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• We simply summarize what has been heavily recounted in reliable sources. Much more criticism has been published about Musk than any of those figures. ~ HAL333 01:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see the above FAQ. ~ HAL333 03:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with Loganmac. I have added multiple sections where I give concrete examples as to the biased negativity on Elon Musk throughout this entire article. This is a huge problem, and in no way does it hold up to Wikipedias standards. EDIT: Also worth noting is that one of the major contributors to this article is ALSO the creator (and major contributor) of the article behind TESLAQ which is the short sellers of Tesla. TESLAQ in itself lack any noteworthiness of having its own article, and it might therefor be a very clear breach of Wikipedias clear guidelines on conflict of interest. As per the examples listed here and from my own examples above it is very clear that some of the contributors to this article has a reason not to be unbiased and deliberately tries to paint Elon in as bad a light as possible. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You do not need to repeat your allegations for the umpteenth time. Do it again and I'll have to request administrator action. ~ HAL333 13:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)