Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Add content - Elon’s latest X (a.k.a. Twitter) comment about Wikipedia

Elon commented on X that if Wikipedia changes its name to Dickipedia, for at least 1 year, he would donate $1 Billion to the organization. He also insured this comment be added to his Wikipedia page

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1716103130960613847?s=46&t=bEVFf0wlrN0_Gb13egUw6Q

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1716102436123783175?s=46&t=bEVFf0wlrN0_Gb13egUw6Q

Because this directly involves Wikipedia, I think it makes sense to reference it here Stealth006 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You didn't read the above sections on this talk page. I recommend you do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I did read it, and it somehow devolved to research gate - nor did Elon request for emojis to be added to be added to his page - he stated that someone should document what he said in his “horse shit” page. Stealth006 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Correction “Dog Shit” Stealth006 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

At the very list shouldn’t we add a link to “views of Elon Musk” to the main page - or some sort of disambiguation?

Views of Elon Musk#Wikipedia Stealth006 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a Controversies section is in order, to list things such as this.

reference Bill Gates: Bill Gates Stealth006 (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I also don’t think this is self-promotion, we could argue everything someone says that ends up on Wikipedia is self-promotion. If anything, referencing his comments in his Wikipedia page adds value in documenting the crazy things he says. Think about this from the perspective of 100 years from now, these controversies are the types of things that should be part of the historical record - “Elon Musk, known for taking to social media without any filters or concern for the public eye, would frequently engage in …”. Not to mention the fact that documenting this clearly spells out that Wikipedia is not for sale… Stealth006 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there's needs to be a controversy part CaptainHisDudeness (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

What I had in the thread above applies here, and we do not need two sections on the same topic. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit of "Twitter usage" section

I propose to add a paragraph to the end of the section that would say:

On October 22nd, 2023, he offered $1bn to Wikipedia to change it's name to Dickipedia

Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1716102436123783175 Slaven0 (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Pass. It may perhaps be better to create an article at List of Elon's edgy tweets as an outlet for everyone that feels it's notable every time the man makes a sarcastic joke. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

actually it's a series of tweets questioning veracity of Wikipedia Slaven0 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Readers added context they thought people might want to know:

...while also advertising his own "alternative" to wikipedia. Blexta (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As usual, this is a primary source. Was there extensive coverage in secondary RS? ~ HAL333 22:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/news/elon-musk-ueber-wikipedia-gebe-ihnen-eine-milliarde-dollar-wenn-sie-ihren-namen-in-dickipedia-aendern-li.2151745

https://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughMuskSpam/comments/17e2mtw/musk_says_hell_give_1_billion_to_wikipedia_if/

https://www.benzinga.com/amp/content/35365602 Slaven0 (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not just use Reddit as an example of a secondary source 💀 Loytra (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

In the 16 years since you created your account, have you considered reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources? QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see there are 2 more links up there besides Reddit Slaven0 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those are very reliable, however there are some new reliable articles you can use Personisinsterest (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

picture

also what happened to the last picture, this picture seems to not be as clean or as visually clear, and the source provided is in Russian or some other Cyrillic text. if there is no objection, i will see when that change was made and restore to the last picture that was in the infobox. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support Current image is crap. ~ HAL333 15:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for better or for worse, Elon Musk has aged in the 5 years since that picture was taken. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

The recently added citation number 5 (added here) has way too many authors, it should only include the first one, checking the source it's obvious the citation bot that checked it grabbed names of authors of other articles from the bottom of the page that have nothing to do with the cited source. It's a new source and I don't know if it's suitable for the page but it's clear that that the authors are wrong. WanderingMorpheme 01:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Done; thanks - something clearly went off the rails. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

reliable sources about the wikipedia comments from musk

just seeing the earlier discussions. of course what musk tweets on x is not of relevance here, but now that it has been cited on many, many reliable sources, the section that i recently posted should be reinstated please. it was documenting this, and literally by the second as i try and add more reliable sources it is reverted before i can even post them to the page.. sources such as, [1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/23/why-is-elon-musk-attacking-wikipedia-because-its-very-existence-offends-him [2]https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/elon-musk-jokes-give-1b-wikipedia-site-changes-name [3]https://www.pcmag.com/news/elon-musk-starts-another-feud-this-time-with-wikipedia

and more exist... can we please put that material back? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

the above didn't address the reliable sources, that is why i created a new thread on this, the above seemed to be mostly inexperienced editors or IP editors trying to add some info in that they found funny. Instead, i added this under the relevant section titled "Technology", but then created a new Sub-heading number 2 section for this just titled, "Views of Wikipedia", which now that the material has several different reliable sources clearly documenting what began as x/twitter material, it would make sense to me for us to now restore that small section that i added to the page. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

There already is Views of Elon Musk and we don't need to itemize every opinion here (or there, for that matter). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

All signifiant views covered at Views of Elon Musk must however be summarized here. I don't see anyone trying to itemize every opinion, just those which receive significant coverage. Some of the coverage is very good... Vice has a funny quip about wikipedia: "Every day, millions of people gather on Wikipedia to fight over the facts displayed."[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

right, this isn't a "every opinion" either by a view that seems to be firly held and that is widely reported on. i wrote a short section that i think adequately summarized that view, and i put it in with a sub-heading 2, further accounting for proper weight and proportion. no need to further itemize or anything else, just looking to have the edit restored that covered this, and if not mine, someone else can start from scratch if they prefer. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't need a 1500 character subsection devoted to a WP:RECENT rant of his. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we should have a basic summary here and the extended content can be moved to Views of Elon Musk and/or criticism of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ok, please be patient and i will work on both, others are free to fix it up from there. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

We do not need any section on his views on Wikipedia here. It is WP:NAVELGAZING. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

it is impossible to review the final product of this edit, if i am reverted in the midst of writing and adding reliable source information. it is not navelgazing to have a brief couple of lines far down in an article and in sub-section number 2. That is just being an encyclopedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is meaningless trivia. His views of Wikipedia might be relevant in a page about opinions of Wikipedia, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

i hardly think that this conversation devolved into an edit war.. as you just warned me with a red hand on my talk page slatersteven. take a breathe please. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

is Elon Musk's page subject to WP:1RR? i did not see that, if so, and if i missed it i apologize. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not, and this is not the place to discuss your actions. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. To the extent that someone's opinions about Wikipedia deserve mention at all, an article about opinions about Wikipedia is more appropriate.

As for the up-thread comments about whether every random Tweet made by Musk: even if such a Tweet draws reporting by reliable sources, it's still not the domain of an encyclopedia. The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine archives every Tweet by almost anyone; that is the proper place for every random Tweet.

The only "random" Tweets that belong in an encyclopedia is one with lasting effects. For example, Musk's hiring of Linda Yaccarino as Twitter's (nominal) boss was foreshadowed by an apparently facetious (at the time) Tweet along the lines of, "Should I put someone else in charge of Twitter?", followed by abundant replies in support. That Tweet was followed up with an actual hiring, which makes it more meaningful than the "Dickipedia" Tweet.

— Steve98052 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What we usually do in matters like this is one editor proposes the content then want to add on the talk page, where revisions may be made and consensus develops for or against adding it. We don't add something to the article to workshop it there, especially if it's contested. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible WP:NOT violation

In the personal life section there is the following "Johnny Depp later accused Musk of having an affair with Heard while she was still married to Depp. Musk and Heard both denied the affair." To me this seems to be a WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. Thoughts? Grahaml35 (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. That's my thought. I took it out. Was that some of Depp's PR attempt to smear Heard during or leading up to the trial? Clear WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Muboshgu. I didn't check to see when it was added, but was doing casual reading and it stood out pretty blatantly to me. On a heavy trafficked page like this I wanted to get a 2nd or more opinion. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In the right panel :

Partners

Amber Heard (2015–2017) seems to be wrong.

This is not only while he was married (again) to Talulha but also while she (Amber) was married to J.Depp (m. 2015; div. 2017)

But the Text in "personal life ↦ Relationships" states "Musk then dated Amber Heard for several months in 2017;" (persued since 2012) 2A01:C23:8059:0:896B:9765:6790:57A2 (talk) 09:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

Can you remove that? 2601:1C2:4481:3410:619C:7EF9:13A:1B16 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

And your reasoning for that would be? His spreading of conspiracy theories is well-sourced. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Second keeping it. QRep2020 (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

So then you call all your newspapers also conspiracy theorists because they spread some lies every day and ommit facts on purpose to keep you engaged and hooked to their "news"? Wikipedia calling Elon this can only exist in Clownworld, so go call Wikipedia a conspiracy theorist too with more and more paid actors running it for donations. Guy in german rddit AMA makes a huge fortune writing for agencies for Wikipedia to have content the way they want it. Calling Elon musk a conspiracy theorist is not objective at all. It just shows you dont like him and anyone with a brain will immediately see right thru it. Makes Wikipedia look bad. 213.99.239.30 (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it shows the majority of reliable sources agree he’s a conspiracy theorist. Professor Penguino (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

He owns a major social media network and uses it to spread conspiracy theories every single day, a fact which major outlets thankfully cover consistently. The most recent edits soften the language and fly in the face of what has been argued for in this topic, effectively granting the anonymous user's request.

I think we should call a spade a spade as early in the article as possible. QRep2020 (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, the article should call him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence describing him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

And read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Odd how they're my newspapers and not just newspapers. QRep2020 (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

They could, but they don‘t want to. This is Wikipedia calling Elon Musk a jerk, and this tells you everything about Wikipedia you need to know. 2A02:8108:89C0:2E5:B4AE:3349:4C2D:8576 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

it is an accurate description of him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:RS calling him a jerk. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist" is not a character statement, especially considering a lot of things we now take as facts used to be conspiracy theories. Moreover, it is fully accurate in this case, as Musk has numerous times promoted conspiracy theories.

Also, could someone with the appropriate power to do so close this discussion down? This is clearly not a good-faith argument on the side of the original poster. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, especially since the lead paragraph has undergone significant change with respect to this description since the discussion started. QRep2020 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

The Dickipedia Incedent Elon Musk has gave a donation of 1 billion on Wikipedia for it to be called Dickipedia on 10/28/2023 Wyattakjfew (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it’s appropriate for this article. Where exactly do you think it should be added? Professor Penguino (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Under the section Early Life it states

CHANGE: Musk's family was wealthy during his youth.[18]

is father was elected to the Pretoria City Council as a representative of the anti-apartheid Progressive Party and has said that his children shared their father's dislike of apartheid.

TO Musk's family was modestly wealthy during his youth.[18]

REASON: The reference is to a Business Insider interview of Errol Musk. According to Errol Musk, a person who has been known to be bad with money, he states his family was wealthy during his youth. This is used to paint a picture of extreme wealth thereby diminishing Elon's efforts as an entrepreneur off a small family loan vs being handed millions or billions a la a Rockefeller or Mellon heir. In the article Errol states how he did not have a good grasp of finances. In one breath they are wealthy, in another he doesn't want to pay $2,000 so they wait 10 days. Then he sells his plane for £80,000 saying "it was a huge amount of money”. Compared to the poverty that existed, the Musks grew up with some money and selling gems for a few thousand dollars here and there seemed to help, but this is not the language or character of someone who was super wealthy and good with money. The words used can easily paint a picture of opulence, but Errol was very poor with his money management and got opportunistically lucky at times.

“We were going to fly into Jeddah and there was a religious holiday and they said if we come in now we have to pay $2,000 but if we wait 10 days we can come in at no charge. So we decided to head back to Lake Tanganyika from where we were, I think we were in Djibouti.”

Errol Musk (father of one Elon Musk) on raising one of the world's most famous billionaires:

— Forbes Tech News (@ForbesTech) July 2, 2015 There, the two South Africans ran into a group of Italians who, as it happened, were in the market for an airplane. Errol named his price, and a deal was done.

“So we went to this guy's prefab and he opened his safe and there was just stacks of money and he paid me out, £80,000, it was a huge amount of money,” he said. Apiphine (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:OR, which your arguments fall foul of. It is possible that we change things to attribute the statement to Errol Musk instead of using wikivoice but it would likely be clunky - "Errol Musk has said their family was 'very wealthy' when Elon was in his youth", and I'm not seeing a compelling argument to do so at the moment Cannolis (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is well known that Errol Musk was bad at managing money and I did not add any original research. I only tidied up the wrongful claim that they were wealthy. The Emerald Mine and statements of spoiled wealth are often used by media and others to wrongfully characterize Musk's Upper-Middle Class status as an inheritor of Super Wealth Oligarch funds.

The page does not provide an accurate depiction. Failure to fix this will only enable further false news.

Thank you for reviewing. What do you recommend I can source and provide to help alter this? I thought that that a more accurate summary of Errols comments would be suffice.

___________

Elon Musk has revealed that his father Errol Musk had run out of money in the 90s and the Tesla CEO and his brother had agreed to help senior Musk out financially on one condition -- that he doesn't do "bad things".

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/trends/when-dad-errol-musk-ran-out-of-money-elon-musk-agreed-to-help-him-but-on-1-condition-9217101.html Apiphine (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

SO? Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you put this in the wrong edit request, this was for a simple citation clean up, yours is above this one. Also you need to change the answered parameter from yes to no to reactivate your request, thanks. WanderingMorpheme 13:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Moved. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 04:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• • • Apologies if I am not providing proper formatting to adjust a sentence, thank you for your consideration***

CHANGE: Musk's family was wealthy during his youth.[18]

TO Musk's family was modestly wealthy during his youth.[18]

ALTERNATIVE Errol musk, who has had difficulty in managing family finances stated their family was "very wealthy" during Elon's youth.

REASON: This is a point of contention that requires consideration given the amount of false information that is used to paint Musk as someone who was handed riches in order to gain purchase more wealth acquisition rather than someone who achieved his stature through the ability to risk his own capital and build companies and teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiphine (talk • contribs) 21:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia editors should not be introducing their own research into articles (see WP:OR). Articles report what has been published by reliable sources, and in doing so, should not misrepresent what those sources have said. Additionally, please remember that edit requests should only be opened for changes that are uncontroversial or for which there exists WP:CONSENSUS, which is not the case here. Actualcpscm ^{scrutinize, talk} 17:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia editors should not be introducing their own bias into summarizing articles*

Fixed it for you :)

Answered = YES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiphine (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Main infobox picture

the sigmabot removed the last talk question with a 50/50 support/oppose comments. I am adding this again to see if there is new support or opposition for changing the latest image of Elon Musk. I think the current one is just not a great quality picture, with shadows etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I am once again opposing this measure, I once again believe that Elon Musk has definitely aged and true it isn't the best picture ever, but it is the most up to date one that we could use iirc. Death Editor 2 (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

i am fine for finding best and most recent, but feel there must be a better picture out there. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

check out the Justin Bieber main picture. if you think that 2018 is old, 2015 must be ancient. there must be newer pictures for that then as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence

I vote to return the lead sentence to how it was just 24 hours ago, i.e. with "conspiracy theorist" included. QRep2020 (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this move. Death Editor 2 (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it deserves to be in the first sentence. It already has the entire last paragraph of the lede all to itself. Professor Penguino (talk) 00:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this. Is this why he's notable? ~ HAL333 01:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say it is notable for him to be the most powerful conspiracy theorist in the world given his control of an entire social media platform, ability to artificially boost his "posts" to every single user, and use of it all to disseminate conspiracy theories... but I'll retract my suggestion given the backlash. QRep2020 (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Leave it out of the lead sentence, it is pretty much unrelated to his notability. The last paragraph of the lead already says he “promotes” conspiracy theories, and that seems like a weaselly word, because it suggests that he endorsed some conspiracy theories, when actually he may have merely alluded to some of them, or said there’s a small chance that some of them might be correct (i.e. there’s a large chance they’re incorrect). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Leave out of opening sentence, but leave in the lede section as relevant, but not definitive of his identity. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not in the opening sentence. It's not why he's notable and it's only a smaller part of his biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It should definitely be included in the opening sentence. At this point he is far better known for his public persona, contrarian views and especially his promotion of conspiracy theories than for being an investor or "business magnate" – he can reasonably be considered one of the world's most influential conspiracy theorists at this point. --Tataral (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

His involvement with conspiracy theories has some relevance solely because of his notability in other areas; I don't think they're a prominent enough component of his notability to justify involvement in the introductory sentence. ~Peter Dzubay (talk) 09:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@QRep2020 yes,so that all of humanity can make fun of Wokipedia Cocolke (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Dueness of "business magnate" in lead sentence, again

QRep2020, why do you say there is a literal talk page discussion open about it right now, when there is none? You surely don't believe this discussion is about whether we should remove the term buzzword "business magnate"?

For others' benefit: the term "business magnate" was added to the first sentence at Musk's request, and despite the endless requests to change "magnate" to "magnet", the relevance of "magnate" itself was not discussed here until recently.

I searched English-Corpora's News database; for Musk, "business magnate" gives 71 results, "entrepreneur" gives 1747 results, and "businessman" gives 130. A search on the New York Times also found "entrepreneur" came first with 737 results, then "businessman", then "magnate" last with 47 results. Same pattern with the WSJ. DFlhb (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This is getting confusing - it feels as if the lead sentence has changed more often in the past month than it has in the many months prior. Given the history of contention surrounding the lead sentence of the article, we should open a Talk topic before any changes regardless of WP:BLPRESTORE.

Now then, despite what that Inc. article suggests, "business magnate" was used for years in the lead sentence before he gave his two-cents: for instance, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=843065051. I personally think the "magnate" part speaks to the influence the man wields, but that aside, "businessperson" works as a replacement for "business magnate". "Entrepreneur" doesn't cut it given how involved Musk gets in core product decisions at the companies he owns. QRep2020 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that entrepreneurs don't get involved in core product decisions? That argument doesn't make sense to me, what entrepreneur communicates which investor does not is involvement in core product decisions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Its reinsertion in 2019 was only brief, but yes, I shared the diffs in the previous discussion; overall, it was added by Heuh0 in 2015, removed by Guy Macon in 2018 shortly after Musk endorsed "business magnet" on Rogan, then re-added by Heuh0 in 2020. I'd missed that Heuh0 was the one who added it both in 2015 and 2020, which implies that the 2020 reinsertion was independent of Musk's request. Still, I see "magnate" the same as "captain of industry": a term that may have been meaningful once upon a time, but which lost that meaning and became meme-like; also agree with Horse Eye's Back. DFlhb (talk) 07:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I see it as puffery without real encyclopedic value, its like saying "X is an American art doyen" instead of "American art collector" or "X is an American baseball superstar" instead of "X is an American baseball pitcher." If we can more directly communicate a point we should. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, if its not mentioned in the body it has no place in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement in MOS:LEAD that the exact term used in the lead must appear in the body, just that [a]part from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. If "business magnate" is deemed to be a good summary of Elon's activities as described in the body, that is sufficient. I personally think that the term is appropriate and due, though I'd be fine with "entrepreneur" too. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

True, but is he noted as a business magnate or an investor, how many of the sources we use call him a business magnate? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I will also note that as business magnate means " powerful entrepreneur and investor" we are saying (in effect) "powerful entrepreneur and investor and investor". So we are using 4 words were one says they same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is entirely sufficient. "Business magnate" is concise and descriptive. ~ HAL333 19:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't label Taylor Swift a "star" or an "icon" to be concise and descriptive, or capture "the influence the [woman] wields" (QRep2020), because it's as non-neutral as "magnate" (synonym for "tycoon"). WP:QUO excludes BLPs & isn't an argument to keep.

MOS:FIRSTBIO: neutrally describe [...] and reflect the balance of reliable sources [...] avoiding subjective terms. MOS:ROLEBIO: describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources. We'd need stronger arguments to include a non-neutral term endorsed by the subject, that's used by few sources per my survey above. And we have a chance to finally put these edit requests for "magnet" behind us. DFlhb (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with HAL333 and QRep2020's earlier edit summary that the term is concise and descriptive. I will also add that the term is neutral when used standalone. Only when one embellishes around the term, does it become puffery ("Musk is a visionary (or iconic) business magnate"). On the flip side it can also be used in a negative sense ("Musk is a business magnate who built his wealth by exploiting workers.")

The Taylor Swift example is misleading. Comparable examples are calling "Roman Abramovich a Russian oligarch", "Jacqueline Kennedy a socialite", or "Georgiana Cavendish an aristocrat". They are all appropriate and neutral. Calling Roman Abramovich a businessman instead is downgrade when we have a better term. I also see that the first sentence in the Harvard University article (or lets pick Columbia University since its GA) includes Ivy League which has an elitist undertone to it, but technically it simply denotes the athletic conference.

Business magnate is used plenty in various reliable sources per the earlier thread. "Entrepreneur" might have returned more hits, because it the term is probably combined with other terms (e.g. "billionaire entrepreneur" or "entrepreneur and investor", etc.) where as a term like "business magnate" can standalone as is, though Slatersteven's point stands that investor does appear a bit redundant. Also, older articles covering Musk will be biased towards entrepreneur usage, because he was just that, not a business magnate. Ptrnext (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Withholding my opinion on the lead sentence, I do wonder why "business magnate" is the short description for the page. It's quite vague and doesn't reflect Musk's status much, neither his wealth nor his current endeavours. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to step in here and assist? The lead sentence for Elon Musk continues to be in flux with changes made without meeting consensus conditions. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is apparently a content dispute and does not require administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2023

Original: Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns,[336][337] and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

Changes: Delete comma, capitalize Prime Minister --> Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns[336][337] and comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler. NineDigit (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

203.27.183.194 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Elon musk was born in South Africa #REDIRECT ″

 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. Cannolis (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Does Musk have an account on Wikipedia? (WP:COI)

Does Musk have an account on Wikipedia? If so, should the WP:COI banner be added to the top of the talk page to indicate that the account has a COI? Félix An (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

As we do not know, no. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have someone in mind? ~ HAL333 14:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ben Brody defamation lawsuit

Elon Musk is being sued for suggesting a random jewish student (Ben Brody) was a psy-op neo-nazi actor, with Brody becoming a target of online abuse. Echos of the 'pedo guy' defamation case. Might be worth including, now or later. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend writing up some specific text that you want to propose adding to see if consensus supports it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Already covered in the article. See Elon Musk#Legal matters. QRep2020 (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2023

The first things said about Elon is that he is a businessman and investor. Before that the first thing that should be said is that he is an engineer first and foremost. 63.224.47.5 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Nah, for biographical articles we put the things someone is most known for in the first sentence. What is Musk known for having personally engineered? If there is anything, barely anyone knows of it, whereas he has been involved in multiple high profile companies that almost everyone is aware of Cannolis (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

That was removed after several long discussions, there's no consensus to include. Feel free to check the archives. DFlhb (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

In citation 436, change date “2002” to “2022” 2A00:23CC:B582:DF01:F1AE:CE5B:1A:8780 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

done. Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove "Elon Supports White Pride" vandalism

He did not post his support of white pride groups or use the phrase white pride. Be honest and don't editorialize. BronzeSpider (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you’ve misunderstood what constitutes vandalism. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Why so many lies and misinformation?

A lot of lies and misinformation. Should really fix this. 2603:8000:8A00:221:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

SUch as? Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

People saying he supports Neo-Nazis and that he should be labelled a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of this article for agreeing with disputed ideas. Wikipedia editors can’t seem to put their personal biases to the side 209.171.88.199 (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

All being discussed above. And we do not currently say that. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

He has expressed support for nazi adjacent antisemitic conspiracy theories, it is not a reach. HAHAHAHAAPPLE (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussion by people who are not extended confirmed. Since Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands of editors (including you and me), it may happen that someone posts an opinion on a talk page that seems extreme. However, getting a change made on the article (especially calling Elon Musk a "conspiracy theorist" which no consensus of WP:RS does) has a higher bar than allowing people to share their opinions. TROPtastic (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Elon has since provided some clarification regarding his tweet

He responded to this video with a bullseye emoji, indicating that he believes it to be an accurate summation of his position. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source per WP:TWEET, and certainly an emoji wouldn't be used to infer anything here. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is not the place for allegations

These should be moved to the "personal views" section and it should be made clear that the "support" in question consists of a single tweet. There is stronger evidence for Donald Trump supporting fascism than for Elon supporting white supremacy, and yet this is not mentioned anywhere in Trump's opening paragraph. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

First, there is no mention of white supremacy anywhere in the opening paragraphs. The lead is designed to summarise what is in the body. The manual of style (MOS:LEAD) clearly states that the lead can includes mention of significant criticism or controversies. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It was there 30 minutes ago. It looks like it was literally just removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1185825786 24.218.60.54 (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You could've checked and seen that the content was only added to the page 14 minutes before. So it was up for a brief time. When you left your particular comment, the content at the time was only up for 1 minute. That is how Wikipedia works. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. I've never requested an edit for a page that was in the midst of an editing war before this. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood. There are over 2300 editors who have the Elon Musk page on their watch list, so I wouldn't worry about the edits you are highlighting. Experienced editors will take care of them soon enough. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

labeling people is not wikipedia's business

if you want to be a trust worthy source of truth. if it is your opinion, you should clearly state it. no wonder schools never use wikipedia as a credible source of information. Zhangjzh (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We go by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Which states:

" Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news). "

Opinion pieces and editorials are not reliable sources, except as a source for what the author of that article has written. BronzeSpider (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

So what do we source (solely) to Opinion pieces and editorials? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is against Wikipedia policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Elon is not far right, he voted for biden

Please stop lying to people. Elon is not far right, has never said he is far right and is a very reasonable person not associated with the far right or far left 2603:8080:3500:4DD3:E988:6AF9:A8BD:1724 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

He would never say that he is, would he?

"Not associated"? Elon Musk is a Far Right Activist, The Far Right Is Loving Elon Musk's Comments About Jewish Groups Corrupting 'the West' – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus on whether Vice is a reliable source and The Atlantic, though considered generally reliable, has a warning attached to it that it doesn't clearly delineate opinion from reporting. This is clearly a case of someone writing an op-ed.

You are quoting editorials. These aren't facts, they're opinions. 173.178.144.231 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You do realise the Wikipedia article does not even call him far right? Wikipedia is open source, the edit was quickly reverted. It also clearly attributes things to the sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This is correct. A fact. He is not far right. It’s very obvious. 2603:8000:8A00:221:0:0:0:1004 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Richard Spencer (a prominent neo-nazi) also voted for Biden, simply because someone votes for Biden it does not mean someone is not far-right. Also his views have changed overtime. Richard B. Spencer HAHAHAHAAPPLE (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This page doesn't call Elon far-right though. Hell, aside from the titles of one reference (which we have zero control over since we don't run their editorial board), the text "far-right" is not included in the text at all. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

BUT IT DID, GOT ABOUT 10 MINUTES. What seems to have happened is that this was added, Twitter users then posted about it, and then random drives by fetched up to whine about what they had read on Twitter, without bothering to read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I just had to add this

Extended content

LOL Larry Sanger (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC) It's bizarre that you came here to troll. You of all people would know that the talk page is designed to discuss improving the article. WP:NOTHERE? Zenomonoz (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Mr Sanger, I am suprised that you have decided to grace us with your presence. I assume you would have had some obscure podcasts to rant about Wikipedia being biased to attend to? How's Justapedia going? Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Is that really what passed for discourse in early wikipedia? Good grief. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Scientists believe that there no substance in the universe lamer than the set of dunks which appears beneath a Larry Sanger talk page comment about a politics thing in 2023. jp×g🗯️ 23:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Dunked in the Deep Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC) So Larry is Larry, that's easy -- and Jimbo is obviously Moe -- which leaves the WMF to be Curley, but then who's Shemp? jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Thats a deep cut, I didn't mean anything more complicated than the three people who took the bait being the three stooges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC) For the record, the thing he's "LOL"ing about is that a WP:BLP violation was put in the lead and stayed live for several hours. This caused the subject of the article to make fun of us on the Internet, which is supposed to be really funny and cool to us, as opposed to just silly and embarrassing, because [insert reason here when we come up with one]. jp×g🗯️ 23:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC) I don't see why we should care about what Elon Musk says about Wikipedia. Nothing that happened here has embarassed Wikipedia. Musk has only embarassed himself. His primary issue is that this article is not a hagiography of him, which has been his main complaint since he started criticising Wikipedia in 2019. I don't think it was BLP vio. Was it undue to call him flat out a "conspiracy theorist " in the opening sentence? Probably, but the lead currently says that he has promoted "antisemitic conspiracy theories" with numerous citations to back that up, and the boundary between "promotes conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorist" isn't exactly a hard one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

Please add that Elon is an antisemite. Thank you Sitnikovi1983 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/antisemites-are-saying-elon-musk-side-latest-tweets-jews-rcna125617 https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/16/elon-musk-calls-antisemitic-tweet-the-actual-truth.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitnikovi1983 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure!

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/15/media/elon-musk-antisemitism-white-people/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/antisemites-are-saying-elon-musk-side-latest-tweets-jews-rcna125617

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/16/elon-musk-calls-antisemitic-tweet-the-actual-truth.html Sitnikovi1983 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless I missed a bit, none of those sources say that Musk is an antisemite. We already say in the lead that he has made statements that include antisemitic conspiracy theories. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

His endorsement of antisemitic tweets doesn't make him an antisemite? Sitnikovi1983 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking for my personal view? We can chat off-wiki. The lack of reliable sources (a large body of them, preferably) saying that Musk is an antisemite means that Wikipedia should not describe him as one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:16, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. I got one more....

Gab said they're happy they red-pilled Musk into asking JQ

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/11/16/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-about-jews-welcoming-in--hordes-of-minorities-

The official account for Gab.com, an antisemitic social media website used by the Pittsburgh synagogue gunman, celebrated that Musk was beginning to ask the," JQ," seemingly short for “Jewish Question," a term frequently used by antisemites.

“We’re winning hearts and minds,” Gab CEO Andrew Torba wrote on his platform. Sitnikovi1983 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

When it comes to living people Wikipedia has an additional policy, the Biographies of living persons policy, that puts different restriction about what we can say about living people vs say a Roman general. These restrictions apply to all pages on wikipedia, including talk pages, which make it hard to have a discussion about calling a living person something which WP:RS do not. See WP:OR for more on why we won't be able to put something like that in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just because Musk endorsed a tweet which you think is anti-semitic does not mean that he is one 209.171.88.199 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is a place for verifiable facts written in a neutral voice. It is not a place for editors to inject their personal political biases. Dan.Toler (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2023

Elon partially addressed the allegations against him (by agreeing with someone else's tweet, the very same thing that triggered the allegations to begin with). If we are going to insist on including the allegations in the opening sentence (which in my opinion we shouldn't), then this should really be included along with them:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1725698630550532449?s=20

Please add a sentence saying "He has disputed these allegations" with this as a citation. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Tweets are not a reliable source per WP:TWEET and we do not editorialise ourselves. WP:THEREISNORUSH to include content, this isn't a news outlet. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This was requested in response to an edit by user Tataral that has since been undone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1185824434 24.218.60.54 (talk) 07:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, my point still stands. Twitter is not an appropriate source even if the content was still there. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but the content added by Tataral was just citing articles that were in turn citing twitter. If that is the quality of sources we are going to use for making such accusations, then it's only fair that his response be included along side it. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if the articles are reporting on tweets, that is fine. We cannot directly link to tweets. We use sources which are secondary and independent. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not that this matters anymore, because the thing this was meant to modify is no longer in the lead, but denials of accusations from BLP subjects can be mentioned and cited (see {{cite tweet}} documentation and WP:NOTMANDY). jp×g🗯️ 23:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly, I would say it’s better to wait for a secondary source, like this than ever citing a tweet. WP:THEREISNORUSH. The tweet in question was just Elon Musk posting a single emoji. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

PP

Stop the back-and-forth editing, or I will ask for full PP. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

PP would be good, temporarily. Edit warring is occurring because right wing Twitter accounts are claiming that Wikipedia calls him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Anybody can edit Wikipedia but this edit was quickly reversed. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Odd how this all came about so quickly. Yet the "actually bothering to read the page" seems to not have occurred as quickly. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I have now asked for PP. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I am just curious: why didn't you asked for the offenders to be dealt with, instead (unless you did, unpublicized)? PP means you don't trust the whole community, which can be a sensible move when under anonymous/mass attack, but that is not the case, is it? 2A01:E0A:3A2:F360:E5B3:7CAC:7D73:481F (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Because there was more than one, and no one broke 3RR. So it would be hard to know what they should be reported for. Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I was also not aware that asking for PP would have meant full PP, abs am shocked that so many experienced editors could not obey the rules. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

By the way, i would suggest revisiting the sources used for a lot of the points in this article, especially in the anti-semitism page. Almost all their sources seem to be from sites that are known to lean left, such as Politico https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias The Verge https://www.allsides.com/news-source/verge and The Atlantic https://www.allsides.com/news-source/atlantic Adenyoyo (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are WP:RS and do not need to be "revisited". See WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

UNRELATED TO pp. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The emerald mine claim is dubious

Currently the article says that Elon's father owned an emerald mine and was therefore wealthy.

The emerald mine claim itself has Errol Musk as its main source, and has been repeatedly denied by Elon. External researchers have not found the claim credible. See, for example, https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-father-errol-never-owned-emerald-mine-telling-truth-2023-9.

Furthermore it gives the impression of a man born on third base who imagined he hit a triple. Instead, as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip2 details, he did not have significant wealth to bring into his first company. (Though his father did invest something modest in it.) 68.5.16.210 (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Refer to the Talk page discussions about this topic. QRep2020 (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought that this was the Talk page. There was no discussion of the emerald mine on this page when I arrived. If it isn't here, where should I have looked to find previous discussion?

Regardless, Wikipedia should not be reporting as fact something whose truth is actually in doubt. No matter how many times Errol's claim has been published. 68.5.16.210 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not on the main talk page at present. At the top of this talk page, you can see a search box for the talk page archives. A search for "emerald" brings up these results. Interestingly I see the emeralds are not mentioned on Talk:Elon Musk/FAQ. We should add something there. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We don't add things just because they are true or remove things just because they may not be. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Interesting IP location... ~ HAL333 20:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

As the BI article notes, Elon confirmed his father's involvement in the mine in 2014. If the involvement was illicit, that does not mean that it did not occur. Even though the wording has been discussed to death, I will suggest that saying Errol "dealt in emeralds from a mine" might better represent the range of sources. The impression given by a verifiable narrative is of no concern. 2601:642:4600:3F80:19F7:9D38:88EA:3698 (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

While we're on the subject again, I see that there is an error in the author names for the Buffalo News source related to this point. 2601:642:4600:3F80:E8A1:AE4:EA88:CD16 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done , thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Musk’s denial and explanation

Musk has denied being antisemitic, and I oppose deleting that. Furthermore, according to Variety (magazine):

“ During his DealBook appearance, Musk apologized for posting “You have said the actual truth” to a person on X who had in a now-deleted post promoted the conspiracy theory that Jewish communities “have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” Musk said what he intended to mean is that persecuted groups funded by Jewish organizations were calling for attacks on Jewish people and that “it’s unwise to support groups that want your annihilation.” ”

The explanation of what he meant is in other sources too, all of which have been deleted from this BLP. I support including that very brief explanation. If any reliable source says it’s self-serving BS then we can include that too. Musk is not a politician, so I don’t think we should give him the unfortunate Wikipedia treatment of slanting everything against him as much as possible. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I remember going through this at the Farrakhan article: He's not an antisemite, honestly! People just don't appreciate the ~subtlety~ of his point. Except that the remarks have been looked over thoroughly and they were understood, even in regard to his "clarification."[5] Although you might not realize it, this is a very old rhetorical pattern: Rich people, Jewish and not, use money foolishly or immorally, and then Jews are singled out for blame. 2601:642:4600:3F80:2533:399E:7A8C:2C21 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection if we mention the opinion of Elad Nehorai. But whether we do or not, Musk’s denial of antisemitism must be mentioned in this BLP per Wikipedia policy, see WP:DENIALS. Wikipedia is at its best when it presents both sides of an issue instead of trying to weight the scales. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

We include his "denial" or apology or lament about lost revenue -- whatever you want to call it. But we don't need to quote him instructing us as to what he "really meant" that RS were too dumb to understand and prevent the entire incident and its repercussions. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree. We're not stenographers. Feoffer (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• This, yes. We're required to say the absolute bare minimum of "Musk denied he was an antisemite" or words to that effect, provided WP:RSes cover it and we can do so in a way compliant with WP:V and WP:RS; and we already say that multiple times over, eg. (Musk wrote that he doesn't believe that "all Jewish communities" hate white people, but specifically took aim at the Anti-Defamation League.) We are not allowed (let alone required) to give WP:UNDUE weight to the his personal account of what happened and his own interpretation of it - that only gets included if it passes WP:DUE. We decide what to include, and the degree of focus it gets in our articles, based on the level of coverage and focus in RSes, not based on some editor's attempts to put their thumb on the scales of coverage in order to "balance it out." And when someone gives multiple different explanations for something they did, we're not required to include every one - we're only required to include the absolute bare minimum of "they denied this", and only then when we have a valid WP:RS that can support it. Those three words, nothing else. Anything more requires passing WP:DUE - certainly no policy requires that we include any particular "explanation" from anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I weakly oppose the annihilation quote, though I think it'd be fine in Views of Elon Musk. Ending it with his apology—and the denial of antisemitism, which I do think we should include—ties a neater bow around the summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The qoute is too much, all we need is "a claim he denied". Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2023

197.250.224.216 (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Elon Musk is a South African - Canadian - American businessman and ...

 Not done: please see the FAQ, Q3. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the regulars here are familiar with MOS:NATIONALITY, which explicitly recommends the inclusion of current nationality in biography leads and not previous nationalities unless relevant to notability. Musk is a US citizen whose notability rests entirely on his activities as a US resident. Why continue appealing to a self-perpetuating non-consensus when there is a relevant style guideline? 2601:642:4600:3F80:E8A1:AE4:EA88:CD16 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll take the silence as "yes, they are now." 2601:642:4600:3F80:A814:B978:8D9B:6D10 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

slander

some of the things you put on here make me wonder have you ever even talked to the guy? you think it wouldn't make a difference, but i'm sure it would. you put all his assets on here but fail to discuss the topic at hand. 10 billon dollars and he'll buy this website. get ahold of him on facebook. Trardin1 (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I shall reply on your talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Didn't know this website was for sale. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Refer to question 10 in the frequently asked questions, above. 2601:642:4600:3F80:E4A7:6A49:B7FA:9BF9 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Robotaxis

Might be worth including mention of Musk's $30,0000 a year 'robo-taxi' claim? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Unsure we need more trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The article is not merely reporting Musk's robotaxi announcement from some years back, but is a retrospective on his pattern of over-promising and under-delivering. I would not call that trivia but a significant aspect of the way he has promoted himself as a public figure, which the article does not appear to address. The hype and fizzle of the hyperloop concept would also fall under that category. 2601:642:4600:BE10:3D65:B1F2:650E:9392 (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

His involvement in Russian invasion of Ukraine

This is an important and well known episode [6],[7],[8], but it does not seem to be described on the page. In addition to providing Starlink to Ukraine, Elon Musk had successfully disrupted the first Ukraine’s attack on Russian Fleet in Crimea with naval drones and publicly admitted it. That was a significant military operation targeting Russian frigate Admiral Makarov and several other Russian vessels in Sevastopol Bay in September 2022. Elon Musk ordered to deny the satellite internet service to prevent the Ukrainian drone attack right in the middle of the operation. As one of participants recalls, "“We had 70 kilometers left to reach the frigate Admiral Makarov. Everyone is in suspense as we are attacking it. And then the connection is cut off. Elon Musk excluded the Starlinks through which we controlled the drones”. Elon Musk publicly admitted it: “The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor,” he wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.” (NYT, CNN). This seems to be a notable story worth mentioning on the page (just a few phrases). My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I see this episode is described in Starlink_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Crimea, but it probably should be also briefly mentioned on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. A brief mention seems DUE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This could be included either to section "Starlink" or "Politics". Probably the latter because it was a decision based on his political views. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

After looking at sources, it seems that Elon Musk correctly said that he "hadn’t disabled the service but had rather refused to comply with an emergency request from Ukrainian officials to enable Starlink connections to Sevastopol on the occupied Crimean peninsula.", even though as the article in NYT interprets: "That was in effect an acknowledgment that he had made the decision to prevent a Ukrainian attack.". But I am surprised that Ukrainians did not know it was already disconnected during the attack as described here [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the actual issue was the refusal by Starlink to provide the service at the Russia-occupied Ukrainian territories (including Crimea), apparently to prevent Ukraine from taking them back. But it seems to be resolved through creation of "StarShield" program contracted by Pentagon. At least Starlink is now used on all front lines [10]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Drug use

Why is this not mentioned at all besides the Azelia Banks footnote?

https://www.wsj.com/business/elon-musk-illegal-drugs-e826a9e1?mod=followamazon

He has smoked weed literally on camera, and the rest is documented quite extensively. conman33 (. . .talk) 19:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk's affiliation with Stanford needs clarification

It is stated that Elon Musk left Stanford after two days, but this is inaccurate since Elon Musk never enrolled in Stanford, he was never an official, registered student there. At that point, he didn't even formally graduate from UPenn so it wouldn't have been possible for him to matriculate at Stanford anyways.

Change Elon Musk left Stanford after two days to he was admitted to Stanford's Materials Science PhD program and moved to the Bay Area with the intention of enrolling but took a leave of absence. Abecid (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Abecid: Hello! At that point, he didn't even formally graduate from UPenn so it wouldn't have been possible for him to matriculate at Stanford anyways. - this reasoning is good, but unless you have reliable sources which directly state that he took a leave of absence instead of dropping out after two days, it would be considered original research, and it is not allowed here. Now, there is already this reference in the article and it is an example of a reliable source. It states: At the age of 24, Musk started a doctoral program in physics at Stanford in 1995 but dropped out after two days. So, if you have another source which contradicts this statement, feel free to post it here and reactivate your edit request. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How is that a reliable source? Just because it is from a Bloomberg article?

Here in Stanford's official website

https://ecorner.stanford.edu/contributor/elon-musk/

it is stated

"Elon Musk, co-founder, CEO, and chairman of PayPal, shares his background: He was accepted into Stanford but deferred his admission to start an internet company"

Deferred admission, as in never enrolled. And I meant deferred not leave of absence sorry.

He received his bachelor's from the University of Pennsylvania in 1997 so he wouldn't have been allowed to enroll in Stanford's PhD program anyways without a bachelor's degree.

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

In a deposition, Elon Musk literally states "I deferred starting"

https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/1593309293293584386?s=20

Thus he never started/enrolled at Stanford so "started a doctoral program in 1995 and left after two days" is inaccurate Abecid (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk was never an official student at Stanford (according to the director of graduate admissions)

https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/1593311290692407303?s=20

He was admitted to the Material Science and Engineering Program (but never enrolled).

https://x.com/capitolhunters/status/1593311294865694722?s=20

Saying he left the program after 2 days implies that he was an official registered, enrolled student and is false. Abecid (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources from those Tweets can be found here

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91 Abecid (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

An ipse dixit statement that Musk makes on the Stanford campus is still ipse dixit. A Twitter thread that cites public documents in support of the poster's thesis is self-published as to the poster's thesis. All of this is addressed in question 7 of the FAQ. For biographical articles in particular, whether something "makes sense" is not sufficient for deciding whether to include it in the article (and I admit that Musk's Stanford narrative doesn't). 2601:642:4600:BE10:ECCE:45A1:FB0D:2A09 (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Modify infobox footnote

The footnote in the infobox stating that one of his children is death lacks clarity. Instead, it is more timeless and accurate to specify that the child "died in infancy," providing a clearer understanding of the event. Felixsj (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

White pride - is it racist? Does Musk support it?

The Guardian wrote:

• He approved of a tweet reading: “Everyone is allowed to be proud of their race, except for white people, because we’ve been brainwashed into believing that our history was some how ‘worse’ than other races. This false narrative must die.” [11]

I'd like to add that into the article, so readers can determine whether

1. it's a clearly racist statement which supports the racist white pride movement, or
2. it's saying that (like blacks and Hispanics), whites are just as much entitled to be proud of their race as anyone else

This would be without prejudice to the controversy of whether racial pride is always racist. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I get the impression that the tofu-eating wokerati over at The Grauniad don't really like Elon. But really, this is all over the fact that he liked a tweet? Hmmm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RECENT

To avoid this article becoming a gossip blog on all the new drama surrounding Elon, should the policy above not be applied? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What part of WP:RECENT exactly? Also note that you have linked to an explanatory essay... Not a policy, I also suspect that you fundamentally misunderstand it given the question you just asked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a great point. But here is the part I would like clarity on

” Wikipedia is not a newspaper. When dealing with contemporary subjects, editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information that will remain notable over time.”

- So the issue with Elons “anti-Semitic tweets” or “transphobia” that is included in the article do not come across as encyclopedic in nature. I mean after his supposed ant-semitism mentioned in the MSM, he was hosted a few weeks later by the Israeli President. If he was genuinely anti-Semitic do you that he would be rolled out the red carpet like that? Please explain what I am missing? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

RS saying this? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If he was genuinely anti-Semitic do you that he would be rolled out the red carpet like that? Please explain what I am missing? In a word: "power". Per The Atlantic, It is important for non-Jews to understand that the Israeli prime minister is not the pope of the Jews. He is not a religious leader to whom global Jewry looks for guidance. He is a secular politician, in Netanyahu’s case one beholden to a right-wing constituency in a nation that defines itself in explicitly ethnic terms.
That Netanyahu’s actions effectively make anti-Semitism against diaspora Jews more respectable is, quite simply, not his problem—it’s not like they can vote for his opposition. Most Jews around the world support Israel as a Jewish state and as a refuge for Jews fleeing persecution, from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Netanyahu, however, is more interested in bolstering his own vision of Israel’s future. Netanyahu views the Israeli national interest as preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state. The particular form of anti-Semitism endorsed by Musk is also consistent with Netanyahu’s own political values in its right-wing ethnonationalism. It is also not a stretch to say that Netanyahu, like Musk, sees those in his own society who advocate for equal rights for all as agents of a global conspiracy.
The outcome of all this is a seedy transactional relationship, in which Netanyahu empowers anti-Semitism against diaspora Jews while shoring up support for Israel.
No conspiracism is necessary to understand why American Jews, as a religious and ethnic minority, might prefer that the nations in which they live be liberal democracies. There is also no mystery why such a group would on average oppose racist immigration policies, given that such restrictions prevented Jewish immigration to the U.S. during World War II, thereby exacerbating the Holocaust. It is equally easy to understand why Netanyahu would view right-wing authoritarians, even those who hate Jews—especially left-wing Jews—as more reliable allies than his more universalist coreligionists. But all of this highlights the fact that the interests of the Jewish people and the interests of the state of Israel are not necessarily the same. Indeed, the more the Israeli government sees anti-Semitic Zionism as useful to its cause, the more they diverge. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Good points, but does it not still need removal from the page. Articles should only include topics that "will be notable over time". Does anyone really believe 1 tweet that had a possible ant-semitic interpretation, despite all the pro-semitic things he has done is notable? I think it should be removed. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

See also: Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 18 § Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence

In my personal opinion, Elon Musk shares and agrees with conspiracy theories to the extent that he should be called one in the opening sentence. Death Editor 2 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Time for an RFC? Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to have one. Probably would fail but worth considering if RS call him such. Cpotisch (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

is it is so significant compared to everything else he has done to be called a conspiracy theorist? 145.224.65.10 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think by the fact that he is one of the world's richest men and the fact that he keeps spending conspiracy theories makes it notable enough to be put in the first sentence. Death Editor 2 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Has he come up with one on his own? Or does he just agree with some existing theories that you personally deem as conspiratorial? Also why does your personal view matter? 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:4254:39EC:FE3E:7386 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

he regularly replies and agrees with neo nazis and other far right nutjobs on Twitter (currently known as X). he does not come up with them sure but he sure as hell agrees with them. Death Editor 2 (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your personal views being injected into the article seriously detract from the credibility and non-partisan approach this website needs Woodburn127 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "personal view". See this as one example. Death Editor 2 should provide RS, and so should you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Vice is not a reliable source. 24.28.25.225 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

agreeing with a theory you deem conspiratorial, does not make one a conspiracy theorist himself. Vice is a far left website. One guy on it, writes an opinion piece, even where he does not call him an actual conspiracy theorist and you're eager to edit his wiki bio. Shamelessly partisan. No wonder wiki is developing a bad rep as a left leaning partisan website. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:4254:39EC:FE3E:7386 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

believing that Jews control the media/the world isn't conspiratorial? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Provide one source where he said this actually. Not where he expressed an agreement, followed by an explanation. Are you aware that Ben Shapiro-a very prominent media Jewish personality- is defending him on this issue? Why does he not think Elon is a conspiracy theorist but you do? 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:4254:39EC:FE3E:7386 (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

'How can I be racist? I have a black friend'-tier defense, and remember the time he replied to eric formerly the artist or whatever his name is? Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It would be, if there was just one black friend to speak of. Elon musk is defended regularly by Jewish folks who believe had he not taken over the X, Israel's view would have been censored completely. So the verdict on him being an antisemitic conspiracy theorist is far from clear. It may be your view but far from consensus view. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:4254:39EC:FE3E:7386 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

there have been antisemites who support Israel. see John Hagee for an example of one. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This unsourced speculation is unhelpful. There is no way the old Twitter regime would have censored any Israeli government accounts or any other user for pro-Israel sentiment. Use reliable sources to make your point, or stop posting your personal opinions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder why neo nazis are praising the 'you have said an actual truth' tweet, must be for reasons completely unrelated to the two tweets above. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

why are you guys keep picking the 1 reply? what about 4 reply follow that sentence? 171.248.155.232 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't your smear platform. Find a job at Vice if you want to libel people with impunity. 2001:5B0:261A:3868:CDAA:1923:18BD:D4AA (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You're spewing nothing but conspiracy theory about Mr. Musk. You're Obviously a leftwing propaganda mouthpiece. I'm done with Wikipedia. 2601:1C2:D00:BC0:880:BF5C:2C76:B359 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

So why dont put "he eats breakfast every morning" into the first sentence? Him being the richest man in the world makes this fact so significant! 185.227.191.35 (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, if you are challenging the "conspiracy theorist" label, you have not read Mr Musks Twitter posts for the past year. The man contributes to many absurd, even preposterous bit propaganda. Please go find for example Musks comments, that he deleted, about Nancy Pelosi's husbands attacks, and the January 6th riots. 2600:4040:55DB:9000:34F5:F3B4:D786:3632 (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That isn't a noun commonly used in passing by RS upon first mention of Musk (e.g. "businessman and conspiracy theorist Elon Musk announced today that..."). Show us a plurality of sources that do and it can be added, otherwise it belongs elsewhere in the lead. edit: sure, it's "notable" that the richest man spreads conspiracy theories, but only in the colloquial sense ("noteworthy"); but the first sentence is about what makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense. DFlhb (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC) edited 14:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This article's first sentence is about what makes him notable in the Wikipedia sense. OK

But, Google search results return Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 18 § Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence

"Elon Reeve Musk is a businessman, investor and 'conspiracy' theorist. Musk is the founder, chairman, CEO and chief technology officer of SpaceX; ..."

It is because, is included in the head template of Wikipedia which is passed to search engine crawlers?

It is asked at [12]https://x.com/Culture_Crit/status/1725846628198662158?s=20 Flāvidus (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Culture Moron is a far right nutjob and is not a reliable source. Death Editor 2 (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

He's literally the world's most famous and influential conspiracy theorist, peddling a constant stream of really extreme, antisemitic and white supremacist conspiracy theories[13]. It clearly belongs in the opening sentence. In fact coverage of him in relation to Twitter mostly focuses on his promotion of hate speech and conspiracy theories. --Tataral (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"Constant stream"? What conspiracy theories did he agree with in, say, October? As far as I can tell he will *very occasionally* say "Yeah!" to someone stating a conspiracy theory (the only one I know of that's a clear statement of him agreeing with an actual conspiracy theory being him agreeing that "Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them"). 2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:9426:D004:8B07:F475 (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is a constant stream. We have seen him positively commenting or quote tweeting on far-right tweets regarding great replacement, jewish control, transgender issues etc. for over a year now. He has quote tweeted Tucker Carlson and What is a Woman. He is the most followed account on the internet and this stuff is thus appearing in loads of peoples' feeds every week. He is doing this on his own social media platform, which he has literally bought because he didn't like the the fact social media platforms have terms of service, which often don't allow far-right conspiracy theories. Him buying Twitter has been a gigantic part of what gave him headlines over the last year, so it is definitely central to his persona. LenoJeno (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

the problem you and all the other partisan editors seem to have is understanding that things you don't like aren't conspiracy theories. a conspiracy theory is something with a set meaning. desperately wanting a smear in the opening to this article doesn't mean "conspiracy theorist" suddenly changes its meaning to "person that says things i dislike". hope this clears things up for you! 73.77.162.41 (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson has been jewish questioning since he moved to Twitter/X, and What is a Woman is a film that argues that the entire medical industry is lying to you and trying to "butcher your children for profit".

Those things definitely fit the definition of conspiracy theories. You are the one who doesn't want to accept that. LenoJeno (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

See purdue pharma and plenty of other cases.

You throwing around the label doesn't make it significant, it only is among your admittedly hyperventillating friends. 2002:481A:73A:0:34FE:A001:3822:E53 (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Was the silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story with the help of 51 intwllifence agents a conspiracy theory or a conspiracy?

I'm sure at the time you would have labeled it a conspiracy theory. All social media plarforms can't act in unison.

Turns out it was a conspiracy. 2002:481A:73A:0:34FE:A001:3822:E53 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Holy frell, do you even listen to yourself? Also, what happened to you being "done with Wikipedia", as you promised above? Why do you keep coming back to spread your far-right propaganda here? 2A01:C23:6585:3D00:3AAB:6BC0:BD84:D894 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"He has quote tweeted Tucker Carlson and What is a Woman"

What does that have to do with conspiracy theories?

Quantify his conspiracy theory tweeting. How often does he tweet an actual conspiracy theory? 2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:5539:5037:555F:DC73 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist" is not a clearly defined term and should definitely not be in the lede. The majority of people believe a conspiracy theory of some sort or other (e.g. "Epstein was murdered"), so simply believing some conspiracy theories doesn't justify the label. 2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:9426:D004:8B07:F475 (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Regularly supporting conspiracy theories by agreeing with them makes it a viable characteristic. It's gotten news coverage from reputable sources, meaning it's certainly not a small part of his brand at this point: https://techcrunch.com/2023/11/17/elon-musk-x-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-actual-truth/ ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

it sure is weird how i'm seeing "numerous conspiracy theories" being attributed to why this label is necessary and yet it's only articles about this one tweet that keep being offered as evidence! 73.77.162.41 (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a well-defined term and perfectly fine to use. For example if a person is mainly known as a writer/influencer/commentator, and they're documented as spreading conspiracy theories by a handful of sources, IMO that'd be enough to put that in the lead sentence. Just don't think that's the case here because Musk's notability lies elsewhere. DFlhb (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's a vague term that means different things to different people. Some think it only applies to things like people who believe truly crazy the moon landings were fake and lizard people control the world. Others think it only applies to people who spend a lot of time thinking about and promoting a conspiracy theory. Still others think it applies to anyone who has any disagreement with institutionally approved truths.2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:74B8:B20C:A1C1:5411 (talk)

Publically agreeing with some of the most historically harmful conspiracy theories such as "Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites"[14]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 is definitely worth noting in the first sentence. This is not some "Epstine was murdered", or "Trump pretended to have covid" conspiracy theory, this is massive stuff. LenoJeno (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

> historically harmful conspiracy theories such as "Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites"

Citation that this comment is historical and/or harmful. 24.28.25.225 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/academics/centers-initiatives/ctec/ctec-publications/violent-impact-anti-semitic-conspiracy 174.140.182.243 (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not worth noting, it's literally a single off the cuff moment from him. It's by no means an key character trait or something he pushes frequently.2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:74B8:B20C:A1C1:5411 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust LenoJeno (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion is also “far right” since he’s a libertarian? 79.135.104.15 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He is not primarily a conspiracy theorist. He is not most well known for this. The wiki should maintain objectivity and lead with the most important information. Opening should be something like Elon Reeve Musk (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a South African-American businessman, investor, entrepreneur, and wealthiest person in the world. Feel free to add conspiracy later in the article. OmicronCoder (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Reposting and supporting online conspiracy theories have been a huge part of his persona for more than a year now. It is absolutely one of the first things people speak about when they talk of him. I cannot tell you when I have last had or listened to a conversation about Elon which was just about tesla or spacex etc. At the moment, they *always* revolve around him going further and further right wing by the minute. LenoJeno (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

He is a whistleblower and an "epic memester", too. Better put that in the lead sentence. BronzeSpider (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That's maybe how you feel about it. He clearly is NOT renowned for conspiracy theories. If you want to mention his twitter activity, you should do it somewhere else in the article. LibIchtnatz (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Google "Elon Musk".

At the moment, roughly half the search results are about the latest spacex thing -- sure so keep "businessman" in the first sentence.

The other half of google search results are literally about his open antisemitism.

Actually go search it. You can't deny that a huge chunk of the dialouge around him revolves around his conspiracy theories, thus making it necessary to put it into the first sentence, or at least somewhere at the beginning of the opening paragraph. LenoJeno (talk) 10:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

And next week it'll be about Tesla or whatever. The media trends vary from day to day and week to week. Now, if we were to repeatedly grab the 5 top news stories from the first day of each month this year and we got 2-3 months with top stories that describe him as a "conspiracy theorist" *then* you might have a point.2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:74B8:B20C:A1C1:5411 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Reposting and supporting online conspiracy theories have been a huge part of his persona for more than a year now." Uh, what? I think you might hang around a rather odd group of people if that's all they think of Musk. Any objective sampling of his tweaks will find less than 0.1% as promoting actual conspiracy theories.2A02:C7C:B08B:D700:74B8:B20C:A1C1:5411 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Calling Elon Musk a “conspiracy theorist” is so lunatic it would just confirm Wikipedia can’t be trusted when it comes to politically sensitive issues. 5.91.7.98 (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO liking a tweet that covered multiple topics shouldn't auto-tag someone as adhering to one of those topics (which one? were they just being supportive of an opinion? what does a like actually mean?). I shudder to think of some of the things I could be accused of for Reddit upvotes that made me laugh before I'd finished reading. :-)

Also I think that particular term should be used for people who are primarily known for pedaling such theories, and that doesn't really fit here. Maybe a different term could be found? Panglossolalia (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

we get it, you hate Elon Musk and want to smear him. You started this with "in my personal opinion" and have received alot of pushback from non-biased people. Accept it shouldn't happen and move on 2600:4040:5C64:8E00:C6C4:8B52:EFCA:544C (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a place to share your personal opinion, which by the way lacks of any evidence but your lefty double intention hidden. Proof/evidence is needed for any affirmation on a place that suppose to worship knowledge. 201.171.195.223 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's the problem. In your personal opinion. Opinions don't have a place on Wikipédia. 2A04:CEC0:136C:14EE:E888:CE01:C06A:EE6F (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That seems just like a personal view. Elon Musk doesn’t regularly state he believes in conspiracy theories. He hasn’t come up with his own, so he isn’t a theorist. He jokes a lot on his X account so it’s hard to say, but respectfully, I believe calling him a conspiracy theorist is an opinion. Turtlepro22 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oct 23 https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/elon-musk-sued-falsely-claiming-man-fed-posing-neo-nazi-1234836778/, https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-israel-hamas-war-disinformation-x/ 2 should do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• There is not enough out there to say in wikivoice that Musk is a conspiracy theorist. There is enough to say that he has platformed them and neo-Nazis. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Muboshgu, what exactly Musk said to be considered let alone misinformation but specifically "transphobic" and "anti-Semitic"? I'm quite curious because I'm pretty well informed of Musk's statements and I don't remember him saying anything remotely transphobic or anti-Semitic. Because what I saw was clear and serious vandalism and slander/defamation based on nothing but feelings, and yet you said it was true. 151.38.11.212 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Here is musk *openly* agreeing with antisemitism: [15]https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 LenoJeno (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  "The ADL unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people and Israel. This is because they cannot, by their own tenets, criticize the minority groups who are their primary threat. It is not right and needs to stop."

  Ok? Now show me the anti-Semitic support part. 151.38.11.212 (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about reading the actual tweet I linked?

  He called the following statement the "actual truth"

  "Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much."

  The burden of proof is on you to explain how this is not antisemitic. LenoJeno (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  criticizing a mafia-like organization isn't anti-Semitism??? 73.77.162.41 (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Leno Jeno, sorry to urinate all over your narrative, but see WP:TWEET - it is not reliable. Please use reliable sources if you're going to libel the world's richest person, as I don't fancy your chances. Cassianto^Talk 22:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Outside of a certain political wing, a negligle amount of people would consider it part of his most notable activities.

The theories are, by nature, disputed. The fact he supports theories with notable frequency is also disputed.

Disputed opinions supported by further disputed opinions have no place in a lead. Please work to forget bias and improve objectivity on the platform. 86.1.103.91 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a verified fact that Elon Musk supports and spreads various far right and anti-semitic Conspiracy theories on twitter. So no idea what you are talking about. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Definition of conspiracy theorist: a person who proposes or believes in a conspiracy theory-

Where is the irrefutable proof that Elon believes in a theory which is also considered a conspiracy theory? For example: has he ever expressed an opinion stating that he believes that we never landed on moon? Or are you mostly going by innuendoes mentioned in famous magazines, which in turn are simply opinions of people who hate Musk, and whose counters have also been given by other famous opinion makers? 2605:8D80:667:CAD8:2AFF:DF19:B6B9:A909 (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that prominent jews are defending Musk. And no, Bill Ackman is not a neo Nazi

https://twitter.com/BillAckman/status/1725898682438979972?t=6j67gPlj_qG7xSh-HkwoIA&s=19 2605:8D80:667:CAD8:2AFF:DF19:B6B9:A909 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Semitic like for example? 151.38.11.212 (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is Musk *openly* agreeing with antisemitism: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1724908287471272299 LenoJeno (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Precisely that statement is followed by more statements later and precisely that complete take is defended first by Ben Shapiro and then Bill Ackman: Two very prominent jewish people. Now unless we're now insinuating that Bill and Ben are defending an antisemite.

At best you have a highly disputed case but not a clear cut, unquestionable one. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:6BDF:BA09:1A8C:59FA (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No amount of follow ups can defend just blatantly agreeing with a statement like: "Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites" LenoJeno (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, unfortunately. Wiki demands a consensus view and reliable and undisputed sources. 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:6BDF:BA09:1A8C:59FA (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this is not a general consensus over time.Kmccook (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

What I mean is, he never took back that statement. He added more details on his view later on, but he never took the antisemitic statement back, or whould you deny that?

Also, could you leave a source for Ben Shapiro agreeing with Elon Musk there? LenoJeno (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

'Agreeing?' No one ever claimed shapiro agreed but that he defended him. I'm going to assume good faith on your part here but nuance matters.

Elon himself tweeted Shapiro's clip which you can find on his time line.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725702681530945687?t=8lCjgb1gRdD0he7dXxT9Ow&s=19 2607:FEA8:79D8:5700:2B6B:8463:8E0:FDEE (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, see WP:TWEET. Unreliable. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Musk agrees with one or more conspiracy theories does not make him a conspiracy theorist. Given the vast number of conspiracy theories, many of which are popularly-held (e.g. "Oswald did not act alone,") virtually everyone is a conspiracist if we use this definition.

This is a clear case of political bias, and not helpful at a time when Wikipedia's credibility and neutrality is also in question. Dan.Toler (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place based on facts and sources. We all know it's not. But by bringing the biases to the forefront, no one takes it seriously anymore. Just like Open AI and other institutions, it will crumble if Wikipedia uses it's own rules to enforce their own entrenched biases. Musk is no "Conspiracy Theorist" it's anyway, in the least, a loaded meaningless term. Wake up Wikipedia no one trusts you anymore. --Massintel (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

If there's any part of the article that is not supported by facts or sources, please quote it and most extended-confirmed editors will be happy to remove it. You can view the edit log for the article and see multiple occasions where this has happened over the past few days. TROPtastic (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that wikipedia allows opinions from certain sources but not from others based on the biases of the wiki establishment. MSNBC - credible, Fox News - not credible. Both have been sued and settled for defamation. The idea that wikipedia is credible and not biased is a joke. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:895D:DB3F:ECA9:EB28 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You're showing a gap in your knowledge of Wikipedia or, rather, your bias. Fox News is generally reliable per WP:RS/P, with some exceptions. Please stop trying to build a narrative where there is none. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

The literal article giving direction lists MSNBC as reliable for everything while Fox News unreliable for most of its content. Both were sued for defamation, and both settled. Stop being ignorant. As the above said, Wikipedia is biased and no one takes it seriously anymore. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:895D:DB3F:ECA9:EB28 (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

There are three entries for Fox News: "news excluding politics and science", "politics and science" and "talk shows". You were talking about two different entries. Please stop accusing each other of ignorance, it is pointless noise.

There is a reason why Fox News is considered unreliable regarding politics and science by Wikipedia. The reason is that it is actually unreliable regarding politics and science. Complaining that other outlets are handled differently is like complaining that the article about Texas says it has 268,596 sq mi while the article about Delaware says it has 2,489 sq mi. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason is the bias on this platform. Both cable news channels feature the same type of content. Both were litigated against for lying to their audience. Both have settled. If the bias didn't exist, the description for Fox would be same as it is for MSNBC, or vice versa. Also, not a very good example. Want a good example of different treatment? Kyle Rittenhouse, is an American man who shot three men, two fatally...

Alec Baldwin is an American actor, comedian, and producer. Why no mention of Alec shooting a female coworker? One is a popular figure on the right, the other on the left. Platform bias. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:895D:DB3F:ECA9:EB28 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Fox and MSNBC are not the same. MSNBC did not have to settle for almost $1 billion for pushing lies. Anyway this is not the place to discuss source reliability. MSNBC is biased but usable as it is reliable due to being accurate. Fox News is not reliable due to its inaccuracy, especially for politics and science. And there's no reason to bring up Alec Baldwin or Kyle Rittenhouse here either as they are not Elon Musk. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

So you believe spreading a lie about a corporation that has the resources to secure a larger settlement is somehow more damaging to the reputation of the cable news channel than spreading a lie about a minor who is later threatened and does not have the same resources to pursue such a large settlement. Interesting. Anyways, I think the point has been proven. PS, I only mentioned Alec and Kyle because Hob mentioned Texas and Delaware, I agree discussion should stick to Musk, not sure why he decided to focus on land area of two random states. Hope you have a good day. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:895D:DB3F:ECA9:EB28 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe that your false equivalences are inaccurate, off-topic for this article, and not worth engaging with directly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

We should not be re-litigating a closed RFC as wp:rsn, if users object to a source being or not being an RS that is where that conversation should be, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024 (2)

According to Forbes Real Time Billionaires Index as of February 3, Elon Musk has a net worth of 198.4 billion dollars, making him the 2nd wealthiest person in the world.

Another article in Wikipedia (Bernard Arnault) states that Bernard is the richest person in the world (which is correct). This article still says Musk is the richest man in the world. I would consider updating. Turtlepro22 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

Inaccurate source for the Emerald Mine, Musk has repeatedly denied the claim. But Isaacson reports that Errol Musk did once swap a small private airplane for a share of the emeralds from three “small” black-market mines in Zambia. Errol Musk sold the emeralds to jewelers, raking in some $210,000, but the mines went bankrupt in the 1980s and little of the money ever made its way to Elon or his siblings. Elon Musk’s parents did invest some money in his first start-ups, though not a decisive amount.

See here - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/20/walter-isaacson-elon-musk-details/

Stay within the light Wiki 2601:41:C77E:5E96:A56F:D53A:7849:1DF3 (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's a source where Elon confirms it's existence [16], Elon liked to talk about the Emerald mine until it become inconvenient for him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

So, are we taking Elon's own word for it when it comes to his own Wikipedia page, or is it only when it fits your narrative? Elon explained this himself, and he always believed his dad's story about the emerald mine was true until a few years ago. 2A02:AA7:4007:9582:64D2:2275:45A2:42A1 (talk) 13:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The problem is as he changed his mind over this, we can only say he both said he did and he did not. What we can't do is accept blindly only one of his versions of this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The emerald mine existed until it become inconvenient for him, that's the point. Death Editor 2 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the opening state A member of the wealthy South African Musk family?

In the opening it reads: A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, because his father once had successful businesses. What does that have to do with him? Are there articles for anyone else that mention they come from a wealthy family in their opening? Dream Focus 12:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It's well-sourced that Musk's family was wealthy. Additional quote from the source has been added to article text to clarify the characterization. Feoffer (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed well sourced, but is it sufficiently relevant to include in the lead? Being from a wealthy background isn't exactly a defining characteristic of Elon, and it's not as though the Musk family was notable before Elon rose to prominence... Rosbif73 (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

THis is a valid point, it it a MAJOR PART OF OUR ARTICLE? Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be relevant? Providing a prominent person's family background helps contexualise them, and, with Musk's repeated insistence that his family didn't own a diamond mine, it seems odd to omit the fact that he comes from a wealthy family. Plus, the family itself could be considered prominent, and this places him in direct connection to them, sort of like you would with a Kardashian (not that the two clans are comparable). ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Because then lede is the summary of the article, it is not a new paper like leader (see wp:lede). Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The statement is the summary of Errol stated that the family was wealthy during Elon's youth. After having claimed to be part owner of an emerald mine, in 2023 Errol revised his statement and said he was just illegally dealing in emeralds in the 1980s., per MOS:INTRO. The question should be whether it's considered due for the lead per MOS:LEADREL, not whether or not it's a summary. It's a part of one sentence to summarise a 4 paragraph section, which seems relevant/due to me. I think it only "stands out" as it's the opening sentence of the second paragraph. It'd sound better as Elon was born in Pretoria, into a wealthy South African Musk family,..., but this wouldn't be true due to the chronological order of events, that of wealth during his youth, not necessarily born into. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Feoffer, you added a claim as a child he carried emeralds in his pocket. That is just ridiculous. Someone has removed it and updated it with the actual information. In Elon Musk's official biography, it was said that when the Russian found a way to make synthetic emeralds, that business became worthless anyway. Glad we now have a source clarifying everything https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-father-errol-never-owned-emerald-mine-telling-truth-2023-9 and note it reads: The biography also said Errol Musk's emerald business eventually caved in during the 1980s and that he subsequently lost his earnings from it. Based on the article as it is now, is there any reason to include the part in the lede that misleads people? Dream Focus 20:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

you added a claim as a child he carried emeralds in his pocket. That is just ridiculous. Well don't blame me, the source was already in the article. Why try to minimize his childhood family wealth? Feoffer (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no possible reason to mention that. That isn't listed in any other articles. Why this one person unless its to try to bias people against his accomplishments. Dream Focus 01:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That isn't listed in any other articles Nonsense, see articles on FDR, JFK, Churchill, Gloria Vanderbilt, etc. Feoffer (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

“second wealthiest man”?

Is Musk not the richest man in the world? It says he is the second richest but when you check the source it lists him as #1. Can someone with editing permissions correct this? 216.188.236.222 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It keeps on changing thus we should leave it out. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

No. He is known for being the wealthiest man on the planet, so it should be listed. If it changes, it can be updated, this article has enough editors to do that. Dream Focus 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It did change it was updated then it changed again, this is the problem, but fine but lets check As of February 1, 2024, the richest person in the world is Bernard Arnault. Do we have a moe recent claim for Musk? Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/article/the-top-ten-richest-people-in-the-world/ Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Bloomberg Billionaires Index and The World's Billionaires say different things. Alright, if it changes that quickly, then just say "one of the richest people in the world". Dream Focus 19:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

That seems the obvious answer. Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Moving one section

I had suggest trimming down the "Personal views and Twitter usage" section since we already have an article called Views of Elon Musk. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ideally we would have our main coverage of views on the dedicated page with only a summary here, when you trim here check to make sure that what you're trimming is already on Views of Elon Musk and if not please add it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Musk v. OpenAI

I just created a draft for Musk v. OpenAI. Any help would be appreciated! Best, Thriley (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Mocking aid to Ukraine

@Slatersteven Do you mind expanding on this revert? Seems rather relevant given it was an expression of opinion that was picked up by multiple WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The article is already way to big, if we add every comment he makes on every subject it will get unmanageable, as such I think this just adds words. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't some random Tweet, hence why entire articles by WP:RS were written on it. This article is outdated relating to Musk and Ukraine. He has become increasingly vocal against Ukraine, and the article does nothing to show that which causes a WP:WEIGHT issue. What do you suggest is done instead in order to address this while avoiding just "adding words"? TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you're contributing to the Personal views section, this would be the main issue. That section is "supposed to be" a WP:SUMMARY of the main article: Views of Elon Musk. That section should only be a few paragraphs summarising the main article, ideally using a strong (paragraph-specific) lead excerpt, that doesn't exist. It therefore would only contain one sentence about Ukraine at best, such as from the lead summary; His views on international relations, including on the China-Taiwan and Russia-Ukraine conflicts, have received mixed reactions., not specific detail. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Automotive pioneer?

Musk is listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_automotive_pioneers though there's really nothing much in which he pioneered the automotive industry nor the automobile itself. Unless you count the many things which were or are basically fails like autonomous driving or collecting loads of data like no other car manufacturer had done before. 2A02:560:59C7:2100:C5DF:7447:4F6:350E (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

We need more evidence to determine to what extent he was an “automotive pioneer”. Perhaps this Wikipedia article itself could gather more information on his specific role in relation to the activities of Tesla corporation. Julkhamil (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Education

The Education section of the article doesn't make any sense. It tells us that Musk was an unexceptional student at school, and then dropped out of a couple of universities. It tells us that he earned bachelor's degrees from Pennsylvania in economics and physics which he claims were both awarded in 1995 but were actually both awarded in 1997. It states that Stanford accepted him into a PhD program in materials science in 1995, which he then left after two days. The main sources for these crumbs of information are Snopes, Bloomberg and the biography by Vance. Snopes implies heavily that his physics degree was paid for. The Bloomberg article is behind a paywall. The biography is cited but not quoted. The timeline is absurd. The whole story defies credibility. Rustyfx (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot make allegations about a living person (especially a litigious one) that are unsupported by reliable sources. Just as Snopes stops at "implying", so must Wikipedia. See question 7 of the FAQ, above. 2601:642:4600:BE10:7CEC:7DB1:5F50:458F (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I added quotes for the Vance source and reworded the section slightly. Musk's claim is that he finished all but two courses at Penn in 1995 and had an agreement to complete those courses at Stanford. Musk initially deferred his admission to Stanford, but by 1997 he had decided not to attend. By that time, Musk claims that Penn had dropped the requirement for those two courses, so he was able to get his degrees issued. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the quotes in the footnotes. So at least now the footnotes make clear that Stanford has no record of accepting Musk. Musk's claim about Stanford is ridiculous. No reputable university, let alone an elite university like Stanford, would accept an unexceptional undergraduate onto a PhD program. Rustyfx (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:5P4 - “Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility.” The word “ridiculous” has a harsh connotation to my ears. You could find a more neutral way to state that you disagree or believe something is not true.

> No reputable university would accept an unexceptional undergraduate into a PhD program.

WP:TALK#TOPIC - I think this is your personal belief about the characteristics of universities, but it arguably isn’t directly about the content of this article. Julkhamil (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A BA in Physics and a B.Sc. in Economics? That doesn't make a lot of sense, are we sure this isn't backwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScorpioSymbol (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we're sure; see the answer to Q6 of the FAQ above. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Overall tone of article seems disliking of Musk

In the intro section, after a reasonably impartial account of his career and background, the last paragraph states “he has expressed views that have made him a polarizing figure”. To me, “polarizing” means that it pushes people to opposing stances, as in, increases contrast between them, so that they are at two different poles. But that paragraph doesn’t discuss the people who champion Elon Musk. The examples of his “polarizing” views seem to be only negative ones, with words like “criticized”, “unscientific”, “misleading”, “misinformation”, “antisemitic”, “hate speech”, and an anecdote about him being sued and paying a fine. Similarly, it says his ownership of Twitter has been “controversial”, then mentions negative angles on that, like him laying off employees. It does not mention any positive views of Musk’s Twitter takeover. Based on the examples given, it seems like it would be more fitting to say, “Elon Musk is widely condemned”, than that he is “controversial”.

My point is in reference to the Wikipedia policy of NPOV or “neutral point of view”.

I can work on gathering sources if necessary, but from personal experience, I believe there is a pretty “prominent” (to use Wikipedia guidelines’ own language) viewpoint that thinks very highly of Musk, that sees him as an exemplary figure and person. I do not see this viewpoint much reflected in the article, whereas I think Wikipedia stresses that various viewpoints should be given “due weight”. I think more quotes should be added from people who see him as a great person, a hero, an inspiration, a singularly accomplished person, a moral figure, and a historically significant personage. Again, I believe such quotes are to be found, so I can seek some out if need be.

It is interesting to compare this Wikipedia article to the Britannica one, how much they differ in content in tone. The Britannica one focuses on the story of a technologist; his innovations, projects, going-ons. The Wikipedia article is a chronicle of his business activities with heavy amounts of political criticism sifted in. There is very little discussion of the technical details of what he has actually done: what technical ideas were pioneered in his new rocket designs? How do hyperloops work? Similarly, no space is given to Musk’s personal philosophy about the world: about why he wanted to buy Twitter, about what he viewed as the shortcomings of how the platform had been run and how he considered his changes improvements on them. No article space is dedicated to Musk’s idealism, his ethical perspective, his prosocial vision for humanity and his desire to improve society.

To be slightly more frank, to see back to back sections about “one time Musk got in an online fight with a person and called them a pedophile”, to “Elon Musk once starred in an Iron Man movie”, to “one time Elon Musk smoked pot on a podcast,” to “Elon Musk made a song and put it on SoundCloud”, and to think about what could be said about such a singularly intelligent, ambitious, innovative, effective, progressive, and authentic person, is something of a disgrace. I am tempted to use more stern language but hold back.

The article appears to be written predominantly by people who can’t find anything good to say about him; but this does not represent all points of view.

One other point. I am still learning what Wikipedia policy considers a “reliable source”, but I was curious if the publication Vox counts as one, and why? The article cited for the claim that Musk has “polarizing views” sounds a little click-baity, like it is seeking to put forward a flashy headline and a particular caricature of him. Julkhamil (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! I'm not that familiar with this article or its subject, so I won't be able to help as much as others. But I did notice you made a fallacious comparison:

It is interesting to compare this Wikipedia article to the Britannica one, how much they differ in content.

That's not really helpful for us to know anything one way or the other -- they can choose to focus only on specific aspects of his life, but we can't take our cues from them. I'm not saying this to disagree with your opinion, just pointing out that we have a very different scope and mission. Feoffer (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is a summery of the article, so we have one line discussing a lot of negative publicity. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Child Elon didn't read a book published in 2003

He probably read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, not the Walter Isaacson book 100.4.180.238 (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. He didn't. The source said he was inspired by Ben Franklin as a child and read the book (presumably as an adult unless he got an advance copy ;)). Removed. Schierbecker (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)