Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Elon Musk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Shouldn't we consider Elon a founder/cofounder of PayPal?

If Elon Musk is considered to be the founder of x.com, and X merged with PayPal, doesn't that mean we should consider him a Co-Founder of PayPal? I noticed the PayPal page considers him a founder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal Shane04040404 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

He founded X.com. Confinity was merged into X.com and X.com was renamed PayPal. That is how it is and that is how we describe it. No changes necessary. ~ HAL333 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Paypal as a business and service was founded by Thiel et al., and not by Musk. Paypal as a corporation up until 2010 was co-founded by Musk as (X.com), but Paypal that separated from eBay in 2015 was not. Identifying him as co-founder of Paypal would obscure and not clarify, and would be unfair to the founders of Confinity who built the first release of Paypal without any involvement from Musk. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Politics Section- Sources include Musk and Erdogan Meeting as well as implications of Space X Turksat Launch

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Nevada Alexander Musk

Tham Luang Cave incident, false info

In the article it reads the following:

In 2018, he was sued for defamation by a diver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue

According to a Reuters interview with the person in question, they aren't a diver.

Unsworth said he brought his knowledge about the cave to the rescue mission but added that he “no idea” what the diving conditions were like because he is not a cave diver.

Suggesting changing the diver into a retiree, or a caver like used in the article. Caver title however suggests some level of expertise in cave exploration, but the person in question seems to be only a hobbyist. The false title given to the person gives the illusion that they were a professional working in the scene when this wasn't the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wihdinheimo (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2021 August 3 (UTC)

The present reliable sources state otherwise. ~ HAL333 05:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What source are you referencing? Seems like this source is more reliable as it comes directly from the person in question, in a reputable source, stating in their own words that they are not a diver. In the article, there is no sources marked where this person is addressed as a diver, unless you mean the Tham Luang Cave -wiki page, which doesn't include a mention of diver along with Musk. Fix the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wihdinheimo (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2021 August 3 (UTC)

I am referring to the sources currently used in the article. And no, interviews directly from the individual are a quasi-primary source. Reliable secondary sources, such as the ones used in the article, are preferred. ~ HAL333

Eh? Unsworth describes himself in an interview as a caver and explains he's not a cave diver. But we have to "prefer" a mistake in a newspaper headline? Why not just use one or more of the very many sources that don't have that mistake? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked through the sources before making this one, and couldn't see a single source claiming this person as a diver, so please do point the specific source. The information is demonstrably false, as the Reuters link proves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wihdinheimo (talk • contribs) 05:52 August 3 2021 (UTC)

Here's a piece from The Guardian used in the article. ~ HAL333 05:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The wiki page describes the person as a caver in the expanded section. The Guardian article describes them as cave explorer, while the diver title is only used in the headlines. This title was widely spread as a mistake, but looking at later articles shows how media began switching the title from diver into caver. Reuters link describes the best evidence how this person is in fact not a diver, and this mistake should be fixed. Here's an example from a later Guardian source how they corrected the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wihdinheimo (talk • contribs) 06:01 August 3 2021 (UTC)

This change was suggested previously and rejected. Feel free to refer to the Talk page archives. QRep2020 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So this is what the Wikipedia community has become, rejecting demonstrably factual correction with a pompous attitude, completely overlooking the evidence that proves how the person in question is not in fact a diver. There is a massive difference promoting questionable information of how this was an opinion from a professional diver, when it was in fact only from a retiree that enjoys exploring their local caves in their past time. When the person in question corrects the false title in an interview, you shamelessly argue to keep this diver title due to the media making the same mistake - NOT CHECKING THEIR SOURCES. Can you just admit that people like you are the key reason why Wikipedia isn't as accurate as it could be? Wihdinheimo (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Also, you wouldn't happen to be a Tesla shareholder, would you? QRep2020 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

All editors should refrain from ad hominem attacks. Yes, I see that the change was rejected before on archive page 7, with QRep declaring it "settled" without much discussion. WP:BLP specifically instructs to avoid gossip loops, and cites a guideline that further warns about relying on claims that originate from breaking-news reports. That appears to be the case here, and I'm not sure why it's necessary to keep this "diver" identification in spite of the doubts. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: WP:AGF? I don't see an obvious benefit to Musk behind that suggestion that would make you so quickly accuse this user of WP:COI. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I read all of this discussion before I changed "diver" to "British caver". I was reverted by User:HAL333 here. Vernon Unsworth is a British caver who was surveying the cave, e.g.The Times, CNN, Sky, NYT, etc. etc. Why can we not describe him as such? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian source HAL333 cited calls him a diver, and not just in the headline. The Guardian source IP cited also calls him a diver in the body of the article. The Reuter source says that Unsworth says he's not a "cave diver". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure. So that means we've got to use the The Guardian as our only source and ignore all the (literally hundreds) of other sources that call him a caver or cave explorer? And what was his expertise in this entire episode – as a caver or as a diver? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No. We can also rely on the BBC and The Independent and Wired and The Associated Press and CNN to call him a diver. Why use the more obscure and more vague term? ~ HAL333 17:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Because he himself says he's not a diver? How does a BBC headline magically transform him into one? Also why is "caver" in any way "more obscure and more vague", "Diver" has several meanings and is certainly not synonymous with "cave diver". "Caver" or "cave explorer" seem to be wholly unambiguous - see the article Caving? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I am giving some thought to your reasonable points about caver vs. diver. Could you avoid mixing in clearly false points like "he himself says he's not a diver" or that the BBC's label was headline only? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

How very considerate. I think we need to examine exactly what he's said about himself. I'm now wondering what happened to the article about Vernon Unsworth that was created back in 2018 but was quickly deleted. I winder of someone might have salted it way somewhere. Also, even if Unsworth was a cave-diver did he do any cave diving in this entire event? Describing him as "a diver" or "a cave diver" might be a bit misleading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as far as any source I've read says, he didn't do any cave diving. And he's clear about not being a cave diver. The article does not describe him as a cave diver (some headlines do use the term, so it shows up in citations). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We might want to check how Unsworth described himself in his legal action against Musk, as his has more legal weight than any number of newspaper headlines, and is the crux of why he is mentioned in this article at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Even if we may personally disagree, we should follow what the reliable sources say. However, I am confused about all this and would appreciate if someone provided direct quotes from Unsworth. ~ HAL333 19:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Reuters source here, given in the third line of this thread, says: "Unsworth said he brought his knowledge about the cave to the rescue mission but added that he “no idea” what the diving conditions were like because he is not a cave diver." That's not direct enough for you? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Is he a diver and just not a cave diver specifically? That could be the clarification Unsworth was trying to make. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Looks like Elephanthunter beat me to it. Also, I just realized that we describe Unsworth differently in the lead and body... I still lean towards using "diver". ~ HAL333 20:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry Elephanthunter, I'm not sure why are we debating whether Unsworth is "a diver"? It really has no bearing on this incident or his part in it? I can see there are many newspaper source that describe him as such, especially in headlines. And I know all about truth vs verifiability. But I think they were mistaken. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. oh and just by the by here, the article doesn't seem to mention that Musk changed his story?

What we as editors think of the subject is irrelevant. That's original research. ~ HAL333 20:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it may be irrelevant, but I just tend to believe Unsworth himself. You may be justified, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, in leaving the article saying something that's not true. I'd very much like to see the transcript of the court case. But maybe that would be original research too. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: People are allowed to make reasonable factual statements about themselves under WP:BLPSELFPUB given strict conditions. So if there is a record of Unsworth where he explicitly says he's not a diver at all (whether that be the court case or elsewhere), we can revisit this. In the mean time it's a reasonable assumption that the secondary sources are correct and that he was contesting the label of cave diver. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be very odd if Unsworth was saying he was a "diver but not a cave diver". The sources make it clear that he was contributing caving knowledge, not diving knowledge, to the rescue effort given his extensive experience in that particular cave. Cave diving is specialized enough that a "regular" diver wouldn't really have a role to play in the resuce. –dlthewave ☎ 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Sure. After reviewing your sources and argument below, I feel like I am convinced that a label like "caving expert" or "cave explorer" would be more appropriate than "diver". There are plenty of sources to support that label (more even than you list). --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's see what the sources say:

Caver - The Times, CNN, CNBC, Reuters

Caving Expert - Sky News

Cave Explorer - Slate

Diver/Cave Diver - news.com.au, AP News, Wired, Deutsche Welle, BuzzFeed News, Vice, The Guardian, BBC News, Daily Beast

"Diver" is overwhelmingly preferred by reliable sources, and it would be the obvious choice if Unsworth himself hadn't stated "I’m not a cave diver as such, I’m what you would call a caving expert, having been in the ‘sport’ since I was sixteen" in a HuffPost article and apparently told Reuters something similar.

I'm wondering if the sources assumed everyone involved in the rescue effort was a diver, or if diver/caver/explorer are used interchangeably by the media and general public even though they're considered distinct sports within the caving community. "Caver" is an accurate term that's inclusive of cave divers and avoids the ambiguity surrounding "diver".

We currently use "diver" in the lead and "recreational caver" (which doesn't appear in any source) in the body. Whatever the outcome, we should use the same term in both places. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the survey dlthewave. Yes, another possibility is that the newspapers (mostly) assumed he was a diver in that rescue, and Unsworth was just making it clear to Reuters that he wasn't. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok. If he was just a diver, like Tom Daley, or maybe Jacques Cousteau, I can understand why he'd want to clarify he's not a cave diver. But if that's so, I still think it's irrelevant to the cave rescue story. The terms "caver", or "cave explorer" or "speleologist" (which are not in dispute) would be far more useful to the narrative and far less confusing to the reader. Meanwhile I'll continue to look for something that fits WP:BLPSELFPUB. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Also note, for what it's worth, that Unsworth is descried as "a caver" at Tham Luang cave rescue. Nowhere there is he described " a diver". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I've restored your lede edit since the previous reference to Unsworth as a diver appears less accurate than caver. Also importantly, nowhere in the article text is Unsworth referred to as a diver... which is honestly something that I am surprised nobody brought up until this point. The lede should always be a summary of the article, so this is an automatic MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE issue. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed. And I thank you. I wish I'd thought of that. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC) p.s. Good Morning Britain correctly bills him as "British caving hero" here. Those who want to see detail of the court proceedings can watch this (and I do mean detail...)

Walter Isaacson Biography

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

Twitter judgment mention should be a Note

If we are going to mention that Twitter did not find Musk's tweet about children being "immune" to Covid to be against its rules - and I do not think it is relevant at all personally - then it should be relegated to the Notes section. QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: Why does this part need relagated to the Notes section? Specifically, what is your process for determining what is relevant? --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The text prior to the introduction of the sentence does not even mention that Musk made most of his Covid claims on Twitter, nor does it have to. Beyond that, Twitter is neither an authority on what is nor what is not misinformation and it taking action versus not taking action here informs nothing as to Elon Musk, his companies, or anything else about the man - hence its irrelevance. If there was a sub-section about responses to Musk's misinformation about Covid then the statement would have a place there perhaps, but I am not sure why we would have one because that would be pushing it in terms of the scope of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: I find it very surprising that you are digging into the "it's irrelevant" argument. Here is a non-exhaustive list of outlets to report on Twitter's response: The Guardian,^[1] The Daily Dot,^[2] The Verge,^[3] BBC News,^[4] Business Insider,^[5] PC Magazine,^[6] Axios,^[7] and BuzzFeed News.^[8] From a weight perspective, Twitter's response is extremely relevant. But if you are concerned that Twitter's response somehow does not adequately critique Musk's tweets, the sources have plenty of ammunition to help you alter the section to counteract that. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles written about something tangential to Musk's actions makes it relevant to the contents of an article about Musk himself how exactly? QRep2020 (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: Already answered. I have presented eight high-quality news sources that directly establish relevance. You say above Twitter is neither an authority on what is nor what is not misinformation, but Twitter does not need to be an authority to be relevant. Twitter's response immediately became socially relevant, which is confirmed by widespread media coverage of their response. There is nothing to support your perspective this is tangential. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You are not answering my question. How is this relevant to an article about Musk? I agree there should be mention of this -- on a different article though. Is there a Twitter responses to COVID-19 misinformation article? No. Should there be? Definitely. This material belongs there, not on here. QRep2020 (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It is necessary to make clear that the tweets posted by Musk on COVID-19 have never been classified or removed by twitter as breaching their rules on COVID-19 misinformation. This article has a biased POV pushing the view that Musk has been spreading misinformation rather than commentary, which is unsupported.Axiarchist (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsupported? Seriously? Now that is a surprising position to take.QRep2020 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

References

[1]
Marsh, Kevin Rawlinson (now); Sarah; Quinn, Ben; Perraudin, Frances; Farrer (earlier), Martin; Bakare, Lanre; Oltermann, Philip; Brown, Mark; Mohdin, Aamna; Hern, Alex; Topham, Gwyn (21 March 2020). "Coronavirus as it happened: global cases top quarter of a million, as Italy sees biggest daily rise in deaths". The Guardian.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
[2]
"Why won't Twitter punish Elon Musk for his bogus coronavirus claim?". The Daily Dot. 20 March 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
[3]
O'Kane, Sean (20 March 2020). "Twitter won't remove irresponsible Elon Musk tweet about coronavirus". The Verge. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
[4]
"Coronavirus: Elon Musk 'child immunity' tweet will stay online". BBC News. 20 March 2020. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
[5]
Hamilton, Isobel Asher. "Elon Musk tweeted a piece of misinformation about children being 'essentially immune' to the coronavirus, but Twitter isn't taking it down". Business Insider.
[6]
"Twitter Won't Remove Elon Musk's Coronavirus Misinformation Tweets". PCMAG. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
[7]
Fried, Ina. "Twitter lets Musk's coronavirus misinformation stand". Axios. Retrieved 14 August 2021.
[8]
"Elon Musk Incorrectly Tweeted Children Are "Essentially Immune" From The Coronavirus. Twitter Said That's Okay". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 14 August 2021.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021 (2)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Lede says when "he moved to California"; but not when he moved out of California

COVID-19 section quote should not be elided

In the COVID-19 section is quoted one part of a two part tweet by Musk discussing the progress of COVID-19 in China which had no new cases by March 2020.

The full quote giving both tweets of the two part twitter thread is: " No new domestic corona cases in China... Based on current trends, probably close to zero new cases in US too by end of April. "

The elided quote leaves out the context of the comparison and is meaningless by itself, as the "too" refers to the China experience. Moreover, without the context it is misleading as it appears to be a random prediction without any support. My edits to give the full context in the quote were elided, with the argument given that the body of the text discusses this (which I had added previously). That is a spurious argument- if the context is not needed in the quote then we should remove the entire quote. Selective quoting to push a biased POV is disallowed in wikipedia and is un-encyclopedic. Axiarchist (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The Tweet template is intended for use with a single tweet. The Tweet template is used to provide a visual article element that reflects the appearance of a singular tweet as it appears on Twitter. Immediate context is not required for visual article elements as they are supplemental to the text of the article, which by the way provides reference to the other tweet mentioned. QRep2020 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote tweet is explicitly designed to show a tweet and its followup. I have converted from Tweet to Quote tweet template. 02:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No, the template is designed to highlight Quote tweets, which the US cases tweet is not a case of. Also, in a request supposedly about elision, it sure is weird to leave out the other tweets in the conversation (https://i.imgur.com/F8KQ1Fp.png / https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1240754657263144960). The tweets display as you arranged is downright inaccurate as opposed to it being representational and supplemental as it was before. Reverted. QRep2020 (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The intermediate tweet you refer to is trivial and irrelevant: the given tweet directly refers to the context of the tweet I added. The single tweet as quoted is misleading and if the tweet template cannot provide the context then this tweet should simply be deleted. It should be deleted in any case as being obviously imbalanced and un-encyclopedic; in the entire article the only called-out quote is this tweet. Axiarchist (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In COVID-19 section sentence discussing twitter trends should be deleted as unencyclopedic

Lede comment on "unorthodox or unscientific stances" is unsourced editorial opinion and should be removed immediately

COVID-19 section second sentence has misleading paraphrasing of The Verge citation given

The second sentence of this section reads "... claiming that death statistics were manipulated." which is based on the second citation of The Verge. This is a gross misinterpretation of the quoted tweet. The Verge citation refers to a Musk tweet that is simply a direct quote from a legitimate study on Italian deaths, and not at all a "claim that death statistics were manipulated". The Verge itself states: "Since the outbreak began, he’s promoted studies that suggest doctors are inflating case numbers for financial reasons, or that the vast majority of fatalities in Italy are due to other causes. The Verge article links to Musk's tweets that simply cite articles, so it is clear that "he’s promoted studies that" applies to both links. I have therefore changed the wording in the article to "...and quoting a study showing the vast majority of fatalities in Italy were due to other causes". Moreover, The Verge citation is an opinion piece that is not a reliable source and its opinions cannot be stated as facts (notwithstanding that The Verge as a news source is considered generally reliable at WP:RSP). WP:RSPUSE states that "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source." and the author of The Verge piece is certainly not an expert in this area, based on his bio. Axiarchist (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right that he's not making a direct claim, but the source is saying that he's promoting studies "that suggest doctors are inflating case numbers for financial reasons". We could reword it to showcase which studies he's promoting. BeŻet (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - read the words Musk used: "Something extremely bogus is going on". He is calling into question the testing procedures. If we want say just that instead of "death statistics were manipulated", that is fine, but the most recent revision made ("quoting a study showing the vast majority of fatalities in Italy were due to other causes") without discussion is objectionable.

Note that this account appears to be single purpose. Their only edits have revolved around improving Musk's image. ~ HAL333 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 section tweet on children should not be elided.

The full tweet discusses the age distribution of COVID-19 and was given in the context of public health responses and was discussing only symptomatic disease.

The full tweet (given in the BBC citation) is: "Kids are essentially immune, but elderly with existing conditions are vulnerable. Family gatherings with close contact between kids & grandparents probably most risky."

Consensus had previously been arrived in Talk on the first sentence, "Kids are essentially immune, but elderly with existing conditions are vulnerable" as the context is needed to understand that the discussion is comparing symptomatic disease in young versus elderly. This was recently elided further to the sentence fragment children "are essentially immune", which loses this context. Wikipedia does not allow selective quoting to push a narrative. If in doubt the full context must be given. Axiarchist (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The controversy is solely around the fact that Musk wrongly stated that kids are essentially immune, which is misinformation. The latter part of the tweet does nothing to remedy this. BeŻet (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. QRep2020 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is only your opinion that it is misinformation. This was not the finding of twitter. And of course the full context is important- Musk was comparing the rate of symptomatic disease in children and infants to adults, in which case children *are* relatively immune to the effects of COVID-19. This is well known now, but at the start of the pandemic there was a fear that COVID-19 would have an age distribution similar to, say, the 1918 flu which targeted the young preferentially. Moreover, even if you do misread Musk's tweet out of context and suggest it refers to immunity from direct infection, that is also evidence that infants *are* relatively immune to infection. See recent reviews in Nature- "Kids and COVID: why young immune systems are still on top" (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02423-8) and "How kids’ immune systems can evade COVID" (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03496-7). To quote from the first article: "For most other viruses, from influenza to respiratory syncytial virus, young children and older adults are typically the most vulnerable; the risk of bad outcomes by age can be represented by a U-shaped curve. But with COVID-19, the younger end of that curve is largely chopped off. It’s “absolutely remarkable”, says Kawsar Talaat, an infectious-disease physician at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. “One of the few silver linings of this pandemic is that children are relatively spared.”" I take it that you would consider the quote by Talaat to be misinformation? In any case, it is remarkable that in an encyclopedia there is such an effort to avoid giving more context in a quote, one would think the opposite would be the case. Tweets are already very short and you argue that it should be further trimmed to just a fragment of the first sentence, as that fits your preconceived narrative. Of course at least the first sentence of the tweet, if not the full tweet, must be quoted, as done in the BBC reference. Axiarchist (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is really simple: kids are not "essentially immune" to the virus. Moreover, it's not just elderly people with existing conditions who are vulnerable, a huge portion of the population is. We are focusing on the controversial part of the tweet, and the latter part of the tweet literally does nothing to improve the situation for him - in fact, it's more misinformation. BeŻet (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Good reasoning. Just the one relevant part of the tweet is fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Early stage investor

Why do we call Musk an "early stage investor" in Tesla? The citations provided in the lead and body attest to him being "a founder" or "co-founder" of the company. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Check the archives for the discussion about his cofounder status. QRep2020 (talk)

@Firefangledfeathers: The lede statement is supported by the body. If you look at the first citation in the Tesla subsection, it spells out What follows is a brief history of Tesla starting at its founding not by Elon Musk, but Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in July 2003. We have to go by the source material. The status of "founder" isn't exactly something Eberhard and Musk have control over, and while the settlement is relevant it doesn't have much weight alone. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Any objections to removing the #2 footnote and citations from that part of the lead sentence? And can we add to the body some mention of Musk's early investments in Tesla? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: That would be fine with me. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the footnote removal. I think its works well to explain the situation. ~ HAL333 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi HAL333, can you help me understand your view a bit more? From my perspective it’s unusual to have a footnote and two citations that are unrelated to the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The situation is complex (Is he a founder/co-founder? Just an investor?) and the note qualifies his relationship with Tesla in way we could not concisely do in the lead. However, I do not feel strongly about this, and if multiple editors want the footnote's removal, I am totally fine with that. ~ HAL333 16:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter:, want to break the tie here? HAL333, I agree the situation is complex. To me, the footnote adds complexity: a clash between the lead's 'early investor' and the note's seeming advocacy for 'founder' or 'co-founder'. The reader is unable to resolve that clash until reading the Tesla subsection. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the footnote adds complexity and is at odds with keeping the lead short and sweet. OTOH I worry that completely removing the note will result in regular edits or requests to call him a founder in the lead. On balance, I'd be in favour of replacing the footnote by a hidden comment. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the footnote, as this has been a contentious issue in the past. Barring that, a hidden comment would certainly be wise. Stonkaments (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm pro-hidden comment, and previously tried to add "Talk page consensus is that "founder" or "co-founder" should not be placed here". The contentious issue seems to be that readers and editors want to see co-founder or founder added to the lead, but consensus at this talk page has been to exclude those descriptors. If we could reliably source a footnote that explains the reasons for exclusion, I would support it. The current footnote doesn't explain those reasons, and is very likely exacerbating the contentious issue. As someone who really doesn't care either way, my first thought on reading the footnote was, "Oh, I guess we should put co-founder in the lead then." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hidden comment to archived discussion could work. QRep2020 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Talk:Elon Musk#Musk is Tesla's retroactive co-founder 🤦‍♂️ the best section to link to? It's recent and shows consensus for leaving out co-founder. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit notice

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

Why not call him an 'oligarch'?

Under 'Education', Didn't Elon get a BA in Economics and a BS in Physics, instead of the other way around?

Added back emerald mine detail per corroboration by multiple outlets since 2009

Previous discussion regarding Errol Musk's stake in a Zambian emerald mine centered on distrust of a string of Business Insider articles, so I found sources that predate those articles by several years that make the same claim. I have a bad habit of making unhelpful edit descriptions, sorry for any confusion. Mewnst (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree on the wording, "who became wealthy in part due to a significant stake in a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika." The article written in 2009 from the New Yorker mentions that Enrol Musk got a share in a Emerald Mine, not that it was a significant stake and also neither that it was really profitable.

My suggestion would be to change it to something like this "It's presumed that Enrol musk received part of his wealth from a stake in a Zambian emerald mine near lake Tanganyika" or remove this part so it's more accurate until it's really proven that Enrol Musk became wealthy because of the emerald mine stake or received significant funding from it.

Renizen (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is a fair assumption that a share in an emerald mine contributes to one's wealth. The sentence does not specify a percentage, only that added in "part" - a case where imprecision serves the veracity of the larger sentence. We can add further mention of his engineering projects too maybe. QRep2020 (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If the page is going to claim Errol (not Enrol) Musk had a "significant" stake in the mine and that it played a part in him becoming wealthy (and that he was "wealthy" at all), there'd better be a source for that. The sources say he had a "stake"/"share" in a mine. I have shares of Tesla (full disclosure) but I am far from wealthy. Also here's an article that investigates the origins of the claim and presents a different view: ^[1]. If it weren't for the persistent widespread slander about both Musks benefiting from an apartheid mine, I'd say remove the mention of the mine completely as it doesn't seem relevant to an article about Elon Musk. Because of that hoax, I say change it to something like "Errol Musk owned a minor share in an emerald mine in the 80s, the value of which is disputed" and link the article I ref'd, which specifically discusses the widespread allegations. Vashekcz (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better source from The Independent. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's a better source: it just links back to the (discredited, in my opinion) Business Insider article and quotes it. This article by Jeremy Arnold investigated the claims made there to some depth (same link as above). Vashekcz (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The Independent makes several relevant claims in its own voice. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

What claims (about the mine)? Other than those lifted from one or the other Business Insider article? Note that the Jeremy Arnold piece linked by my previous bullet points deals with both of them. Vashekcz (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"In the mid-1980s, the family profited handsomely from Errol Musk’s purchasing of an emerald mine, after selling their airplane for £80,000 (the equivalent of £320,000 today)." Also, I don't believe it's a good idea to check generally reliable sources against a self-published source (Substack). I am not desperate to include this material, and I'd be interested to see what other editors think. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition. As others already pointed out, Mewnst's causal claim is not supported by the two cited sources. And handwaving about "fair assumptions" does not give one a free pass around WP:OR.

What's more, Mewnst's summary of the previous discussions that led to the non-inclusion of this material is likewise misleading: Far from having only "centered on distrust of a string of Business Insider articles", other sources were extensively discussed there too, including the 2009 New Yorker article that Mewnst is now presenting as a new finding.

Finally (as already discussed back then as well but ignored by Mewnst above too), this topic is a major BLP issue. See e.g. the context provided in this Bloomberg piece published last year by Ashlee Vance (who is probably one of the most factually reliable journalists in this matter, having published an entire book on this article's subject):

"Some of his most vocal detractors have promoted the idea that Musk, like Trump, began his career backed by the deep pockets of dear old dad. Errol Musk, an engineer, owned a small percentage of an emerald mine and had a couple of good years before the mine went bust and wiped out his investment. Musk readily jumps onto Twitter to refute the charges that his empire was forged with the aid of family wealth, and part of the reason he wanted to talk to me—rather comically given the rocket launch and, well, trolls—was because the jabs bug him, and he hopes to set the record straight. For what it’s worth, my reporting, based on conversations with hundreds of people, confirms Musk’s story. Regardless of your opinion of him, he is a self-made billionaire."

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Vance can say what he pleases now, but his book about Musk he describes the family as wealthy at least prior to the divorce. Whether or not the mine contributed to the family's affluence at some point is not that important: The fact that Musk was not born into destitution is and reference to that fact, which was broached by the sentence since removed, belongs in the article. I have reintroduced the point as well as something less controversial about emerald mine business. Also, the BLP stuff is a bit silly. QRep2020 (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "self-made billionaire" is utterly meaningless nowadays - Forbes labelled Kylie Jenner as the "youngest self-made billionaire" (although they did change their mind later, but just because of technicalities), even though Jenner belongs to a very wealthy, famous and recognizable family, and has been in the spotlight ever since she was young. Likewise Musk comes from a wealthy and influential family. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

Errol Graham Musk, father

Jet - owned by Musk or not?

@HAL333: @QRep2020: @Rebell44: Looking at the sources in the article, the jet is not owned by Musk, but rather Falcon Landing LLC. Business Insider states Falcon Landing LLC, a shell company with ties to SpaceX's Hawthorne, California headquarters, recently registered a new Gulfstream G550 jet alongside its larger G650^[2] The current Ars article heavily depends on Washington Post as its source, which states Tesla chief Elon Musk’s corporate jet flew more than 150,000 miles last year [...] (emphasis my own), continuing later, The company said Tesla does not cover the costs for Musk’s personal trips and that Musk, SpaceX and Tesla review the flights and agree on who pays for each trip.^[3] Washington Post is considered "generally reliable" under perennial sources, and its claims that this is a corporate jet are verifiably accurate. Falcon Landing LLC is publicly registered, and anyone can see that it is registered at the headquarters of SpaceX itself.

References

Elephanthunter (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh how fun, shell games. Fine, put it as he has unlimited access to a private jet registered to an LLC that he uses for anything and everything that suits him. Surely this all speaks to his amaterialism. QRep2020 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

But QRep, He doesn't own the jet. He just owns the company that owns the company that owns the jet. ;) ~ HAL333 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, beautiful delegation of responsibility and accountability ;) BeŻet (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, "Elon Musk's corporate jet" seems most accurate, clear and concise; "a private jet that is owned by SpaceX"—not so much. Basically it's the (completely environmentally-conscious and humble billionaire) equivalent of a company giving someone a work laptop to work from home—they may not technically own it, but it's certainly "theirs" in a pragmatic sense. Stonkaments (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In particular, I think the current "owned by SpaceX" is one of the most false options available. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "owned by SpaceX" is clearly incorrect. The FAA aircraft registry confirms that N628TS is registered to Falcon Landing LLC, 1 Rocket Rd, Hawthorne, CA. I haven't attempted to determine the ownership of that company – be it Musk, SpaceX or some other investment vehicle. Regardless, any wording that suggests Musk owns the jet personally is equally incorrect. My suggestion would be to run the two sentences together: "Musk uses a corporate jet [...] whose use of fossil fuels [...] has been criticised [...]". Rosbif73 (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Falcon Landing, LLC is managed by Musk, Shotwell (President and COO of SpaceX), and SpaceX: . --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a corporate jet. It's not personally owned by him, but it's "his" corporate jet. BeŻet (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also relevant that the jet being discussed (SpaceX actually has several) is also used to transport other SpaceX employees and sometimes eqipment - it si not exclusively used by Elon Musk. Rebell44 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be deleted "Musk has been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox or unscientific stances and highly publicized controversies. "

That sentence should be deleted. Wikipedia should not make judgements such as "unorthodox" or "unscientific". How could anyone call Musk "unscientific"? This reads more like a hit job instead of being objective. So this sentence should go. People don't go to Wikipedia to read made-up opinions. Just stick to what is documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroche (talk • contribs) 15:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please review the archived discussions to see the arguments as to why that conclusion belongs in the article. QRep2020 (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020:Why not just add (even in the lede) the sources for this statement? I am sure they are buried somewhere in the article, but it is ok to add references in the lede if a statement is likely to be challenged. I looked in the archives as you suggest, but it is far from easy to find actual supporting evidence there. I believe you are right and he has made "unorthodox" or "unscientific" statements though. Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There are sources under the Views section that support the generalized statement. Here is one archived discussion that covers the statement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_7#Biased_negativity_on_Elon_Musk_in_this_article QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. As I said, I do not doubt that you are right. It is just that these articles are so hard to read because they are so long and involved. Just suggesting that I believe, according to the "rules", it is ok to add a reference in the lede if something is likely to be challenged. But thank you! Krok6kola (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep - already been discussed. More discussions can be found in the archives. ~ HAL333 02:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

How could anyone call Musk "unscientific"? - he has made several unscientific statements, as described by reliable sources. He's not a scientist, he's a businessman. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Eroche. Wikipedia's editors now are trying to gain authority to assert many things, specially opinions by favorite sources and journalists. And i disagree with QRep2020, that doesn't says why it "belongs to the article" that says what the editors who did that think while doing that, as simple as that. It doesn't "proves" that it belongs to the article, it's just a question of balance of power when the matter is the 'importance' of some editor's vote or opinion. Sawyersx (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion but clearly the statements are backed up by sources that are cited later in the article and proposals to change it have been defused. If you wish to pursue it again, feel free to make an actual case and perhaps initiate an RfC. QRep2020 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If the grounds for maintaining this claim or that Musk is not a scientist I disagree with that. He clearly is a scientist as specialising in applied physics. The statement is false and groundless. It remains unproven and is opinion. It must be removed or amended. ToZero (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

That's not the grounds for the claim. Please see the sources cited in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Scientists are people who usually have advanced degrees, and generally people who conduct scientific research, and Musk is neither. However, this is not the grounds for the claim. The sources specify the unorthodox and unscientific claims he has made. BeŻet (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

Net Worth

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

"Eel on Musk" listed at Redirects for discussion

Tim Cook, Elon Musk among Time's 100 most influential people of 2021

Alleged connection Jeffrey Epstein, minor edits

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

COVID-19 section stating as fact that Musk spread misinformation is editorial opinion

The second sentence states "He spread misinformation about the virus...". This is editorial opinion disallowed by WP:NOR. The first citation given only states that he has been accused of misinformation. The second citation by the Verge is an opinion piece of the author, who is not a subject matter info according to his bio. (Note that WP:RSPUSE states that "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source.". Moreover, this is not the opinion of the Twitter censors according to twitter's policy for removing tweets containing COVID-19 misinformation, as the tweets have not been removed. An objective wording suitable for an encyclopedia is "He has been accused of spreading misinformation about the virus...". Axiarchist (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple sources stating he has spread misinformation, and it's not controversial at all to state that he has, but that new wording is fine by me. BeŻet (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the new wording, and indeed with Axiarchist's other recent changes. AFAICT, all of the sources that accuse Musk of spreading misinformation are opinion sources, not definitive statements by subject matter experts. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not an editorial: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/musk-tesla-coronavirus/. This is not an editorial: https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/29/tech/elon-musk-twitter-coronavirus/index.html. etc. Call it what it is. QRep2020 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

And here is a piece from a nonpartisan policy institute specifically about COVID-19 misinformation that speaks directly to Musk's actions AND uses The Verge article as reference: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology-policy/reports/2020/08/18/488714/fighting-coronavirus-misinformation-disinformation/. QRep2020 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wording fine as is. ~ HAL333 23:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording and sourcing are fine as is. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation is missing for him promoting chloroquine. He made a tweet pointing at the study from a reputable doctor showing promising results from chloroquine. It wasn't known at the time the study was flawed (so hardly misinformation) and calling it promoting is dubious at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.101.175 (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The Verge article sourcing that statement seems appropriately summarized to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The article correctly states the study is debunked, but doesn't say it was debunked before or after his tweet. I can't find any source that it was debunked at the time of him tweeting it. In fact, if there is any such source the "Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic" page should be updated to include it.

I am not sure it matters to state when it was debunked. We could put the point like so if need be: "a later debunked study". QRep2020 (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course it matters. WHO announced a multinational study of chloroquine and three other drugs a few days after the tweet. To use it as an example of Musk spreading misinformation is very misleading, unless you also want to claim WHO is spreading misinformation. There are better examples.

I think an institution testing a hypothesis relating to a drug's efficacy is different than Elon Musk tweeting about how a drug might work and linking to a self-published paper from a doctor with a bit of notoriety: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html . The WHO also was quick in February 2020 to point out the side effects of chloroquine use while later Musk spoke highly of it as a former malaria patient: https://fortune.com/2020/03/20/malaria-drug-coronavirus-treatment-chloroquine-trump-musk-deadly-china/ . Different leagues. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Why would WHO test a hypothesis in clinical studies if it was obviously poor science? Is Elon Musk expected to know better than WHO? I can't read the Times article as it is behind a paywall, but it is published two months after the tweet. You posted the wrong link for the second article. This one only refers back to the tweet and says nothing about him speaking highly of chloroquine.

No, I did not use the wrong article: "China, where the deadly pathogen first emerged in December, recommended the decades-old malaria drug chloroquine to treat infected patients in guidelines issued in February after seeing encouraging results in clinical trials. But within days, it cautioned doctors and health officials about the drug’s lethal side effects and rolled back its usage." And there are plenty of ways to read the the NY Times article if you please. QRep2020 (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

From The Verge: "he said the 'danger of panic still far exceeds danger of corona,' as part of a larger thread promoting chloroquine as an effective treatment". RS describe Musk as promoting chloroquine, and we should too. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That tweet is a much better example of poor covid-19 judgement than the chloroquine stuff. Use that instead.

I'm commenting on the above precisely because of this remark on the main page. It is defamatory. It presumes that Mr Musk has deliberately spread false information about Covid. In fact it is reasonable to argue that instead Mr Musk has expressed strong doubts over government narrative on Covid. That is all. And he is far from being alone in this. Frankly the sentence is an outrage. I would remove it instantly if I didn't know already that an arrogant oaf will immediately reinstate it. Presumably Mr Musk is giving wikipedia the contempt it deserves by ignoring the smear rather than mounting legal action. He doesn't exactly need the money!John2o2o2o (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree the statement is defamatory and must be: A) removed (On the grounds that there is no proof that Elon Musk spread misinformation in fact the statement itself is misinformation)

B) An amendment can be made that I would agree with such as “it has been alleged that Musk spread misinformation”.

I would ask that either A) or B is implemented immediately. ToZero (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I cite this article and itge study here in that Musks reference to Hydroxychloroquine are backed up by peer reviewed SCIENTIFIC findings. https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/3/peer-reviewed-study-finds-hydroxychloroquine-effec/

The statement must be removed or amended immediately. ToZero (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. We have discussed this at length and the article passed a GAN with the current verbiage. Additionally, there is no indication in the text about it being a deliberate spreading of misinformation. Furthermore, if the statement is indeed outrageous, one would reasonably expect there to be reliable independent third party sources suggesting as much. QRep2020 (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk has spread misinformation, as explained in sources used. The article Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine during the COVID-19 pandemic goes through all the major research points regarding the drug you mentioned. The study you are referencing directly has been disputed, and the authors themselves don't make any definitive claims about the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against the virus, and admit that their findings are different from other peer-reviewed studies. BeŻet (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I completely disagree.

Firstly, This is by no means a discussion at length there has only been a few exchanges of paragraphs. And you are not qualified to define “discussed at length “ and impose it secondarily upon a primary claim that you cannot prove.

We ought to begin with the definition of Misinformation: Wikipedia defines it as:

Misinformation Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated with an intention to deceive.Wikipedia

You have no proof of your claim in the article or evidence. Mr Musk very correctly drew his conclusions from the study carried out from various sources including the Henry Ford team which concluded that hydroxychloroquine was an effective Treatment by way of their results:

Overall crude mortality rates were 18.1% in the entire cohort, 13.5% in the hydroxychloroquine alone group, 20.1% among those receiving hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, 22.4% among the azithromycin alone group, and 26.4% for neither drug," the team wrote in a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.

If you look at your cited article by CNN opens with the statement that the Hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy in treating Covid has been disputed but then went onto site for Henry Ford Research team

It is clear that to relay the results of Any studies that found hydroxychloroquine to reduce chances of hospitalisation or death do not meet any test of misinformation.

I propose that the statement that he “has spread misinformation” isi amended to “there have been claims that Mr musk spread misinformation about Covid 19, but certain studies (including a report published in the International Journal of Infectious Disease) have supported his comments.

It is the family tree can you to make the statement that he has Spread misinformation and it suggest it be amended as above. ToZero (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Typo correction: It is the defamatory for you to write the statement that he has Spread misinformation and I suggest it be amended as my suggestion above. ToZero (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia article misinformation does not contain the text you quote above. "Intention to deceive" is more associated with disinformation. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Misinformation is simply false or innacurate information. There is no implication that Musk was doing this on purpose - he just simply didn't know what he was talking about. BeŻet (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not just about hydroxychloroquine. Musk also tweeted that kids were "essentially immune",^ref posted a link to a video claiming that the government was paying hospitals to intentionally mis-classifying people as COVID-positive,^ref and tweeted that the reason for low cold/flu numbers was because people were being mis-classified as having COVID (as opposed to social distancing, masks, and handwashing).^ref --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree and here is my evidence:

If you type ‘misinformation definition’ into Google it will give you the following definition:

false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

If you type ‘misinformation definition’ i to duck duck go it will give you the following definition:

Misinformation Misinformation is false, inaccurate, or misleading information that is communicated with an intention to deceive.

Therefore you are wrong the vast majority of definition searching is carried out through these 2 engines. The words have formed and made an allegation that cannot be substantiated. As in ‘your’ paragraph above you can write that ‘Mr mask Musks Comments on COVID-19 have been challenged by many experts‘ or you can write that ‘there are alleged claims of misinformation but some other medical experts support his analysis’. But you cannot make a statement that he has “spread misinformation“ because “spreading misinformation“ is a mischaracterisation of his actions and intentions to relay the results and findings of authentic scientific studies and the medical opinions of experts with a different scientific interpretation.

I ask you kindly once again to remove and revert your contributions in regards to your “unsubstantiated claims” and replace them with the words “alleged” counterbalancing that allegation with the realistic fact that other scientific researchers and medical experts support his comments.

Your comments are unduly incriminatory and accusatory against someone who’s comments reflected actual scientific research and vast swathes of professors researchers and doctors in the medical industry.

If you do a Google or DuckDuckGo search ToZero (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read this Dictionary.com entry. BeŻet (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This leads the reader to believe that Elon spread information that was later found to be inaccurate or false. It saddens me that until you correct it to read objectively, readers will believe Elon spread misinformation (to believe this, first you must believe anyone has factual information regarding this alleged new virus) the current wording questions his credibility. There is no mention of those parties who believe in his statements as truth on popular as they may be. I thought Wikipedia was better than this. Had this been open for public edits, it would have immediately been reworded to be objective and represent all the perspectives of our shared reality. Sk8nkHunt42 (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I like Elon, but I doubt that making him flattered with his Wikipedia page would make the article neutral. That's the whole reason why reliable sources are important - most of the times, you are wrong. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I posed the following question and I consider the response by Technician27 to be rude, and unnecessary. It seems that there are some here who are not interested in providing a balanced account and are happy with their defamatory remarks. I am disappointed in Wikipedia for this. In my view is completely acceptable to suggest that he has been "accused of" spreading misinfo, but removing the details of what he said, makes it look like an attempt to discredit and defame, as opposed to providing factual imformation.

Please my question below:

Hi lovely people,

My Edit on the Elon Musk page keeps getting reverted. I dispute that he has spread misinformation, but respect that his views are politically controversial.

He has not spread "misinformation" regarding the Covid-19 pandemic and I believe this was the contributor's opinion, however he does hold some interesting views on the subject which I mentioned and referenced.

Please see my edit which referenced numerous articles relating to these views. Should I re-do it, but changing covid-19 misinformation to "controversial views relating to Covid restrictions", then give his political views in relation to these and the population issue in a different section?. There are lots of articles on it. It is easily referenced.

I note that someone mentioned that it shouldn't be in the introductory section. I'm inclined to agree, so whatever we decide to do about the Covid views, I think it should be moved to lower on the page.

Everything I mentioned in the edit was correctly sourced and included direct quotations, I didn't provide any opinion. If someone would like to tell me where they think an unreferenced opinion has been published, I'll make sure that I clearly source it.

Unfortunately this doesn't look like balanced information at present, so it would be good if we can form a consensus about what should be included.

Regards

L

}} Lyndsay Dart (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The place for discussion of that article, and reaching consensus, is Talk:Elon Musk. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, Lyndsay Dart, this has already been discussed on the talk page where it's been clearly established that Musk absolutely did spread COVID misinformation. Wikipedia is in the business of reliably sourcing and documenting facts, not in twisting the truth to kiss up to a centibillionaire business mogul. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere that a consensus has been reached. and I fear that this sort of defamatory vandalism could cause serious reputational damage for Wikipedia. Please could Wikipedia take some responsibility, because it does not meet the criteria of misinformation at all.

I came to contribute and find the comment "not in twisting the truth to kiss up to a centibillionaire business mogul" distasteful. I would prefer Wikipedia to use original quotes and I think allowing editors to source their information from opinion pieces, without being clear that it is opinion, to be irresponsible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndsay Dart (talk • contribs) 12:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

We have been over this already. Refer to the archives. QRep2020 (talk)

Adding "it is alleged" violates the Manual of Style on Unsupported attributions and Expressions of doubt. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That is nonsense "although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined," — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyndsay Dart (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2021

This is a flawed page - should be removed and corrected

About musk education as written in this article.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

NASA

:Rolling eyes:

Give Elon the right to review/approve his entry

🤱🏼🇿🇦🔜👨🏻‍💻🇨🇦🔜🤑🇺🇸🔜🚀✨🔜😱🛸

Choose a synonym in lieu of "magnate"

Elon himself expressed his dislike with the word "magnate" being used to describe him on his Wikipedia page. If he himself, openly and publicly, does not identify with the definition of a business magnate, why is it still on his Wikipedia page? He asked nicely for it to be changed to business magnet which he actually identifies with. This is discussed when he was a guest on the Joe Rogan experience and Joe asks Elon how does he time manage what seems to be impossible. Elon responds by mentioning that most people misconceive what he actually does in life and then refers to the inaccuracies of how he is described on Wikipedia and that he does not identify with the way he is portrayed as a 'business man'. In the event you will not change business magnate to business magnet, per Elon's wishes, will you please change it to a synonym of magnate? Please consider this man is brilliant. While it may seem insignificant to anyone else, it's important to Elon that it be changed. His Wikipedia is a direct reflection of him and this part he dislikes shows up in the results before you even click thru. I looked up synonyms and my vote is to replace magnate with tycoon. I ask that you respect and action Elon's request to change business magnate to business magnet. Thank you. Sk8nkHunt42 (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sk8nkHunt42: No. Musk isn't a "business magnet", nor he is an alien, even though he claimed to be one in the same interview and later on Twitter. His preference and "wishes" are completely irrelevant here. We use what reliable sources say, not what rich people request. BeŻet (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

~~What matters are sources, not the wishrs of Musk. Free1Soul (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)~~ strike sock

We know. We do not care. See the FAQ. QRep2020 (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Also in this point, I want to mention that Wikipedia should be neutral, and changing the page to Elon's liking is the best way to sabotage that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a debate. There is no reliable source here ascribing this label? Business magnate is label most often used for 19th century industrialists and financiers? 104.251.130.33 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There is many sources that said so. What's not is other synonyms. "Business magnate" is also used to label many other 21st century people, like Zuck and Bezos. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"business magnet" is not a word. That word would meant nothing if you are not inside Musk-circle. "business magnate" however, is a word, and that is the primary reason why we use the ladder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi-tech magnate

Given “magnate” already refers to business and I've seen “tech magnate” describing Musk elsewhere, should we replace “business” with something more specific and concise? I think Hi-tech magnate could describe him the best in a short description. Please tell me what you think. ToniTurunen (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there sources which refer to him as a "hi-tech magnate"? BeŻet (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen "magnate" without the "business". QRep2020 (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Pairing “magnate” with “business” certainly is the standard, because magnates do business. However, yes, there are publications which describe Musk as either “technology magnate” or “tech magnate” or “hi-tech magnate” if you search on Google about it. Since the “hi-” suffix is very short and adds more to it, I would include that in it then as well. https://google.com/search?q=%22tech+magnate%22+%2B+%22musk ToniTurunen (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, now I suppose have. :-)

That said, "business magnate" is used in plenty of sources itself and pretty short relatively speaking. Additionally, I will note that not all of his companies are high tech - The Boring Company uses standard tunneling machinery and consumer-grade cars to move people around. The change is not in order in my opinion. QRep2020 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToniTurunen: I can't find any source describing Musk as a "hi-tech magnate", and the phrase globally only returns 2,140 results on Google. BeŻet (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

BeŻet: Here “hi-tech entrepreneur” appears:

https://google.com/search?q=%22hi-tech+entrepreneur%22+%2B+musk

QRep2020: The Boring Company is futuristic nonetheless and one exception doesn't remove the fact he is a hi-tech oriented fellow.

Will have to ask, is there any loss in using more descriptive wording in lieu of the usual? Both “hi-tech” and “magnate” are common. The pairing itself is less common, as is Elon Musk as a whole. He IS exceptional. ToniTurunen (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Here is “hi-tech magnate” Musk: https://admin.socialgazette.com/stories/women-westworld-real-life ToniTurunen (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3ABeŻet ToniTurunen (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a single occurrence in a weak source about celebrity gossip, and QRep2020 is right: there isn't much high tech in his companies. Tesla is pretty far behind when it comes to self-driving cars, The Boring Company uses standard technologies developed by other companies, Neuralink's "achievements" have been described as dated, and the only company that has actually achieved something relevant is SpaceX, but with huge support from NASA and the American government. "High tech" usually refers to the most advanced technology available, but he hardly works with any such technology. BeŻet (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He's is modern age polymath I don't know why you keep changing to business magnate even in his interview with joe rogan said i don't know why in his Wikipedia Somebody stick business magnate which is he's don't like 21aryan (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@21aryan: He's not a polymath. A polymath is a person whose knowledge spans numerous subjects, not a person who just has (often questionable) opinions about a number of subjects. BeŻet (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

So tell me, in today's era, which person has the ability to do so many things together? 21aryan (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@21aryan: A business magnate is a person who owns multiple lines of enterprise. That's people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson etc. - Branson actually is involved in a larger number of industries than Musk. This has nothing to do with polymathy. BeŻet (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's final now please don't change to business magnate thanks 21aryan (talk) 07:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@21aryan: You are strongly advised to stop disruptively changing the short description. If you'd like to change it, you need to discuss it here first and reach consensus. Also, the Wikipedia community couldn't care less what Musk likes or does not. Wikipedia is not the place for him to tell the world what he wants to tell them. He already has his twitter account for that. – NJD-DE (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

TBF, being a business magnate is already an honor in of itself. Why do you like to change it to something else? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the arguments; I can now agree that he isn't that hi-tech although he is a tech magnate. Could that be more accurate than the generic business magnate? I think all of his businesses develop technology. Also Musk isn't a polymath in my book any more than he is an inventor. He might be polyamorous but not polymathic. ToniTurunen (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

He isn't an inventor either, as he hasn't invented anything. The hyperloop was just a vague idea that had to be heavily modified for it to be even minimally feasible, and afaik the only patent with his name for it is for the proprietary Tesla charging connector. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

He is an amazing businessman, that's for sure. That's why he is a business magnate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

He's first and foremost an amazing marketeer, as he managed to become the richest man on the planet running unprofitable companies, while a large group of people thinks he's a genius. BeŻet (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

SMH

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2022

About Sir Elon musk achievement

Grammar in lede

Forbes➕Bloomberg needn't be worded out 👁️‍🗨️

As of March 15, 2021, His title is no longer CEO, but technoking

Claim of misinformation

Talk about the short description 🇿🇦🇺🇸🇨🇦

“Entrepreneur” is already included in the term “Business magnate” and short descriptions need to remain CONCISE. That said, we could include nationality emojis in it too. Or is someone against highlighting his African background in the description? Hope not. Please let me know what benefits and losses do emojis bring quite exactly and we'll think of adding them. ToniTurunen (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Are not short descriptions intended to be simple and plain? Removing 'entrepreneur' makes sense but the flags seem excessive and frankly unusual. QRep2020 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SHORTDESC#Examples, since Musk has US citizenship, I think "American entrepreneur" might be the most appropriate option. OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

“Business magnate” being broader than simply “Entrepreneur”—the latter of which he isn't for e.g. Tesla which he isn't a founder of—you COULD describe him with “American business magnate” instead at will. “South African-American business magnate” is even more descriptive and within letter limits. ToniTurunen (talk) 16:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I think I'd support this option. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I support this. Pakbelang (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd support dropping entrepreneur. However, there is long-standing consensus not to put any mention of current or past nationalities in the first sentence. Elon's nationality situation is too complex for a single adjective and is best left for a separate sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Since “magnate” refers to a businessperson, would it be okay to describe him with “Tech magnate” or “Hi-tech magnate”? I've seen such terms elsewhere describing him. I'd opt for the latter, please tell me if you're okay with that. ToniTurunen (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this choice. Saying "South African-American Tech magnate" is concise and descriptive. Saying "Tech magnate" is also good ( though I would prefer 'South African-American Tech magnate'). Imurmate I'ma editor2022 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I could go with either. Lots of business magnates aren't tech magnates, e.g. retail, oil&gas, film, fashion, investing, real estate and whatnot. The word “tech” could thusly serve a purpose. As for nationalities, they seem commonplace there. ToniTurunen (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-relevant to this post, I removed the years on his citizenship, because it's not clearly spelled out when he acquired them, or if he still holds multiple passports. Feel free to revert if you think there's information out there I couldn't find. Nswix (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wharton Business school

Musk’s business school - The Wharton School, is not mentioned once in this article, which is odd as it’s the only degree he has. As written, the degree in economics makes it seem like he studied classical economics in the college, when in fact it’s a business degree from Wharton just called a bachelor in economics. In all other cases of famous people, the Wharton school is explicitly mentioned 113.211.129.90 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think as Wharton's most prominent alumni, and as the world's most prominent business person, it is strange that his business school was not mentioned as that gives insight into his academic training - and also clarifies that he didn't study classical economics, but studied business at Wharton. I think its a glaring ommision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.186.239.66 (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics [from The Wharton School] and a Bachelor of Arts degree in physics [from the College of Arts and Sciences].[35][36][37][38]

As a reference, the article on Steven Cohen states: Cohen received an economics degree from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1978.

The article on Robert Kapito likewise states: after completing a BS degree in Economics from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Donald Trump's article likewise states: he transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, graduating in May 1968 with a B.S. in economics.

For Steven Cohen, in his alma marter section, Wharton is specifically highlighted: Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania Simmilarly for Donald Trump in his alma marter section: Alma mater Wharton School (BS Econ.).

I think this glaring ommision gives readers the wrong impression and is misleading and should be corrected both in the body of the article and in the alma mater section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.186.239.66 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks