Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

"Technologist" as initial sentence descriptor.

I understand not calling Musk an engineer. But he is very clearly a technologist: this is much broader and less rigorous than what encompasses being an engineer.

Definition: The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) in the USA summarizes the distinction as being that engineers are trained more with conceptual skills to "function as designers," while **engineering technologists "apply others' designs."**

He describes himself as such too, more so than an engineer if pressed on that - he himself is aware he isn't a true engineer.

Either way, to be faithful to his personage, he should be described as a technologist as well as a business magnate and investor. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Some definitions of technologists are erroneous and state it is "an expert in a particular field of technology". The NSPE definition is more accurate to the non-lay definition; it is above. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The text should be "technologist" with the link to the "Engineering technologist" wikipage. Excluding previous work in WW2 (no Nazi comments please, it isn't relevant here), a great parallel is actually that of Werner Heisenberg. At NASA, he would best be described as an engineering technologist - he didn't make engineering contributions but was the ultimate leader of a team of engineers. Zagreus99 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Or is "a professional who physically builds what an engineer designs", he does not build anything. He pays others to build it (thus they would be the technologists) also (according to the WP article you referred to) "An engineering technologist is a professional trained in certain aspects of development and implementation of a respective area of technology". You need RS saying he is a technologist, not your OR that dismisses definitions you do not like. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, what exactly is the issue with the NSPE definition? How does he not apply the engineering designs of engineers? Be objective Zagreus99 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I am, he does not apply them he tells others to. This is why wp:or and wp:v are policy, we have differing definitions, some of which he may fit (if we accept he actually does anything more than just say "build this"). So we need RS to say it, not how we interpetate RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

There should (really has to) be some title to describe his connection to technology though. If not technologist then what? Zagreus99 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"chief engineer" is not enough? Slatersteven (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

His personage is that of a technologist in the second sense of the word mentioned (applies engineering ideas in the organisational sense) across the board: whether it's Tesla or Space-X or anything else. He is blatantly more than just a business magnate and investor: in a list of figures with those attributes he would stand out for his role as a technologist (2nd sense). Zagreus99 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven chief engineer is his title at SpaceX, that doesn't count as a replacement for Technologist, because it's just a title he gave himself. Shane04040404 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see there are two definitions: apply as in "(physically) put together" and apply as in "organise (together)". Zagreus99 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

He has two descriptors right now that fit just fine. QRep2020 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

He is not widely described as a "technologist" in RS. ~ HAL333 02:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zagreus99 in the Twitter Q&A, Elon just referred to himself as a technologist Shane04040404 (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

So, he is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Elon Musk

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. No valid reason for delisting provided. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk is considered to be very influential to many, as he has contributed a lot to technological advancement in spaceflight and technology, most notably electric vehicles and near-future enhancements. Musk is without a doubt a respectable individual in these fields, but his recent actions and past comments on various social issues and perceived problems has generated a good amount of warranted controversy. A good article is meant to document various things that are well-received on Wikipedia and elsewhere, but by allowing him to have a good article status does not reason under our current social climate

Musk is known to have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. If Wikipedia aims to document individuals who are professorial in science, then including a denier of vaccines and lock downs as a "good example" is pretty strange. We have a zero-tolerance policy on fringe science and conspiracies, so why must we include a proponent of hoaxes as a "good article"?

Elon recently acquired Twitter, and fired an employee responsible from preventing a coup by Donald Trump. If Wikipedia aims to be a place to get accurate information on extremely sensitive events such as the attempted coup at the capitol, then why do we wish to promote someone who advocates the restoration of a major proponent of de-democratization in the United States? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

Elon has made continuous references to far-right politics. Far-right politics in the United States have been recently responsible for many mass shootings and huge political disinformation, such as QAnon and Trumpism. If we aim to be a neutral space that presents individuals at their best, then why must we include a "meme lord" as a good article? It just shows how out of touch we are.

Musk no longer deserves a good article due to his behaviour and actions, which will unfortunately account for the restoration of Donald Trump on the biggest micrblogging website, which will be a direct threat to democracy. We need to reassess this article for the betterment of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alohaidled (talk • contribs) 01:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. We care about the GA criteria, not "behaviour and actions". Unless you can show how this article doesn't follow the GA criteria, the article won't be delisted. The article is considered "good" because its content and quality is good according to the GA criteria, not because the person is good. Btw, QAnon is a GA too. Skyshifter ^talk 01:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody want to claim that this article no longer meets GA criteria and should be delisted? Otherwise we should speedy close this. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Go check out Adolf Hitler. Speedy close. ~ HAL333 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

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

Alohaidled (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is a Good article. QRep2020 (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out above, an article's status as GA rests on the content of the article, not on the moral values of the person or other thing being described. X-Editor (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Side note: do people really hate Musk to that point? I know that he is a really controversial person, but jeez... demoting an article that is solely based on hate on a particular person is not ok. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship

A few weeks ago, I add "naturalized American" to the first sentence, and yet it got deleted. Why? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Because his nationality is complex. If his naturalization is to appear in the lead, it might be better placed at the end of the second paragraph, since it happened the same year as the eBay acquisition. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change on the last two paragraphs

What do you think about these three paragraphs:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. As of 2022, Tesla and SpaceX has a market capitalization of at least US$840 billion and US$127 billion; both of the companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation.

In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He has proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system and is the president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education.

Musk has promoted contentious perspectives regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate. He has also been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down from his chairmanship.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean, of the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah exactly. I've made the changes to the last paragraph to be more comprehensive of his scandals and public perception. The first two paragraphs however I think are too drastic to be added to the article without discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I take issue with, "As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate." I would suggest instead, "He is the subject of a cult of personality as well as a figure of serious ridicule." We should get rid of the "also" in the following sentence as well. QRep2020 (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, with slight modifications. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Which are? QRep2020 (talk) 18:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"As such, he is both loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public." CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Mostly oppose. Why did you chop off every thing pre-SpaceX? ~ HAL333 04:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Because Tesla and SpaceX are the most known companies and are the ones that "revolutionize" industries. The other companies, not so much. OpenAI only make groundbreaking neural networks after Elon left the company, Neuralink has not have a human implant yet, the Boring Company has not done anything really groundbreaking yet and of course, Elon's Twitter ownership is just getting started. All of these companies are not influential to the industries when Elon is around. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hugely disagree. The lead needs to be an accurate summary of the article. It needs to cover all the major points. You're being subjective and overemphasizing certain things. To draw a comparison, Churchill is thought of by the public as mainly the savoir of England during WWII, but look at the relatively little weight given in the lead. ~ HAL333 04:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. Merged the two paragraphs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing your original proposal: it makes it unclear as to what is being discussed. Paste new drafts below. Also, inserting the market capitalization of Tesla is a bad idea as it will quickly become dated. It's highly volatile, and we will never actually be able to give readers an accurate number. ~ HAL333 04:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I restored my original proposal. Here's the updated one: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He has proposed a hyperloop high-speed vactrain transportation system and is the president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education. Musk's companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation.

Musk has promoted contentious perspectives regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he is both loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down his chairmanship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "Musk's companies have significantly affected their respective industry' operation." is fluff and not really necessary. I've changed "...president of the Musk Foundation, which donates to scientific research and education." --> "president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation". It's more concise, and "donates to scientific research and education" isn't even accurate as it has donated to a lot more than those narrow fields. I know this isn't your change, but I really don't like "promoted contentious perspectives". It seems like such a bloated roundabout way to say that he has said controversial things. Also, I think the current "cult of personality" wording is more concise and accurate than the "loved and ridiculed by different parts of the general public". I'm also not sure that that can be supported by the current article's body. ~ HAL333 05:03, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, also the "As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate" is said in the public perception section. So that would be:

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

Musk has said controversial statements regarding politics and technology, especially on Twitter. As such, he has developed polarizing cults of personality and hate. He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, such as spreading COVID-19 misinformation, tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, and having a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. The Tesla private takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to temporarily stepped down his chairmanship. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Boldly added to the article as it is now good enough. No need to wait for perfection – stuff improves faster there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not like "hate". Also, what is a cult of hate? The closest source I can find about such a thing is https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults. Are we suggesting that Musk's critics are violent? QRep2020 (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

People hate Musk, that's a fact, and there's no prejudice of violence here. Not saying that there're tons of people hating Musk however is airbrushing the situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The statements might not be inaccurate, but they are perhaps worded a bit strongly, especially insofar as the CoP reference associates him with political tyrants. Another possible wording would be: "As a result [not "as such" because there is nothing before to which "such" would refer] he inspires highly polarized reactions from the public, ranging from admiration to hostility." 67.180.143.89 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Works for me. QRep2020 (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Same, added. The lead now looks much better than before. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Engineer?

quote this week from his case regarding pay: "At SpaceX it’s really that I’m responsible for the engineering of the rockets and Tesla for the technology in the car that makes it successful. So, CEO is often viewed as somewhat of a business focused role but in reality, my role is much more that of an engineer developing technology and making sure that we develop breakthrough technologies and that we have a team of incredible engineers who can achieve those goals.”

he is making a claim that appears, on the surface to be that he is primarily an engineer. however, i dont see any evidence that he is actually an engineer. i suspect that the general public assumes he is an actual scienties/engineer. he doesnt NEED to be an engineer to run a tech company, clearly, see steve jobs for that, but are there reliable sources that can elaborate on the apparent split between his engineering claims and his actual engineering chops?12.232.253.67 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you want us to change or say? Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we can assume that Elon is de facto an engineer, in the sense that he actually know his stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that he is not a professional engineer. But as a lead of the biggest space company that's kinda irrelevant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Source:

• "He’s obviously skilled at all those different functions, but certainly what really drives him and where his passion really is, is his role as CTO" – Garrett Reisman
• "By 2007 he knew everything about rockets - he really knew everything, in detail." – Robert Zubrin

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, he is a member of a professional body. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to assume anything so long as every reference to him as "engineer" is qualified with the context. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with business magnet Streisand effect

I noticed that a lot of people requesting "business magnet" less because of the podcast itself, and more because that has become a meme of how Wikipedia is biased/imcomplete/lack of humor/braindead/etc. The more we say no to it, the more people will keep requesting stupid shit. We should ignore them instead per WP:Don't feed the troll and use our effort instead to improve the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I dislike ignoring what may be honest requests/misunderstanding of policy, maybe a FAq, so we can just say "see FAq". Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Something like Talk:Elon_Musk#Frequently_asked_questions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that requests are posted intentionally to troll. I only see a man so intensely publicized as the boss of the world that people are inspired to come here and represent him. If you see a "business magnet" request delete it. Due prior notice has been given through the edit notice and FAQ. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article?

I think that this article is pretty good now, should we nominate it in WP:FAC? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

No. The page is still lacking in quality in many areas. It is also highly volatile and subject to broad editing warring/reversions (failing FAC criteria). I will "oppose" any FAC opened. ~ HAL333 04:15, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with HAL333. It's not there yet. Many issues with undue weight. The lede is also a mess imo. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Schierbecker May you clarify what sections are still undue? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Um… in order for an article to be Featured quality it has to be stable and that will never happen here. Trillfendi (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No. Stability means "editors don't make fuss with each other about content", not "people kept replacing magnate with magnet". It does not mean the lack of vandalism in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Essentially nothing has changed since you torpedoed the nomination. Why the sudden, random change of heart? ~ HAL333 18:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

HAL333, sorry if I've confused you. My intent is to ask what is still missing from the article that is preventing this article from being a FA. Once again, I sorry for my harsh oppose in the last FAC. I should've been more gentle with my response, considering how much work you have pour into the article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It's okay, and sorry if I've been a bit discourteous recently. With the peer review and FAC not yeilding anything helpful, I think the best avenue would be to ask individual, skilled editors to give some pointers. I'm also not that confident that Musk (or most biographies really) can ever be featured quality until the subject is dead. We'll have more literary sources, and just think about how much this article has changed in the past year with the Twitter affair. It's just not stable. ~ HAL333 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask in WT:FA or WT:FAC and tell them that aside from the stability criteria, what should we do next. Of course, after addressing our own diagnosed issues first. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

There is no proper source that he has a degree in physics. Please provide proper citations or remove it. 172.92.176.24 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

its being discussed above, make you case there. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022

Remove Elon Musks Bachelor Degreen of Sience. He has no Bachelor in Physics.

Source: https://dparchives.library.upenn.edu/?a=d&d=tdp19970516-01.2.372.1&srpos=5&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-1997+physics------ 2001:16B8:ADF9:7600:E01B:2AAE:2F85:457E (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: see active discussion about the same thing above. Cannolis (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Education error

Article says Musk completed studies for a BA in physics. This is unclear and implies receipt of a degree. Alternatively it implies he completed all coursework but did not earn the degree. Neither statement is true.

Article claims his economics degree was earned in 1995. This is inaccurate.

Musk does have a degree. A Bachelor of Arts with no field of study stated. The date on his degree is 1997. 2600:4040:7E4F:8E00:437:483:B69C:B0B3 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Musk appears to have two degrees: a BS in Economics (awarded 1997) and a BA (no field listed). See https://twitter.com/capitolhunters/status/1593307729522835459?s=20&t=HU_edtbj7JP-MnaYPsjkZQ. Will make appropriate change(s). Omega132 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/

The BA is a Physics degree. Ergzay (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have an RS? No? Then don't add it. ~ HAL333 02:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the court documents not reliable sources? Omega132 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." If capitolhunters' analysis is correct, other sources are likely to pick up on it. Wikipedia is not the kind of place to be the first to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Apologies for the mistake, clearly I'm new here. Omega132 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=255379940&z=51348f41 actual PDF from court 45.48.248.6 (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This document goes on to say that Elon also never payed course fees or studied at Stanford as he had claimed. He obtained an honorary degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997. What's interesting about this is that this degree may have been obtained Illegally as part of a plot to prevent him from losing his residence in the United States as a result of overstaying an expired student visa. 45.48.248.6 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

page 164 of this court filing contains both diplomas, they are dated MCMXCVII (1997). [1]https://magazine.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/fall-2010/he-wont-back-down/ this article from Wharton Magazine lists him as class of '97. Appendix 1 of the 2015 edition of the Vance biography (available for free on open library) acknowledges the education controversy:

"While playing detective, O’Reilly unearthed some information about Musk’s past that’s arguably more interesting than the allegations in the lawsuit. He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk’s degrees in 1997—two years later than what Musk has cited. I called Penn’s registrar and verified these findings. Copies of Musk’s records show that he received a dual degree in economics and physics in May 1997. O’Reilly also subpoenaed the registrar’s office at Stanford to verify Musk’s admittance in 1995 for his doctorate work in physics. “Based on the information you provided, we are unable to locate a record in our office for Elon Musk,” wrote the director of graduate admissions. When asked during the case to produce a document verifying Musk’s enrollment at Stanford, Musk’s attorney declined and called the request “unduly burdensome.” I contacted a number of Stanford physics professors who taught in 1995, and they either failed to respond or didn’t remember Musk. Doug Osheroff, a Nobel Prize winner and department chair at the time, said, “I don’t think I knew Elon, and am pretty sure that he was not in the Physics Department.”

"At first, I, too, felt like there were a lot of oddities surrounding Musk’s academic record, particularly the Stanford days. But, as I dug in, there were solid explanations for all of the inconsistencies and plenty of evidence to undermine the cases of Musk’s detractors.

"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.”

"Musk also had an explanation for the weird timing on his degrees from Penn. “I had a History and an English credit that I agreed with Penn that I would do at Stanford,” he said. “Then I put Stanford on deferment. Later, Penn’s requirements changed so that you don’t need the English and History credit. So then they awarded me the degree in ’97 when it was clear I was not going to go to grad school, and their requirement was no longer there."

I believe later editions of this book do not include this appendix. 2601:646:C600:7060:517:9A71:9D4A:8CA0 (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all very intriguing but original research. Perhaps if it got compiled in a reliable, notable independent publication then its inclusion on Wikipedia would be on the table. QRep2020 (talk) 07:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious if this complies with Wikipedia:These are not original research#Conflict between sources:

It appears that there is pretty strong disagreement between sources on the exact date of the degree. Encyclopedia Britannica lists 1997 as does the Wharton Magazine and one of the articles cited for the 1995 claim begins with the sentence.

SpaceX, founded and led by 1997 College and Wharton graduate Elon Musk, successfully launched two astronauts from a Florida launchpad Saturday afternoon.

The Vance Biography seems to be the basis of the 1995 claim, but it acknowledges the controversy. I think some SEC filings made by musk also list 1995. I don't know if there are other soruces. 2601:646:C600:7060:517:9A71:9D4A:8CA0 (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The Vance Biography has the 1997 as the correct year as well, to quote directly from that source:

He found that the University of Pennsylvania granted Musk's degrees in 1997 - Two years later than what Musk had cited. I called Penn's registrar and verified these findings. Kamikkels (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My two cents: The court document is not an authoritative source. It is not a judgment but a series of documents produced by Musk and the plaintiff's lawyers. As mentioned by other comments, it should not be used as a source as it violates WP policy and constitutes original research. Additionally, in light of this information being unusable, there shouldn't be changes to the current page as there are very good and much better sources to support the current content than the one here. Just because the degree doesn't say it's field does not mean that it's not a degree "in physics" or otherwise. I am by no means a Musk supporter, but it would not be appropriate to change his education based on a twitter thread. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What source is more authoritative than a court document? The court document Includes a diploma which doesn't match what's in the wikipedia article on date or what the subject is in. It seems odd to leave education up if there are legal documents which contradict the claims Musk has made in the Wikipedia article. Musk has shown himself to have credibility problems with public statements that he has made in the past, this is yet another example. 45.48.248.6 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Just because something is in a court filing doesn't make it true. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

You can see the legal document yourself, which has already been mentioned, so it wouldn't be changing based on a Twitter thread. At the very least there should be a citation needed by the physics degree, or some verbiage that is not "he received a bachelors degree... in physics" because there is no proof of he actually did besides trusting someone's word or article. Gibsonfarabow (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to refer to court documents then why ignore the pertinant ones such as the fact both of his degree certificates have been submitted as evidence (the BA and the BS) and he submitted e-mail evidence from Penn: https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/

An email hosted on Plainsite likely isn't an WP:RS for a contested claim about a WP:BLP. What we should do is wait for secondary coverage after these revelations, then update the article based on what that coverage says. --Aquillion (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

It's as good as the sources being used to contest the claim, I mean both the degree certificates were submitted in evidence and the university has confirmed via e-mail that he was awarded those degrees. I've not suggested anything be changed as a result of that, the article is already correct, I'm pointing out that the recent criticism using similar sources is flawed, that there are already reputable sources confirming he has both a BA and BS degree. DangerousBrian (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

More to the point this shouldn't require original research, that he's graduated with both an Economics and a Physics degree has already been documented in several reputable sources. DangerousBrian (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is a controversy over the date we should remove them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We follow what the RS say, regardless of what the truth may be. We're editors, not sleuths. ~ HAL333 13:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

But if RS contradict each other then what do we write? Slatersteven (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What RS are you referring to? The court docs? ~ HAL333 13:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the Britannica source, and the one we already use that says "SpaceX, founded and led by 1997 College and Wharton graduate Elon Musk". Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

What Britannica does is irrelevant--it's a tertiary source. What is the latter source? ~ HAL333 14:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite 38. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So can we have a quote he both graduated in 1995, and with a physics degree? Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The 1997 BA degree is undisputed. The 1994/1995 degrees in physics and economics are.

There are further inconsistencies in the wiki page though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#Education

"Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where, according to his biographer, he completed studies for a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics and a Bachelor of Science degree in economics from the Wharton School in 1995."

however the source quoted for these lines says:

"SpaceX, founded and led by 1997 College and Wharton graduate Elon Musk, successfully launched two astronauts from a Florida launchpad Saturday afternoon."

At minimum the article should only state that he received a degree in 1997. It should be noted as well that the publication cited above is The University of Pennsylvania's student newspaper. 45.48.248.6 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this a valid source: https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-lying-liar-lies-lies-martina-navratilova-blasts-elon-musk-amidst-fake-degree-illegal-immigration-allegations  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helohe (talk • contribs) 09:39, November 18, 2022 (UTC)

I saw that, and dismissed it, as it I am unsure it would pass muster. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not require pictures of someone's degrees with the followed program spelled out. Otherwise, we might as well remove all degrees mentioned on Wikipedia. All we need are reliable sources that confirm whether Musk has degrees in these areas (and there are plenty).

The alternative source mentioned above (a twitter thread) does not comply with WP:RS and the source makes its own interpretation of the court documents. Of course, there are other ways these documents can be interpreted, but either interpretation would be original research WP:NOR. Piet cornelis (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok, what are these reliable sources that Musk does have a physics degree that contradict a legal court document (which has already been linked outside the twitter thread)? My reading of Wikipedia's Original Research policy is that primary sources are acceptable, so I am not sure why this is stated as factual without at least a citation needed or claim disputed line put in the article. Gibsonfarabow (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And regarding the primary source policy, only adding "citation needed" is not making an explicit interpretation of the court document or assertion of any claim other than calling for citations that should be easy to find if he does indeed have the degree. Gibsonfarabow (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so next to the sentence that says Elon went to Stanford, can we put a Citation Needed? And can we not simply accept Elon's word on this point. Not Sleuthing or whatever, but that is clearly a questionable claim. And currently there is no citation for the sentence.

From what I have seen, this sentence is referring to a story Elon tells about attending a PhD program for only two days before dropping out. I don't think that should be taken to be true because the dates contradict and it's been questioned so much.

Maybe we could start the sentence with "Elon claims..." then go on to say there's no documentation. That might be too aggressive, so simply putting "citation needed" seems like the responsible thing to do. JonesyPHD (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are some additional sources on his stanford admission/physics degree [2] [3][4] [5][6]. Piet cornelis (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Those are mostly not useful because they predate the revelations during the court case; if later secondary sources contradict them then we have to go with the later sources. What we should do is wait until a significant number of newer sources have appeared (which is likely to happen for something like this), then update the article based on what the higher-quality ones among them say. --Aquillion (talk) 09:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, because it's not just Elon claiming it. It's any number of articles by large publications saying it. Including books written about Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Any number of news outlets can take Musk's word for it when deciding to write an article about his history. If the primary source always comes back to "I heard it from Musk" or "I read it on the Wikipedia page" then it shouldn't be used as evidence to substantiate that claim. This is a real problem with Wikipedia's standards for verifying an individual's academic credentials. It is based, in part, on a system of good faith. When a potential fraudster comes along and makes claims about their education which media sources accept at face value, there is no structure in place on Wikipedia to for more rigorous forms of verification, which is why when educational institutions are legally compelled to produce this evidence via court-ordered subpoena, I find it rather absurd that these documents cannot be accepted as primary sources merely because they happen to be associated with a court document. We have no way of proving the claim without court documents, because the only organization which could possibly serve as a primary source has it within their best interest not to divulge whether Musk's physics degree is legitimate.208.64.158.49 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that Musk has often made claims that are more dramatic than the sources support, it's also important to be careful to stick to the wording the sources actually use. If we cite a source that says eg. At the age of 24, Musk started a doctoral program in physics at Stanford in 1995 but dropped out after two days, we have to actually say in the article that he dropped out after two days - it's misusing it as a source to use that to imply that he attended the program for any meaningful length of time. Similarly, we should avoid WP:SYNTH about why he dropped out unless we have a source specifically stating it; and anything that sources attribute to Musk, we have to be careful just to report as things he's said about himself rather than as facts. I would also strenuously argue that we should prioritize trusting later sources over earlier ones in situations where they contradict, since (per some of the sources people quoted above) Musk made many claims about himself early on that didn't quite hold up under scrutiny in court. More recent sources are generally going to reflect that new information. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it matters in this case, there are court documents supporting his BA in Physics and BS in Economics and there are reputable sources supporting his BA in Physics and BS in Economics, the article is correct, there seems to have been some fuss on the discussion page recently as a result of some erroneous twitter thread. DangerousBrian (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/10/elon-musk-college-for-fun-not-learning Two degrees 1997. https://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/03/college-dropouts-who-made-millions.html 1 degree in physics 1 in economics. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The first thing that should be mentioned is conspiracy theorist

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/31/1132906782/elon-musk-twitter-pelosi-conspiracy

47.229.152.107 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

see: Mike Lindell 47.229.152.107 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

No. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia has a BIG problem with WP:CONTENTIOUS MOS:LABELs and breaching WP:REDFLAG as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eruditess (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

User:Slatersteven deleted content with the edit summary of "So?" which doesn't convey the reason behind the decision very well. Assuming good faith, can you explain in a bit more detail why you deleted this properly referenced section? diff CT55555 (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Because I fail to see what this adds to our understating of the topic because in a section about what seems to be major accolades, this was a bit of fan art, that in no way is comparable. Hence So? as in So what? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's fairly normal to include a brief mention when someone makes a statue of someone else. For example 1 2

What does it add to our understanding? I can only offer opinion there, it suggests that the person is liked and admired. The existence of statues and monuments to people is very commonly something that is added to biographical artiles, so my edit is absolutely within Wikipedia norms and deleting such content with an edit summary of "So?", in my opinion, falls outside the scope of normal civil editing. I propose to put it back in, but will pause a bit to see what others say and what consensus is. CT55555 (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I would leave this out, unless it has wide spread coverage and there is alot more to it. It seems like trivia material.--Malerooster (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

This article states that Elon Musk received a degree in Physics from the University of Pennsylvania. However this has been proven untrue. He never received such a degree, please refer here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1593307541932474368.html 2604:3D08:737D:D1A0:3414:7D2F:3034:26E6 (talk) 05:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

See talk page thread above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Controversy

The lead should certainly have criticisms of his handling of twitter, but in no way should it claim he has supported the far-right or hate speech. I would understand, however, putting something about how he reinstated accounts that were previously banned for promoting hate speech. Bill Williams 05:34, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

How is reinstating the access to Twitter for right-wing, hate speech and other blocked extremists/nutters/criminals not supporting them? 2A02:560:580E:1900:4D3E:4810:F71F:3FB4 (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Because he specifically stated that he does not agree with many of them and that it was not the reason he reinstated them, also you realize he reinstated far-left accounts too? Far-right accounts were not the only ones previously suspended for hate speech... Bill Williams 06:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

(Content removed, see history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.135.50 (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2022 (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. The content you pasted is the exact same as what is already on the article page. Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please add mentions of the Ad Astra School

Please add mentions of the Ad Astra School. FlavioPTFerreira (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, here is some of my sources:

• First space, then auto—now Elon Musk quietly tinkers with education
• The three questions on the application for Elon Musk’s private school
• Elon Musk is reportedly running an exclusive private school out of SpaceX’s headquarters

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

more sauces:

• If you want your child to become the next billionaire industrialist, Astra Nova might be a good place to start.

And along the way, sources about thinking in first principles:

• Why Elon Musk wants his employees to use an ancient mental strategy called ‘first principles’
• Elon Musk calls this a ‘powerful, powerful way of thinking’—but is ‘hard to do.’ Here’s how it works

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The subsection describes the school in the past tense, so should it not also include that it was discontinued in favor of Astra Nova (https://www.astranova.org/xyz/about)? QRep2020 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am writing about it now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Does it have a strong emphasis on ethics, I could not find a mention of that? Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also is it Ad Astra or Astra Nova? Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Ad Astra is the school that Musk founded; the school is "closed" in 2020 and its staff formed an online Astra Nova school that is based on the curriculum. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am also unsure this warrants its own section, as it is really a minor part of what he does. A one-line mention is all we need in the family section. Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, wait a sec CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Which source says "The school says it has a “heavy emphasis” on science, math, engineering and ethics. It does not teach sports or music at all, and languages fall by the wayside"" as I can't even find the word ethics, the closest sentence I can find is " in a curriculum heavy on science, math, engineering, robotics, and artificial intelligence."? Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Ars Technica one. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Then we cannot it does, we say "the school claims". And we include far too much information on what is private education for his kids. 16:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've trimmed down the content to just 2 paragraphs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And I think it warrants only a line or two, "In 2014, Musk transferred his five children from the Mirman School[262] and three SpaceX employees' children to his newly-founded Ad Astra school, located at SpaceX's headquarter, it was closed in 2020", that is all this deserves. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Why? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have said why, it lasted just 6 years, and only had his kids (and 3 others) in it. This is not an important part of his life or career. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on that part. Let's see how others might think. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you should remove it until WP:ONUS is on your side and you get wp:consensus for a version. As right now the version you have added does not have consensus and thus ((per wp:brd) should not be in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

K, done CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Note as well I have objected to the section, it should not have been added back without consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets have a quick not really an RFC

What text should we add

Long (in its own section)

"In 2014, Musk transferred his five children from the Mirman School and three SpaceX employees' children to his newly-founded Ad Astra school, located at SpaceX's headquarter. Musk wanted to make Ad Astra a school that encourages inquiry-based learning and experimentation, and was heavily influenced by his views and ventures. He invited Joshua Dahn, a teacher from the Mirman School, to become Ad Astra's principal. The school had a revised curriculum for every year, which focused in STEM subjects, artificial intelligence and ethics; however, it did not have formal physical education, music or second language subjects. All of Ad Astra's tuition and cost was paid by Musk. Enrollment to Ad Astra was elusive, even to SpaceX employees who had known about the school as an employee benefit. In 2017, more than 400 families applied for a dozen slots in the school; Ad Astra in that year had expected to have a total student body of less than 50."

Short (in the personal life section)

"In 2014, Musk transferred his five children from the Mirman School[262] and three SpaceX employees' children to his newly-founded Ad Astra school, located at SpaceX's headquarter, it was closed in 2020"

Lets see what the consensus is. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Short. QRep2020 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Short. ~ HAL333 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

References

elon musk is an internet personality 100%

Put back the edit AboutMeREAL (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Elon Musk's popularity has benefitted from the internet. But he's not an internet celebrity in the classical sense of the term, and definitely it doesn't compose a main portion of his occupation or notability, which is what the lead occupation is for per MOS:OPENPARABIO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

He spends hours tweeting, sometimes tweets 20+ times a day Has hosted meme review on youtube Has articles written on him ABOUT his Twitter activity every day(multiple times a day from many sources)

He is literally an internet meme and a big one

Forget your classical definition forElon musk IS THE DEFINITION of internet personality AboutMeREAL (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I know people who tewet more than that, its does not make them an internet personality, do RS call him that? Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You have 2 days to get consensus otherwise the edit goes back in AboutMeREAL (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:ONUS, that is not how it works, in fact you have it exactly REVERSED. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll throw in my opinion that I agree that Elon is not an "internet personality". "Internet personality" implies that they are almost exclusively famous for writing video material on youtube/tiktok/some other social media platform. Elon's primary source of fame is from his actions at SpaceX and Tesla as well as to a lesser extent his wealth. Ergzay (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Education

Bachelor of Science in Physics and Bachelor of Arts in Economics. Instead it is written Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Bachelor of Science in Economics. However it can also be Bachelor of Science in Physics and Economics. Please verify. 2A01:E0A:5F5:9F90:9F6E:9559:D0BD:2535 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Man has a degree in economics from Penn. There is no evidence that he has a degree in physics and he did not take the opportunity to provide it.

The registrar of Stanford can find no record of his application there.

See Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al State Civil LawsuitSuperior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Case No. CIV484400

document 52 (contains degree certificate in Economics and correspondence from Stanford Registrar) 2003:FB:E72E:B168:687A:DFAA:F9C1:EBF2 (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

He does not seem to have any sort of physics qualification. He had been enrolled in Business school at Queen's University, dropped out, and then received a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Penn in 1997. It'd be important to look further, but there's a pretty detailed explanation of his degrees here [7]. 134.226.214.223 (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The degree in arts is a different one of Science in Economics as Penn issues a separate diploma for both (see page 164 and 165) Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Case No. CIV484400 Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al

Why does it still say that he graduated from his Physics degree if per Martin Eberhard v. Elon Musk et al he didn't complete his studies? Promoting lies from a man who constantly lies himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:150:156:3877:A19F:D09D:11DE:3F21 (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, worth looking into this. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY says Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Affidavits and other legal filings are not reliable sources for facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Note that the linked trial document is not a transcript. It contains a letter from the Registrar of the graduate program at Stanford University, stating that there is no record of Musk ever being accepted there, and a copy of Musk's economics degree from Penn. It obviously does not contain Musk's degree in physics, if that does not exist. 2003:FB:E72E:B109:584F:BDE4:BC5F:6920 (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Not only did he not graduate in 1995 from Penn, he was never accepted to Stanford. Kingstothefinals (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

He certainly was never enrolled at Stanford and could hardly have been accepted in 1995, since he did not complete his undergraduate studies at

Penn State until 1997. A letter tweeted by Musk himself shows that he was never enrolled at Stanford: [8]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1560720224588120064/photo/1

I think we need to be a lot more scpetical of claims about Musk's education that we have to date.

Marchino61 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This is false, he was accepted but he didn't enroll, at the case in question evidence was provided, this was also omitted from the dishonest twitter thread which seems to have prompted these questions https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=255379947&z=b39819ca DangerousBrian (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

There is some confusion here as a result of a dishonest twitter thread ommitting certain documents. Penn awards BA degrees in Physics not BS degrees, the thread people are concerned about does in fact display both Elon's undergraduate degrees from Penn. There was an e-mail submitted in evidence as part of the case mentioned, form Penn, confirming that Elon has both a degree in Economics and a Degree in Physics:

https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/

More importantly perhaps all this recent fuss has come from a twitter thread not a reliable source. DangerousBrian (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Excellent sleuthing: I just inserted your reference in the Education section for Musk. James Alien Woods (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But this email contradicts the information we present in education section currently: the degrees were awarded in 1997, not 1995; and without a degree he couldn't be accepted for PhD in Stanford in 1995. Perhaps we should remove information that he graduated in 1995. Dreamer_ (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Nationality not given in introductory paragraph

Is there a reason Elon is not described as South African in his intro paragraph? I understand that as fairly common Wikipedia parlance. 173.69.128.35 (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Because he has three nationalities. If a consensus is reached on how to word it, it will be put there. Trillfendi (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

He is a natural born South African citizen, who only aquired other citizenships later in life. Other people with ambigous nationality are generally refered as "[demonym]-born". See for example Albert Einstein who is described as "German-born" despite having had 6 different citizenships throughout his life (and not holding German citizenship at the end of his life).

Should he not then be reffered to as "South African-born" regardless of what other citizenships he has aquired later in life? Thomas.andersr (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed in depth. Please consult the archives. ~ HAL333 20:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

A Nightclub in Space is planed - guess this should be added to the aritcle

Media reported, Elon Musk and the former owner of the famous Ibiza Space Club signed a contract about a Space Club at SpaceX space statiion. A Nightlub for about 100 space tourists should be eteblished till 2030.

Source : https://mixmag.net/read/space-ibiza-elon-musk-team-up-space-space-nightclub-venue-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.180.235 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but lets wait till it's constructed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

If its constructed its sure no maybe :) Its in 10 Magazins and there is a contract. There are some other upcoming things in the article. Its a very interesting project of the biggest privat space company of the most rich guy on planet. So it should be worth 1-2 Lines there is a project like this..62.202.180.235 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, we can pay attention to the date of the "article". Sam Kuru (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see wp:crystal, even assuming this is not an April fools anything can happen between now and the space station being built (let alone there being a night club). Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course anything can happen. But in WP there are million of upcomming things. Buldings - climate change - future - there is even a stand alone article about a mars station. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Mars so what are you talking about? it is a very interessting total unique information with a very good source. most normal thing in the world. 1000 times a day we do something like this. eaven if it dont come true - we then change it to a failure. musk tryed to eteblish a space club till 2030 but failed. 62.202.180.235 (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfunny troll

I removed some commentary that was added in the last few days. It called Musk unfunny and a troll. The commentary seemed to be from not really notable individuals but I could be wrong. Do others think we should included these comments? Malerooster (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't include shallow ad hominems. You made the right call. ~ HAL333 22:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it was added back? This "material" should be under critical reception if its going to be included at all. --Malerooster (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Anglican upbringing

I want to understand, if his own words on camera in an interview is not reliable then what type of reliable source do I need to cite what he said in an interview? Foorgood (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. --Malerooster (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Third part sources with a reputation for fack checking. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok so other than his own words before a camera, here are reliable sources saying he attended Anglican Sunday School https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/november/elon-musk-twitter-babylon-bee-christian-satire-suspend.html, https://religionnews.com/2022/11/08/elon-musk-loves-the-babylon-bee-will-he-let-the-site-back-on-twitter/, https://www.knoxnews.com/story/entertainment/columnists/terry-mattingly/2022/01/20/christian-satire-website-babylon-bee-seizes-chance-pick-elon-musks-brain-mattingly/6552385001/Foorgood (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I also note Jewish school. So (looking at just one source so far) I do not think it supports he was raised an Anglican. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

In the interview he said he was not Jewish.

So, the sources do not seem to say he was baptised or raised as an Anglican, they say he attended an Anglican (and Jewish) school. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Here he says his father was Anglican. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-interview-axel-springer-tesla-accelerate-advent-of-sustainable-energyFoorgood (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So, again it says "I was sent to Anglican Sunday school, but then his partners in his engineering firm were Jewish, so I was sent to the Jewish preschool. " it does not say Elon Musk was an Anglican. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright so even thought in the YouTube interview he said he was baptized Anglican, let's just add that he said his Father was Anglican and he attended an Anglican Sunday School along with a Jewish preschool.Foorgood (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

If we must. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Religious details are usually in every biography. Do you prefer it be in the Personal life section?Foorgood (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I oppose addition. You don't have any high quality reliable sources. It's undue and Musk's words isn't exactly the best. ~ HAL333 18:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok so you oppose Business Insider as a reliable source from Musk's own words to add that he attended Anglican Sunday School?Foorgood (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I do yes. Business Insider is yellow per the perennial sources list. We should avoid using it here beyond the attributed sex assult story it broke. If this sounds unreasonable, I've had FAC reviewers tell me that I should remove the likes of Politico. We should strive for FA standards. If you can only dig up one mediocre source, it's quite clear that it's undue. ~ HAL333 18:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok above I had Christianity today, Religion News and Knoxville News. Does anyone else support or oppose? Foorgood (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

All three are crappy sources. ~ HAL333 18:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Foorgood, what is your agenda for wanting to add this "material"? --Malerooster (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me why do you ask about agenda does every edit involve an agenda? Almost every notable biography on Wikipedia has sentence about their religious background. Foorgood (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

You tell me. --Malerooster (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

They do? linked from this article Erol musk does not, Maye Musk does not, Ashlee Vance does not, that is kind of a 100% failure rate. At that point I gave up. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Its ok if you all don't want any religious background information from his own mouth on his page that's fine, people will find it by searching google.. Foorgood (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

High IQ?

Shouldn't there be some mention somewhere in this article about Musk's high IQ--- his EXTREMELY high IQ? 2601:188:C680:9810:A815:2765:FF46:738C (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Source required. QRep2020 (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@2601:188:C680:9810:A815:2765:FF46:738C no. like the other person said, they're a no source. Shane04040404 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No reliable sources exist, will ever exist, nor could ever exist on elon musk's iq. It is also irrelevant really. Pigeonbloodblues (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

105 isn't extremely high. (And if that's not the right number, tell us what is.) Jibal (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

IQs are hard to get added to Wiki because they're usually guessed or self-reported, which makes it nearly impossible to verify. Nswix (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Speculation on title as CEO of Twitter

I know some people are speculating the precise title of CEO at Twitter, but I advocate to adding the title of "Chief Twit" into the lead next to "CEO of Twitter". Maybe in parenthesis. Eruditess (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No. We discussed this at #Describe title at Twitter as "owner and Chief Twit". – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

And by proxy in the "Technoking" discussions. ~ HAL333 22:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@Eruditess considering the fact that they never let us at "technoking of Tesla" despite that being his official title, I doubt we can ever put "Chief Twit" Shane04040404 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, Although I imagine if there is WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS documenting it. Editors wouldn't really be in a position to "allow" or "not allow" it. Might be worth looking into. Eruditess (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

See above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Chief Twit would be the perfect nickname for him. For his tweeter role 5kisonwiki (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

Elon Reeve Musk FRS is a business magnate and investor. He is the founder, CEO and chief engineer of SpaceX; angel investor, CEO and product architect of Tesla, Inc

X-Please remove "Business" Magnate and just leave Magnate and investor, this as behalf of Elon musk on a interview with Joe Rogan he ask to someone edit that, please let me know if you will correct this.

Thank you. Richard Medina G (talk) 09:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we do this? Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done, business magnate is more specific and is commonly used by other sources to refer to Musk. --Mvqr (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Despite Elon Musk is a business magnate and an investor too, we completely lack the word "entrepreneur". https://www.inc.com/magazine/20071201/entrepreneur-of-the-year-elon-musk.html

Entrepreneur should at least stand at very first or in front of investor. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Should he be referred to as a chief engineer when he is not an engineer? If it is a self given title we should probably be explicit about that. 2601:602:8100:AE10:A021:F1D8:C10D:9A6D (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

As long as it's qualified with "of SpaceX," sure. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Musk doesn't have a decisive right to request changes. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Degree in physics?

The article states he has a degree in physics. I see no source for this and I've seen it disputed. 2601:CD:4200:8330:811D:D1A4:700F:9217 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Not only has this been disputed. There's no documentation that proves it. And some court evidence appears to contradict Elon's claims. JonesyPHD (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@JonesyPHD: "I have a PhD is rhetoric with an emphasis in new media. I study digital activism, hate, cults, moral panics, and propaganda." And yet you trust false online hearsay over reliable sources. That's downright hilarious. 2601:547:501:8F90:EC3C:A032:75E:6884 (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is mentioned in reliable sources, although I'm aware that's been disputed by some Twitter threads recently.[9] We should wait until a high quality RS confirms and publishes this kind of Twitter research themselves, then we can include it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a source for you. https://www.plainsite.org/documents/tbdmox/2019-email-from-the-university-of-pennsylvania-confirming-elon-musks-physics-degree/ Ergzay (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Plainsite definitely isn't a WP:RS and we can't rely on some random email posted there. --Aquillion (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Consideration should be given to the fact that at US universities, a double major doesn't grant one two degrees, it grants one a single degree with two concentrations listed both on the degree and in one's transcripts. He has never produced either. 67.85.198.13 (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

No, consideration shoule be given to the evidence from reputable sources.

Your assertion is false anyway (and this pehrpas highlights the issue with original research and why wiki doens't allow it), both degree certificates were submitted in evidence at the court case which has prompted all this fuss in addition to an e-mail from the university confirming both degees. One states BS Economics (which I understand is from Wharton) the other states Bachelor of Arts (in Latin) and doesn't name a subject, the e-mail from the university does however confirm it was for a BA in Physics (which is a degree offered at the college).

More to the point though the article is already correct and already relying on reputable sources, it should not be changed on the basis of a dubious twitter thread which has clearly (and quite possibly deliberately) ommited key information. DangerousBrian (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You should probably be asking why the second degree doesn't specify a major. The next logical step would be to determine if certain degree certificates from this institution were/are printed without naming the major, and why. Also, plainsite is not a reliable source, so the validity of the email claiming to be from a college official could be falsified. Second, even if the email were real, a college official, under no legal obligation to be truthful, telling a man who has an axe to grind with one of their graduates that as far as he knows, the physics degree is legit, is highly questionable when it's the university's reputation on the line. Do you think he is going to 'out' one of the richest persons in the world as a fraud simply because someone asked him in an email? The evidence produced from legal compulsion is far more trustworthy, and I believe the blank certificate deserves some form of explanation over simply taking Musk's word for it. 208.64.158.49 (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Or you could just rely on reputable sources in the first place as per wikipedia policy and as the article has already done.

You can do some original research if you like, google image serach already turns up linked in profiles with similar Bachelor of Arts degrees from the same college not naming the subject, the only way to confirm it is a physics deree is an e-mail from the university... which we've already seen. 2A01:4B00:84E8:C500:6896:AEBE:EA53:AF97 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

More to the point, even in the original conspiracy-theory Twitter thread, a number of people chimed in who had gone to UPenn during the same timeperiod and stated that's what their degrees looked like, too. I'm no Musk fan, but conspiracy theories have no place here. -- 185.126.62.101 (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Plainsite isn't a reputable source, but some Twitter thread is? *eyeroll* -- 185.126.62.101 (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Russia–Ukraine peace proposal

HAL333 you deleted the section on Musk's peace proposal claiming it was massive undue, weight, duplicated info, poor sourcing, present in subarticle, which doesn't seem to be entirely true [10]. There was a discussion about adding the peace proposal and there seems to be consensus for including something about it and I tried to do so in summary form using high-quality reliable sources [11]. I think the content is due in Musk's bio because of the amount of coverage it received in October, and continues to receive today, in reliable sources, like The New York Times. I just added it back with the latest Zelensky comments and I would be happy to summarise the section if you think its necessary. IntrepidContributor (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

One random IP user agreeing with you is not a consensus... The "peace plan" is already present in the "Politics" subsection and does not need to be duplicated. Your edit makes the plan one of six subsections in the "Views" but 1/6 of Musk's views discussed in sources are not related to this proprosal. That's undue weight. As it stands, each one of those subsections is a kind of "big tent" that tries to give the reader a survey of his notable stances. In the grand scope of things, this peace plan has not received a relatively high amount of coverage. An insanely large amount of articles and other publications have been put out on Musk, dozens every day. There is a high threshold for inclusion of a single clause, let alone an entire paragraph. For less notables stances and deeper coverage of those present, readers can visit the subarticle Views of Elon Musk. One could write books using the sources on Musk's incessantly spouted ideas, but that is not our job. Nor is Wikipedia a newspaper, we must adhere to summary style. There is a certain level of detail that we must attend not and not get bogged down. ~ HAL333 23:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As a compromise, however, I have added some of the content relating to his alleged contact with Putin. Does that work? ~ HAL333 23:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the "random" IP represents the valid view of a valued editor and the other (registered) editors in that discussion seemed agreeable to inclusion too. I actually disagree with the view of the IP because reliable sources don't link the peace proposal to the Starlink-Ukraine story. I think this can go into the politics section, but since it was proposed as a Twitter poll, I think it's more suited to the Views and Twitter section. I really disagree with your assertion that it doesn't pass the threshold for inclusion in this biography. Musk's peace proposal was very extensively covered by reliable sources and the Bremmer allegation elicited a lot of commentary. Zelenskyy's comments in yesterday's New York Times piece gives it extra oomph. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say that it shouldn't be included... The peace plan is already covered in the article, but only to the extent that is due. And there was no clear consensus in the linked discussion. ~ HAL333 02:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you think the peace plan proposed by Musk on Twitter should be included in the section all about his views expressed on Twitter when reliable sources report as exactly that? What makes his views on COVID-19 more worthy of inclusion there than his views on the Russo-Ukrainian War? I think we should discuss this point before posting an RFC. IntrepidContributor (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time, the peace plan is included. The issue is one of weight. On the second point: if I edited according to my personal whim, believe me, I would cut down on the COVID section. However, when editing I put Wikipedia policy before my personal preferences and biases. There is an absolutely massive amount of coverage by reliable sources on Musk's actions and stances pertaining to COVID-19. In fact, one could write an entire subarticle on Elon Musk and COVID-19. Accordingly, it is given due weight in this article. ~ HAL333 03:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your stance that there isn't enough reliable sources covering his Ukraine peace proposal (and responses it received) to include it as a new subsection of the views and Twitter section. I could agree to including in summary form in the politics section but we would need to reorganise that whole section to split his political views on US politics from international politics, which is of burgeoning interest. IntrepidContributor (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@IntrepidContributor: As you have continued to edit war, I have opened an ANEW discussion on your conduct. It would be wise if you reverted to the status quo. ~ HAL333 07:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"One random IP user agreeing with you is not a consensus."

By the way, what is your stance on that two people have commented my thread without actually having any inputs other than showing their opposition?

These people are both users. I have asked one of them for his/her/they reasoning - still without getting any reply.

I frankly don't buy into the notion that any of the users active in this thread are of higher trustworthiness than the IP users.

The question remains whether the entire article should be rolled back to 2021 before this Twitness-madness. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

OP, I am unsure this counts as a serious peace proposal, nor did (as far as I am aware) it have any impact. This is at best trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is it trivia? The story was very widely covered and you sourced to CNN, Bloomberg, The Guardian, Reuters, NPR, BBC, CBS and many others. The peace proposal elicited an immediate response from the Russian president's spokesman, the Ukrainian president, and received a lot of commentary in opinion columns. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Because whilst is received coverage (as everything he says does) it was of little importance or value. It was rejected out of hand and was (in effect) one tweet, not a meaningful proposal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It was not one tweet. And its not even just about the tweets and if the proposal was valid. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

And just because something is wp:v does not mean it has to be included, it ahs to tell us something about the subject, beyond telling us Musk has an opinion oo it what does this tell us about Musk? Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The main interest is the allegation that he spoke directly to Putin. That's one of the reasons it was covered so extensively, as it would be a violation of the Logan Act. There has even been a statement from POTUS in regard to Musk's questionable connection with foreign leaders. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

When (and if) he is prosecuted under the Logan act that will be a valid reason to include. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need for prosecution to bring it above the threshold for inclusion. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The topic, including a mention of the Logan Act, is covered at greater length under Views of Elon Musk § Russian invasion of Ukraine. The existing summary in the main article is just fine, anything more would be undue. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

We have a policy on this article to not mention every tweet that he flings at the world. This one certainly does not stick. QRep2020 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"and has criticized the Black Lives Matter movement [...]" is not backed up by any source and should stand in its own sentence in any regard

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=67b70a152aaf the source is rightfully more cautious than Wikipedia in this regard using the word "baits". The problem is that Black Lives Matter is a political movement. We can't say that Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter because Elon Musk has pointed out that a federal investigation found no support for one of their slogans or because he has criticized financial issues with regard to "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation". We need sources that back up that he is critical of Black Lives Matter as a "political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people." or that he is critical of the POLITICAL symbolics of the slogan in question. Otherwise, we need to be more specific and say that he has criticized one of Black Lives Matter's slogans because a federal investigation didn't find the support for it - though I don't think it says any general thing about Elon Musk's personality that is worth including in his Biography. Another problem is that the sentence is not separated from "He has promoted conspiracy theories [...]" - which is rather confusing as that can suggest that this is another conspiracy theory.

The problem is too that that would imply that the report itself is critical of Black Lives Matter or that the federal government was who made the report - but we can't say that the federal government's report was critical toward Black Lives Matter since it doesn't relate to it is a political or social movement. A financial lawyer isn't critical of Black Lives Matter either because she/he/they find the finances of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation critical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.128 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked further into it. The claim in the Wikipedia article isn't backed up in any way.

Here is what he said which is the source that Forbes links.

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

He doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter, but the Ferguson protests.

We could say he has been critical of the Ferguson protests. To be very specific, he has been critical of "Ferguson Protest's use of ..."

Whether that is equivalent to being critical of Ferguson Protests, in general, is also questionable. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Recentist bias is an interesting phenomenon that HAL33 brought up.

Many of the problems I have found about this article come from pieces of text that have been added this year based on events that have happened in this year.

In this instance, the information was only added 2 weeks ago. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal views and Twitter usage

This section includes the following claim:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

This is eliding the actual controversy over Elon Musk, and the reason that he is taken more seriously (as a threat) than your run-of-the-mill big twitter account or Republican politician, who might criticize the social or legal requirements to engage in pronoun announcement/acknowledgment or may compare a beloved left wing ruler such as Justin Trudeau, to a despised historical figure. The actually controversial statements that Elon Musk makes are those which suggest that Republicans and conservatives should be allowed by US law and Twitter policy to post political speech online. The controversy there is that most Democrats (hello, fellow editors) believe it should be against social media policy, and also a crime for Republicans to engage in political speech online:

"Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (76%) now say tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online, even at the risk of limiting information freedoms. A majority of Republicans (61%) express the opposite view – that those freedoms should be protected, even if it means false information can be published online."

"Today, 70% of Republicans say those freedoms should be protected, even it if means some false information is published. Nearly as many Democrats (65%) instead say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means limiting freedom of information."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/ 199.241.231.199 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok. And? ~ HAL333 07:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And... make the statement true by adding the actual controversy: Elon Musk has made statements suggesting that Republicans should be allowed by policy and law to engage in political speech online. Every single person knows that is the controversy - that there is significant disagreement on that statement - that is why we are all here - that is why capitalhunters created the false twitter claiming Elon's degrees aren't real (spawning numerous subjects in this talk) - and it is backed up by RS data by Pew.

In the interest of honesty and of educating the reader, anything referencing 'controversy' over Twitter must also include the context that Musk's biggest detractors belong to a group that thinks it should be illegal for their political opponents to engage in political speech online. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

But Republicans already can engage in political speech.... And a single tangential Pew isn't enough for the above regardless. ~ HAL333 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler, and suggesting that it should not violate Twitter policy or US law for Republicans to engage in political speech on Twitter."

I am aware that this statement may anger many people who find it controversial that Republicans should, by Twitter policy and US law, be allowed to engage in political speech online, such as expressing skepticism over COVID origins or treatments, expressing skepticism over education policy, expressing skepticism over border policy, or expressing opinions on any other matter the US government engages with. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope. This isn't notable or due. ~ HAL333 08:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not notable or due, but in fact, the only reason any of us are on this page, and the only reason that it has generated so much discussion since late November.

RS polling data that a supermajority of Democrats disagree with Musk's statements on free speech, but no, those statements aren't the real controversy, even though they coincide with the massive increase in activity on this page, even though we all know those statements are the reason we are here. No, those statements aren't nearly as controversial as comparing a world leader to Hitler. That's notable, due, and of course, captures the true controversy.

Thanks for your input on this discussion but I think you've made your point of view clear. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

“Elon Musk sent up the Bat Signal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business,” said Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. “They have reacted accordingly.

Mr. Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, has been vocal about being a “free speech absolutist” who believes in unfettered discussions online."

"“We have advised Musk that Twitter should not just keep the policies it has had in place for years, it should dedicate resources to those policies,” said Yael Eisenstat, a vice president at the Anti-Defamation League, who met with Mr. Musk last month. She said he did not appear interested in taking the advice of civil rights groups and other organizations.

“His actions to date show that he is not committed to a transparent process where he incorporates the best practices we have learned from civil society groups,” Ms. Eisenstat said. “Instead he has emboldened racists, homophobes and antisemites.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html

JACK WHITE HAS been keeping up with Elon Musk’s Twitter regime — and has some pointed words about it. On Friday, the “Love Is Blindness” musician shared his thoughts on Musk’s allowance of certain people (read: Donald Trump, neo-Nazis) and certain hate (read: antisemitism, white supremacy) on his platform.

“So Elon, how’s that ‘free speech’ thing working out?” wrote White, who left Twitter last month, on Instagram. “Oh, I see, so you have to CHOOSE who gets free speech and who doesn’t then? What kind of crybaby liberal suspends someone’s free speech? Hmm….”

“Conspiracy liar Alex Jones doesn’t get ‘free speech’ either? I see. So you’re learning that these folks incite violence and hatred but trump…DOESN’T?” he tweeted. (White said before that he left Twitter because of Musk’s decision to allow the former president back on the platform.) “Or is it that liar Jones, and anti-Semite egomaniac Kanye can’t provide tax breaks for billionaires the way the former president could?”

“Or that maybe the controller of this ‘free speech’ is insulted personally?” White continued with the rhetorical questions. “It’s nice to watch in real time as you learn that all things need to be regulated, whether that be guns, drugs, alcohol, assembly, or speech because of the danger of someone or something being hurt or destroyed. They’re sometimes called ‘laws.'”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jack-white-slams-elon-musk-free-speech-hypocrisy-1234640651/

On Monday, in response to a reporter’s question about Twitter, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that social media platforms have a “responsibility” to “take action” on “misinformation” and “hate.”

What Jean-Pierre meant by “responsibility” is unclear.

https://www.thefire.org/news/free-speech-culture-elon-musk-and-twitter

And because I'm not going to continue to scan for quotable sections demonstrating that Musk's comments about free speech as a policy at Twitter, here are more links, all of which provide viewpoints against what Musk describes as free speech, demonstrating it's notability, and how controversial it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/28/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-donald-trump-kanye-west

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/twitter-musk-reverses-suspensions/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musks-twitter-beginning-take-shape-rcna58940

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/us/politics/elon-musk-free-speech.html 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everything. I'm concerned that my voice won't count because I'm writing via IP adresss since that apparently doesn't count in the consensus.

Can anyone give me some tips on how I can confirm my identity? It is me who has written from https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/130.225.188.128 so I'm a student from Copenhagen University.

I'm very confused why his views on free speech hasn't been mentioned? The entire discussion about Twitter has revolved around the balance between free speech and hate speech, and all the controversy seems to be about that that balance is tipping toward seemingly more free speech at the expense of seemingly more hate speech.

The user above me has already linked countless links that confirms this.

I don't wanna post more links because it is obvious to a ridiculous degree.

Elon Musk has also at numerious media been described as a free speech absolutist and he has even himself used that label.

"mocking preferred gender pronouns" is not backed up by any source.

"pronouns suck" what does this even imply? How does it imply that he is mocking PREFFERED?

Elon Musk's utterence is extremely vague. Why are you inserting information in this article that is based on Elon Musk writing two words in a tweet?

Do you think 2 words, which doesn't even include "gender", frankly, in a tweet is something that can describe Elon Musk at general level or describe his views on gender pronouns?

Or does it suggest that he is extremely opiniated/concerned/committed/etc. about this case to such an extent that it is a relevant to his biography? I can't see that.

At least "preferred" should be removed in this instance. "mocking (gender) pronouns" is enough - anything else relies on subjective interpretation

In any instance, it is absurd that the free speech discussion is not mentioned at all. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because he says something does not make it true. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I am unsure we need the latest Twitness here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the problem about the entire article that it does include the latest twitness.

IMO the entire article should be rolled back to 2021. It has been hijacked by political motivation and recentist bias. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The changes you propose seem unsupported/contradicted by any reliable sources I can find.XeCyranium (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The links you post aren't saying the things you attribute to them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The "Twitter Files"

I think one sentence on the "Twitter Files" are due. There has been significant coverage: Politico, Wired, Axios, NBC, Rolling Stone, Variety, Salon, Daily Beast, etc. And this was all initiated by Musk himself, so I think it's pertinent to his bio. ~ HAL333 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Possibly one sentence in the Twitter section. He released emails pertaining to the decision to suppress the content, which were revealed by Matt Taibbi. Something like that is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure its already not overloaded, this (after all) is an article about him, Twitter is one recent acquisition. Nor am I sure what this new material tells us about him, as a person. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

According to Wired, The Twitter Files Revealed One Thing: Elon Musk Is Trapped. I imagine more analysis will be coming, especially as Elon has promised "Episode 2" tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Can my original proposal In December, Musk released internal documents relating to Twitter's moderation of Hunter Biden's laptop in the leadup to the 2020 presidential election. be improved in any way? And, I agree about the section being a bit overwrought and I'll try to condense it when I have the time. ~ HAL333 17:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That sentence is cool with me, and I'm sure there's lots of places this article can be trimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, HAL. And kudos for not including a wikilink to that attempt at an article... QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The Characterization of Errol Musk as "half-owner of an emerald mine"

The claim for Errol Musk being half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine is completely unsubstantiated and denied by Elon himself, therefore the wikipedia article should reflect that ambiguity. As this is a widely-contested claim, with obvious far-reaching implications, this must be addressed as soon as possible. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is not completely unsubstantiated. There are four citations after the claim. There's also this Business Insider piece that quotes Errol Musk on how he came to own half the mine. And, Elon can deny it all he wants, but per WP:MANDY, we don't have to give that weight. Of course he would deny it. That doesn't make it false. Here's a story about Elon selling the emeralds to Tiffany & Co. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Elon's claim should not mean removing Errol's. It does not make it true either, the claim needs to remain in the wikipedia article, but as worded now it does not reflect the fact that the only evidence in any of the sources is that Errol Musk "says" he owned one, there are no actual records, no tangible evidence. To your point, Elon "says" there was no emerald mine, but this contention is not reflected in his wikipedia. If hard evidence comes to light that he truly did own one, the article should reflect that.

As far as your point about motives, fair enough. But one can easily see why Elon's estranged father would portray himself as an emerald magnate.

What it comes down to is the facts of this matter are hearsay, from both sides, but must be reflected as such. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. QRep2020 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Some has done an analysis about the emerald mine at length here. Yes, this is just a blog post and cannot be cited on Wikipedia, but at least to me it is a fascinating read about the topic. Courtesy ping to @Muboshgu, @QRep2020 and @VeritasIpsumLoquitor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a blog. What you find to be a fascinating read is completely irrelevant. Jibal (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's PoV, a Substack is basically a blog. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

FAQ text

@CactiStaccingCrane:, I see you've moved[12] the FAQ from its own page to a pinned note at the top of this page, with an edit summary saying that this is for "easy reading". Firstly, could you expand on your rationale for this move? And secondly, I note that you've rewritten much of the text in the process. If moving the FAQ was really necessary, it would have been preferable to start with identical text so that we can see exactly what has changed... Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The FAQ subpage was originally made for the {{FAQ}} banner, which will not display on mobile, so I transcluded the page to here. Many months later, I figured there's no reason why we need to bury the FAQ at the subpage when we can just place it here, so I do just that. To address one of the main criticism about the discussion here is perceived elitism from editors, I also rewrote the FAQ to be more welcoming to newcomers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't see what was wrong with the transclusion. We now have two versions, one here and one at the subpage. Secondly, the text at the subpage has its own edit history that should be preserved. And most importantly, the subpage was the result of consensus over several months, whereas your new text is (IMO) less consensual and also has several grammar errors. I suggest you revert your edit to return to the transclusion, then discuss your proposed changes here. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be two versions of the FAQ. The FAQ page is unprotected and can be edited to better summarize past discussion on these questions. Please consider a few points that have come up in the past, though. The first ("magnet") question targets the sort of person who hears Musk say a thing on the Rogan show and rushes in here as a kind of participatory entertainment. The second targets people who can't tell Wikipedia from a social media site. For these answers to be effective the language of both should be kept very simple, concise and undemanding. Furthermore, the FAQ should be civil and never bitter in tone, and should avoid references to a royal "we" in accordance with WP:OWN. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I'll revise the FAQ in the sandbox now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

QRep2020, Rosbif73 Here it is: User:CactiStaccingCrane/sandbox. What do you think about it now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Fix the first sentence

    With regards to:
   "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate and investor."
   This suggestion is very close to undiscussable imo.
   It is absolutely undiscussable that Elon Musk is an entrepreneur.
   This seems to be his most common label, and the label can even be found on book covers too.
   https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book
   https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE
   Otherwise:
   https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk
   https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/
   "He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)
   https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231
   "Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."
   https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp
   On Investopedia they have even put him under the section "Entrepreneurs".
   I can't even find any sources that call him an investor - I can find sources that talk about how "he invested in x company" how he was an "investor in this company". Finding sources that describe him as an investor, in general, seems very difficult and even if such sources exist, they must be very underwhelming compared to the sources that call him entrepreneur.
   I have seen sources that call Elon Musk an inventor (the danish Wikipedia call him that actually), but I find that is likely to be disputeable, but I don't know.
   One thing is sure "entrepreneur" should be included in the sentence before "investor".
   "investor" should probably be removed too. "business magnate" can arguably stay or not, but
   "entrepreneur" should come first.

It is finally worth noting that the Wikipedia page used to contain that word since ever, but the word was removed in 2020 september

A rare good point from an IP. I would prefer entrepreneur to investor -- he's no Buffett. How do other editors feel? ~ HAL333 04:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Eh. "Investor" points to how he was an early investor in Tesla - a fact that is still lost on most people - and everything that happened with Twitter very recently. QRep2020 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Investing is an exception for Musk, not a rule. He invested in Tesla and Twitter and then became executive of both, but he is not known to manage a portfolio of investments the way that Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn do, or Paul Allen did. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

He invested $44 billion dollars in Twitter. Quite the move for a non-investor.

Previous recent discussions if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Investor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5#Removal_of_investor QRep2020 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite a move for someone who isn't known as an investor, as Musk is not. Whether he has made large investments, or investments at all, is not disputed by anyone. In a Google news search for "Elon Musk" "billionaire investor", the investor referred to is usually someone other than Musk (e.g. Carl Icahn). Besides that there is his statement in 2019 that he did "basically zero investing" notwithstanding his substantial investment in Tesla. I know that he doesn't have the last word here, but isn't rather arrogant for the article to say "oh yes he is" against both his opinion and the dominant opinion of journalists? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Please indicate how we know the "dominant opinion of journalists" in this matter. QRep2020 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't I just give you this?

I don't know whether these authors are journalists, but that doesn't matter. You have people writing biographies about him calling him an entrepreneur on book covers.

https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book

https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE

Otherwise:

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk

https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/

"He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231

"Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hardly seems exhaustive of the collective opinion of journalists. QRep2020 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep talking about journalists? Just say "Hardly seems exhaustive of the collective opinion of reliable sources". Journalists aren't experts in economical matters, actually it's the very opposite, lol. Anyway, I have looked into your discussions. You don't have any reliable sources that call him an investor, anyway. So why are you asking me about an exhaustive list of reliable sources when you don't have any? I don't agree also. That's a pretty big list of reliable sources and includes even authors that have written biographies about him. I could easily find more, by the way. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Also making a big investment != being an investor, lol. If you are a big investor, you are likely to be more involved in the company, thus required to have entrepreneurial skills. Elon Musk's fortune comes from owning companies or having large influence/power in companies. I know this is my opinion. But that's why I'm using reliable sources that call him an entrepreneur. You are not, but doing original research and likely failing to understand what it means to be an investor as in general. An investor is someone like Warren Buffet. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"I know that he doesn't have the last word here, but isn't rather arrogant for the article to say "oh yes he is" against both his opinion and the dominant opinion of journalists?"

Indeed 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at most of it. It's a terrible discussion because you are not using any sources, but doing original research. Making an investment != investor, as in general. Your example with regards to Twitter shows that he is not an investor, as in general. He invested, later bought it entirely, changed the entire organization, fired half the staff. That's not what an investor does, that's what an entreprenaur does. In any instance, the sources that characterize him just as entrepreneur is overwhelmning compared to sources that describe him as investor. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

User:130.225.188.131, if you're going to participate in discussions, will you please look at how people format comments in other discussions and try to do likewise? This is not a text message conversation. You don't have to start a new line after every sentence and that's very unpleasant to read.

QRepo202, as you know Wikipedia is bound by what reliable sources say, and most of the sources in Musk's case are news reports. I'll repeat: a ready sample of reports that refer to "Elon Musk" and a "billionaire investor" mostly are referring to two or more different people. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I had never been aware of this issue, haha. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Fixed now ... In this section just xD 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone brought up that entrepreneur is redundant because it already lies in the word "business magnate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_10#Talk_about_the_short_description_%F0%9F%87%BF%F0%9F%87%A6%F0%9F%87%BA%F0%9F%87%B8%F0%9F%87%A8%F0%9F%87%A6. The problem is that a business magnate can also be an investor, for example, Warren Buffet is described as a business magnate here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_magnate . So this term isn't concise at all, and the fact remains that entrepreneur is Elon Musk's most popular label in RS, and Wikipedia are supposed to reflect RS.

Elon Musk's "pro-extremist" policies on Twitter

The edits I made, based on an article from The Intercept detailing close coordination between Elon Musk and far-right troll Andy Ngo, have been removed. But the chorus has grown louder, with the NY Times and the Washington Post also voicing concerns now:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/03/twitter-antisemitism-violence-jan-6/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html

The NY Times article is based on statistical analysis showing a sharp rise in hate speech since Musk took over Twitter. Is none of this notable for this entry? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It is already present in the Twitter subsection. ~ HAL333 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please, link to it. I'm not finding anything in the entry addressing these concerns, and I just skimmed through the text after reading your comment. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"A study of millions of tweets following the acquisition indicated that hate speech on the platform has become "more visible" under Musk's leadership." last line paragraph 4. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This very brief passage addresses neither the issue of direct coordination between Musk and extremist propagandists such as Ngo, nor the reinstatement and promotion of previously banned Nazis (as opposed to mere verification of never-banned extremist users). Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure if either of your sources supports the claim of direct (or even indirect) coordination between Musk and extremists (and you need to read wp:blp). But we could add a few words such as "and following his acquisition Musk reinstated a number of extremist accounts". But as (I think) the section is already bloated I am unsure it adds much to what we already say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue of direct coordination between Elon and the far-right is detailed in The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read wp:v, it does not say there was direct coordination, it implies there might have been, but this is not enough for us to say there was. We might be able to say "the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club said in a statement to The Intercept. “Whether this is an indication of the future of leadership of Elon Musk’s running of Twitter, we cannot say but we can say that the timing and reasoning is deliberate and targeted.”", but (again) in an overly bloated section the views of one group may not be relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is bonkers. Elon publicly asked far-right troll Andy Ngo to list him which accounts should be banned; this is direct coordination. And it's in the article. And I don't think the section as it stands, with one or two sentences about the rise of hate speech on Twitter after Elon's takeover, is bloated at all. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not get that impression from your sources, he was asked to do it, he did not (as far as I can see) ask who should be banned. As I must have missed it can you provide the quote? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This passage is hard to miss if you actually read The Intercept article, but OK: 'In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him.' Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

OK then we can say that "according to the intercept...". Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Intercept is a reliable source according to our guideline and doesn't need attribution for statements of fact. And anyone can click on the link to Elon's tweet and see that things happened exactly as descrived by The Intercept. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

NBC News and Business Insider reported on Ngo pointing out an account to Musk, which was then suspended. So, that is a level of "direct coordination", but the way Musk seems to be doing it, and the way reliable sources are reporting it, is that it's fairly ad hoc as opposed to a more concrete strategy imo. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this one Twitter interaction more notable than the thousands of others covered in reliable sources? More notable that his spat with an Egyptian minister] on whether aliens built the pyramids? More notable than him unbanning Trump? Or banning (the newest antisemite on the block) Kanye? Wikipedia isn't news. We don't need to be the first to cover everything. It's also a recentist bias. ~ HAL333 18:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

One Twitter interaction isn't that notable, but when the owner of the site takes suggestions from right wing agitators to block left wing accounts, then there's something there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

More high profile commentary in Reliable Sources on Musk's pro-extremist policies on Twitter https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

More reliable sources on Elon Musk's reinstatement of previously banned Nazi accounts: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/business/nightcap-twitter-neo-nazi/index.html Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"[...] along with deleting his responses to critical tweets from Cher Scarlett [...]" is not backed up by any sources

A user called SquareInARoundHole inserted this, but it is not backed up by any sources. The story comes from the very bottom of this article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/15/elon-musk-british-diver-thai-cave-rescue-pedo-twitter "He also responded to one critic who had called the submarine idea “absurd” a week earlier, writing: “Stay tuned jackass.” That tweet too was deleted." This story about the "jackass tweet" used to be in the Wikipedia article, later removed, and was supported by the source from theguardian. By the way, it (Elon Musk's deletion of "pedo tweet" along with "jackass tweet") fits better with the telling style of this source where it somewhat says that those tweets were deleted all at once https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/is-elon-musk-losing-it-he-just-called-the-diver-who-rescued-12-thai-boys-pedo-1287286-2018-07-16 . Elon Musk's deletion of the tweets that respond Cher has not been connected to be part of this story by any sources.

SquareInARoundHole inserted this story, making it appear like it would fit smoothly into the story via the word "along", but it's another story, though a story from somewhat the same period I guess (maybe the deletion of those tweets is actually a part of the same story, but no sources back it up, at least not the source actually used). Later the authentic story (deletion of "jackass tweet") was removed from Wikipedia. I have looked at the story about Cher, and it is very unclear, lacks details, say nothing about what Elon Musk tweeted, nor Cher tweeted - the only I can find is something from first-hand source https://twitter.com/jeremyminer/status/1518734309921902592/photo/1. It should probably be removed. Back in the days there was a long section about this story "Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case", but was later deleted, prob. due to political motivation. - Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ohhhh. The user was banned too, ofc. Lmfao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquareInARoundHole 130.225.188.130 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Ohhh. There is more to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_184

Oh god, what are these activists, sorry my language, fucking, doing here. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This could also suggest that maybe all editions made by SquareInARoundHole should be scrutinized. At the other hand, I can't understand either why a person https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/ who is literally public known for trying to defame Elon Musk on Wikipedia and who has been banned before from this page is allowed to edit this page. Biographies are written conservatively, and all evidence suggest that he keeps doing the exact opposite. We have put this Wikipedia article under semi-protection, yet we haven't protected it from the most obviously biased person. It's not right. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Are Elon's fans organizing to shape this entry and/or undermine editors outside of Wikipedia? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Please comment the substance instead of questioning my motives. We have a story in the Wikipedia article that isn't backed up by any sources and was added by someone who was banned and was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source . In any instance, biographies are written conservatively, thus if Elon Musk fans have sound arguments, then they should be more than welcome. But to be transparent. My opinions about Elon Musk are mixed because of his relationship with the Chinese State including. I like his stance on free speech and transparency, but I question whether he has the integrity it requires. He is a businessman after all. Maybe not. Time will tell. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really jazzed about including the Scarlett content, but it is supported by the citation that follows it, this Fortune piece: "after software engineer Cher Scarlett criticized Musk’s handling of the cave incident, the tech billionaire fired back and she was soon being harassed by dozens of Musk’s online fans. He later deleted the posts, but not before Scarlett had to lock down her account". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is the "along"

He deleted the tweets [about pedo, etc], and apologized, along with deleting his responses to critical tweets from Cher Scarlett.

I can't find any sources that suggest he deleted those tweets along with the tweets headed toward Cher Scarlett. Whilst the "jackass tweet" was definitely deleted along - which the Wikipedia article used to contain and was backed up by sources. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Does this change address your concern? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes!

My concerns are now of the type that I wrote in the bottom of my first post of this section. But that's another discussion 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

And yeah. The user who inserted this was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)