This is an archive of past discussions about Elon Musk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I would support removal as well. The claim is directly from Musk (making it a primary source), is not accompanied by any actual evidence, and can be found in no other source, even his authorized biography. ~ HAL33321:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Musk's net worth changes every day with the stock price. The Infobox person template example doesn't show an arrow. If an arrow is included, and be meaningful to readers, it should probably show a trend, maybe of the last year, not each day's change due to daily stock prices changes. Thoughts? Pmsyyz (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The daily increase or decrease arrow in the IB is helpful imo. But, I agree with the need for a trend graph - it would be really helpful if someone made and uploaded it to Commons for use in the "net worth" section in the body. (If someone needs inspiration, the article for Jeff Bezos already has one.). ~ HAL33303:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2021
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Musk saying something about Covid that many voices in the media disagree with doesn't mean what he said is wrong. Simply stating that "Musk has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and has received criticism from experts for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence and public transport." is not sufficient. Explain how. And remember that there are experts who disagree with other experts. The term "expert" doesn't mean unerring knowledge. Experts can be wrong. If you're going to slander or accuse, you need to explain how. 2601:147:4102:C340:D87:3858:F582:6684 (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
We present what sources say. Several sources label Musk's tweets as "misinformation". Furthermore, we say that Musk received criticism, not that he is wrong. BeŻet (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Good Article
This is a well structured, well written biographical article. Facts are referenced, quotes are specified, tone is neutral. Worth using as a good example.
RfC about Musk's treatment of employees
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I assume this RfC is talking about the information that was involved in an edit war recently, ending with a series of four edits summarised by the following diff [1] and discussed above. @JShark: could you please confirm that this is indeed the intended subject of your RfC, before we actually start discussing this? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It's about that information above. And it would be good if people not involved in the dispute participate since some of those involved in the dispute such as users called BeŻet or QRep2020 are supporting inclusion. It would also be good if users who have never edited this article participate to have an impartial perspective.--JShark (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that uninvolved people shouldn't participate; nor am I suggesting that anybody should be debarred. I'm merely saying that if this RfC is follow-up to the Musk's treatment of employees section, it should be altered from level 2 to level 3, to make the connection clear. This will answer the questions put by PraiseVivec and Rosbif73. The {{rfc}} tag may be retained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, I've been active on this site for years, but I still get confused by how talk pages work sometimes. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Support: His infamous managerial style and treatment of his employees has been reported quite widely in several sources, including WIRED and The Wall Street Journal amongst others. I think it's WP:DUE and should be included, provided we attribute the claims to sources. BeŻet (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Support - The removed content is well-sourced and highly relevant to the article. The reasons given for its removal in the above discussion are comically biased and unencyclopedic. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Conditional support dependent on improved sourcing. WSJ works great but not too hot on Electrek or Yahoo... ~ HAL33313:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Exclude - I differ - I think it not a major part of his life or coverage, and contrary to WP policy and good style. Suggest restraint here, read WP:BLP and the essay WP:CRIT. That diff content seems *not* a match for the meaning of “management style” and not what predominates in a Google search for his management style, e.g. said “transformational”. This seems just an WP:OR lead-in over a collection of a few criticisms of no particular note. Not a specific event that shows wide coverage and some significance. Not a biographically important significant life event or choice here. Should not be included much less get a whole ‘criticism’ section. There may be a line or two for these two topics suitable for his BLP, but this isn’t it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
oppose (conditional) - I suggest to omit the following excerpt and/or move it into a relevant Tesla's company article (assuming the RfC's disputed revision is Revision as of 14:39, April 10, 2021). This doesn't belong to Musk's one:
Additionally, people working at Tesla's factories expressed concerns about working conditions and called them "a modern day sweatshop".[1][2]
Oppose -- doesn't reflect a major part of the guy's life, and would be undue to magnify a few voices in contrast to the many who news accounts would seem to show quite the opposite. Agree with the rationale of Markbassett. If this is strongly enough sourced, it might fit into an article on Tesla... but I'm guessing that even there an opinion of a few that something is a sweatshop doesn't get the only coverage where the balance would be to show others, and the US employment rules enforcement agencies, that reflect OT is being paid where it is required by law etc. N2e (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
To address conditional support, we should remove the part talking about the conditions at the factories, and focus on Musk and his behaviour. This resolves both conditionals above. BeŻet (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A week has passed and it seems the consensus is to include the information in general, but to exclude information about work conditions at the factories, which should be in a separate article. Closing and adding content. BeŻet (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 April 2021
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In reference to a change reverted by @Lklundin: I don't think this content ("[Musk] covered the costs of Ad Astra School, a nonprofit housed inside a SpaceX factory") belongs here, because:
The Ad Astra School "non-profit" is now just a regular for-profit company (Astra Nova)
Media sources mostly just talk about Astra Nova and mention Ad Astra in passing
At the time when it was a "non-profit" it was just teaching a small group of children including Musk's own offspring (his 5 sons) and that of some Tesla employees' (raising questions about the purpose of the "non-profit" and whether it was anything else than a tax-avoidance scheme)
Currently resides within the "Wealth" section - it's irrelevant there; it's more relevant in "Donations and non-profits", but I don't think it's WP:DUE there either
I introduced the point about Ad Astra because although there is a ton of material describing Musk's access to and the extent of his wealth, a reality that is also reflected in the Wikipedia article, I could not find much about how he deploys it outside of what is in the Philanthropy section. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Chomsky on neurolink
"While Chomsky thinks that using brain interfaces to help patients regain motor functions is a reasonable goal, he is seriously skeptical about the long term goals of Neuralink. Our knowledge about how we think is so limited, he says, that communicating with just your thoughts is far from being possible". https://www.inverse.com/article/32395-elon-musk-neuralink-noam-chomsky
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2021 (2)
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the personal life section, it states that “Elon Musk said that he had Aspergers”. It should be rewritten to “Elon Musk revealed that he has Aspergers” as he still has it. Aspergers doesn’t go away. It’s not a cold. 2607:FEA8:5520:BA30:A87F:5B6:6345:DA65 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Some years ago certain authors (among them Simon Baron-Cohen and Temple Grandin) promoted the untested hypothesis that Asperger syndrome was a "genius syndrome" that was largely responsible for the innovations coming out of the San Francisco bay area. Subsequently it became the trend for seemingly bright and socially awkward people to be "diagnosed," or to diagnose themselves with AS without the involvement of medical professionals experienced in making such diagnoses. As a result, Wikipedia has avoided taking declarations of AS at face value, until it becomes clearer that a professional diagnosis was made. Making the declaration on a scripted comedy show further weakens its reliability. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@73.71.251.64 I somewhat disagree that the announcement being made on a "scripted" comedy show weakens its reliability. Technically any announcement is "scripted" unless it's a real spur-of-the-moment type thing.If Musk comes out later and goes "gotcha" then we can discard it...or comment on the ensuing criticism. We should also tread carefully around potential denial or hostility to someone being neuro divergent - there is a similarly "popular" movement of those who like to disparage and deny recognition to people who are bone fide diagnosed with conditions on the autism spectrum, with an insistence that anyone diagnosed and successful in life materially cannot possibly be on the spectrum, and that their diagnosis is a sham or attention seeking. Swings and roundabouts, as they say.--Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Such a movement would not be relevant to anything I said. A reliable biographical source must first be a non-fiction source, and SNL isn't one. It is appropriate to wait for clarification as to whether he was serious, and whether he was diagnosed, as I have previously advocated at the Gary Neuman and Bram Cohen articles. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the title of "engineer" from page. Misleading and inaccurate information. If proper citing of sources had been done, it would be noted that the referenced article literally states:
"Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree" which is required to be considered an engineer.
And yet, somehow, he is listed as an "engineer". If the qualification is based off personal ascribed definitions then you should also list him as a "Pedo Guy" as he actually fits this criteria. Grrhatesamaritan (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2021 (2)
In the third paragraph under Personal Life, rephrase "...the name was deemed illegal under California law, because..." to something such as "...the name was not an acceptable legal name in California, because..." That name is not illegal, it is just not in the acceptable form for a person's legal name in California. lukemags (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Establish nationality/citizenship in the lead sentence/paragraph
Per MOS:CONTEXTBIO, The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable.. Also, MOS:OPENPARABIOThe first sentence should usually state: [...] Context (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable.. If you had never heard of Musk (or his companies) and read the first paragraph you would not know where he is from at all. Could we describe this somewhere in the lead paragraph, preferable in the lead sentence. I understand it is a little more complicated since he has 3 cititzenships (though I think needs to be better sourced in the article from scanning over) but there must be some way we can summarise it. Perhaps stick with American, as that is where is his most noted for his operations (and probably most noted as natioanlity wise in RSs), with an efn explaining the rest? Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk?03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
We've been through this before. The whole reason why his national origins and citizenships are in the second paragraph is because they are not straightforward enough to fit into a brief descriptor. The word usually in MOS:CONTEXTBIO is there to allow for cases such as this. Furthermore, if you look back through the history, you will find that trying to shoehorn the information into the introductory sentence resulted in relentless edit-warring, with people moving, removing and restoring information repeatedly because it wasn't in their preferred order. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Also agree with Rosbif73. This has been discussed before, and the current solution to address such secondary characteristics of a person as nationality and citizenship are well handled in the second paragraph of the lede. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Just because some editors in the past have edit warred in the past it does not mean should not mean we should not do something, we establish consensus not repeating reverting each other. For reference Encyclopædia Britannica goes with "South African-born American" and The Independent simply goes with "American" [2][3]. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk?17:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that Musk should not be described as an engineer. Most editors commenting here note that the great majority of reliable sources (perhaps with a few exceptions) do not describe him as an engineer. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe03:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose as nomReliable sources do not describe Musk as an engineer. As far as I know, The New York Times or The Washington Post have never described Musk as an engineer. The only source used in the article to support this assertion is a 2018 blurb published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). It is shoddily written, with gross errors like "per say" instead of "per se". Note that the ASME has since taken the article down and the url is dead. Considering this single poorly written nonexistent writeup, it is not due to describe Musk as an engineer, let alone in the first sentence. One may also argue that he is not an engineer as he does not have a bachelors or masters degree in an engineering discipline. There is also no precedent for doing this on similar articles. Note that Jeff Bezos, despite his work with Blue Origin, is not described as an engineer. ~ HAL33318:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: If he is an engineer, then should be possible to specify what domain(s) of engineer he is. "Practical engineer," the term used in the cited source, is not a domain. He might be identified as a software engineer if reliable sources regularly refer to him as one, but it's not clear that they do. I find sources that say he was a self-taught programmer who could hack things up quickly, but do not describe him building software within a structured process. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a real distinction in practice between being a "programmer" and a "software engineer". They're two job titles that are often applied to the same roles, in which people do the same tasks; the main variation is between what any given organization decides to call the person who writes APIs. In my experience, companies tend to describe employees as "software engineers", and the employees describe themselves as "programmers". It's similar to the difference between "truck driver" and "commercial motor vehicle operator", which are obviously different terms (which can indicate different things) but can usually both be used to refer to the same person. jp×g23:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per above A search of various sources does not show that he was identified as an engineer. I agree with the comment made above, if a title of engineer is to be given, then "software engineer" would be the most appropriate given his work experience and history. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per the above. He's not referred to as an engineer by anyone other than himself (and the company he's in charge of). Although we can't know how much he actually contributes to the engineering of a Tesla car or a SpaceX rocket, the proper Wikipedia procedure is to go with what reliable sources are calling him. Quantum Burrito (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: He does not have any formal education in engineering, nor is he a licenced engineer. He simply owns companies which do engineering tasks. BeŻet (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: As I put the point before: The source "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. Then there is a Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a handful of patents with his name on them and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated. QRep2020 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOR - we do not base content decisions on Wikipedia editors' personal sophisticatedness ratings of patents etc. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I know there is a particular streak on this website to engage in wikilawyering, but allow me to point out how the 5th pillar of this website is Wikipedia has no firm rules. Whether one wants to focus on some issue with the patents point, or with the argument of how there is little consistency across reliable sources, or both and then some, it is clear from the deluge of opposition presently and in many other Rfc's to maintaining this description (a description that the subject of this article has engaged others to maintain by the way) that there is something positively off about calling Musk an engineer simpliciter and right in the lede to boot. QRep2020 (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Support keeping "engineer" in the opening sentence. There are many reliable sources, including mainstream news sites, that describe Musk as an engineer and/or use his title of Chief Engineer of SpaceX. Plenty have been mentioned before, notably in the previous RFC on this topic, but let me add just a few more:[1][2][3][4][5][6] Musk himself insists that he is an engineer, not a businessman or inventor.[7] There are even books that describe him as an engineer in their titles.[8][9] And, as discussed ad nauseam in that previous RFC, there is no requirement for him to have a formal qualification in engineering in order to be called an engineer. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I argue that this case is a special one because we cannot let the determination turn on neither what newspapers describe him as when the vast majority of them simply either reiterate his "official title" at one of his companies nor what the man wants to describe himself as. It is fallacious to rest an encompassing description of one of one's occupations in life based on job titles without qualification, especially those at companies that one founded and continues to control. Likewise, relying on how a person self-describes for their professional contributions without qualification is hardly justification. We have plenty of evidence of him being a businessman and a designer, but where are his engineering feats beyond a handful of examples? QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
If references to him as an engineer mostly occur in reference to his SpaceX title, then I suggest that the article should use the word in that context as well. The two books that you've cited (Doeden and Machajewski) are inspirational biographies for children. They present a heroic and unnuanced portrayal. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Tesla calls Musk "Technoking", yet we do not use that description in the first sentence... ~ HAL33319:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Juisdicta above Various sources does not show that he was identified as an engineer. "Software engineer" is the appellation he is better known by. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Is he known that way, though? Ashlee Vance's book Elon Musk is the go-to source on his early career and it is specific that he was a "programmer" as contrasted with the software engineers that the company hired later on. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. An aggrandizing job title parroted by some news publishers does not translate into encyclopedic information on what Musk is competent at and notable for. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 00:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Support. As Rosbif73 has demonstrated above, there are in fact plenty of RS calling Musk an engineer; a lot of "oppose" votes above are based on incorrect claims in that regard. (And no, it's rather pretentious to assume that e.g. Reuters, BBC, NPR and the Washington Post are all "parroting" "aggrandizing" titles and only us brave Wikipedia editors see through Musk's evil propaganda that these journalists have fallen for. Rather, we can trust these publications to distinguish whimsical trolling like "Technoking" from descriptive terms that are actually informative for their readers. Also, the WaPo article in particular is quite critical of Musk.) And whatever one thinks of Musk's latest silly tweet or his management style, by all accounts he has had way more direct involvement in engineering decisions and engineering strategy at Tesla, SpaceX etc. than CEOs of comparable companies. It would be a disservice to the reader to conceal that fact in the intro by just describing him as a "business magnate" or "designer". Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
What makes you say that? Do you have any sources that equate the two titles? Or any policy-based reason for setting aside the "engineer" part of the title? Rosbif73 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, come on Bezet. It's quite obvious that Musk refers to himself as chief engineer, not because he is the CTO, but because he is the lead engineering officer on a merchant ship. ;) ~ HAL33312:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
We literally have a note at the top of the article explaining that, and it is current wiki consensus. "Chief engineer" generally refers to an engine officer, who is commonly referred to as an "engineer", but is not the type of engineer we are talking about here. The alternative meaning of "chief engineer" is CTO. This is all based on current wiki consensus which is reflected in those articles. BeŻet (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Wait, are you seriously citing Wikipedia itself to discourage citation of actual RS? The claim "chief engineer [...] is a synonym for chief technology officer" is unreferenced and not even mentioned in the latter article. Also, unless you are arguing that, say, the lede should use "technologist" instead of "engineer", I fail to see how such synonymity would be an argument for an "oppose" vote. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I am "citing Wikipedia itself" to show existing consensus, which you can only show by "citing Wikipedia itself". Also, we are discussing homonyms here - a ship "engineer" is called that because of the ship's engine. BeŻet (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why you think you need to prove consensus on that point. It seems perfectly reasonable that a non-maritime title of "chief engineer" may in some cases be equivalent to CTO. But so what? SpaceX has chosen to call him "Chief Engineer" rather than CTO for a reason, and you can't just dismiss the use of the word "engineer" on the basis of that possible equivalence. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, SpaceX did not "choose" to call him that - he's SpaceX, he decides. Secondly, I am pointing out that any label with the word "engineer" in it does not necessarily mean that someone is in fact an engineer. BeŻet (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to selectively use his "chief engineer" title to derive a description. Why not insist on describing him as an "executive" because RS call him a CEO? ~ HAL33316:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
On that basis, we should be removing "industrial designer" too; nothing in the body describes him doing industrial design. But more to the point, and less WP:POINTily, it is perhaps just a sign that the body needs to be updated. Indeed, nothing in the body mentions any of his roles at SpaceX, not even the totally uncontested fact that he is CEO. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I was actually planning to include the issue of "industrial designer" in this RfC but decided to keep it simple. But, yeah, it'll be the next to go. ~ HAL33314:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Support. Accreditation is not relevant to this conversation as it is jurisdictional and subjective. The RSes describe him as an engineer and a chief engineer. We do not require the New York Times or Washington Post to state something before it gets written in a wiki article. SmolBrane (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
SmolBrane Could you provide a reliable source(s?) that refers to Musk explicitly and without qualification as an engineer (not chief engineer)? ~ HAL33320:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
From the Washington Post:
Musk is head engineer, designer, salesman, financier and marketer, with full power over everything from global sales strategy to the look of the retractable door handles.
As has been discussed on Talk:Engineer for fifteen years, the definition of an engineer is not always explicit, and it is often qualified, so your expectation here may not be reasonable. Musk's role as an engineer is clear from the sources and it is SYNTHy to suggest that he actually maintains a CTO role as you suggest further up the page. The sources' usage of “chief” does make this cloudy but it does not negate the characterization as an engineer. SmolBrane (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Once again, the use of "engineer" is hedged and figurative. Wapo is describing his "full power" in each of these roles. He isn't actually a salesman, but he determines what and how his salesman do their work. He doesn't personally and directly design Tesla's cars, but he has complete influence over the design, and so on. To look at a similar figure, Bob Iger may have a great deal of control at Disney, but that does not make him an animator. With the absolutely massive amount of coverage on Musk, it is quite telling that no RS has simply and explicitly stated "Musk is an engineer" or "Musk, an engineer, is...". Furthermore, what they do at Talk:Engineer doesn't hold any water here as this will be determined by local consensus (i.e. this RfC). ~ HAL33300:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not difficult to find unqualified uses of the word "engineer" in reputable mainstream news sites: Washington Post: engineer and tech entrepreneur Elon Musk[10], Bloomberg: Over the past year the South Africa-born engineer has added more than $165 billion to his fortune.[11], The Independent: The billionaire engineer,[12] BBC: he still continues to spend 80-90% of his time working on engineering and design at both SpaceX and Tesla, leaving other executives to manage the business side of the companies.[6] What more do you need? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I may just be being stupid, but I (nor command F) can't find any mention of him being an engineer in the provided Wapo reference. The BBC reference still refers to him as "chief engineer". The wording is similar to what I touched on with Smolbrane and I won't repeat myself. However, I have to yield on The Independent reference: they do refer to him as an engineer outright. But given the massive amount of coverage of Musk, one could find a few articles using any one term to describe him. But why give such weight to a term when others are used more often? A dive through The New York Times' recent articles on Musk yields no mentions of his being an engineer (I gave up after going through 21). A look through The Independent coverage on Musk also finds no recent use of "engineer". Given the rarity (near nonexistence considering the nonstop coverage of Musk) of sources referring to him as an engineer, it just isn't due—especially in the lede sentence. ~ HAL33313:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
The Wapo reference has the text I cited in a photo caption, which for some reason Chrome does not find with an in-page search. But that's a detail. I totally disagree that putting engineer in the lead would be giving it undue weight; in addition to the leading mainstream press sources we've been discussing, there are thousands of references from "lesser" sources that refer to Musk as an engineer, often qualifying it in a highly positive way such as the most famous engineer in the world,[13] or with slight variants in the terms, e.g. world-famous American engineering entrepreneur[14] or engineering role model.[15] When you look at all these sources combined, it would be WP:UNDUEnot to include it.
Oppose: When WP reliable sources talk about Musk, they rarely use the term "engineer" to describe him. WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE, WP:RELIABLEWritethisway (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Oppose: he is clearly not an engineer, neither is he by any stretch of immagination an industrial designer. All of this should be deleted form the lede, is a business magnate, industrial designer leaving and engineer.[2] and leave this, which is a much truer reflection of the reality ..Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is the founder, CEO, CTO, and chief designer of SpaceX; early stage investor,[note 1] CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc.; founder of The Boring Company; and co-founder of Neuralink and OpenAI. A centibillionaire, Musk is one of the richest people in the world. its not hard, sometimes the simple honest statement is the best for the readers. Last time I looked wikipedia was reporting that he was an inventor as well, he has invented nothing, he has engineered nothing and he has designed nothing also, take it out.Govindaharihari (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not particularly invested in the outcome of this RfC, but in general I am not aware of a requirement that someone have a college degree to be an engineer (and I am not sure who or what, specifically, this is "required" by). I have hired people to work as engineers who didn't have college degrees, and they were better at it than a lot of the ones who did. I find the assertion that they were "fake" engineers (or that their work was less valuable than people who could afford degrees) distasteful, to say the least. jp×g22:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As I was the one who first introduced degrees, I feel that I need to clarify myself. I mentioned it because it popped up often in previous discussions. Note the way I hedged it ("One may also argue..."). I do not believe that one needs a degree in a field to be successful. For example, the Wright brothers lacked engineering degrees, let alone high school diplomas, but they are arguably the greatest aeroengineers in history. ~ HAL33318:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Engineer is quite a broad term, like scientist, and seems reasonably appropriate for someone with such a record of achievement. A formal qualification is not required for this, as we see in other cases like Brunel and Dyson. Note also that both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college.
And note that regulation and licensure in engineering explains that "Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States, areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include much of mechanical, aerospace and chemical engineering and may be specifically exempted from regulation under an "industrial exemption". An industrial exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state where they are produced..." As Musk works in both the automotive and aerospace fields, the industrial exemption applies. Q.E.D.
Oppose irrelevant of whether the term is verifiable and whether it can be legally used, its usage is not DUE as it is not commonly used by sources, and does not meet MOS:OPENPARABIO as Musk is not notable for being an engineer. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia should call him whatever we have verifiable reliable sources call him, especially when it is entirely consistent with his role and function in both of the two major companies he works in. Sources call him an engineer; many more describe him as head engineer or chief engineer. That should be the end of story. However, he also deals constantly in making the tradeoffs and professional judgements about various ways in which technology might be used to accomplish some specific purpose: such as achieving a performance or range goal, or achieving a reusable space technology objective. That is engineering, pure and simple. Certifications and licensure by a jurisdiction are not relevant for the type of work Tesla and SpaceX do in engineering vehicles, energy storage, and spaceflight systems. (and I say this as a licensed "Professional Engineer" in the US state that I reside in). Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Support keeping "engineer" as it is in the article as this well-sourced description helps to describe very well the multitude of skills Elon Musk possesses and relies on for his ground-breaking work in technology and engineering. Lklundin (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
FFS. Does anybody ever check the archives? This topic has been beaten to death in every single archive of this talk page. Again and again and again. And every time with the same result - leave it alone. Some contributors argue that the term engineer is regulated in their state or country, totally missing the point that it’s not regulated in other places ; some won’t allow its use a vernacular term; others argue that there are no reliable sources, choosing to exclude learned and professional societies, journals etc on the grounds that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Let’s be clear: Musk is a (Redacted) but he’s also the hands-on boss of two leading edge technology companies so he’s a rocket engineer and an auto engineer, however much some people quibble. It is what it is and getting red in the face about it won’t change the fact that he is actually a rocket scientist. Andyjsmith (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
^Doeden, Matt (2015). SpaceX and Tesla Motors engineer Elon Musk. Minneapolis. ISBN978-1-467-76116-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Machajewski, Sarah (2018). Elon Musk : engineer and inventor for the future. New York. ISBN978-1-508-16056-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think that's enough. Perhaps if more sources talk about it and evaluate the claim, it would be better then. BeŻet (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, widely covered in RS.
Elon Musk's Asperger's syndrome widely covered in WP:RS
But if we're starting to put in stuff the subjects say then isn't that different from the 'magnet' issue referred to in the FAQ? 80.42.7.96 (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
He said "business magnet" jokingly in the same conversation that he said he was an alien. The comment revealing his Aspergers wasn't jestful but rather sincere and is supported by many sources. Plus, let's be honest, the reveal wasn't that big of a surprise. Wretchskull (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Be honest? No, to me it just seems like he's trying to brush under the label all the negative things he said, e.g. the vaccine nonsense, and that by implication in some people's minds all that nonsense is connected to every person on the spectrum... 80.42.7.96 (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what you or I think. If you have reliable sources that tells, Elon Musk doesn't have Asperger syndrome, then please present them. Best, DNAFET (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Public claims of AS have a troubled history involving certain "thought leaders" who would declare every misunderstood genius an Aspie, diagnosis or no. I would suggest mentioning Musk's remark in the article, but omitting the category. The category might be restored based on future elaboration on how he came to be aware that he has AS. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Polymath and social media personality should be added to the lede
@User:QRep2020 why are we deleting polymath from the lede? As the description of the word quite well fits Elon Musk, I would say. Can you please elaborate more why you feel it should be deleted? As presently "entrepreneur and business magnate" are by themselves rather vague and do not amply reflect the innovative and technological nature of this individual. Those two words could apply to anybody from Rockefeller to Amancio Ortega. It's quite general at the moment don't you think? I think the greatest minds combined in an encyclopedia of this calibre can come up with something more too. @User:Wretchskullsocial media personality is also quite fitting for him now I feel, as he is perhaps been one of the most active and influential people on social media, and uses it rather activity and in a news headline grabbing way. So why did we also delete this? Can you explain as to why it is WP:UNDUE as I don't quite understand your opinion thus far. Death Star Central (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@User:Wretchskull That's exactly what I am saying, and basing my edits on! And there are numerous sources for both of these descriptions. Here is one in the Observer.com for Polymath and another article on Marker by Medium in regards to Social Media Peroanlity. Also seriously there are so many news sources in fact that clearly cover the descriptive nature of those two words in regards Elon Musk. I don't see any specific references for "entrepreneur and business magnate" either and nobody is deleting them. So can we please put Polymath and social media personality back in the lede? Or can you elaborate further why you feel they don't belong, as clearly there are plenty of sources in regards to them, and your one line answer I feel was neither correct nor accurate. Death Star Central (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Elon Musk is certainly not a polymath; in fact, there are several examples of him embarrassing himself pretending to know things in areas he's not an expert in. The source you provided is an WP:OPED. Moreover, I don't think we describe anyone on Wikipedia using that term. On Wikipedia we need to stick to factual representation of individuals, not the manufactured persona portrayed in marketing and pop culture. BeŻet (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
"Entrepreneur" (someone who starts a business) and "business magnate" (an extraordinarily wealthy businessperson) are not vague terms and they are substantiated in the body of the article. Identifying him as a polymath would require a verifiable record of accomplishment in a wide range of identifiable fields, as at the Benjamin Franklin and Leonardo da Vinci articles. It is not a question of his "nature." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
The section Views, subsection Covid, is very biased. It only shows what he got wrong (and some correct stuff mistakenly said to be wrong, which is another topic entirely) and none of the stuff he got right. It is very likely that he got at least something right, therefore a neutral version would have what he got right and what he got wrong. Wilh3lmGo here to trout me if I do a stupid15:50, 24 May 2021 (UTC)party
The section reflects what verified independent third-party sources reported in DUE weight about Musk with regards to COVID-19. Also, no, he was very wrong about COVID's effects at large and actively tried to downplay it. QRep2020 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Use Of The Terms "Misinformation" And "Experts" Is Vague, Partisan And Authoritarian
When we use the term "misinformation" affirmatively, and then follow that up with "experts," we show that, in reality, we are unable to resist taking sides in a dispute. If it were handled the way news used to be handled, then it would be more fair to say, "Person X issued controversial statements regarding the pandemic. Scientist-Commentator Z, a paid consultant for CNN and MSBNC (partisan opinion outlets) stridently disagreed; and his views on these matters were echoed by Health Official A and Political Spokesperson B." Or, if the desire to use the term "misinformation" is really strong, one could use it neutrally this way, "Professor C, a Biology professor at Stanford, characterized the statements of Person X as misinformation." In this way, Wikipedia is not acting as an echo chamber for the global Karen network by itself taking charge of who is guilty of misinformation and who is not. In other words, if an accusation of "spreading misinformation" exists, then the person making the accusation could be quoted without the article taking pains to agree or disagree with it. And even if the article added that 90% of scientists working on contagious disease control disagree with Person X, it would be more objective than just coming out and saying that not only is a person wrong, but also they're dangerous. CNN & MSNBC, when they bring out the terms "misinformation" and "experts" are usually trying to punish people as opposed to reporting on them; and, in fact, "misinformation" is now just part of the canon of cancel culture. And "experts" is usually referring to the CNN & MSNBC expert class, the class of paid consultants who come on major opinion outlets to help the outlet promote its narrative; and this is known because if a so-called "expert panelist" disagreed strongly with the opinion outlet, they would not be asked back and would therefore literally lose a high-paying gig. So the "expert class" is a highly-paid set of paid witnesses who have a lot of money and friends to lose if they dissent from the carefully crafted narrative of the opinion outlet that hires them. Thus, the terms "misinformation" followed close on by "experts" ends up just sounding like a lecture from Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mel.C.Thompson (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I presume this is referring to the last sentence of the lead: Musk has spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and has received criticism from experts for his other views on such matters as artificial intelligence and public transport. I don't see any issue with the word misinformation, which is attested by sources given in the body. I'm more inclined to agree with you about the word experts, and would suggest that this could be shortened to "and has received criticism for his views on matters such as...". Rosbif73 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. Please don't bring politics into this - we're just repeating what reliable sources have published. ~ HAL33317:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
"Experts" in this scenario is used to distinguish between Musk (person with no expertise or knowledge in given subject) and scientists/health professionals (people who have expertise and knowledge in given subject). BeŻet (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
PhD program Energy Physics/ Materials Science ?
What the hell is Energy Physics? No such program. And Materials Science sounds like engineering and not a Physics program at all. 47.201.194.211 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
He does not mention a PhD program, and Stanford does not offer any PhD in Energy Physics, and there is no such field. So it should be taken out of Wikipedia that he was accepted into a PhD program in Energy Physics.
hahaha, correct! I was not attentive enough. But he was certainly accepted for a PhD program. RS 1, 2, 3 and 4. -- Eatcha20:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Applied physics and material science. Still no mention of Energy Physics. I agree, we should remove the term "Energy Physics". -- Eatcha20:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Stanford does not offer any PhD in Applied Physics and Materials Science. There is no such diploma. Musk is not very specific about what PhD program he supposedly was accepted into. I add that applied physics is actually engineering. We should call Stanford to see what exact program he ever was officially accepted into, if he ever really was.47.201.194.211 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
And how does anyone contact Stanford University, and ask them to email the OTRS? But the text about his PhD is going to stay, as many WP:RSs are available on the internet for citation. And he even mentioned it(Energy physics thing) at a Stanford event, Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders. Do you really believe he lied at an event of the university he was accepted into? How about you show some links that say otherwise. Good Luck DNAFET (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
He lied about energy physics. And I doubt he was officially accepted to any PhD program, he can't name one. He was perhaps misrepresenting or lying about a casual conversation with some professor, taking it as an official acceptance when it was not..47.201.194.211 (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
And how do you know that he lied? Is Stanford also complicit in this alleged conspiracy, and can't they deny his claims if he was lying? Do you have any reliable source(s)? To me it's another conspiracy theory similar to the emerald mine bullshit. Nobody will make any changes unless reliable sources write about it. --- DNAFET (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
"Energy physics" was added with this edit citing biography.com. Currently it is cited to Ashlee Vance's book which only says materials science engineering (an actually existing department and program). The Mercury News (the local metropolitan paper) says applied physics and materials science as do CNN and NYT, while CNBC says "physical and materials science". Applied physics is another existing department and program, and the separate physics department conducts high-energy physics research, but I find no other "energy physics" study. What Musk said at a Stanford event or elsewhere is not inherently trustworthy to the exclusion of other sources. To summarize: The cited source fails verification WRT "energy physics," news reports contradict it, and the existence of such a study option is uncorroborated. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove "energy physics" as a Stanford Ph. D. program to which Musk was admitted. As explained above, it is not mentioned by the cited source and the existence of such a program at Stanford is dubious. BLP applies. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
BLP presumes in favor of removing any text that is contentious and poorly sourced. I have reviewed the appendix of the cited source (Vance) that discusses Musk's academic record in detail. She obtained evidence (from Musk) that he was admitted to materials science, but not to "energy physics" or any other Stanford physics program. Therefore the text should be removed until someone wants to restore it with a source. I would have no objection to someone adding "applied physics" with a citation to the Mercury News or another source linked above. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree, "spreading misinformation" is very much a recent coined term and very political in nature used to discredit someone. There is no proof as of yet that his claims are false or true, so it should be an open statement that reads "some of his controversial statements surrounding covid 19 have raised questions" or something of the sorts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:90d8:501:8d02:48a2:2f8e:88bb:a0b (talk • contribs)
Musk's false claims about COVID-19 weren't related to the origin or cause of the virus. As the body of the article says: He spread misinformation about the virus, including promoting chloroquine and claiming that death statistics were manipulated. He claimed that "Kids are essentially immune" to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, and called "the coronavirus panic...dumb".Stonkaments (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Video games
HAL333 is misrepresenting the cited source in the article. In the cited source, Elon Musk specifically credits video games as the reason he became interested in computers, stating that it was video games that got him interested in computers, which made him want to get a VIC-20 when he found out he could make games with it. In contrast, the version of the text that HAL333 restored completely misrepresents the source by instead crediting the Commodore VIC-20 as the reason he became interested in computing, contradicting what is stated in the cited source. As Musk states in the source, “[Games] are incredibly engaging, and they made me want to learn how to program computers,” and then "I saw a Commodore VIC-20. And I was like, ‘Holy crow! You can actually have a computer and make your own games.’ I thought this was just one of the most incredible things possible.” It is clear from the source that video games are the reason he became interested in computers, from his own words. And yet HAL333 is misrepresenting the source to downplay the impact that video games had in getting him into computing. This is clear from HAL333's edit summary: "And, who cares that he enjoyed playing video games? Should we also mentions that he enjoys chocolate and puppies?" Which is a completely ridiculous analogy, when the very source that is being cited in the article itself credits video games as the reason he got into computing. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
The article already touches on video games, even given that his authorized biography doesn't place much of an emphasis on it. Also, "Venture Beat" looks like a crap source (especially for a GA). If you really want to write an in-depth discussion of Musk and video games, I would recommend that you create Early life of Elon Musk. That would be constructive and appreciated. ~ HAL33303:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, VentureBeat is a reliable source as mentioned above. It was there long before I edited this page, and you've only recently removed it in response to my complaint above. Secondly, the VentureBeat article is quoting Elon Musk himself, so the words are coming from Musk himself, not from some journalist. Thirdly, his biography which you cited also discusses video games, mentioning how he originally wanted to be a game developer before later deciding it was not a grand enough ambition for him. Fourthly, I don't mind creating an article on the Early life of Elon Musk or Early life and career of Elon Musk, but may need some help for that. But it would be a lot easier simply just inserting one or two sentences about it in this article, rather than creating an entire new article over it. And lastly, your opposition to any mention of video games is extremely irrational. There is no valid reason why you would be so opposed to adding a sentence or two about how video games inspired him to pursue computing. He's mentioned it in plenty of interviews, and even in his SNL stand-up. Musk clearly considers video games as an important inspiration on his career, yet you don't want any mention of it here for some very bizarre reasons. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I already struckthrough my comment regarding Venture Beat and said "I stand corrected. No sense in beating a dead horse. Also, I hope you realize that Musk's own words are not the best source. And Vance says Musk got into computing after seeing a computer store and becoming fascinated with how they could be programmed. No mention of video games. Could you provide the page number for Vance where he places greater emphasis on video games? ~ HAL33316:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
On page 25 of the digital version, it reads:
When Elon was nearly ten years old, he saw a computer for the first time, at the Sandton City Mall in Johannesburg. "There was an electronics store that mostly did hi-fi-type stuff, but then, in one corner, they started stocking a few computers," Musk said. He felt awed right away—"It was like, 'Whoa. Holy shit!'"—by this machine that could be programmed to do a person’s bidding. "I had to have that and then hounded my father to get the computer," Musk said. Soon he owned a Commodore VIC-20, a popular home machine that went on sale in 1980. Elon’s computer arrived with five kilobytes of memory and a workbook on the BASIC programming language. "It was supposed to take like six months to get through all the lessons," Elon said. "I just got super OCD on it and stayed up for three days with no sleep and did the entire thing. It seemed like the most super-compelling thing I had ever seen." Despite being an engineer, Musk’s father was something of a Luddite and dismissive of the machine. Elon recounted that "he said it was just for games and that you’d never be able to do real engineering on it. I just said, 'Whatever.'
Thanks for quoting the part. Vance's version of events appears to omit details that Musk mentioned to Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in an interview where Musk elaborates on it further. As reported by VentureBeat in 2015:
“My father took me on a trip to the United States when I was about 10,” said Musk. “And I remember it was a really awesome experience because the hotels all had arcades. So my No. 1 thing was, when we went to a new hotel, was to go to the arcades.” “[Games] are incredibly engaging, and they made me want to learn how to program computers,” he told Tyson. “I thought I could make my own games. I wanted to see how games work. I wanted to create a video game. That’s what led me to learn how to program computers.” Musk’s family owned a Magnavox Odyssey, which was the first home video game console. “It had four games you could play, and you would pick which of the four you wanted to play,” he said. “That was it. And then it went from there to the Atari and Intellivision. And then one day I was in the store, and I saw a Commodore VIC-20. And I was like, ‘Holy crow! You can actually have a computer and make your own games.’ I thought this was just one of the most incredible things possible.” The young Musk — he was around 10 years old at the time — took all of his saved allowance (and hounded his dad for the rest) to purchase the Commodore VIC-20.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2021
This edit request to Elon Musk has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index (cited in the description box), Musk is the third richest person in the world, NOT THE FIRST. Also, he's worth $168B, not $184B as it states.
Musk is *NOT* an engineer in California so obviously not a "chief engineer"
The RFC dated May 18, 2021 concluded "Musk should not be described as an engineer." Yet, some of those who participated in that RFC are still editing the article & falsely claiming he is. I deleted the "chief engineer of SpaceX" in the article. SpaceX is headquartered in California, therefore all California SpaceX engineers must be licensed engineers as per the laws of California. My suggestion to Elon Musk: If Musk wants to be called an "engineer" in America, he must do what real engineers do: get a 4yr engineering degree, take and pass the EIT exam, work under licensed engineer for 4yrs, then take and pass the PE exam. Until that time, Elon Musk in *NOT* an engineer in California and not an engineer in any other US state. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't really weigh in on the legality in California, but RS do call him "chief engineer"... ~ HAL33303:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
My question is are not "chief engineer" and "product architect" formal titles in the companies' rosters? If so, I would think that they ought to be capitalized then. QRep2020 (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, these are official corporate titles and should be capitalised. I've restored them as such. There are plenty of WP:RS that confirm Musk's corporate titles, irrespective of the dubious claim that one must be a licensed engineer to hold the title of Chief Engineer. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333:@QRep2020:@Rosbif73:The RFC is clear "Musk should not be described as an engineer." So, in adhering to the RFC I am deleting the "chief engineer" claim, again. It seems to me, if anyone who knows the results of the RFC, starts an "editing war" on this, they'd be intentionally violating the RFC. So I hope that does not happen & hope we call follow and adhere to the RFC conclusions.
For the record, the RFC came to the correct conclusion, because in every single US state there are literally laws, laws, that govern the legal requirements to be an engineer and they're all the same: the engineer shall have a 4yr engineering degree, shall take and pass the EIT exam, work under licensed engineer for 4yrs, then shall take and pass the PE exam. Elon Musk fails to meet every single legal requirement -- so, the RFC came to the correct conclusion.
Rosbif73 is mistaken in his/her comment above: being an engineer is a legal title, not "corporate title" - For example, if Musk's corporation claims he's President of the United States on their letterhead, that'd be legally false because that's legal title, not a corporate title. Musk is no more an engineer than he is President of USA (two legal titles Musk fails to meet requirement on).
One more thing, I notice Musk now claims he's an architect. There again, in every US state there are laws that govern the requirements to be an architect & Elon Musk fails ever single legal requirement.
I have no doubt that everyone on here is working in good faith, so, in good faith, lets all adhere to the RFC and refrain from any "edit war" that would violate the RFC conclusions. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Trust me (the person who opened that RfC) when I say that nothing in that RfC's consensus states that Musk can't be called "Chief Engineer". ~ HAL33316:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@HAL333: As an english speaking human, trust me, when the RFC says "Musk should not be called an engineer" then he sure heck "should not be called a chief engineer." Come on Hal, I know smarter than that! Is honestly on a so-called 'encyclopedia' really too much to ask for Hal? Is adhering to RFs on here really too much to ask for Hal? JFC man! If it's that g'd important to Musk to be an engineer, then there is nothing stopping him from doing it in same legal manner all real engineers do it. mean seriously,
I find it very regretful that you're violating your own RFC and starting an edit war over it. I don't live on this blog, so I will have to figure out who I need to report your edit war to; but in the mean time, I have a few serious questions for you: Is this an 'encyclopedia' or bathroom-wall blog where people knowingly post all kinds bullspit, nonsense claims?
I have a very special set of skills. I will look for you, I will find you and I will report you for this edit war. ~ HAL33318:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Note carefully: Only a minority of trained and active engineers ever obtain PE status. It is a mark of distinction that allows one to engage in certain business activity, but has never been necessary to work on engineering projects. See this source, which clearly states that PE is distinction within the practice of engineering. While there are other points to make about identifying Musk as an engineer (and that have been made, repeatedly, with one discussion just in the past month), arguments based on Professional Engineer laws are specious and meritless. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to call him a chief engineer, open a RFC and stop edit warring about it, thanks, he is not an engineer, has never engineered a single thing, perhaps he is chief of the engineers, anyways, need discussion not forcing in , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
We had an RfC about whether to describe Musk as an engineer. That's a whole different question than stating his job titles, backed by undisputedly reliable sources. And here on wikipedia, reliable sources are what count. Reliable sources say that he holds the corporate title of Chief Engineer. It's not for us to decide whether he deserves that title or to postulate that he isn't legally entitled to it. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There are other sources that use "Chief Designer" instead, but regardless as Rosbif73 pointed out there are some pretty strong sources that use "Chief Engineer". Tangentially, this is all too familiar to the Rfc/ discussion about Musk being a founder despite not having founded Tesla. It is almost as if he at times trades in deceptive appearances... QRep2020 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: - you're 100% wrong. Chief engineer is a legal title not a 'corporate title.' In every single state in America there are literally state statutes (laws) that mandate a person cannot legally be a 'Chief Engineer' unless they are an engineer by law. And, whether intentional or unintentional, it appears deceitful to side-step the RFC by tossing the word 'chief' in front of engineer and then falsely claim that chief engineer is merely a 'corporate title' when that is not even true. By the way, SpaceX website does not list Musk as an engineer nor as chief engineer.
Bottom line: you & Hal appear to be violating the RFC and are both edit warring with people who are trying to adhere to the RFC. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
"Chief Engineer" is a job title, not a legal title. You need to be licensed to call yourself a "Professional Engineer", but just the term "engineer" or a title like "Chief Engineer" is not protected by California or US law, especially in aerospace and automotive engineering. From Regulation and licensure in engineering: Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States, areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include much of mechanical, aerospace and chemical engineering and may be specifically exempted from regulation under an "industrial exemption". An industrial exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state where they are produced, as well as the equipment used to produce the product. I agree that we should not describe Musk as an engineer, but identifying his official job title as "Chief Engineer" is fine. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 18:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ahecht:You don't seem to realize that your green quote confirms what I said and is in agreement with me. I wrote: "every state of the country, ever state has state laws that mandate legal requirements for a person to practice engineering, no matter what level of engineer you are." Your green quote: "regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States"
Like I said, & as your green quote confirms: In every state in this country there are state laws that require engineers to have a bachelor's degree in engineering which is why "chief engineer" is a legal title You see, you can't be a chief engineer, if ya' ain't an engineer. Oh & by the way, SpaceX website does not even claim Musk is a "chief engineer." So, between that and the RFC discussed whether to claim Musk is "chief engineer" 23 times, and after 23 times, the RFC concluded "no" and "Musk should not be described as an engineer" - I have no idea why some on here want to edit war over this and breach the RFC's conclusions. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated means they are unregulated. Not "there are state laws that require engineers to have a bachelor's degree in engineering", but unregulated (and even in cases such as civil engineering or where someone is using the title "professional engineer", there are some states that allow work experience to substitute for a degree). --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 20:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ahecht: you are still confused and you're still misunderstanding what you're reading. In fact, you don't seem to realize it, but the entire section you're copying confirms what I said and agrees with what I said, and that state laws (not federal laws) govern the requirements to be an engineer. Now, this will be a lengthy thread because it's meant to educate you (and everyone) on certain aspects of real engineering from real engineers.
I want you to understand what you're reading, so let's take a step back and look at what your green quote says " Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states" Keywords: "individual states" (not Feds) are who "regulate the practice of engineer." And that's exactly what I said.
Now, what that means for interstate commerce is this: state laws dictate requirements for engineers and those engineers can engineer a product in one state and then sell that engineered product to another state (interstate commerce). Now, each state has laws that govern and regulate certain types of products, so an engineer in Wyoming can engineer an engine part, or control part for an airplane and Boeing (in California) can purchase those products without having to pay an additional engineer (from California) to sign off on it. Another example: an engineer in Tennessee can engineer underground PVC parts to transport oil/gas and sell those PVC pipe to Exxon in Louisiana; whereby, Exxon will not have to pay an additional engineer (from Louisiana) to sign off on it. Anyone who thinks that mechanical engineering products, aerospace and chemical engineering are not regulated by state governments, and the federal government have holes in their heads and have no idea what they're talking about. To be clear: the state governments regulate by statute the qualifications to be an engineer. States and Fed govt do regulate interstate commerce for: products for mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering, and chemical engineering. And none of those products from those fields are 'exempt' by way of 'industrial exemption' or any other exemption. As a matter fact, products from those fields of engineering are highly regulated.
Now about the "industrial exemption" - State & Federal governments absolutely 100% regulate products from: mechanical engineering (cars), aerospace (plane engines, seats, o-rings etc) and chemical engineering products (plumbing, die for cloths, medicines). So I don't know who wrote the green quote you used about that you found here [4]) in wiki - but who ever wrote did not get that from the "source" they cite in their wiki piece here [5]. They got the whole definition of "industrial exemption" complete wrong.
"Industrial Exemption" does not mean "unregulated" (that would absurd), In short, industrial Exemption means: the engineer in TN engineering the PVC pipe cannot sell those PVC pipes to the "general public." Also, in order to qualify for industrial exemption, the engineer must be an employee of a public utility, or state agency, or manufacturing company; and the engineering work must be incidental to the products or non-engineering services of the engineer’s employer." I only gave you this info to help you better understand what you're reading - so sorry to all for the length. But, for this thread, yes, the term "chief engineer" is a legal title and equally important, the RFC concluded "Musk should not be described as an engineer" so people need to adhere to that RFC and stop edit warring with people who are adhering to it. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I am an engineer at a Fortune 500 company. I work as an engineer, I manage engineers, and I hire engineers. Not one person that I work with has a PE or any sort of legal certification recognized or regulated by any state or government agency, because that simply isn't a requirement in a field with an industrial exemption. I've seen a grand total of one resume come across my desk with any sort of professional certification, but that was someone that had originally gone into civil engineering before changing fields. As "absurd" as you think it is, states simply do not regulate engineers in many fields. Period. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 14:27, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@QRep2020: you're grabbing at non-existent straws. The RFC is cannot be more clear: "Musk should not be described as an engineer." So obviously, obviously Musk "should not be described as Chief Engineer." Because it's a violation of the RFC and it's legally wrong. Not only is it a violating of the RFC to claim he's a chief engineer, it also is legally wrong. In ever single state in America there are laws that literally mandate the legal requirements to be a Chief Engineer and an engineer. Elon Musk fails to meet all of those legal requirements. Hint: In order to be a chief engineer you must first be an engineer.
Being chief engineer is a literally a legal title, not some bullspit 'corporate title.' Also, SpaceX website does not even list Musk as "chief engineer."
Falsely claiming Musk as a 'chief engineer' could be seen as a deceptive way to side-side the RFC conclusion: "Musk should not be described as an engineer." and by reverted every edit that takes out that false claim (as per the RFC) could be seen as an edit war. Serious question: What will editors here do if, or when, Musk starts calling himself President of the United States and then he has "strong source" make that same claim? Will editors here put "Musk is President of United States" in the article and justify by saying 'hey, it's just a corporate title and there are strong sources that say he is' --- sheesh!
Why anyone on here would bend over backwards and make themselves look craven and/or silly by side-stepping the RFC and side-step reality is a question I don't know the answer to. Good gravy! Once again, if Musk wants to be an engineer then nothing is stopping from becoming one in the same legal manner REAL engineers do it. And ya' know what, the fact that Musk wants to falsely claim he's engineer just proves 'money can't make a person like who they really are.' hmmm....
Anyway, it's simple, the RFC is clear, "Musk should not be described as an engineer." and that obviously means "Musk should not be described as a Chief engineer." BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@QRep2020: Couple of things. One, the legal title "chief engineer" was brought up 23 times & after 23 times of people trying to convince people to call Musk a "chief engineer" the RFC rejected that and concluded that Musk "should not be described as an engineer." And the people edit warring over this are the same people who brought it up withing the RFC and were told 'no.' Two: to answer your question about NASA. NASA's Chief Engineer, Ralph R. Roe, Jr., has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of South Carolina and a Master of Science Degree in Engineering Management from the University of Central Florida.[6] So, you see, in order to be a chief engineer, one has to be an engineer. So, if you're not an engineer, by law, you cannot be a chief engineer -- cuz you're not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: In the May 18, 2021 RFC discussion, you brought up whether to call Musk a "chief engineer" 23 times. And after 23 times the RFC concluded that no, Musk is not a chief engineer and is not any kind of engineer so therefore "Musk should not be described as an engineer." 23 times you tried to convince people to call him a "chief engineer" and in the end, the answer you got "no." No. In the end, the RFC did not conclude "Musk should not be described as an engineer but can be called a chief engineer." Nope, that's not what it said. Instead, after 23 times of you bringing it up, the RFC still concluded: "Musk should not be described asa an engineer." And since you brought it up 23 times and you know you were told "no" -- it seems insincere for you and @HAL333: to now say "nothing in that RfC's consensus states that Musk can't be called "Chief Engineer"" when you both know that is not true. It was discussed 23 times. The answer you & Hal got was "no." No. And because you & Hal were told "No" after 23 times of trying, it would be good idea for you both stop violating the RFC and stop edit warring with people who are adhering to the RFC. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Please don't distort what I wrote. In the previous RfC I was arguing that we were right to say "Musk is an engineer" in the opening sentence of the lead, and I introduced reliable sources to back my point of view. His title of Chief Engineer was mentioned, sure, but it was not the focus of the discussion. Indeed, people pointed out that the job title did not in itself justify the description. The distinction seems clear to me. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: In the previous RFC you tried, and failed, to convince people to call Musk a "chief engineer" and you used the same rhetoric there that you are here. And, after 23 times of you trying, at the end of the discussions you were told "No." and the RFC concluded "Musk shall not be described as an engineer." Also, SpaceX website does not even make the false claim that you're making here. SpaceX does not list him as "chief engineer" so why in heck are you violating the RFC and making a claim that SpaceX does not even make? And with all that: SpaceX does not call him that, the RFC told you no --- instead of you adhering to the RFC you're violating the RFC and engaging in edit war just to pretend, pretend that Musk is something that he's not. To be clear: The RFC told you no! You didn't just casually mention a so-called title, you literally tried to convince people to let you make that claim in the article and you were told no. Frankly, I find it pathetic that a rich dude like Musk prefers to tell big ol' whoppers about himself as opposed to spending his big bucks and becoming an engineer in the same legal manner real engineers do it. Sheesh...truly pathetic. To me, someone who tells big ol' whoppers about "who" and "what" they are, are people who do not like themselves. Oh well, that's not my problem. Bottom line here is this: The RFC told you no. So please adhere to the RFC and stop edit warring. Thanks BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's amusing that you're berating Rosbit73 for bringing up something 23 times, while you go ahead and mention "23 times" 7 times in one paragraph. See WP:BLUDGEON. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
While some editors in the previous RfC did, in good faith, attempt to show that Musk's title of Chief Engineer should lead Wikipedia to describe him as an engineer, it looks like many editors in that RfC pointed out a clear distinction between being an engineer and holding the title of Chief Engineer at a particular company. If you look closely at the previous RfC, it looks like many editors who opposed describing Musk as an engineer would probably support including his title of Chief Engineer if such an RfC were started. I would also support including this title. GrammarDamnerhow are things?20:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It strikes me that supporters of this fatuous discussion would like to put Wikipedia in a position of refusing to accept extremely reliable sources such as this and in effect saying to Spacex that we know best, Musk isn’t permitted to hold the title of Chief Engineer. Let’s be clear, if Spacex said his job title was Archbishop of Canterbury that’s what it would be, irregardless. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Andyjsmith: since you admit that you'd claim Musk's job title is "Archbishop of Canterbury" if that's what Musk told you to claim; then it's very obvious that a person's job title has zero benefit to readers of wiki. And, violating RFCs also has zero benefit to readers of wiki BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Andyjsmith: 1) When a self-loathing billionaire claims to be something they're not on their own blog (hence self-loathing), then yeah, we do know better. 2) Yes, it is true, Musk is not an engineer and even though his twitter feed, his blog, & Reddit claims he is, we do know better, and we know he's not an engineer, he's not the founder of Tesla, he's not an architect, he's not an astronaut, he's not an inventor -- he's just a dude who got lucky & became a billionaire who now claims he's all that stuff. The word "self-loather" comes to mind. 3) The fact you'd claim Musk is "Archbishop of Canterbury" on this blog may indicate that you do not think this blog is an 'encyclopedia' but rather it indicates you think this blog is a bathroom wall where anyone can claim to be "Archbishop of Canterbury." And it's that attitude, that causes people to view this blog as a joke, not a reliable source, but a frickin' joke. But, I've digressed. In this thread, we are discussing the fact that the RFC concluded "Musk should not be described as an engineer" -- therefore, people on here should stop violating that RFC and stop starting edit wars against people who are adhering to the RFC. I mean, the least this blog can do is adhere to it's own RFC rules for god sake. And asking this blog to adhere to it's own frickin' rules is really not too much to ask. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think Andyjsmith ever claimed Musk is Archbishop of Canterbury. I believe his point was that if SpaceX said his job title was ________, then Wikipedia should list his job title as ________. Furthermore, if you look at the RfC again, several editors did point out the distinction between calling someone an engineer and listing their job title as Chief Engineer. The RfC simply asked "Should Musk be called an engineer?", and the nominator, who opposed calling Musk an engineer, has also pointed out this difference. Continually pointing to an RfC that technically did not cover this current issue is not entirely accurate. By all means, feel free to start an RfC about Musk's job title. GrammarDamnerhow are things?02:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarDamner: - Lol! Are you fricking kidding me!?!?! Sheesh... Well since you & @Andyjsmith: both admit that you would both claim, on this so-called encyclopedia, that Elon Musk's job title is "Archbishop of Canterbury" if that's what he tells you two to say, then it's very obvious that "job title" is of zero (0) benefit to the readers of wiki. I'm not sure you know this, but this blog passes itself off as an 'encyclopedia' (look up the definition) and not as a bathroom wall where people write & spread bullshpit. So, in response to you admitting that you'd say Musk's job title is whatever the heck he tells you to say it is, makes it very clear job title has no value for readers and violating RFC's are also of zero (0) benefit to readers. The RFC is clear. So, if people here have any integrity at all then they'd give a dang about following wiki's RFC rules, and would stop violating RFC, and stop edit warring with people who adhere to the RFC. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This is an online encyclopedia called Wikipedia. It is not a state government regulatory body, the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. That agency has its own regulatory processes and its own website. Wikipedia is also not a website devoted to pedantry, dogmatism and bludgeoning. People who are unlicensed are prohibited from providing engineering services to the public. They are not prohibited from providing engineering services to their own businesses. The RfC concluded that we should not call Musk an engineer in Wikipedia's voice. So be it. Attribute the job title to the company, and the problem is solved. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Well said @Cullen328:! But, I will say, since some people on here admit they'd claim Musk's 'job title' is "Archbishop of Canterbury" if that's what he tells them to say, then it's very clear that "job title" is completely meaningless, worthless, and is of zero (0) benefit/value for the readers of this website. So, on that reason should not be included - but more importantly, the RFC could not be more clear "Musk should not be described as an engineer" and side-stepping and violating that RFC's conclusion with bs 'job title' claims seems disingenuous and deceitful BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, I hope that you will take to heart my comment about pedantry, dogmatism and bludgeoning, because that behavior is unseemly, as is excessive emphasis of comments with bold because neither that mode of emphasis, nor repeating an argument umpteen times makes your argument more persuasive. To the contrary. Senior corporate job titles are significant biographical information. Include them and attribute them if at all controversial. Problem solved. Cullen328Let's discuss it03:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: My bolds etc have absolutely nothing to do with the bottom line here which is: there are people on here violating the RFC and are edit warring with people who are trying to adhere to it. That's what this about. Either people on here follow wiki's RFCs rules or, they don't, in which case, wiki's RFCs are meaningless, worthless. Are they? Either people on here adhere to wiki's 'reliable source' rules or they don't. As per wiki WP:RSSELF: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable." That means, Elon Musk's blog, SpaceX, making false, fictional claims about himself to make him appear to be better than he is, is not a reliable source. Frankly, I'm amazed at how many people on here feel that adhering to the RFC is too much to ask. JFC. What a dang joke. BetsyRMadison (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Your bolds are illustrative of your ineffective attempts at persuasion, BetsyRMadison. Please respond directly to the following proposal: The solution to the problem is to attribute the job title to SpaceX, the major corporation that gave him that job title, and to not describe him that way in Wikipedia's voice. If you oppose, please provide a policy based rationale. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:12, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: The solution is for people to adhere to the g'd RFC and to stop starting edit wars with people who do adhere to the RFC. Why in the heck is it so hard for you, Cullen, and others on here to just adhere to the RFC? And it's hilarious that you think it's my job to "persuade" people to follow the rules of this blog. Ha!! When in reality, it is your job to make sure people do adhere to the rules. The RFC cannot be more clear "Musk should not be described as an engineer." WP:RSSELF is clear, "self-published sources are largely not acceptable." Elon Musk's alleged job title on his blog is not a reliable source. Either you follow the rules and you make sure others follow the rules, or this website will become an unreliable source, a joke. BetsyRMadison (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, if you are all about following the "rules", then you must recognize that there is a standard way to deal with widely reported contentious assertions on Wikipedia. We include them and attribute them to the source, but do not assert them in Wikipedia's voice. There are no rules on Wikipedia. Instead, we have policies and guidelines, and one of those policies is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Yes, Wikipedia explicitly rejects the very concept of firm and immutable "rules". The encyclopedia is better if it includes Musk's job titles properly presented, because that is encyclopedic information even if contested. The encyclopedia is worse off if these assertions are expunged. Cullen328Let's discuss it05:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: ummm.... First, I think you've misread Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. It does not say to "ignore" the conclusions from an RFC and it sure as heck does not say "reject" the conclusions of an RFC. Second, this blog does have rules that you are supposed to adhere to and that you're supposed to help make sure other people adhere to. That is your job Cullen. And that includes you making sure people adhere to the conclusions of an WP:RFC. Third, there is nothing "contentious" about adhering to the conclusions of the RFC. The people on here who were unable to persuade others to claim Musk is an engineer lost. Lost. During the RFC they brought up "chief engineer" 23 times and they were still told 'no.' No! They failed at persuading people to call him a "chief engineer." And, instead of licking their wounds and adhering to the RFC they have chosen to break the rules, violate the RFC, and start edit wars on people who do adhere to the RFC. So what do you do? You're here you telling me to violate the RFC because you don't want to do your job of making sure people follow the rules. Dang! You know this is true: if you don't make sure people follow the rules, you know this website will become an unreliable source, a joke.BetsyRMadison (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
BetsyRMadison, what's up with this "blog" stuff? This is an encyclopedia not a blog. Do you understand the distinction between stating something in Wikipedia's voice, and reporting contested assertions with attribution? If we say that he's an engineer in Wikipedia's voice, then that's a violation of the RfC. If we report that a giant company like SpaceX calls him their "Chief Engineer", avoiding Wikipedia's voice and properly attributing the statement, then that is . . . just normal and in no way a rejection of the RfC. Again, Wikipedia does not have any firm rules and continuing to assert that it does is not helpful to your argument. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, not immutable rules. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I have two questions for you. 1) Please tell me what part of the following quote is confusing you: "In the RFC They brought up 'chief engineer' 23 times and they were still told 'no.' No! They failed at persuading people to call him a "chief engineer." So yeah Cullen, it is a violation of the RFC for them still claim he's a "chief engineer" when they were told "NO" at the conclusion of the RFC.
These are quotes from the RFC: "Articles you mentioned label his as chief engineer, which in this context is a synonym for chief technology officer." "As explained above, articles refer to him as chief engineer, which is a synonym for chief technology officer "The alternative meaning of "chief engineer" is CTO. This is all based on current wiki consensus which is reflected in those article" "OK, my bad for not reading the chief engineer hatnote." As you can see, calling Musk a "chief engineer" was rejected in the RFC so to continue to include 'chief engineer' is very clearly a violation of the RFC. Q 2) Aside from the fact that you & others have turned the RFC into a completely meaningless function, and a worthless process of wiki's, can you tell me how giving a fictional job title, or even a real job title, is beneficial to the reader? An encyclopedia is where one goes for facts, real facts - not fictional bullshspit. People go to blogs or bathroom walls to read bullshpit. And reading this talk page, and the article, it's clear that this is website very obviously not an encyclopedia but is just a blog. A blog filled with fictional nonsense and people who bend over backwards violating wiki rules and policies trying to justify filling this blog with fictional nonsense. BetsyRMadison (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Those quotes are precisely where participants in the RfC point out that having the title of Chief Engineer is a different concept from being an engineer. Don't you see the difference? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: Actually, in those quotes you admit Musk is a CTO (not a “Chief Engineer”) and you admit you were deceived by the term “Chief Engineer," you say, “OK, my bad for not reading the chief engineer hatnote." So why do you want to deceive readers of this blog in the same manner you were deceived? hmmm... -- especially when you have to violate the RFC, and start edit wars just so you can pass that obvious deception onto the readers? BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarDamner: - it's simple, when certain people on here stop intentionally violating the RFC; then I'll stop accusing them of it. Until then, I'm gonna call it like it is - some people here are willfully, intentionally, and maybe even maliciously violating the RFC and edit warring with people who adhere to the RFC. BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@BetsyRMadison: Again, the RfC has not been violated. You can continue to ignore this if you want, but as Cullen pointed out, this behavior is unseemly. I understand that it might seem like we're splitting hairs here, not describing Musk as an engineer but listing his title as Chief Engineer, but this is actually an important distinction to make. GrammarDamnerhow are things?17:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Rosbif73: 23 times in the RFC you begged & pleaded for people to let you deceptively call Musk a "chief engineer" and you were told no. No. (I say "deceptively" not to disparage you, but because you admit in the RFC that you were deceived by the term "chief engineer" ) So instead of licking your wounds and adhering to the RFC conclusions, you repeatedly violate the conclusions and wage a edit war against those who do adhere to the RFC. You've essentially made the RFC process completely worthless and meaningless ... all because you've chosen to deceive readers of this blog in the same manner you admit you were deceived. And, no matter how many times you & Musk beg and plead people to say he's an engineer, he's not. And, he never will be. He's an "engineer wanna-be" (which some may say is a sign of self-loathing.) BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, please do not deform what I wrote. In that RfC I provided policy-based arguments as to why I believe we should describe Musk as an "engineer". Others in the discussion made a distinction between being an engineer and holding the title of Chief Engineer, and they were quite right to do so although it weakened my argument. Consensus emerged and we are abiding by it. That's the way wikipedia works. In this discussion, consensus has emerged in favour of retaining the job title, largely because of that distinction, and we will abide by this consensus too. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Nope. RfCs are needed when not enough editors have participated or editors are split 50-50. I've seen RfCs with less discussion and 8-2 definitely ain't 50-50. ~ HAL33319:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Ordinarily I would agree but given the context in regards to the highly related RfC recently closed it may be worth doing then we can move on. At minimum we should ping all previous RfC participants to see if consensus is clear in regards to use of "Chief Engineer". Spy-cicle💥 Talk?23:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel like something that has been alluded to here, but not said out loud is there is a pedantic difference between Chief Engineer (note the capitalized "C" and "E"), a title and a proper noun and an engineer (note the uncapitalized "e"). Summoning the words of my PoliSci professor: there's a difference between "big D" Democratic and "little d" democratic. People can do things that are not democratic and be members of the Democratic party. Similarly Musk is not a trained engineer but SpaceX can still call him their "Chief Engineer." Perhaps a good compromise would be to include a clarifying note about Musk not being a trained, licensed engineer at the top of the page like how we have a clarifying note that he's not really a co-founder of Tesla. --RickyCourtney (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Totally disagree. Wikipedia isn’t judgemental and we really can’t go around giving our interpretation of the facts. His title is Chief Engineer. He doesn’t claim to be a qualified engineer and isn’t touting for business as an engineer. On the same basis should we also point out that although he’s Product Architect at Tesla he doesn’t have an architecture qualification or even a design qualification? Andyjsmith (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
@Andyjsmith: You're the guy who (above) said you'd put Musk is Archbishop of Canterbury in this article if Musk told you to. Ok. That said, the RFC is clear "Musk should not be described as an engineer" and the "chief engineer" claims were addressed & rejected in the RFC. Either people here will respect and adhere to the RFC or people here will treat RFCs as complete junk to be ignored. Musk does proclaim he's a qualified engineer here [7]. Musk claims to be a lot of things he's not, like founder of Tesla, an architect, and engineer. All of Bill Gates' many corporate titles aren't in his wiki page & neither are Jeff Bezos so why should Musk get special treatment? Serious question: How and why is Musk's self-proclaimed title benefit the readers especially when doing that deceives the readers, violates WP:RSSELF and violate the RFCBetsyRMadison (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this, "legally entitled to call himself one of the five founders due to a lawsuit settlement" is not the same thing as "recognized as the founder in the article-voice of reliable sources." We require the latter to describe him as such in wiki-voice; and I'm not seeing it when I review the sources myself - the sources seem nearly unanimous that Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning are the founders and Musk merely an important early investor. A lawsuit alone cannot change that unless it compelled secondary sources to refer to Musk as the founder, which it doesn't seem to have accomplished. See eg. [8]. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure why I'm wasting my time here but here goes:
@BetsyRMadison: You seem to have something of a sense of humour problem regarding Musk being senior clergy. To put it more simply if the RFC concludes that he's not an engineer then he's presumably not a chief engineer either, but there's nothing to stop him having a plate on his door saying "Chief Engineer" (capitalised) or to be referred to as such by SpaceX and others. It breaks no laws even though it offends you. The fact that Bill Gates doesn't use some of his titles is totally irrelevant and wouldn't stop WP including them in an article if relevant. Musk's Chief Engineer title IS relevant - see for example the customer document referred to by @QRep2020: above. BTW you said "SpaceX website does not list Musk as an engineer nor as chief engineer" but that's not correct. A quick search finds this.
@Aquillion: I take your point about Musk not being the founder of Tesla but he is, officially, a founder. He's also an early stage investor, which isn't always the same as a founder so to characterise him only as an investor in the lede is somewhat misleading - he played a bigger role than that and the other founders agree, because they all signed off on a document agreeing who the founders were. I appreciate that it's quite nuanced - after all it led to a lawsuit - but that can be explained in the body of the article. As far as the lede is concerned "founder" means that he played a major role in the early years of the company and that's indisputably correct (because Eberhardt and Tesla state it as a fact). Andyjsmith (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: Just checked out Tesla, Inc. which makes it clear that Eberhard and Tarpenning founded the company, Wright founded a few months later, then Musk a few months after that and finally Straubel, all three of whom are also founders. Playing semantics one could say that originally there were two founders, then some other guys who got the company on its feet, found funding and started running it properly so maybe they're "later founders" or "second stage founders" but the fact is that Tesla itself calls Musk et al founders so who are we to say otherwise? People enjoy running Musk down, and I don't like him either, but facts is facts. Andyjsmith (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
No, the Rfc on calling him a founder/cofounder in the lede was discussed in its own Rfc and reached its own conclusion. QRep2020 (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The issue is that net worth estimates fluctuate wildly and are often not reliable (evidenced by the disparities between the estimates of Bloomberg and Forbes). ~ HAL33317:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Then either let's either a) update regularly or b) average his net worth over say or one or three month period. There must be some way of doing it rather than removing the parameter entirely. Spy-cicle💥 Talk?18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Whatever method we go with is arbitrary and not reflective of his actual net worth and is thus a disservice to the reader. ~ HAL33301:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I would disagree if we just list is net worth as of a certain date, then it will be an accurate estimate of his net worth at the time. I do not see how listing that in the infobox is a "disservice to the reader". Spy-cicle💥 Talk?15:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Spy-cicle. To be honest, I think most people come to this article to check out his wealth, which is facilitated with the net worth parameter. We could perhaps update it once every month starting from June 1st. Wretchskull (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Starting from this day, I will update the net worth every month. I will also wait a day or two after the new month and re-update the it to a more accurate figure if it differs from the original. Wretchskull (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I guess that's fine. To be honest, I don't feel super strongly sbout the issue. But I do think it is a little weird, and I might raise a cental discussion about it in the near future. ~ HAL33318:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The info about Elon not paying taxes from ProPublica is not relevant to wealth given the US has no wealth taxes. Further the issue of not paying taxes isn't that unexpected given that he has no proper salary from either of his companies and is only paid in stock options that are not allowed to be sold for several years. It thusly gives an incorrect insinuation that Elon Musk pays little taxes when in reality the tax payments are going to be lumpy with large amounts in some years and none in others. Thus I removed the line but it was reverted. Please give the reason for the revert or I'll revert the revert in a few days. Ergzay (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. It is relevant because important publications responded to the disclosure with opinion pieces about why he should have to pay taxes for the ability to borrow against his stock, for example:
Not done There's a hidden note in the lead explaining why this information is not in the opening sentence, per talk page consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Founding Tesla
The summary of the article states that he was only an early stage investor, but the reference used actually says a court determined he was a full founder.
Musk was their first chairman from their very first meeting, and also was in charge of their first round of funding. He could not have just shown up and started running the board and doing fundraising on the day the deal was signed, it takes months to do this kind of work.
Besides the reference showing the court order, there is clear evidence that he was a founder who was there since day one.
This mattered discussed at length and a consensus was reached, the conclusion of which is presently expressed in the article. Besides, the article already addresses the ruling. QRep2020 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Not done: Next time, bring sources. The sources in the article are a bit confusing, but this note published by Penn cites 1997. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Done ~ HAL333 01:18, 10 May 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Done ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use 
Not done There's a hidden note in the lead explaining why this information is not in the opening sentence, per talk page consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)