Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Entire "Simulation hypothesis" section was removed

1 September 2020‎ HAL333 "Simulation hypothesis: Whole section predicated on references about three opinions given 5 years ago" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=976217726&oldid=976027386

HAL333 removed the entire "Simulation hypothesis" section. Perhaps he can't stand the theory. I think Elon Musk (being an engineer worth $100 billion) is the most notable proponent of the idea that we are probably in a video game based on the idea that in the future there could be billions of video games that are indistinguishable from reality. I would like the section to be restored. Legowolf3d (talk) 08:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Reintroduced some of the removed content and placed it within other sections. I think it all works now, but please do check. HAL333, please do consider moving verified and relevant content from the sections you delete into other parts of the article moving forward. Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you added "perhaps controlled by a vast AI" though this is not true. Elon is saying it involves billions of video games. Perhaps you added that phrase so you could stick it in the AI section rather than having a separate simulation hypothesis section. Also please get rid of the "Lisa Randall" section. HAL333 was unhappy with the other references and Randall's reference involves the opinion section in "Fox Business". Legowolf3d (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Elon did not conceive of the Simulation hypothesis. He likely read something by Nick Bostrom or something derived from Nick Bostrom's work. Bostrom's work talks in part about imagined scenarios including one where speculative super AI's construct simulations with simulated participants that resemble humans in order "understand" human behavior better - hence my very minor injection of the related transitional phrase. How AI and simulation hypothesis could be considered disparate topics is bizarre so I do not understand the issue with moving the content. Furthermore, it is not as if Musk has written any philosophical scholarship about this or anything else, so the details of his "argument" are irrelevant. What is relevant is that he helped popularize the hypothesis and in doing so also made some rather unfounded clams. Randall was responding indirectly to Musk when she made her counterclaim. QRep2020 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The simulation hypothesis article doesn't mention Elon Musk anyway. Though Elon didn't think it up I think he is the most well-known proponent of it. The Elon Musk article currently says "perhaps controlled by a vast AI" - that seems to be based on Nick Bostrom's ideas that you are talking about. Elon Musk is talking about billions of video games NOT "involving a super AI trying to "understand" human behavior better". The argument Elon uses is that there would be billions of video games on computers and set-top boxes, so it is likely we are in one - rather than copy Bostrom's argument. "What is relevant is that he helped popularize the hypothesis and in doing so also made some rather unfounded clams" What is wrong with his argument - that in the future there could be billions of video games that are indistinguishable from reality - is that impossible? Legowolf3d (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The hypothesis is that WE ARE in a simulation. Hence the base reality quotation. QRep2020 (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well now the simulation topic involves 2 sentences (there used to be a couple including it being a potential solution to the Fermi paradox). The second sentence is from an unnoteable physicist from Fox Business "Opinion"... The first sentence makes it seem that Elon Musk believes we are in a simulation "perhaps controlled by a vast AI" - which I think is incorrect. Here is what I think the quote should be:

"...the games will become indistinguishable from reality. ...there would probably be billions of such computers and set-top boxes. ...it would seem to follow that the odds that we're in base reality is one in billions"

That way it explains where he got the billions from, rather than making it look like he pulled it out of somewhere...

BTW a Google search for "elon musk" simulation gives more than a million results so I think the article should have a section heading for the simulation/video game theory... (like it used to) Legowolf3d (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW the Fox Business Opinion article https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-chances-that-life-is-really-a-computer-simulation mentions some famous scientists - like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Max Tegmark - who it quotes as being open to the simulation idea. It seems to mention Lisa Randall because she "has her head on straight". The fact that FoxBusiness opinion is the best source for Lisa Randall's ideas shows how unnotable it is. Legowolf3d (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

HAL333 is making too many changes

He's made dozens of changes in a row.... surely the article wasn't that problematic...

He sometimes removes whole sections such as the "Simulation hypothesis" section because it is based on "three opinions given 5 years ago"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=976217726&oldid=976027386 Legowolf3d (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

This issue has already been addressed. Undue weight was given to opinions expressed half a decade ago; however, QRep found a great solution by adding it into the AI section. And multiple WikiProjects give this a C rating, so it's not exactly top notch. ~ HAL333 22:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What about this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KK_kzrJPS8 this says it was from 2016 and you said it was "5 years ago". Are you saying that Elon Musk no longer believes we're probably in a video game? You completely removed ALL mention of his belief. But it is noteable. Since you said it was from "5 years ago" when it was 2016 I don't trust your accuracy in other areas. Legowolf3d (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

BTW doing a Google search for "elon musk" simulation gives more than 1 million results... so I think it is notable enough to have its own section heading... Legowolf3d (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well I guess you being happy to let it survive in the AI section is better than nothing Legowolf3d (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The amount of Google results doesn't really mean much. There are over a million results for something completly random like "Elon Musk puppy" or "elon musk lizard" as well. ~ HAL333 16:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point Legowolf3d (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Engineer first?

Hey - I saw the RfC on Musk being an engineer - if there is no consensus on this, it seems controversial enough that it should not be listed first?

Presently: [Musk] is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist

Proposing: [Musk] is a technology entrepreneur, industrial designer, engineer, and philanthropist

Seems to relate to what he is most known/notable for. Thoughts? ɱ (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It should not be listed at all in my opinion and I plan on doing another Afc shortly with a volunteer to mediate the discussion. Until then, sure, put it as far right as possible. QRep2020 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The outcome of the RFC was clear: there is no consensus to change the existing text. And there has been no significant change of circumstances that would justify holding another RFC so soon on the same issue. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tell me, what would constitute "significant change of circumstances" for an issue that has been raised many, many times already and clearly indicates a deep controversy as to the content on this article? Especially given how the technical count for the votes of the dispute was in favor of removal? The previous Rfc was also noted to be an especially messy one and it was the idea of the editor who closed it to enlist a moderator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_193#Elon_Musk. Having a volunteer to help conduct it will help us get somewhere definitive. And 'shortly' was intentionally ambiguous by the way, I did not say I was starting it tomorrow or next week. QRep2020 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been raised many times and consensus has never been reached. The "change of circumstances" needed would be, for example, significant new and particularly persuasive reliable sources that could sway opinions one way or the other. Otherwise, merely repeating the discussion with a moderator isn't actually going to change anything. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ɱ, sorry your discussion got sidetracked. Even though the engineer description is "allowed" as of now, I agree it should not be listed first in the lede nor in the Occupation field. Musk is known first and foremost for being an entrepreneur. QRep2020 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright, given this, I am editing the lede to the proposed version pending future discussion/RfCs. ɱ (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, beat me to it, I don't watch the article, too much traffic. ɱ (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"Simulation hypothesis" Section Inaccurate comments re: Harvard physicist Lisa Randall

Please change "Harvard physicist Lisa Randall disputes this and has argued the probability of us living in a simulation is "effectively zero".[329]" to nothing. (remove it) Legowolf3d (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"In June 2016, when asked whether he thinks humans live in a computer simulation, he stated that "the odds that we're in 'base reality' is one in billions."[327] Harvard physicist Lisa Randall disputes this and has argued the probability is "effectively zero""

This quote makes it sound like Lisa Randall believes that the odds we're in base reality is effectively zero, as opposed to "one in billions". If you go to the linked quote, you'll see that her actual comments are in reply to the question of, what are the odds simulation theory is real. Thus, the comment completely misconstrues the quote and very inaccurate and should be either sufficiently modified or removed. BennDuR (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and I could have sworn I previously wrote it to read "the probability of the simulation hypothesis being true is "effectively zero."" Feel free to update the sentence to make the point clearer. QRep2020 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I updated the sentence in question. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk is a very intelligent engineer specialising in AI and brain computer interfaces that are relevant for the video game theory. I think what a SINGLE physicist thinks is irrelevant to this Elon Musk article. She probably thinks the simulation has to explicitly simulate every particle in the universe for billions of years... but what about the new Flight Simulator 2020 game... using server data and machine learning it can simulate the entire earth and you can zoom right into blades of grass and leaves on trees. Elon says that it might even take 10,000 years to make games that are indistinguishable from reality (though it would probably happen sooner) I STRONGLY think it should be removed. It doesn't really add anything to the article. It is obvious that the simulation hypothesis has its critics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=2KK_kzrJPS8 Legowolf3d (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the link referenced: https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/the-chances-that-life-is-really-a-computer-simulation It is the OPINION section of "Fox Business" and mentions Randall in two sentences. The article doesn't justify her view and she isn't a notable physicist. (so I think it should be removed) Legowolf3d (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. As the source you posted yourself verifies, Randall was a direct participant in a debate about this that was directly related to Musk so her opinion is relevant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I found the video where she says "effectively zero".... 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? 1:38:38 She just says it with no explanation. I thought others might want to watch the rest of the discussion... Legowolf3d (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit semi-protected: Elon musk claims he wants his wiki changed to describe him as a "business magnate"

This is the video On Youtube ID is watch?v=rx567LQO1N4& and &t=399 (399 seconds in aka 6:45) Title: "Elon Musk Funniest Moments Part 2"

I believe he meets the criteria reasonably. In the same way that he is acknowledged as a philanthropist and entrepreneur without strict criteria for how to be defined as such, I think in many ways he fits the societal definition of a business magnate, all his businesses have been successful (despite some rocky starts) and he has multiple companies in a diverse range of fields.

From wiki (you can obviously choose your personal favorite dictionary and any sources would be good for historical definitions of "magnate" but this is just for the lazy a reasonable definition):

"A business magnate is someone who has achieved great success and enormous wealth through the ownership of a multiple line of businesses. An Industrialist is an individual who starts a business with their own unique idea or concept, is a risk taker and innovative who is a market leader." Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOBBOBLEYBOBSON (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• (aghast) So wait a minute, Elon Musk "wants" wikipedia to "say" he's this or that -- so now wiki editors are turning themselves into pretzels to figure out a way to make this already fictional article say whatever it is Musk wants it to? Wouldn't it be easier to just tell Musk to write this article himself and then publish it for him? I mean, this whole article is filled with so much fiction & untruths as it is, that I'm surprised there's not "warning" label at the top saying "Reader beware, this is a fictional biography, not to be taken as truth." I don't know what's worse, Musk wanting a fictional biography, or wiki-encyclopedia actually publishing his fictional biography and with no warning label. SMH BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, funniest moments. Nobody uses the term "business magnate" since Laurel and Hardy made Me and My Pal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC).
  

• I'm a bit of a Musk fan, but I don't see why, what he wants "his" wikipedia article to say carries any weight here? Dutchy45 (talk) 12:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The above are all based on a misunderstanding. Elon was saying he DID NOT want to be called "magnate" he was mocking the term. And made a joke saying "please call me business magnet". 98.210.50.216 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If he self identifies as a 'business magnate' then maybe his wikipage should refer to him as that.

HardeeHar (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The occupation "investor" has been already deleted . It's crucial cause although he does invest less frequently , relatively , he has key investments in companies concerned with his own companies . Like battery and transistor makers. I am gonna dig up and come back with some of these companies in a few moments to give everyone proofs , but please discuss in the meantime whether it should be added back Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Also. Only identifying himself as an magnate doesn't make him one Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

And a "business magnet" is too generic a term Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

He is the epitome of a business magnate. He keeps making businesses and he is very rich. If he doesn't want to be a business magnate I welcome him to donate all his money. --fs 03:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

In the first part of the article there is no mention of Starlink would that be a good place to mention it as well? ItsHelix (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2020

Regarding: The photograph of the LA Convention Center converted to a field hospital during Covid-19. My request: Remove it from Musk's page. My argument: It is of no relevance to Musk, aside from the very tenuous link that LA is his "hometown" (a disputable assertion when he has homes in multiple CA counties and was not born in LA either). The inclusion of the photo implies some kind of connection between the field hospital and Musk, but there is none. The photograph would be better placed on a page about LA's response to the coronavirus, without mention of Musk, who has nothing to do with it. Zedembee (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing how an illustrative photograph detracts from the article. QRep2020 (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

It implies an association or connection that isn't there. By the same token, literally any picture of Los Angeles would be well-placed on this page. The most charitable view of its conclusion on the page is that it's superfluous. A more critical view would be that it associates Musk with Covid field-hospitals, detracting from the facts reported on the page (his views on Covid, as reported on the page, are decidedly controversial: that is is no worse than a common cold or auto accidents). I stand by and indeed amplify my request. You may not see the problem, but I very much do. Zedembee (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

You are reading way too much into this. The image is relevant and gives user a sense of how serious the situation in LA was at time, little else. Furthermore, nothing in the text itself suggests a connection between Musk and building hospitals, mocking hospitals, converting hospitals into Tesla stores, or anything of the sort, so users are left to use it as a historical contextual item with little issue.QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: "The image is relevant and gives user a sense of how serious the situation in LA was at time, little else." This is an article about Elon Musk, not about coronavirus and its impact on or treatment in Los Angeles. As such, the picture has no place on this page. The inclusion of the image itself implies a connection between the thing depicted and the subject of the page; it is not necessary for there to be any "text" making the connection. I maintain that the inclusion of this image does not meet the relevance requirement of Wikipedia specifically or of journalism in general. Zedembee (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to say that the photo detracts from the article, but it certainly doesn't add anything useful and I'm far from convinced that it complies with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE: Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context... Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish WP:Consensus (I'd recommend through WP:RFC) first as there seems to be varying opinions on this. Once you've established WP:Consensus in your favor, set the request back on and I'll remove the pic for ya (if I get to it first). GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. You have two editors (of which I am one) questioning the image's relevance, and one editor not seeing a problem. Not entirely sure how "consensus" works, but don't two views trump one? Best, Zedembee (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! WP:NOTDEMOCRACY is useful here. Because the opposition is only one guy, maybe his opinion might be ignorable. See if you can get Consensus on that though? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

There is also the editor who added it, HAL333. QRep2020 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Musk has attempted to downplay the dangers of COVID-19 and has criticized the local and state response. The image shows this response and demonstrates the dangers of the virus. Thus the image is relevant. If you would like this image removed, why not ask for the removal of the image of the Thai cave rescue. That image also shows heroic efforts to combat a crisis. ~ HAL333 03:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that the image was deleted last night by an editor who had presumably not seen this discussion, with the edit summary deleted one not related to Musk, and that the deletion has been reverted. @Joey1niner: would you care to weigh in here? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The photo has no relevance to Musk, other than the scene takes place in the city where he resides. That's really all there is to say. There's a lot of people from LA with wiki articles who are skeptical of the severity of the virus, but we don't need to include photos that highlight its effect in all their wikis. At first I thought Musk owned the convention center or that he provided the beds or something like that. Nope. No relation at all. Thanks, Joey1niner (talk) 1:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The difference between them and Musk is that they (unless someone cares to provide examples) are likely not using their company quarterly meetings, their +30MM Twitter following, their "leverage" as the CEO of a company with huge subsidiary-investments from the state, etc. to push their breed of skepticism. I will not say that the purpose of the image is to draw up this tension between Musk and the state of the pandemic - the purpose of the image is to add a contextual visual element that is a bit more fresh than the typical viral particle image everyone has seen a billion times already - but I believe it injects some keen subtext to the article worth preserving. QRep2020 (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

For those opposing, how about you go find a more relevant image. Try to upload an image of Musk with Tesla ventilators. Stop bickering and try to actually contribute to the article. ~ HAL333 23:38, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

The article already has plenty of images, but this one does not (IMO) meet MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, which also advises us to [r]esist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

Please change magnate to magnet because Elon Musk himself wants to change it. source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE [check the following video, on the time 10:18] 115.97.6.22 (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See Talk:Elon Musk/FAQ. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

If the lawsuit determined he is a "cofounder" then why is he still listed as an "early investor" 2600:1700:7C90:3430:2992:7A42:FA29:A281 (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Your request is not in the "please change X to Y" format that the instructions require. But I think I can guess what you meant, and the answer is that although the terms of the settlement allow him to be described as a "cofounder", reliable sources indicate that he was not actually a cofounder in the usual sense of the word. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Please change the wording from:

Elon Musk, along with 113 other foreigners, was later made a Member of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn (fifth class) by the King of Thailand in March 2019 for his and his team's contributions to the rescue mission

to

Elon Musk was later made a Member of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn (fifth class) by the King of Thailand in March 2019, amongst 113 other awarded foreigners, for his and his team's contributions to the rescue mission

The current wording is factually incorrect- the citations given indicates there were 113 awarded foreigners in total, including those who received lower level awards, not that 113 received a member of the order (in fact from the original cited source less than 100 received that award or higher). 1.129.111.234 (talk)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Please add the following text, which describes a noteworthy collaboration on ventilators relevant to the discussion there, to the end of the section "COVID-19 pandemic" (directly after the sentence "...Musk last mentioned Tesla was working on its own brand of ventilator in late March 2020):

In March 2020, Musk and SpaceX announced a collaboration with Medtronic, a medical equipment manufacturer, to manufacture a critical ventilator valve component which was a bottleneck in supply of Medtronic's invasive ventilators. SpaceX is producing approximately 9,000 valves for Medtronic ventilators over eight to ten weeks- an amount roughly the same as Medtronics produced in the entire previous year- to substantially increase the supply of ventilators.

1.129.107.213 (talk)

1.129.108.92 (talk)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See WP:RS. Independent reliable sources are necessary to comply with the WP:BLP policy. One of the provided sources is a Tesla fan blog and the other is the web site of one of the companies involved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is an additional reference to add from CNBC- a well known financial news organization which has been used in other citations in this article:

This citation states that: "SpaceX partnered with Medtronic to help the medical device company make a key part of its ventilators. Medtronic chairman and CEO Omar Ishrak told CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” that his company’s partnership with SpaceX is “extremely important,” as the rocket builder is using its “expertise in valve production” to make the ventilator components. “SpaceX is helping us multiply the number of such devices,” Ishrak said."

So please add the following updated text to the end of the section "COVID-19 pandemic" (directly after the sentence "...Musk last mentioned Tesla was working on its own brand of ventilator in late March 2020)

In March 2020, Musk and SpaceX announced a collaboration with Medtronic, a medical equipment manufacturer, to manufacture a critical ventilator valve component which was a bottleneck in supply of Medtronic's invasive ventilators. SpaceX is producing approximately 9,000 valves for Medtronic ventilators over eight to ten weeks- an amount roughly the same as Medtronics produced in the entire previous year- to substantially increase the supply of ventilators.

1.129.110.229 (talk)

 Not done for now: Thank you for adding a reference but this edit about SpaceX, not Musk, and would represent WP:COATRACKing. The only RS (the CNBC article) only partly supports the requested edit and only in passing at the end of a larger article about other SpaceX issues. I suggest the Talk:SpaceX article is more appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2020

Please remove the final paragraph recently added to the lede - "Musk has also been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox stances and highly publicized scandals. When his submarine was rejected as a viable option for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, Musk called a lead-diver a "pedo-guy". The diver sued Musk for libel, but a California jury ruled in favor of Musk. Also in 2018, Musk falsely tweeted that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla at $420 a share. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued him for the comment; Musk temporarily stepped down from chairman and settled with the SEC; the settlement included limitations on his Twitter usage. Musk has also received substantial criticism for his views on artificial intelligence, public transportation, and the COVID-19 pandemic."

It is factually incorrect in several aspect and so for a BLP it should be removed immediately, and moreover it is a biased interpretation, and such a biased, tangential, subjective view is not suitable for the lede, and are discussed in detail in the main body. Factually, it refers in several places to a "lead diver" being insulted. This is not the case, in fact the lead diver encouraged Musk's participation. The law suit involved a recreational caver who advised the operation and was not on the dive team at all. It also makes the subjective judgment that "Musk falsely tweeted...". This is an opinion and Musk denies this and the case was settled without accepting this. 1.129.108.92 (talk)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. See MOD:LEAD. All the claims in the lead are substantiated in the body text. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Where are the claims "substantiated in the body text"? The lede text directly contradicts the body text and itself does not give any citations to support its claims. It is simply factually incorrect that the "lead diver" (Richard Stanton), or indeed any diver at the rescue sued Musk. The suit was by Vernon Unsworth, a recreational caver who had previously explored the cave and who had played a purely advisory role in the rescue and was not involved in any dives, as stated correctly in the body text. Can you provide a citation for the claim that a rescue diver sued Musk (that is not itself an error by a journalist)?. Particularly for a BLP such blatant unsubstantiated factual errors should be removed immediately. Moreover, the whole paragraph is predominantly biased editorial opinion without context given, and such original synthesis is also not allowed. For example, the biased wording in the claim that "When his submarine was rejected as a viable option for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, Musk called a lead-diver a "pedo-guy"" implies to the reader that Musk criticized a lead diver directly because the submarine was not used. This is not the case, as described in the body text, Musk's insult was directly in reply to a previous insult by Unsworth. Also the usage of the term "scandals" is biased usage. This whole paragraph is written with a biased POV, is factually incorrect and is unsuitable for a lede, and should be removed immediately.

1.129.110.229 (talk)

I have adjusted the lead portion regarding the diver after reviewing the sources. If you have further objections, please provide a full proposed replacement for the existing text in the form "change X to Y". – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The modified text still has inaccuracies and biases. In particular, it should state "caver" and not "diver" as the advisor was not a part of the dive team. Also, the comment by Musk in the twitter thread was in response to a previous public criticism by the advisor, not because the submarine ended up not being used. That is clear in teh body of the text. Also, "falsely tweeted" should be changed to "tweeted" as the "false" assertion was by the SEC but was refuted by Musk. Finally, the emotional term "scandal" should be replaced the more neutral term "controversy". Here is my suggested replacement:

Please change the final paragraph of the lead from:

Musk has also been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox stances and highly publicized scandals. When his submarine was rejected as a viable option for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, Musk baselessly called a diver advising the rescue a "pedo guy". The diver sued Musk for defamation; a California jury ruled in favor of Musk. Also in 2018, Musk falsely tweeted that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla at $420 a share. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued him for the comment; Musk temporarily stepped down from chairman and settled with the SEC; the settlement included limitations on his Twitter usage. Musk has also received substantial criticism for his views on artificial intelligence, public transportation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

to

Musk has also been the subject of criticism due to unorthodox stances and highly publicized controversies. In a public dispute on the feasibility of his mini-submarine developed for the 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue, Musk baselessly called a caver advising the rescue a "pedo guy". The caver sued Musk for defamation; a California jury ruled in favor of Musk. Also in 2018, Musk tweeted that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla at $420 a share. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued him for the comment; Musk temporarily stepped down from chairman and settled with the SEC; the settlement included limitations on his Twitter usage. Musk has also received substantial criticism for his views on artificial intelligence, public transportation, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.129.107.247 (talk)

I changed the "when" to "after". Plenty of sources list Vern Unsworth as a diver. This is settled. QRep2020 (talk) 09:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

Elon Musk, in a Joe Rogan Podcast, asked if his Wikipedia page could be changed from saying "Business Magnate" to "Business Magnet" in the introduction.

However, this strangely hasn't been done since the podcast aired 2 years ago. I hope you understand that this is just to make people smile and laugh and so change the introduction to say Business magnet.

I'm sure it'd make him at least smile"

Thank you.

I can't create a link here, as Youtube is blacklisted, but the title of the Youtube Video is: Joe Rogan Experience #1169 - Elon Musk At: 10:10 Leeeeeeeeon (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done There are many web sites that contain material which is there "just to make people smile and laugh" and where you will no doubt be welcome to post that remark, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not a repository for jokes. JBW (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should un-collapse the FAQ section at the top since apparently users are still not getting the hint here. QRep2020 (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

I request to change Elon Musk's net worth in his infobox to $91.9 billion, it has changed since September 2 Josharaujo1115 (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Musk "falsely" tweeted funding secured

Why is the statement in the lead that Musk "falsely tweeted that he had secured funding" being disputed? This is a fair and accurate description of the events, and well supported by reliable sources, a SEC complaint, and a judge's ruling:

• "Judge deems Musk’s ‘funding secured’ tweet false and misleading." [1]
• "...Musk tweeted he would be taking the electric automaker private for $420 a share, a surprise (and ultimately untrue) announcement..." [2]
• "'In truth and in fact, Musk had not even discussed, much less confirmed, key deal terms, including price, with any potential funding source,' prosecutors write in the complaint. Specifically, they say Musk’s 'funding secured' tweet was 'false and misleading." [3]
• "But after reading Musk's new post, the only conclusion to be drawn is that funding was, in fact, not secured." [4]
• "It turned out that Elon Musk was telling porkies. There was no funding. There wasn’t even an offer." [5]

As the lead is written currently, there is no indication that there was anything even potentially false or misleading about Musk's "funding secured" tweets, which is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. Stonkaments (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed the word "falsely" because of WP:NPOV, and specifically Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject) (my emphasis). Sure, the sources concur that his tweet was false. But it is not for us, in wikivoice, to judge the truth of his statement. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

How is the word "falsely" judgmental or disparaging to the subject? It's a neutral statement about the veracity of his tweet. What alternative do you propose? If the sources concur the tweet was false, it is indeed for us to convey that information, in wikivoice. From WP:NPOV: neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. (my emphasis) Stonkaments (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with Stonkaments. It was a false claim. When you remove that word, it makes it unclear why the SEC sued him. I have added the word back in. If you want it removed, you must first gain consensus after that bold edit. ~ HAL333([6]) 18:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It is important to be particularly vigilant about NPOV in the lead of a prominent WP:BLP. I agree that there are multiple reliable sources stating that the tweet was false, but (playing devil's advocate here) Musk denied the allegations, and the SEC lawsuit was settled out of court, so it's not as if we have a final court ruling to back the claim. The ruling in the civil case is preliminary, saying only that there's sufficient evidence to let the trial go ahead, so we can't rely on that, nor on prosecutors' allegations. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Why can we not rely on a ruling from a judge that states "...which suggests Mr. Musk’s false statements were the proximate cause" as well as multiple independent reliable sources stating the same? What the motion and ultimately the trial are about is the allegation of the statements being misleading - the falsity of the statements is settled. Also, I am having much difficulty understanding how stating some statement is false with ample evidence is a NPOV issue, whether the statement pertains to a living person or not. QRep2020 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Factory reopening

Alameda gave him permission to open a few days later. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/13/business/tesla-plant-reopening/index.html

Also, he had permission from the state of California but not from Alameda. And county rules trump state.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-california-idUSKBN22J3JV

From reuters. The state order announced on Thursday does not supersede the county plan, Alameda Sheriff’s Office spokesman Ray Kelly told Reuters by text message.

SpaceFan021 (talk) 01:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: Restore the original COVID 19 quote that has been changed

Before I start I have no idea why this says conflict of interest. If anyone knows how to fix it please let me know.

It used to read

If somebody wants to stay in their house, that's great. They should be allowed to stay in their house and should not be compelled to leave, but to say that they cannot leave their house, and they will be arrested if they do, this is fascist, this is not democratic, this is not freedom. Give people back their goddamn freedom.[366]

To support the claim that he called lockdowns fascist however it has since been changed to this:

So, the extension of the shelter-in-place, and frankly I would call it forcibly imprisoning people in their homes against all their constitutional rights — my opinion — and erasing people's freedoms in ways that are horrible and wrong, and not why people came to America or built this country. What the fuck? Excuse me.[347]

We should restore it to the original quote as this quote does not make any sense in the context of him calling COVID fascist. I listened to the call originally and he did say both however it makes no sense to follow: "When the Alameda County Sheriff ordered all non-essential businesses to shut down, Musk and Tesla initially refused to comply, arguing that vehicle manufacturing and energy infrastructure are critical sectors, citing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.[345][346] Musk called the lockdown 'fascist' on a Tesla earnings call stating:" SpaceFan021 (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed edit. Musk is an extremely high profile individual and articles can’t include every off-the-wall quote attributed to him. Other editors are encouraged to weigh in here. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@SpaceFan021: because of your message saying you don't know why it said conflict of interest, I've changed the template you used from {{request edit}} to {{Edit extended-protected}}. Seagull123 Φ 17:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Please delete elon musk being transphobic

„pronouns suck“ is opposed to pronouns. Non-trans people use prononouns too. Feeling uncomfortable or painful about pronouns is something experienced by people who do not identify with the gender society ascribes to them Like Trans-people non-binary-people gender-fluid people etc.

The statement could aswell be interpreted as an anti gender / feminist viewpoint. This is supported by musks child with grimes having a gender neutral name and being called gender neutral pronouns. According to a guardian article grimes would prefer to wear a moustache. Elon musk twittered that tesla scored 100/100 four years in a row on lgbtq equality.

The culture of Ian banks culture series wich seems to inspire elon musk ( neuralink- neural lace / the landing platforms having names of culture space ships etc.) do rarely use gender pronouns and see gender as signifying brutality and hierarchy. I read these books and people there swap out their genitals from time to time.

The source cited gives no reason why „pronouns suck“ is transphobic.

As the current state of the article paints a one-sided controversial picture of elon musk that is based on not well founded assumptions i request the removal of this interpretation.

Jan-felix zens (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The article states that the tweet was "perceived" as transphobic and then supplies a reliable, independent third-party source which discusses such viewpoints. If you have reliable, independent third-party sources that discuss viewpoints of the tweet such as the one you are positioning, feel free to produce them for the article. QRep2020 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some more reliable sources:

• [7]
• [8]

If that helps... ~ HAL333([9]) 20:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Is it enough if i provide a realiable scource (An Apartment on Uranus by Paul B. Preciado) stating that transpeople percieve pronouns as violent?

Can i show that non-trans people use pronouns by providing a lot of articles by reliable non-trans people that contain pronouns? Or is it enough that pronouns are part of english and english is spoken by 80-100% of people in the usa and 0.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender (all data taken from wikipedia) Jan-felix zens (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

No, the source material needs to be about Elon's tweets specifically. Otherwise, it's simply applying theory within a Wikipedia entry, which is not allowed. Besides, Grimes evidently thought that Elon was espousing "hate" right after he tweeted. QRep2020 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The problem here might rather be one of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Contrary to what HAL333 claims above, op-eds or Forbes contributor posts (cf. WP:FORBESCON) are not sufficient for including such a serious accusation of transphobia in a biography article, especially if the corpus delicti is rather ambiguous two-word tweet. Pop star gossip news sites are also not a great source for that kind of thing (cf. WP:RSEDITORIAL). Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

The article clearly states that the tweet was perceived as transphobic and sources have been produced that illustrate that perception or collect statements that convey said perception. Here are other sources: https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/canada/canadian-star-grimes-calls-out-boyfriend-elon-musk-for-pronouns-suck-tweet-478062/, https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/grimes-scolds-partner-elon-musk-over-controversial-tweet, https://static6.businessinsider.com/grimes-tells-musk-cannot-support-hate-after-he-tweets-pronouns-2020-7. I will gladly add these additional sources to the article if needed. QRep2020 (talk) 03:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Grimes/C only tweeted only that they cannot support hate and did not specify against whom this hate is directed. The one quoted tweet by business insider that got 7.1 k likes doesn't mention trans or non binary. The other quoted tweet with 292 likes mentions transphobia but only posits it as one optional interpretation. It does not mention non binary.

84.144.174.229 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Philantropist - threshold

I'm wondering what's the threshold one needs to cross in order to be labelled as a "philanthropist" in the article's lead? Musk donated a really tiny fraction of his wealth to humanitarian causes, it's definitely not one of the main things he does. BeŻet (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It is undoubtedly determined by some vague or arbitrary decision (or by sheer presumption) much like how he can be called an engineer because it is okay to call yourself an engineer in the US without a license or whatever. QRep2020 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

In that case I'd just remove it. BeŻet (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

There's no relevant mention of "aliens" in the article nor in the talk page archives, yet this is something that should be covered: Elon Musk has stated on he does not believe aliens exist (his twit about the pyramid's having been built by aliens was a joke of course). Several sources, including this one, have covered the subject. This info could be added in the "Views" section, perhaps in a new sub-section there as the current ones do not match this topic. Bezrat (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It appears to be a trivial and obvious addition. Will wait for a comment on the matter. Bezrat (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2020

Change the first line description of Elon Musk from a business magnate to a business magnet. 71.214.160.236 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No. QRep2020 (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Musk is African-American and entitled to the proper categories.

@QRep2020: disagreed with me when I added Category:African-American business executives, and he claimed that it has some kind of "connotation". It doesn't matter what "connotations" the term may have, Elon Musk is indisputably African, and indisputably American as well, which makes him immediately, 100%, and arguably more African-American than many blacks with distant slave heritage. Therefore, this category, and any other applicable categories, must be restored in the name of justice and in keeping with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, including non-discrimination. Elizium23 (talk) 06:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

African Americans. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

MAKE ELON MUSKS NAME MAGNET.HE TOLD TO DO SO 103.66.79.45 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

No thank you. See the FAQ above. Kuru (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kuru: Is there anything I can do to the FAQ to make these requests less frequent? I rewrote the FAQ a while back with more detail. Any suggestions appreciated. Thanks for your work. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

business magnet 65.96.98.210 (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Coup in Bolivia

Musk twittered abbout a Coup in Bolivia. Why does not his is in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.89.158.48 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Musk tweets about a lot of things. Unless there is anything notable about the tweet, it won't be included. ~ HAL333 23:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Towards an effective moratorium on 'business magnet'

The "requests" to describe Musk as a "business magnet" in the article are getting to be a headache. Is there some way we can have a bot auto-answer non-extended users' edits that use 'business magnet' on this page? Other suggestions are welcome. QRep2020 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Just revert them with a polite edit summary such as "as before". Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Quick revert. Polite, but few words, edit comment. N2e (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Would it be possible to protect this page from IP editors? ~ HAL333 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Greetings,

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

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

Sincere regards and happy holidays,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

"Dropping out" of Stanford

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

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

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

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

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

Remove parts of Artificial Intelligence section

1

In the last part of Artificial Intelligence section it says:

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

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

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

This entire part should be removed from the article.

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make explicit in the lede that Musk has no engineering degree

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [10]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, my reply did address it; Musk's status as an engineer has been stalled by No Consensus judgment again and again. Reiterating: "Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [11]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)" QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

There seems to be some difficulty in following the comments being made that address these points: "Just so nobody draws the false conclusion that Andyjsmith's opinions are the results of the RfC on this topic, here is a link [12]. The only clear conclusion that came out of the RfC was: There is, again, No Consensus as to whether to describe Musk as an engineer. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)" QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit parts of Public Transportation section

1

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

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

2

In the last part of the section it reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biased negativity on Elon Musk in this article

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

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

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

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

Let us look at some examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM—your personal views on Musk's achievements are off-topic and don't belong here. What matters is what reliable sources have to say about his views and achievements (note: they largely disagree with your claims; see for example [13][14][15]). Stonkaments (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updates to net worth

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

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

About him

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 January 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2021

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

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

Richest African?

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

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

Elon musk education wrong date

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

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

some small stuff

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

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

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

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

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

non-NPOV in Politics section

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

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

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

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

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

On the short-selling section, there's absolutely no mention of the record loses of short-sellers of Tesla [16][17][18][19], which you can get countless articles of by Googling "Elon Musk shortselling", and there's no mention of the company being the most shorted one [20], which would explain his negative views toward the practice.

In the AI section, the writing makes it seem like he's only person in the world that has these views, due to absolutely no positive voices being included, in clear violation of WP:NPOV. For example this VICE article mentions support or same views from Stephen Hawkins, Bill Gates, Max Tegmark (who has recieved the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Science's Gold Medal in 2019 for "his contributions to our understanding of humanity’s place in the cosmos and the opportunities and risks associated with artificial intelligence." There's mentions of several supportive voices here, here, here, here, etc. In this same section regarding his views on simulated reality, there's only one opinion to his statements: "Harvard physicist Lisa Randall disputes this and has argued the probability of us living in a simulation is "effectively zero", the source of this statement is this Fox Business article [21], which mentions support of the idea (as it being possible, not necessarily real) from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Max Tegmark and Nick Bostrom, yet only this physicist's statement, which is included as almost a footnote, is included, in a blatant case of WP:UNDUE and bad faith editing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Elon Musk has requested on video that he would rather be a business "magnet" than "magnate" Zachj64 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We know. He was joking. Him "asking" does not force Wikipedia to ignore reality. See the FAQ at the top. QRep2020 (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Is this section really relevant in the article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the articles provided show actual evidence that the opinion stated here regarding this tweet is held by enough people to make it noteworthy. the thematic is rather complex and the given interpretation here is short and onesided. The only thing that most people reading this will understand is that Elon Musk is openly transphobic which might make such views more acceptable. 148.122.135.23 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia articles are not about "proving" something or reflecting some supreme degree of notability. Plenty of sources published roughly the same interpretation. QRep2020 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

In the third paragraph change "an high-speed" to "a high-speed". 2001:56A:F05E:8F00:C835:69D:8B5D:F561 (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Since we mention the criticism he has received here we should also mention something about all the recognition as well

Flyedit32 As this user said. I completely agree with that user. Since we mention the criticism he has received here we should also mention something about all the recognition as well. --JShark (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Elon Musk has not only received criticism. Elon Musk has also received awards and much admiration. He is a very influential man and is capable of moving the markets. --JShark (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The lede is meant to summarize the article's key points and not give undue weight to certain things. Our job is not to balance things out - only to summarize what is found in reliable sources.Reliable sources have published more content that is criticial of his statements than content about his awards. For example, do you see large amounts of Donald Trump's lede dedicated to awards that he won? ~ HAL333 21:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Driver should be diver

“In 2018, he was sued for defamation by a driver who advised in the “

In this sentence, the word “driver” should be replaced with “diver” Dukane (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noting that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

JShark How can we resolve the issue of the tweet box? ~ HAL333 21:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read. I started the conversation about the tweet. --JShark (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

JShark, why did you start a Dispute about this issue? The policies clearly say to do so only after the matter has been "thoroughly discussed on the article talk page." QRep2020 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a conflict of interest in this article. In fact your page says the following phrase: Hi there. What's good? Feel free to check out my article on TSLAQ, my first investigation into "Q Groups." TSLAQ is a loose, international[1] collective of largely anonymous short-sellers,[2] skeptics, and researchers who openly criticize Tesla, Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk.[3] The group primarily organizes on Twitter, often using the $TSLAQ cashtag,[4] and Reddit[5] to coordinate efforts and share news, opinions, and analysis about the company and its stock. --JShark (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

None of that is relevant to why are you saying there is a Dispute when you have not even discussed it first. QRep2020 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion because very few users are the only ones "authorized" to edit this article and clearly I will not reach a consensus with these users. --JShark (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are these users the only ones who are experts on Elon Musk? Are wikipedia articles only to be edited by a few users? --JShark (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020. There is a conflict of interest in this article. In fact your page says the following phrase: Hi there. What's good? Feel free to check out my article on TSLAQ, my first investigation into "Q Groups." --JShark (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

[22] Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. Clearly the integrity of this article is not good. I am not the only one who has mistrust and doubts about the integrity of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 --JShark (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

(Musk predicted that there would be "close to zero new cases in US too by end of April.).

That information already appears in the article (Musk predicted that there would be "close to zero new cases in US too by end of April.). Repeating the tweet twice is pointless. Also, he has many tweets and I don't see why only one tweet is more relevant than the others about the same topic. --JShark (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL333. Musk has many tweets in the news and you want to highlight just one tweet. --JShark (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This one received substantial coverage by media. ~ HAL333 23:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Many Elon Musk tweets have received substantial media coverage and I don't see any of those tweets in the article. --JShark (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

As I have said, this tweet received substantial attention: there are currently six references in this article dedicated to this tweet. Please see Template:Tweet. ~ HAL333 13:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are very few users able to edit this article? Why are edits reverted to many users and a few users can edit without their edits being reversed?

I have requested a third opinion to take a closer look at this issue, as very few users can edit this article. It's something to talk about. --JShark (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Why are very few users able to edit this article? Why are edits reverted to many users and a few users can edit without their edits being reversed? --JShark (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You have been here for four years and should know better than spamming pointless sections to an article talk page. This page is to discuss actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. It is not a place to bitch about other editors. Make a proposal and engage in the subsequent discussion, focusing on article content. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no bad intentions. I just have doubts and I don't see anything wrong with talking about this topic. --JShark (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be good if many users talk about this topic and so there would be no doubts about the integrity of this article in the future. --JShark (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

[23] Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. Clearly the integrity of this article is not good. I am not the only one who has mistrust and doubts about the integrity of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 --JShark (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course you do not see anything wrong with saying whatever you want, but imagine if everyone did that. That's why editors who are unwilling or unable to comply with Wikipedia's norms are removed. None of your above comments relate to discussing actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Yes, mine aren't either but this is my second post in recent memory and I'm trying to fix an identifiable problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, You are clearly out of the loop with this whole situation. Check my post below. Elon Musk's article is one of the most popular right now on the entire Wikipedia. Jshark has every right to try to push a solution through asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Near copy of comment already made in earlier section signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything Jshark has said here. There is something very wrong with how this article is monitored and controlled by primarily HAL333. And the other big problem is the user Qrep2020 who has with very high likelihood breached so many of Wikipedias guidelines - NOTHERE, WP:SPA. This user is unable to make edits that are unbiased and ojbective when it comes to Tesla and Elon Musk. I would also strongly recommend taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 This user has showed again and again that he is not able to make edits that comply with Wikipedias guidelines. It becomes so much more clear when we look at the editing history for Qrep2020: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has had disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. If this is not proof of violation of Wikis rules then it is not possible by anyone to breach them... BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020. There is a conflict of interest in this article. In fact your page says the following phrase: Hi there. What's good? Feel free to check out my article on TSLAQ, my first investigation into "Q Groups."

QRep2020 There is a conflict of interest in this article. In fact your page says the following phrase: Hi there. What's good? Feel free to check out my article on TSLAQ, my first investigation into "Q Groups." TSLAQ is a loose, international[1] collective of largely anonymous short-sellers,[2] skeptics, and researchers who openly criticize Tesla, Inc. and its CEO, Elon Musk.[3] The group primarily organizes on Twitter, often using the $TSLAQ cashtag,[4] and Reddit[5] to coordinate efforts and share news, opinions, and analysis about the company and its stock. --JShark (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh for the love of god... Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. ~ HAL333 23:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are these users the only ones who are experts on Elon Musk? Are wikipedia articles only to be edited by a few users? --JShark (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion to take a closer look at this issue, as very few users can edit this article. It's something to talk about. --JShark (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

We're not! I'm not saying I am and HAL isn't say they are either! We're following the rules and the general principles! Please, close all of your open discussions and requests for 3rd opinions and then restart one from the list of the issues you have, and once that one is resolved start another, and then keep going until finally they are all resolved. Actually, the tweet box one was the closest to a discussion so I would leave that one open and simply produce an argument for why it should go. QRep2020 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

[24] Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. --JShark (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 --JShark (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Near copy of comment already made in earlier section signed, Rosguill talk 21:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything Jshark has said here. The user Qrep2020 has with very high likelihood breached so many of Wikipedias guidelines - NOTHERE, WP:SPA. This user is unable to make edits that are unbiased and ojbective when it comes to Tesla and Elon Musk. I would also strongly recommend taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 This user has showed again and again that he is not able to make edits that comply with Wikipedias guidelines. It becomes so much more clear when we look at the editing history for Qrep2020: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has had disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. If this is not proof of violation of Wikis rules then it is not possible by anyone to breach them... BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Here are my proposed changes:

(1)

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

I propose changing to:

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

(2)

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

I propose changing to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Partly done: first request fufilled per request and discussion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk’s request that his title as “business magnate” be changed to “business magnet”

Musk specifically requested that his title as “business magnate” be changed to “business magnet”.

This was said, not in jest, on the Joe Rogan show, see link below (10 mins into video):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjeanclarity (talk • contribs) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he was joking or not, why should Wikipedia reflect what Musk thinks of himself rather than what independent, secondary reliable sources think? QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Race/Ethnicity/Nationality

Can he be called an African-American considering he was born in South Africa and became a naturalized Citizen of America? Zdubzxx (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

See African Americans. Kuru (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed on this talk page. Please visit the archives. ~ HAL333 02:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)