Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

COVID-19 Ventilators donation

The article states the following: "In spring 2020, Musk offered to donate ventilators built by Tesla.[278] Multiple hospitals noted that the devices eventually donated were not the promised "full ventilators" but BiPAP or CPAP machines.[279][280]"

The Twitter message mentions the ventilators will be given whether they "buy them or build them" So he does not solely offered to donate ventilators build by Tesla, this should be changed as it is unclear.

About the second sentence, nowhere in the Twitter messages by Musk is specified what type of ventilators were promised, and BPAP (NOT BiPAP as the article states) and CPAP machines fall under the definition of a ventilator according to the Wikipedia article about the ventilator. The The Hill article says the BPAP and CPAP machines are not ventilators, but provides no sources for that statement. The Wikipedia article however describes the definition of a ventilator and is more trustworthy. The The Hill article cited should be removed. Even the cited Bloomberg article states that Musk said the hospitals were given the exact specifications of the machines. This means there were no "promised full ventilators" as it is nowhere stated that Musk would be giving ventilators of the invasive type. The fact that Tesla delivered BiPAP and CPAP machines is completely correct, but suggesting that another type of ventilator was promised is not proven by any of the sources and should be removed. Maybe they were expected because the need for invasive ventilators was much higher than need for non-invasive ventilators, but they were not promised.

I propose and edit to:

In spring 2020, Musk offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party.[278] Multiple hospitals noted that the devices eventually donated were ventilators of the non-invasive BPAP and CPAP type.[280] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.207.90 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect something might have been lost in the shuffle with the redrafting of this particular subsection. As I understood it, the point was to address how Musk received criticism from multiple sources for delivering noninvasive machines when the need was for invasive ones, like at https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/04/29/musk-tesla-coronavirus/ and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-17/hospitals-made-use-of-modified-tesla-donated-breathing-machines. Perhaps this would work, with existing and possible new sources omitted: "In spring 2020, Musk offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party. Multiple hospitals noted that the devices eventually donated were ventilators of the non-invasive BPAP and CPAP type, which Musk was criticized for supplying when the need was instead for more invasive and expensive machines." QRep2020 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Enough. Stop spamming this page with accusations of bad faith against other users. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here we go again. Did you all notice what wording Qrep2020 decided to once again use make it sounding as negative as possible: “Criticised”. He was “criticized for supplying...”. Elon Musk did not have to help at all with this matter, Tesla has absolutely nothing to do with this matter. He then uses resources to donate these ventilators, which then turns out not to be as useful as hoped. In WHAT WORLD (other than in lowsy tabloids) would we then word this as “criticized”? No other person or company would be “ciritcised” for trying to help out on a matter such as this, even if the help turned out not to be so useful. This is BY NO MEANS the first time that the Wikipedia editor Qrep2020 tries to make subtle negative edits in this article. I would urge all to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 - a probable COI violation for the user. We can hopefully all agree that “criticized” has no place to be used in this context. Tesla tried to help, and the help turned out not to be as useful as hoped.BoMadsen88 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC) EDIT: A nice little example to back this up is this edit that was made by Qrep2020 25th january https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1002601771. The edit-description make it sound like a nice little honest edit: "(Added a sentence to Public transit subsection as it was looking pretty slim, added another source, spacing issue.)" And yet when we take a look at the edit he writes "...a stance that has been called elitist. His comments have sparked widespread criticism from both transportation and purbaneplanning xperts." Here he also uses the word: "criticism" and "elitist" to paint him in as bad a light as possible. Many of his edits are so damn biased that it is bordering on comedy. BoMadsen88 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@83.87.207.90: Both of the articles referenced mention that the machine type is not an actual ventilator. Wikipedia itself isn't a suitable source for what is a ventilator and what is not. I do think you have a fair point about Musk's comment, and I also think this section should note that the donation wasn't entirely useless, just not as useful as expected. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Solid compromise. QRep2020 (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Business magnate

Elon musk asked for “business magnate” to be switched to “business magnet on the joe Rogan podcast” Andrewcoy28 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

See Q1 of the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" at the top of the page. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC) p.s. we probably won't be calling him a Fanny Magnet, either.

Twitter Comments on Bolivia Coup

There was a question on Archive 7 as to why Musk's comments on Twitter regarding the coup in Bolivia were not included on his Wikipedia page. User HAL333 responded as follows: 'Unless there is anything notable about the tweet, it won't be included.' I, and no doubt many other Latinx/Hispanics would argue, that stating that 'We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it', especially given the history of CIA-backed coups in Latin and South America, and given the results, is arguably more significant than calling someone a 'pedo' out of spite. Here is a Yahoo article to acquaint yourselves with the tweet. It is important to include information regarding this story on this page because Musk's opinions as a business magnate, celebrity, and wealthiest person on the planet clearly matter, and that he simply deleted the tweet without an apology or public scrutiny approaches a sort of collective, tacit congruence with his -positively regular, but to understate the matter, rash -comments. That it is not included in the world's most extensive encyclopedia, which presents itself as an information-democratizing force, further compounds that congruence and is therefore inadequate and bordering on hypocritical. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runnyevert (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can present multiple high quality reliable sources that support this, I would be perfectly happy to include this. ~ HAL333 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi I saw this thread and perhaps the title should be changed to 'alleged coup' at least, due to technicalities and to the fact that elections took place again and the party that would have been ousted won. Anyway, it seems the comment is not about whether it was a coup or not but rather about a specific tweet. Some sources besides the Yahoo article are here (Salon article, reliable?), here (web archive), here (twitter), and here (medium.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avmtk (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021 (1)

Can we correct the plural of "factory" to become "factories" in the Tesla subsection of Business career (one of the latest changes included this). Just noticed it and it is bugging me. I am new to Wikipedia / editing so i don't know if i have set up the edit request correctly. If i haven't i am sorry. JailIT (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Include Wikipedia link to the only "Microsoft" reference on the page. DR333AD (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2021 (2)

Can we change the archived source of Reference #57 to be replaced with https://archive.vn/5HT9t. The current archived source has a the paywall on. Which is not helpful. I will go through and find out which other sources have to change but dont have the time today to do so. I don't know much about archived sources in references but i presume having one which does not provide the current article is not wanted. Also I dont know much but i feel that Reference #31 should be removed. It provides no actual source apart from that it is apparently quoted in an interview. Can we add a source to this? JailIT (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we also please move the picture in the SpaceX section to be on the right hand side, like all the other pictures so far. JailIT (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to do that. ~ HAL333 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason not to change it. And I know that alone does not mean we have to change it but all the other photos are on the right. It looks better and text flows better with it on the right. Im sure many people will agree. Having it on the left makes it feel "unfinished" and that the article seems bodged together. Either have them all on the right, or we can have multiple of left and right. But one alone photo on the left just looks out of place. JailIT (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Secondly, can we add a link to the main article SpaceX under the SpaceX subheader, like all the other Business Careers headers have.JailIT (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

Change: Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in economics from the Wharton School and a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in physics. To: Bachelor of Science (BS) degree in ~physics~ from the Wharton School and a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in ~economics~. Or: Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in physics and economics from the Wharton School. (Not sure he has different bachelor degrees but instead a dual subject BA, in any case BS is in physics and BA in economics) Yuvalsteuer (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on what source? QRep2020 (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

Per the request of Elon Musk please change the words 'magnate' to 'magnet' per request from Mr. Musk. Attached you will find the URL for the interview where it was requested and a screenshot of the transcript.

The interview where the request was made: Interview with Elon Musk

The transcript: [of request] Barbinary (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No. See the FAQ at the top of the page. Kuru (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Net worth

Musk has fallen below Bezos again . . . probably not a good idea to put something so ephemeral in the article, much less the lede. Gershonmk (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ HAL333 15:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's questionable as to whether he is the richest man in the world. For example, Forbes says he isn't. Although I have no crystal ball, I think he and Bezos will be neck and neck for a while. Until reliable sources agree (maybe after SpaceX has an IPO?), we should hedge the statement. ~ HAL333 19:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Right, so I would say cite a date if you're going to say it because no one's checking and editing the page second-by-second, and change the top sentence to something that's true whether he's 0.1% behind or ahead of Bezos. Gershonmk (talk) 17:40, 15 February 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. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

1234qwer1234qwer4 It was already done, but reverted. It's being discussed at ANI. ~ HAL333 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would we be vague here in the lead regarding his net worth? We should always try and clarify when we can, and state the facts pertaining to credible sources. In this case, why would we not say something like: "A centi-billionaire, Musk is currently the second-richest person in the world according to the Forbes' Real-Time Billionaires ranking, behind Jeff Bezos."? And then provide a note saying something like: "The pendulum frequently shifts to either Musk or Bezos being the richest person in the world.", with the provided refs cited in the note. And if it changes--which I'm sure it will--then we change it. But pick a reliable source and go off that, whether it's Bloomberg or Forbes. "One of the richest people" is not encyclopedic enough for this lead. Readers want context, so let's provide context. For now I will create the note and wait on consensus to change the actual in-text wording, but I think the broader wiki community would like this far more, given it's clarification over obfuscation. Flyedit32 (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The simpler the better. I think that clarifying the situation in a note works very well. Best of both worlds. ~ HAL333 17:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a section on his wealth. Feel free to expand it. ~ HAL333 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Grimes photo

Why is this even an edit war or need to be discussed in the first place without being reverted by user Hal333? The current photo of Grimes [File:Grimes at SxSW 2012 (cropped).jpg] is blurry when enlarged, the one I replaced it with [File:Grimes 2012 (cropped).jpg] is not. End of discussion. There shouldn't have to be a dispute on this one. I do think though that there could be a broader discussion over whether or not a photo of her should even be included at all. Until it's decided that there shouldn't be a photo, I'm going to replace the blurry one with the one that is higher res. Flyedit32 (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Collaboration and assume good faith are mandatory at Wikipedia. It would be most unwise to continue an edit war after a block for edit warring. Giving advance notice of intention is not listed as an exemption at WP:3RRNO. Johnuniq (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Flyedit32 Please remove that image. ~ HAL333 23:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that image as most of her face is obscured by those large glasses. I'm willing to admit that the status quo image isn't ideal. I wish it was more in a focus, but at least it gives the reader a view of her face. ~ HAL333 23:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about this one: File:Grimes.jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grimes.jpg)? It's neither blurry nor obstructing her face. However, it is darker and was taken nearly 10 years ago. So I still think the sunglasses one is going to be our best option, if there must be a photo. After all, it is the current lead image for her own article. Flyedit32 (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• 
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3
• 4
  4
• 
  5

These are essentially all of the contenders. None of them are ideal. ~ HAL333 01:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say of these options, #4 is the best one - clear, bright and no sunglasses. However, note that it is nominated for deletion. What are your thoughts on just forgoing any photo altogether? Flyedit32 (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

No picture may be the best option. ~ HAL333 15:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid racist FAQ entries

The previous version of the FAQ for this page stated that Elon Musk is white, without providing sources, in contradiction with WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Statements on the racial or national (self-) identification of living personalities require very strong sources. If someone has a light-shaded skin, or his parents are from Europe, it doesn't mean we're allowed to call him "white" without a good source.

The latest version of the FAQ is trying to avoid this problem by stating that Musk doesn't have black ancestors. Again, without a good source.

As far as I know, there is no official (or universally accepted) definition of African American. The issue is especially controversial when applied to the people who were born in Africa and then emigrated to the US. Moreover, in the US anyone can legally self-identify as African American (and, for example, state their choice in a Census). Thus, it's the matter of self-identity, not the matter of an observable fact. For example, see the pages about Rachel Dolezal and Hypatia transracialism controversy.

Therefore, unless Musk confirms that his self-identification is (not) an African American, we should not imply in the FAQ that he is not an African American. --Thereisnous (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence of African Americans says: "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans) are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa." That seems to be the working definition here, and doesn't apply to Musk.

Also, note that WP:ETHNICRACECAT says: "This advice applies only to the main namespace (articles, including lists, disambiguation pages, navigation boxes, and templates normally used in articles)." So a talk page FAQ is not covered under those guidelines. Stonkaments (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

To prove that the definition doesn't apply to Musk, one must provide a reputable source stating that Musk doesn't have a partial ancestry from any of the black racial groups of Africa. As long as there is no such source, we should not claim such things Thereisnous (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As for WP:ETHNICRACECAT, I would suggest to apply not the letter of the guidelines, but the spirit of it: regardless of the space, don't assign race / ethnicity to people if you don't have reputable sources confirming the information Thereisnous (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with stonkaments, your viewpoint (like that of Dolezal) is a fringe one, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gershonmk (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the reality that one can self-identify as African American in the US, even in official documents (e.g. Census), regardless of the ancestry. Reality cannot be a fringe opinion Thereisnous (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself now. Which is it--a question of self-identity, or the "observable fact" of ancestry? Regardless, the burden of proof that you're asserting only applies to articles, not talk pages. Has Musk or any other reliable source claimed that he is African American? Stonkaments (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a question of self-identity, as per the arguments above. But even if you think that one somehow can *prove* that a person is African American, from your own point of view you must provide a reputable source for such proof. The burden of proof is on the people who make claims about the Musk's race in the FAQ section. If there is no such source, then we must delete such claims Thereisnous (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

"...the Musks were well off financially, especially considering their status as a white family in apartheid South Africa" [1] Stonkaments (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be nice to have a more reputable source, but it will do for now. Thereisnous (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion to rewrite the racial answer

I would suggest the following more neutral formulation (improvements are welcome):

A3: Although there is no universally accepted definition of "African American", the term usually implies a historically recent ancestry from a black racial group of Africa. Musk was born in Africa, but to a white[2] family - Thereisnous (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer is fine as written now (and was fine before, too). There is no "universally accepted definition" of any term; that doesn't mean we need to address and placate every fringe interpretation. Please see the "Other considerations" section of WP:CAT/EGRS:
People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of a category; if they do not fit, they simply should not be added to it.
Concerns about the neutral point of view status of a particular category must be weighed against the fact that not having such a category may also unacceptably advance a particular point of view. Your personal feelings should not enter into the matter... Stonkaments (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL333. Why can this user remove content without having to explain anything on the talk page?. Why does this user have privileges over the other Wikipedia users?

HAL333. Why do you reverse edits to most of the people who edit this article? Few can edit it without your consent. --JShark (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why can this user remove content without having to explain anything on the talk page? Many well-intentioned users are unable to edit this article because this user reverts most users' edits. The user can modify the article at will and other users must always use the talk page. Why does this user have privileges over the other Wikipedia users? --JShark (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This user says my edits are bold. Why are only my edits bold and the other user's edits not bold? The user has removed a lot of content from the main article without having to use the talk page. Why aren't this user's edits bold? Why are other users' edits bold? --JShark (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 is trying to get this page up to snuff so it can get a grade increase - it's what they are an expert at doing. What is this about their "consent" and going against well-intentioned users? There seems to be a disagreement about how critical content about Musk is presented on the page, except all of the content is properly cited and reflects WP:DUE. The tweet box in particular is useful here because several of the sources discuss that very tweet, which is arguably the most inaccurate one of all of the tweets from Musk regarding COVID-19. QRep2020 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I revert things to the status quo. If you make a massive change and someone reverts it, you should then discuss. You should NOT revert it. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. ~ HAL333 23:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That too. QRep2020 (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are these users the only ones who are experts on Elon Musk? Are wikipedia articles only to be edited by a few users? --JShark (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020. There is a conflict of interest in this article. In fact your page says the following phrase: Hi there. What's good? Feel free to check out my article on TSLAQ, my first investigation into "Q Groups." --JShark (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

[3] Apparently I am not the only one who has noticed the same about this user QRep2020. The users Elephanthunter and BoMadsen88 are absolutely right. Clearly the integrity of this article is not good. I am not the only one who has mistrust and doubts about the integrity of this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 --JShark (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with everything Jshark has said here. There is a clear problem with how this entire article is monitored and controlled by HAL333. And another huge problem is user Qrep2020 who has with very high likelihood breached so many of Wikipedias guidelines - NOTHERE, WP:SPA. This user is unable to make edits that are unbiased and ojbective when it comes to Tesla and Elon Musk. I would also strongly recommend taking a look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#QRep2020 This user has showed again and again that he is not able to make edits that comply with Wikipedias guidelines. It becomes so much more clear when we look at the editing history for Qrep2020: https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/QRep2020 As we can see if “narrow interest” ever applied to a user it is this wiki edtior. The articles he has most contributed to is: 1. TESLAQ, 2. Elon Musk, 3. Tesla, 4. Ken Klippenstein (a person that has had disputes with Elon Musk), 5. Plainsite (a website that has had disputes with Elon and Tesla). Should we continue? Further down at number 7 we find “List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla inc.”. If this is not proof of violation of Wikis rules then it is not possible by anyone to breach them... BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to reignite this conversation, as I am genuinely curious as to why user HAL333 has special privileges on this page. There is no edit too small or minor that they will not revert. Are they employed by wiki and that's what gives them unrestrained dictation over the article? Is that even a thing? They're threatening to get me banned again for just changing "Musk" to "him" in the lead because the name is repeated in the same two consecutive sentences and because I choose not to cow to their trivial whims and self-revert. They said that it was not an improvement. What gives them full authority over what constitutes an "improvement" anyway? Especially when there are many edits that they themselves have made where they did not utilize the talk page either, and no other user on this page chooses to go the route of hyper knee-jerk reverting. Above they said: "if you make a massive change and someone reverts it, you should then discuss. You should NOT revert it. Please see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." Mine was not a massive edit, merely a small stylistic one. And "Bold editing" says that's it's an "optional method of reaching consensus" and "not mandated by Wikipedia policy", yet, they use it as a guise of authority. So why is it not considered edit-warring whenever they consistently revert everything and anything by virtually every user? Thanks. Flyedit32 (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL is trying to get an editor to do a GA evaluation and I suspect they just do not want someone to have to retread. HAL is also already dealing with three Afd's on derived articles from this article so I would encourage everyone to simply cool down on Elon Musk minutia - it ain't going anywhere. QRep2020 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not have special privileges: I am a mere volunteer like almost everyone else. On a highly visible article (and GAN) like this, the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is curical to maintaining order. Please follow it. You have already been warned multiple times and blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. Once again, please remove that edit or I will request administrator action. ~ HAL333 22:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

92.40.192.241 (talk) 11:49, 19 February 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. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 12:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, read the FAQ. QRep2020 (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Starlink

Starlink needs it's own section right after SpaceX 181.12.78.40 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Starlink is not an individual company. It is a SpaceX project and is accordingly given an entire paragraph. ~ HAL333 21:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Polymath

Several notable sources state that Elon Musk is a polymath. It's hard to argue with that, as he is indeed an individual whose knowledge spans a substantial number of subjects (aerospace, electric cars, design, medical research, software development, music, business etc etc) . Some sources that say that he is a polymath: 1, 2, 3. I would suggest to add it to the first sentence --Thereisnous (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's due, particularly for the lede. Note that the Musk being a polymath is not the main subject of any of the presented sources. ~ HAL333 21:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of information about COVID-19 study

To monitor the prevalence of the virus among SpaceX workers nationwide, Mr. Musk and the rocket company's top medical executive worked with doctors and academic researchers to build an antibody-testing program. More than 4,000 SpaceX workers volunteered for monthly blood tests. Few businesses have regularly tested worker blood samples for antibodies.

This week the group published its findings, which suggest that a certain threshold of antibodies might provide people lasting protection against the virus. Mr. Musk is listed as a co-author of the peer-reviewed study, which appears in the journal Nature Communications.

Dr. Alter, who studies immunology and the molecular mechanisms of how antibodies fight diseases, created at the start of the year high-throughput Covid-19 antibody testing. Her work attracted investments from the hedge-fund manager Nancy Zimmerman, former Soros Fund Management CEO Mark Schwartz and his wife, Lisa Schwartz, as well as a host of philanthropies (among them the Musk Foundation) and government agencies.

In April 2020, when Covid tests were scarce, SpaceX contacted Eric Nilles, an infectious-disease expert at Harvard, and he enlisted Dr. Alter's help.

Together with SpaceX's medical director, Anil Menon, they built a testing program. SpaceX recruited workers from California to Florida who were willing to have their blood tested monthly starting in April.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21336-8.pdf -> Discrete SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers track with functional humoral stability

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-got-4-000-spacex-workers-to-join-a-covid-19-study-heres-what-he-learned-11613826001

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/elon-musk-got-4000-spacex-workers-to-join-a-covid-19-study-heres-what-he-learned

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has continued a trend of giving back with a $5 million donation to Boston researchers who aim to create a COVID-19 vaccine and diagnostic tool.

“I’ve always thought about him as a polarizing person,” said Alter. But in phone conversations, including one that lasted 50 minutes, she said, he peppered her with probing questions about the potential threat to employees. “It was completely different than the persona you see in the media,” Alter added.

Barouch agreed. He has spoken with Musk half a dozen times since August, sometimes alone and sometimes with Alter and employees of Tesla and SpaceX on the calls. Musk’s earlier public skepticism about COVID-19 never came up, Barouch said, and the entrepreneur “has always been very open to the emerging science.”

“I’ve been impressed with Elon’s desire to learn about COVID-19 vaccines and his commitment to trying to make the world a better place,” Barouch said.

As a result of the conversations, Alter’s lab has regularly tested more than 4,000 SpaceX employees for coronavirus antibodies, she said.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/19/nation/elon-musk-donates-5m-coronavirus-research-boston/

Musk has spent the last several weeks giving back to various charitable causes and research facilities to expedite small business survival and COVID-19 prevention.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has donated to Dave Portnoy’s Barstool Fund, which aims to help small businesses survive amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Barstool founder Portnoy Tweeted late on Friday night that Musk was officially donating to the fund on behalf of the Musk Foundation. “Glad to have @elonmusk and the Musk Foundation’s support,” Portnoy shared.

https://twitter.com/stoolpresidente/status/1347719727397937157

Musk appears to have done more for the science and research on the coronavirus than the people who have criticized him and called him Space Karen on social media. --JShark (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why did you post this on two separate talk pages? I see that you have already been warned recently to not spam pro-Elon/Tesla messages on talk pages, so this looks like a case of WP:ADVOCACY. As to the antibody study, I suspect it was done as an attempt to compensate for the fact that Musk refused to comply with lockdown orders for both SpaceX and Tesla in the state of California.[4] The sources mentioning the study read like promotional fluff pieces, and the study's findings are so trivial and vague–"a certain threshold of antibodies might provide people lasting protection against the virus"–that I don't think it warrants mention in the article. Stonkaments (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I second Stonkaments. And please, be concise. These massive posts are tiresome. ~ HAL333 23:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

There are also 30 co-authors on that paper, I would not call it Musk's study. QRep2020 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments It is not spam. That information should be placed in both articles. That information is not trivial. A tweet is more trivial. Besides you are assuming things about Musk's behavior, you cannot assure that he is promoting something. A peer-reviewed scientific article is always good information. --JShark (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments One person's actions are worth more than a tweet. And Musk has shown with actions that he has contributed to science (donations and scientific studies). Many of Musk's critics have not even donated anything to scientific researchers. --JShark (talk) 01:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020 In most scientific studies there are more than 10 researchers and all the authors of a scientific article have contributed (Science is made with researchers from all over the world and with the participation of many laboratories and universities). --JShark (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

QRep2020 Many of the vaccines were created in collaboration with more than 30 researchers. This does not mean that the authors and creators of these vaccines have contributed less to the development of vaccines (vaccines and scientific studies are done with the collaboration and research of many people). --JShark (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments More than 4,000 SpaceX workers volunteered for monthly blood tests. Few businesses have regularly tested worker blood samples for antibodies. The sample is large enough to be a quality scientific article. This article is peer reviewed. There are several highly recognized scientists in the article (Dan Barouch -> Barouch's laboratory collaborated with Johnson and Johnson to develop a non-replicating adenovirus COVID-19 vaccine candidate that entered clinical trials in July 2020 and is one of the five major vaccine efforts supported by the US government.). --JShark (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments https://cvvr.hms.harvard.edu/lab-member/dan-h-barouch-mdphd/ Dan H. Barouch, M.D., Ph.D. Principal Investigator, Barouch Laboratory, William Bosworth Castle Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School Director, Center for Virology and Vaccine Research, BIDMC Member, Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard. --JShark (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Stonkaments QRep2020 HAL333 If you cannot accept when a person has helped and collaborated in science then it is your problem because science recognizes those contributions (that scientific study and Musk's donations will always be considered by the scientific community no matter what you think of Elon Musk). --JShark (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of how complex scientific enterprises can be. My point is Musk was not the lead scientist or head researcher, which I think everyone will agree. If anywhere, it belongs on SpaceX, not Elon Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What matters in relation to the article on Elon Musk is that he has been cited as a coauthor on a peer-reviewed paper in a notable scientific journal, as reported by secondary sources. Various editors' personal opinions on what lies behind this are irrelevant. Lklundin (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I should note that, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Fox News' science/politics coverage isn't exactly reliable. ~ HAL333 16:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if that is your only concern then then we don't have a problem. The primary source (i.e. the scientific paper) self-evidently exists, so there is no doubt that in this case the cited secondary source does in fact accurately report on the primary source. Further, the cited secondary source is simply useful for not being behind a subscription wall but is itself just copying a source that is generally deemed as WP:RS, namely the already above mentioned source from Wall Street Journal: [5]. One notes that the two sources cite the same journalist, so the cited source is just bringing content from WSJ (but without the subscription wall). The best solution would be to re-introduce the text I introduced, while in the source citation changing the field 'website' to 'via' and then adding a new field website/work = Wall Street Journal. Lklundin (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to having one sentence covering this. Draft one for me. ~ HAL333 18:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Really think it should go on SpaceX instead, but second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For any WP:BIO it is notable when its subject is credited as (co)author of a peer-reviewed scientific article, especially when it is the first time as appears to be the case here. Not less so when the subject does not actually hold an academic degree. In this case a secondary WP:RS reported on this scientific contribution, so the mention should clearly go beyond just listing the paper. But a single sentence seems kind of arbitrary. Musk has shown enough interest in COVID-19 that we have a whole section on that, consisting of brief paragraphs. So an actual scientific paper on this topic - with notable coauthors from highly regarded research institutions such as MIT - and mentioned in a WP:RS - certainly warrants also a brief paragraph. Such as the one I already contributed. Lklundin (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't arbitrary. Some of the sentences about Musk & COVID-19 have several reliable secondary sources supporting them. They are given due weight because they received significant and lasting coverage in reliable publications. An entire paragraph about something tangential to Musk with limited coverage in reliable secondsary sources is entirely undue. ~ HAL333 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Do you have any evidence to support your view that Musk is "tangential" in this piece? The two sentences @Lklundin wrote seem pretty WP:DUE given the coverage of Musk's contributions to the study by WSJ, Fox Business, Business Insider, NYPOST, The Week Magazine, Harvard Medical School, Business Standard, Boston Globe, Boston Business Journal, ... the list goes on. I'm going to restore his content since it appears that you just made a mistake based on false assumptions. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Elephanthunter Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, in the case of many of those sources you just listed, such as Fox, Business Insider, and the New York Post, a consensus has found them to be unreliable (in the case of Business Insider, there is no consensus either way). Beyond your assumption of bad faith ("you just made a mistake based on false assumptions"), your decision to add the section back in was not constructive. The addition even lacked a reliable secondary source and there was not a clear consensus to add the content to begin with. As I have already stated, I support adding a sentence about this to the article (others do not) but we must discuss this contested issue first. I think the WSJ source would be our best bet. Here is my proposed addition:

In 2020, Musk organized an anti-body testing program of over 4,000 SpaceX workers; the study, on which Musk was a co-author, was published in Nature the following year.

I hope that this serves as a fair compromise between no addition and an entire paragraph. If you have any thoughts or revision suggestions please tell me. Thanks! ~ HAL333 22:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I'm not sure you understand what bad faith means. You should take a moment to review WP:AGF, and specifically WP:AOBF. Also, please do not say there is consensus if there is not, such as with Business Insider or Fox News. I'm not personally the biggest fan of Fox News, but there is no consensus that the Fox News reporting for the topic of science is unreliable. So statement that in the case of many of those sources you just listed [...] a consensus has found them unreliable is false. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Any thoughts about the addition? ~ HAL333 04:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Any policy-based reasons for edit warring over a sentence or two? You keep shifting your reasoning and it is starting to look like WP:STONEWALLING. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to fight about this. Let's discuss and build a consensus about this material. Is my proposed addition okay? ~ HAL333 04:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I made some minor changes, but my main suggestion is to briefly summarize the results of the study. Without the study results, it's a bit of a cliffhanger. In 2020, Musk organized an antibody testing program with over 4,000 participants from SpaceX. The resulting 2021 study (published in the scientific journal Nature) listed Musk as a co-author, and concluded that a certain level of antibodies may provide people with lasting protection against COVID-19. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

How about: In 2020, Musk organized an antibody testing program of over 4,000 SpaceX workers; the study, which listed Musk as a co-author, was published in Nature the following year and concluded that a certain level of antibodies may provide lasting protection against COVID-19. Lklundin, Stonkaments, JShark, QRep2020, any input/preference? ~ HAL333 11:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion compacting the notable information into a single sentence hurts the readability. More importantly, the information is relevant for an already existing section on the topic of COVID-19, so a few words from the source on the actual topic seems appropriate. So I am in favour of the above suggestion from Elephanthunter. Lastly, it seems to be helpful to repeat that the appearance of this story in Fox Business is not a WP:RS problem, since this appearance is simply a (non-subscription-walled) copy of the story from Wall Street Journal, crediting the WSJ-journalist. Lklundin (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

"In 2020, Musk organized an antibody testing program of over 4,000 SpaceX workers and later its findings were published in Nature; Musk is listed as a co-author." I do not think the conclusion adds to Elon Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I agree with @Lklundin that the grammar is awkward, but you didn't contest this for the grammar. You contested it because you falsely believed Fox News was not appropriate for a BLP. In any case, I'm fine with WSJ. It sounds like we have an agreement that the general concept should stay. I'm not sure what you are attempting to modify or what precedent you are attempting to set with your grammatical changes. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors to please be civil, and focus on the content rather than other editors. HAL333 has shown himself to be a very valuable contributor, and always willing to collaborate and compromise, so any accusations of bad faith are out of line.

After reviewing the WSJ article, I agree with QRep2020's earlier point—mention of this study belongs in SpaceX, not Elon Musk. Notice how the article describes Musk's rather tenuous involvement in the research: "Mr. Musk...took a personal interest in the research and had the scientists brief him and top SpaceX executives during the pandemic on how antibodies and vaccines work." SpaceX's medical director, on the other hand, played an active role: "In April 2020, when Covid tests were scarce, SpaceX contacted Eric Nilles, an infectious-disease expert at Harvard, and he enlisted Dr. Alter’s help. Together with SpaceX’s medical director, Anil Menon, they built a testing program."

Simply taking a "personal interest" in the research—and learning about how antibodies and vaccines work—is not a noteworthy contribution worthy of inclusion in the article. Musk didn't "organize" the testing program at all. It appears the headline was simply clickbait, capitalizing on the fact that Musk is much more recognizable than anyone else in the story. Stonkaments (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

We really should not try to speculate on the individual contributions of each of the co-authors of the paper. The only thing we can say objectively, is that they all agreed that they should all be credited as co-authors. That there is additionally a WP:SECONDARY source to highlight Musk in relation to the paper only strengthens the case for mentioning it here - along with the other COVID-19 related information we have on him. Lklundin (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not speculating though; I'm taking the information directly from the reliable secondary source. Musk didn't play any role in the research other than taking a "personal interest" in it. Being listed as a co-author is irrelevant. Stonkaments (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Your statements concerning Musk, which I am not going to repeat, constitute WP:OR and speculation in a WP:BLP. By the time Lklundin replied, I had already contacted the Oversight committee to redact one particularly egregious claim of yours. You can not make unsourced allegations regarding a living person, even on a talk page. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If the argument from Stonkaments is not speculation and they indeed have read the source, then they are effectively Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, i.e. misrepresenting the source by ignoring the notable and already above-noted content from the source: "Mr. Musk and the rocket company's top medical executive worked with doctors and academic researchers to build an antibody-testing program". Let's please all try to remain constructive and let's get back to whether the sentence on Musk and the article should also include the study's main conclusion that was noted in the secondary source. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

So, let's enumerate the facts:

* Notable sources say that Musk is a co-author of the paper (and it's trivial to check if he's indeed a co-author, as the paper is publicly accessible)

* The fact itself is notable, as major newspapers (e.g. WSJ) report on it

* The journal where the paper was published in one of the most reputable scientific journals in the world (Nature Communications)

* The journals of such level have strict guidelines, including authorship guidelines

* Therefore, there can be no doubt about the fact that Musk is a co-author of the paper, and that the fact should be included to the article

* The short section that I added (diff) faithfully represents the notable sources.

* Why exactly was it removed? Thereisnous (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As you can see, we are discussing it. That is why I removed the subsection. QRep2020 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a Wikipedia rule that forbids adding new information to an article until some discussion on the talk page has ended? Thereisnous (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Everyone else in this discussion seems happy to abide by Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle, why should that change? QRep2020 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Wait, stop! This edit removed the proposed information for a clearly incorrect reason. Lklundin (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As per the cited rule, Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. Was my edit not an improvement? Was it impossible to fix it by refinement? Was it necessary to revert? Also please notice the absence of "we are still discussing something on the talk page" from the listed good reasons to revert Thereisnous (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Please calm down. It is not important whether what the article contains just now, what is important is that we reach agreement on the exact wording. Please join this discussion - probably by first reading the above discussion. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PS. It is of no consequence to the discussion, but the journal Nature Communications is different from Nature (journal). Lklundin (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

To get back on track, we have Elephanthunter who via this edit suggested this wording: In 2020, Musk organized an antibody testing program with over 4,000 participants from SpaceX. The resulting 2021 study (published in the scientific journal Nature) listed Musk as a co-author, and concluded that a certain level of antibodies may provide people with lasting protection against COVID-19.

- and then we had a some suggestions to compact that into a single sentence and alternatively to leave out the conclusion from the study (as it was mentioned in the cited secondary source).

Could we try to start again from here? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a decent starting point. The only suggestion I have is to replace "participants" with "volunteers". Thereisnous (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they were indeed volunteers. Also, since we can quote a WP:PRIMARY "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" we can actually replace "over 4,000 participants" with "4,300 volunteers" - and quote also the primary source. It is notable that Musk is a co-author, so also for that reason the primary source belongs here. Lklundin (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a few things off. The comma is not needed before "and", I'm not a fan of the use of parantheses, and "people with" is redundant. And yes, "4,300" is preferable. The addition is, however, a little lengthy. Please look at the current COVID-19 section. There are some single sentences that have several supporting sources (entirely due). Why should something with only one high-quality secondary RS be longer? ~ HAL333 21:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Also, the journal name is incorrect. How about we go back to what we last had in the article: In February 2021 findings of an antibody-testing program that Musk and SpaceX medical executives worked with doctors and academic researchers to create were published in Nature Communications with Musk listed as a co-author. ? This actually leaves out the 4300 SpaceX volunteers, but as has already been pointed out, this is more relevant on the SpaceX page. And it is a single sentence. Lklundin (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support Remove "February", add a comma after "2021", and make "SpaceX medical executives" singular per the article. Beyond that, I strongly support this version. It would be a good compromise between adding nothing and adding an entire paragraph. More detailed versions can be added to SpaceX and Views of Elon Musk. ~ HAL333 22:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Second. (Second second??) QRep2020 (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Those additional changes would be OK for me. Lklundin (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Support It needs a couple more sentences to fit into the Elon Musk article, but that can be added later using the normal editing process. For now we should go with this as the lowest common denominator. I also am fine with the minor changes suggested by HAL333 above. --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

After days of active discussion a consensus has been reached, followed by a day of no dissent. In the interest of reaching a constructive conclusion to this lengthy discussion, I have gone ahead and added the agreed to content to the main page:

In 2021, findings of an antibody-testing program that Musk and a SpaceX medical executive worked with doctors and academic researchers to create were published in Nature Communications with Musk listed as a co-author.

Since Wikipedia remains a work in progress - and given the reservations the above support - I suggest that subsequent discussion of the currently agreed to content is started in its own thread, when the time for that comes. Lklundin (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"investor" in lead

What do we think about adding "investor" to the lead sentence? Hal333 (obviously) reverted this but said that it had already been discussed in length; however, I don't see that it has been discussed much since August 2020 (I could be overlooking though), with this as the last note I saw: "The occupation "investor" has been already deleted . It's crucial cause although he does invest less frequently , relatively , he has key investments in companies concerned with his own companies . Like battery and transistor makers. I am gonna dig up and come back with some of these companies in a few moments to give everyone proofs , but please discuss in the meantime whether it should be added back Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)."... I don't see that as much of a reason not to describe him as an investor in the lead. Most "investors" only invest in things they care about, that are in some way relevant to them. Isn't investing one of the most prominent things Musk is known for in the public eye? Isn't that field much of what he discusses in the public sphere, much of what he tweets about, too? I mean, in the next sentence it even says that he was an "early investor" in Tesla; and I view that similarly to how we list him as an "industrial designer", and in the next sentence the "chief designer of SpaceX". How does this differ so much from us listing him as an "investor" in the lead while also stating him as an "early investor" in Tesla? Thanks for the input. Flyedit32 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

He has also started investing in crypto since then. "Investor" had been in the lede for some time but then Musk himself complained about it: https://observer.com/2019/12/tesla-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-tweets-wikipedia-page-error/. I think it should eventually go back in. QRep2020 (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not opposed to its inclusion. However, this was discussed extensively by others (we may need to ping them) and your edit messed up the notice and citation for the "engineer" bit. ~ HAL333 02:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Flyedit32: As you pointed out, his role as an investor is covered in the very next sentence. That's arguably adequate. We could add it, but the lead sentence is borderline excessive at the moment with descriptors, some of them rather fringe. If we start describing Musk as an investor, then in my opinion, something else would need to go. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: if reliable secondary sources describe Musk as an investor, then a mention can go in the lead. The prominence given to that term would be proportional (WP:DUE) to the prominence given by secondary sources. Given that Musk's activities extend from Mars to holes in the ground, I wouldn't have thought his role as an investor was significant. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Inclusion of information about Musk's study published in Nature Communications. Information about Musk's donations to vaccine researchers. Musk has spent the last several weeks giving back to various charitable causes and research facilities to expedite small business survival and COVID-19 prevention. Sources".

Johnuniq, doesn't the fact that he is the second (recently the first) richest person in the entire world with a near $200 billion net worth make it significant enough? Of course his choices and role as an investor are in large part responsible for him becoming that wealthy. That to me is reason enough to include "investor" in the lead, in addition to what already exists. Flyedit32 (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why say it twice? And why do you keep initiating massive debates about the most trivial and minute aspects of this article? Why not put your energy into researching Musk and improving this article in a tangible and substantive way that will actually improve the experience of an inquisitive reader? Are you here to build an encyclopedia or not? ~ HAL333 22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 why repeat 'designer' twice then? Most lead sentences of prominent figures like this include words that are used again somewhere further down in the lead section, or else they wouldn't be considered a 'main idea' in the first place. Also, why spend energy attempting to build something that would just end up being habitually, blindly and unilaterally reverted by you anyway? All the things I try and add that you deem trivial, you spend equal parts time and energy reverting (or attempting to revert) them or attempting to get me blocked. See Psychological projection. Flyedit32 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Judging by your block log, it wasn't just an attempt... ~ HAL333 00:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. You're fine with repetitive things in the lede, yet I remember your insistence about changing "Musk" to "him" (One of your many edits which I've just given up on and let slide.) in the lede because it was "repetitive". Why have clarity when you can have redundancy, right? And I seem to have missed your impressive contributions to articles beyond the reach of my "blind" reverts to the status-quo. ~ HAL333 00:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A false equivalence. Repeating the last name in consecutive sentences is not the same thing as someone being an investor or designer and thus mentioning the things they've invested in or designed, or listing their title at a company, which might include the word as well. And yes, I do enjoy the smaller, more stylistic or aesthetic edits on wiki, and tend to engage in those more than large, substantial changes. Kind of like how your 'job' on here is to revert everyone or try (and sometimes succeed) to get users blocked. Such a noble, honorable and courageous job. Flyedit32 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Both of you need to dial it back. Comment on content, not each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Flyedit32 With the observation that Musk is (close to being) the richest person in the World, I think it is important to carefully consider what an investor is. Others can possibly come with a more precise definition, but an investor is basically someone who allocates capital in a company with the expectation of a return. However, a special kind of investor is someone who does that - and then also takes a managing role in the company where they invested that money. This sub-category of investor is also investing their own time in the company and become directly responsible for its success. Most people who start a business fall in this category, and while they are strictly speaking investors (in their own company) one would not characterize them as such, but rather as someone who has started a business. Compare with Jeff Bezos who I believe is currently the World's richest person - due to his ownership of Amazon, a company that he himself created. Since he built that company himself, it would be misleading to describe him as an investor. With this in mind, I would argue that Musk is not an investor when it comes to the companies in which he is directly involved as CEO (or similar), regardless of how rich his ownership of these companies have made him. So if we want to characterize Musk as an investor, we would need to point to other investments of his - and they would have to be a relatively significant fraction of his net worth for them to qualify him as an investor - as opposed to someone who has simply created (or help create) valuable companies. Lklundin (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If what Musk is belongs to a "sub-category" of investor - I think you're describing an activist investor - then how is he not also an investor simpliciter?

Here is a nice article that explains how he is an investor and how his wealth is tied to investing: https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/here-are-18-things-elon-musk-has-invested-in-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/slidelist/49067464.cms QRep2020 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Lklundin Thanks for the info! But on that note, isn't Jeff Bezos described as an investor in his lead? Flyedit32 (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The page on Jeff Bezos page does not provide a directly attributable source for his description as investor, so I am unsure how that helps us. Bezos could for example be an investor in something he does not manage himself, e.g. a half dozen startups. Lklundin (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional pic in 'Politics' sub-section of 'Views'

Why is Hal333 so against putting an additional photo in the Politics sub-section of 'Views'? Musk's political views are very broad and an image with Pence shouldn't be the only visual representation of those views - it wouldn't be an accurate or balanced portrayal. Flyedit32 (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

There is not enough room for two images in that subsection: on a computer screen, or even a tablet for that matter, the two images spill over to the next section and push down later images/text boxes. Also, please do not forget to add alt text for screen readers. ~ HAL333 00:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I tried to get it to work but do so agree. QRep2020 (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Flyedit32 Please remove that image. We are still discussing it and there was no consensus to make that addition. As you have already been blocked for doing this, the edit was unwise. ~ HAL333 18:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 what are you talking about? The above discussion that I started states sizing/formatting as the main issue, I took that information and used a multi-image formatting edit as a solution, along with alt text for screen readers. If there is anything more to discuss then please do so, and if a different conclusion is reached by the community, then feel free to change my edit based on other users' advice. Flyedit32 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only is Musk barely visible in the image (which harms usability for those with limited sight), but the two images still push the later textbox down. One image of Musk with a politican is sufficient. Your argument that we must have an image of Musk with politicians of both parties is flawed. Why only show images of Musk with American politicians? Why only show Musk with western leaders or leaders of liberal democracies? Is that still an "unbalanced portrayal"? Furthermore, as there was no consensus to have a second image, please remove the unconstructive addition. (I don't want to have to go to ANI again.) Let's discuss it first. I am amenable to replacing the Pence image, but there just isn't room for two. ~ HAL333 19:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, I tried to add the Modi image, but that was taken down, and the Obama one (as did other users), which was taken down as well. So which photo would have broad censuses amongst the group (not just yourself)? I, too, am amenable on the issue but get the sense that there's a wider concern amongst those who edit this page that you've hijacked it and deemed yourself the quasi-administrator of its content (constantly wielding the threat of blocking doesn't help much too). You're absolutely right though that this should be a collective discussion, and agreement. Flyedit32 (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your doing that, Flyedit32. Here are some of the suitable files for the Politics section:

• Musk with the Chinese
• 
  A much higher quality image of Musk and Obama
• 
  Musk with military
• 
  Musk with Irish PM

Any preference? ~ HAL333 21:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Any of these would be fine in my opinion. But that's partly why I feel that a multi-image in some format is the best route, because if we only include just one of the above images, then my initial argument still stands - that no matter what, a picture of Musk with any one politician is probably not reflective enough of his broad/independent political views to be included. What do we think of either finding two images for a horizontal multi-image, or just not having any image at all here (personally not a big fan of the latter option). I would have advocated for the video, but the majority of it is in what I assume to be Mandarin (with no subs), and Musk does not speak till near the end. Flyedit32 (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure a horizontal multi-image would work great here. But, I am fine with any of the above, or the Pence image. Interested to see what other editors think. ~ HAL333 22:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not know how important "mobile-friendliness" is from a Wikipedia policy perspective, but a horizontal multi-image approach probably would cause some weird alignments on phones and tablets. QRep2020 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

QRep is right. There may be some accessibility issues if we did that. ~ HAL333 20:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Lean Obama This image has the best composition imo. ~ HAL333 20:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Awards and honors link

Is it really necessary to have that link at the bottom when it is already prominently linked in the Elon Musk series template? Why not do that for all of the other links as well? ~ HAL333 18:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, why not treat this section exactly the way all other sections here with main-article tags are treated? Look at the way Views, Philanthropy, In Popular Culture and all of his various ventures are treated - there is a main article tag, and a brief yet broad overview of the topic. Why is Awards and honors the only one that is treated any differently? The greater conversation may then be: what would a terse and balanced summary of his vast Recognition look like in this article? Flyedit32 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a summary. ~ HAL333 23:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Elon Musk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Initial comments

Was checking out your profile (after seeing your FA nom of Huey Long, ofc) and noticed you had nominated this for GA. I'll have a full review in the next few days. Initial impressions are good (except for the merge requests, though that looks like it'll be resolved soon and isn't an issue with the current article really). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

When do you expect to initiate the review proper? Thank you for volunteering. QRep2020 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

List (initial impressions)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Note: this is not the full review, this is a summary after reading the article fully for the first time.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some minor grammar issues, will address later in the full review. Structure is OK. Generally an "in popular culture" section would be inappropriate, but in this case it's reasonable, so, yay!

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All of this looks good from my first impressions.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not seeing issues here.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Looks neutral enough, which is impressive given his numerous controversies.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The merges into the page makes it appear unstable, I don't feel right passing this while those are unresolved. Also, the talkpage looks pretty contentious. Not instantly failing, but this is a concern.

Yeah, the talk page has given me plenty of headaches... ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like these were taken care of. Thanks, HAL! QRep2020 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, history indicates that the Talk page will always be a contentious space. There are regular suggestions to include fanciful or even verifiably incorrect statements that need to be "nipped in the bud", not to mention the venerating remarks that appear powered by the fan fervor that pervades anything related to Musk. QRep2020 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a Sisyphean task. ~ HAL333 18:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Elon Musk Royal Society (crop1).jpg is good (free with OTRS); File:Elon Musk 2015.jpg is good (from Flickr, doesn't appear to be license laundering); File:PBHS-facade.jpg looks fine; File:SpaceX CEO Elon Musk visits N&NC and AFSPC (190416-F-ZZ999-006) (cropped).jpg is clearly public domain and says so at the source; File:Elon Musk, Tesla Factory, Fremont (CA, USA) (8765031426).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Pair of 2009 SolarCity Dodge Sprinters.JPG is ok (has a weird license note but whatever); File:Elon Musk and the Neuralink Future.jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:Elon Musk Accelerates the Boring (45716125474).jpg is good (Flickr, not license laundering); File:4547274 Thai rescue workers positioning a pipe for the pumping operation in the Tham Luang cave.jpg is good (source identifies file as work of US govt employee); File:Vice President Pence at the Kennedy Space Center (49946170631).jpg is good (posted by US govt to Flickr); and File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg is fine though its use is iffy.

   All the files have appropriate licenses, though I strongly question the use of File:CRS-9 (28358955546).jpg as a stand-in for Musk's profile picture for a Tweet. A cropped version, either of this or of his face, would be preferable (I mean, his avatar when tweeting would be ideal, but that might not be properly licensed, and wouldn't be appropriate NFCC).

Done. ~ HAL333 20:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall this article is in decent shape and has a lot going for it. I'll give the full review over the coming few days though you may want to fix up some minor things and try to resolve the merges and disputes you have with editors on the talkpage - the article should be relatively stable to pass as a GA. I could wait for you to resolve those issues, if necessary, to continue reviewing. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Elliot321, I was able to wrap up the merge discussions. ~ HAL333 17:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 thanks, I'll continue with the full review (your ping failed as my username changed and I forgot to check back here until now - sorry!) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries! =) ~ HAL333 18:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

• I will volunteer in fixing grammatical issues. Wretchskull (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

By section

Early life

Childhood and family

• Footnote 17 (bundling other footnotes) is a weird citation style and so is having three refs on the statement (is "Musk has a younger brother, Kimbal (born 1972), and a younger sister, Tosca (born 1974)." really that controversial?)

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see a source connecting Joshua Haldeman to Musk, though it looks like some exist in Maye Musk.

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Source claims "Elon mostly lived with his father, who says he owned thoroughbred horses, a yacht, several houses and a Cessna. One of their homes was in Waterkloof, a leafy suburb of Pretoria that was popular with foreign diplomats." - which is not the same as "Musk lived mostly with his father in the suburbs of Pretoria" imo - several homes, and only one specified to be in the Pretoria suburbs.

 Done Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 21 (Rolling Stone) is unnecessarily repeated.

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Education

• Everything looks good here (AGF on the offline source).

I'll get to the next section tomorrow. So far no major issues. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Business career

(evidently, I'm bad at timeliness, sorry) Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Sometimes I'll forget to give follow-up comments at featured lists for months... ~ HAL333 02:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Zip2

• Everything here is OK, but Musk brothers obtained contracts with The New York Times and the Chicago Tribune, and persuaded the board of directors to abandon plans for a merger with CitySearch. Musk's attempts to become CEO were thwarted by the board. confuses me. Wasn't he a founder? The organization of this company is unclear.

 Done Clarified. Musk was a founder but never CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

X.com and PayPal

• Perhaps Bill Harris should be a redlink?

Done. ~ HAL333 02:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Does Musk remained on the board and served as an advisor really need to be in a separate footnote? the board ousted Musk and replaced him with Thiel in September 2000, though Musk remained on the board and served as an advisor would seem to work.

I feel like that interrupts the flow. ~ HAL333 02:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Everything else is OK.

SpaceX

First paragraph

• Mars Oasis just redirects to SpaceX § History, so I'm not sure how useful of a link that is in this case.

Done. ~ HAL333 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Elon Musk's Space Dream Almost Killed Tesla" doesn't mention that they're Dnepr missiles.

Removed. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also, the ref is unnecessarily duplicated with no intermediate refs.

Done. ~ HAL333 21:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is a primary source really necessary? The NYT source looks sufficient.

Done. ~ HAL333 21:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph

• The hashtag in "#dearMoon project" is probably unnecessary.

Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• "Two years later, SpaceX launched its first manned flight" I would just say "in 2020"

Done. ~ HAL333 02:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Third paragraph

• I don't see a source for development starting in 2015, from skimming the NYT and Space.com refs.

Reuters source added. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• including nearly $900 million in Federal Communications Commission subsidies seems ambiguous, maybe phrase it like which the US federal government has covered $900 million with including nearly $900 million in Federal Communications Commission subsidies (that's not a great phrasing, but I think you get my point - I initially assumed that SpaceX had to pay subsidies, not that they received them.

Tried but it seemed awkward. Made note instead. ~ HAL333 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Tesla

First paragraph

• Is the self-published source "The Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (just between you and me)" necessary? There are numerous other refs on the same claim.

Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps Roadster should be linked to a relevant article?

Done. ~ HAL333 21:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles, and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World has an article (Quirky (book)) and should probably cite an individual page.
• No apparent ref for Musk assumed leadership of the company as CEO and product architect in 2008, positions he still holds today.

Done. Updated and added citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps try to update the "as of 2019", though I can understand if that wouldn't be possible.

Second paragraph

• Not sure if CleanTechnica is a reliable source, and it has a tag - possibly ask at WP:RSP? Of course, finding a better source would work too.

@Elliot321: Someone replaced it with Car and Driver, though I am not too certain if it is reliable or not. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• No ref for Tesla began delivery of its four-door Model S sedan in 2012.

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

SEC lawsuit

• Maybe "at a price of $420 a share, an alleged reference to marijuana" should be in a footnote? Feels more footnote-worthy (and ref 114 currently looks really awkward).

Totally agree. ~ HAL333 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

SolarCity

• The first CNET ref is a deadlink and should be marked as such.

Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Is the self-published SolarCity ref needed?

Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Same thing with CleanTechnica as above.

Done. ~ HAL333 17:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Did Panasonic stop working with SolarCity, or did the factory close altogether? This is unclear.

Done. Panasonic pulled its workers. 21:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Is Musk still dealing with this lawsuit?

Yes. COVID-19 has delayed a lot of the suits that I've been paying attention to over the last few years. ~ HAL333 02:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Neuralink

• with the eventual purpose of helping human beings merge with software and keep pace with advancements in artificial intelligence. These enhancements could improve memory or allow for more direct interfacing with computing devices. is pretty much directly copied from the Verge ref.

Fixed. What do you think now? Wretchskull (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: no longer looks like a copyvio but the phrasing feels a bit clunky. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Reworded it and broke it down from 2 to 3 sentences. What do you think now? Rewording something about a narrow subject is rather difficult so tell me if you are still unsatisfied. Wretchskull (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: looks ok. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The Boring Company

• "Elon Musk: 'Without tunnels, we will all be in traffic hell forever'" is a bad ref for In 2016, Musk founded The Boring Company (TBC) to construct tunnels - from the article: "No word on if “The Boring Company” is a real thing (or part of SpaceX of Tesla) or not".

Done. Added new citation. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Guardian and Bloomberg refs on "In early 2017, they began discussions with regulatory bodies and initiated construction of a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide, 50-foot (15 m) long, and 15-foot (4.6 m) deep "test trench" on the premises of SpaceX's offices as it required no permits" seem unnecessary.

Done. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Link "flamethrower"? Also, why is it in quotes? These are real things.

Linked. ~ HAL333 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In the usual "jocularity" that pervades much of what Musk is involved with, the product is actually named Not-A-Flamethrower: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/10/17445838/boring-company-flamethrower-elon-musk-tweets-party QRep2020 (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: that doesn't mean it isn't a flamethrower, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree. Will remove quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• No need for the SPS on this statement.

@HAL333: (ping) I've done more of the review. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we've covered this round now? QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: yeah, I'll continue with the next sections soon (feel free to ping me btw, easier than remembering to check back here and my watchlist is kinda messy). Elli (talk | contribs) 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Other efforts

Hyperloop

• in around 2011? This whole sentence is clunky.

Done. ~ HAL333 21:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Musk unveiled the concept which he dubbed the Hyperloop - should there be a comma here? (this has an ambiguous meaning without one, and I feel like the one intended - discussing the concept in the previous sentence - requires one)

That is correct; done. Wretchskull (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The ABC news ref on The alpha design for the system was published in a whitepaper posted to the Tesla and SpaceX blogs. doesn't back up the content, and the other two are primary sources - this isn't ideal (though if another ref can't be found, removing the ABC one work)

@Elli: I replaced it with a secondary journal. I have one problem though: page one in the source, chapter "II. Hyperloop", only partially supports the article text. The rest of the source stating that it was included in Musk's blog is only shown in the corresponding reference that the source text supports the statement with (reference [4] in the source). Should page 1 and the references-page be included in the article ref or should a chapter syntax be used in the ref? I've tried the latter but it doesn't work because of an error I can't seem to fix. Wretchskull (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: this looks fine, though it only supports it being published to the Tesla blog - not SpaceX. I'd just remove "and SpaceX" and be done with it. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: I'd love to do that, but the problem is that I see SpaceX get mentioned many times in many reliable sources. However, these never tell anything in-depth about the competition and mostly mention winners. I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The document scoped out the technology and outlined a notional route where such a transport system could be built between the Greater Los Angeles Area and the San Francisco Bay Area[155] at an estimated total cost of $6 billion.[156] the primary source [156] isn't needed here. The ref in the middle of the sentence includes the $6 billion cost

Done. Wretchskull (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The proposal, if technologically feasible at the costs he has cited, would make Hyperloop travel cheaper than any other mode of transport for such long distances.[157] the source says that "supporters claim" this, not that it's necessarily true. It's probably due weight to mention it, but it doesn't look like zdnet did an independent analysis.
• In June 2015, Musk announced a design competition for students and others to build Hyperloop pods to operate on a SpaceX-sponsored mile-long track in a 2015–2017 Hyperloop pod competition. no reference for this sentence (the one in the next sentence doesn't verify it)

OpenAI

• Everything here looks fine.

Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case

• Impressively, everything here looks fine. also lmfao I didn't realize what a mess that was

The whole fiasco deserves its own subarticle, but a consensus decided to merge. Oh well. ~ HAL333 21:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh, it should have its own article! Elli (talk | contribs) 02:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

2018 Joe Rogan podcast appearance

• No reference for the quote "Almost never. I know a lot of people like weed and that's fine, but I don't find that is very good for productivity... not for me.".

Removed. He is already quoted defending himself later. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Link 60 Minutes?

Done. ~ HAL333 21:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Music ventures

• Primary source on On March 30, 2019, Musk released a rap track, "RIP Harambe", on SoundCloud under the name "Emo G Records".[197] is unnecessary.

Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Include some details about Harambe? The sources linked mention the incident, so the article should too - and link to Killing of Harambe, of course.

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• On January 30, 2020, Musk released an EDM track, "Don't Doubt Ur Vibe", featuring his own lyrics and vocals.[200] this ref is kinda redundant, but not really a big deal.

Donations and non-profits

• Link Big Green (non-profit company)?

Done. ~ HAL333 21:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• The foundation has been criticized for the relatively small amount of wealth donated. no reference on this.

Done. Added reference. QRep2020 (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: here's some more to work on. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli:, I think we are up to date now. QRep2020 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: gotcha, I'll continue today/tomorrow (looking good so far!) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: a kindly reminder. QRep2020 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@QRep2020: thanks. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Wealth

• Image looks to be appropriately licensed - perhaps the graph extension could be used instead, but it's fine.
• First paragraph is fine, both sources look OK.
• I don't see how At the start of 2020, Musk was the 35th richest person in the world, with a net worth of $27 billion. is verified - the source writes Musk started 2020 worth about $27 billion, and was barely in the top 50 richest people. but I don't see more specificity there.
• The rest of the second paragraph is appropriately sourced.
• The deal stipulated that Musk only receive the compensation if Tesla reached certain market values. is grammatically incorrect ("receive" should be "receives")
• and has been described in one lawsuit as "excessive" uh, what? Why were they sued? I'd write another sentence or two about this somewhere.

Removed instead. It didn't really add much. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps link "cash poor" to wikt:cash poor?
• Most of his equity is in Tesla and SpaceX,[222] neither of which pay dividends.[223][224] this is kinda redundant to the above paragraph - and we don't need these three refs. The bloomberg ref on the previous sentence verifies this.
• The rest of this looks fine.

Addressed the rest. ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for how long it's been taking me with this review (I'm in the middle of finals, but that's no excuse for how slow I've been) Elli (talk | contribs) 13:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I'm in a busy stretch irl as well and have taken my time on this nominatin as well (evidenced by Wretchskull and QRep2020's much appreciated stepping in). On a side note, I wonder if we're a in the running for the longest open GA review... ~ HAL333 02:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: perhaps! Not sure how that would reflect on me, though... Elli (talk | contribs) 03:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Views

• Overall this does seem like a good summary of the article Views of Elon Musk.

This section has been the most controversial by far, hence the larger number of references, given that, can most of them remain? ~ HAL333 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Politics

• In an interview with The Washington Post, Musk stated he was a "significant (though not top-tier) donor to Democrats," but that he also gives heavily to Republicans. Musk further stated that political contributions are a requirement to have a voice in the United States government.[228][229] this is fine, though the second ref seems unnecessary

Removed. ~ HAL333 14:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Musk criticized then-candidate Donald Trump,[230] but later accepted an invitation to participate in two business advisory councils for Trump.[231][232][233] seems a bit synth/overreferency.
• He subsequently resigned from both in June 2017, in protest against Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement.[234][235] the second ref is just his Twitter and unnecessary. Though, I can't easily verify this from the BBC link, that page is incredibly long. Perhaps try finding a better source for this?

Addressed this one and the previous one about Trump relation. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck" to significant backlash on Twitter, including from his partner Grimes.[239][240][241][242] The tweet has been perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities.[243] more overreferencing - trim this down to two refs at most.

This has been pretty controversial over on the talk page and multiple references were added to show that it was due. In that case, can they remain? ~ HAL333 14:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I think it might make sense to do bundling here, if it's absolutely necessary to have this many references. However, I do think that GA noms are a good time to trim reference-cruft that comes up in situations like this. Do what you like, but the current situation feels excessive. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• His stance has been called hypocritical as his businesses have received billions of dollars in subsidies.[247][248][249] only the first ref seems to actually discuss this.

Done. ~ HAL333 14:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Musk, a longtime opponent of short-selling, has repeatedly criticized the practice and argued it should be illegal.[250][251] In early 2021, he encouraged the GameStop short squeeze.[252][253] this isn't an issue, but I'd consider mentioning why he's actually against it - in that it hurts him as a business owner (pretty sure I've seen this info in RS).

He is against the practice because short-selling, say Tesla, amounts to an effort to profit from his companies' loss of market value as exemplified by their stock prices. Towards this end, short-sellers often organize and publish "oppo research" and "dirt" about the companies that they believe to be currently overvalued or straight up fraudulent; there is a large short-seller contingency in TSLAQ for instance that is constantly publicizing their findings and pet theories. Naturally, he does not like any of this.

With that said, I'm not sure how to get across all of that tersely and with sources. QRep2020 (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I do feel like it's important context, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I tried my best! QRep2020 (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

• He claimed that "Kids are essentially immune" to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus,[261][262] and called "the coronavirus panic...dumb".[263][264][265][266][267] no need for five refs here.
• Musk repeatedly criticized lockdowns and violated local orders by re-opening the Tesla Fremont factory.[268][269][270][271] or four here - trim these
• In March 2020, Musk predicted there would be "close to zero new cases in US too by end of April".[255][272][273][274][275] more overreferencing

Addressed the three of these. QRep2020 (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Also, is there any secondary source that could be cited for the included Tweet, instead of the Tweet itself?

The Tweet template usually includes a link to the actual Tweet. As long as it is sourced by secondsry RS in body, it's fine imo. ~ HAL333 14:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence and public transit

• Why are AI and public transit in the same section? If this is just "miscellany", why not just put it at the top of the "Views" section isntead of its own subsection?

I think this is because Musk has projects/companies based on "solving problems" he sees in AI and mass transit and so they speak to important acts of his and so are serve more than incidental views of his. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• Musk has frequently spoken about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence (AI), repeatedly calling it the greatest threat to humanity.[286][287] - I'd extend the link to cover all the text of "potential dangers of artificial intelligence" instead of just "potential dangers"
• Musk and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg have clashed on the issue, with Zuckerberg calling his warnings "pretty irresponsible".[290][291][292][293][294] overreferencing

Addressed these latter two. QRep2020 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333 and QRep2020: here's some more, when you're ready. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal life

Overall, not many issues here though some minor areas for improvement.

• Musk met his first wife, Canadian author Justine Wilson, while attending Queen's University. They married in 2000 and separated in 2008.[288] Their first child, son Nevada Alexander Musk,[289] died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) at the age of 10 weeks.[290][291] They share custody of their five surviving children, all sons.[292][293][294] all of this is fine content-wise, though refs should probably be trimmed

Done. ~ HAL333 17:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Musk was later accused of having an affair with Heard while she was still married to Johnny Depp.[302][303][304][305] same here, even for a controversial statement, four refs is a bit much.

 Done ~ HAL333 18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• LOL on the baby name (this section is fine)
• From the early 2000s until late 2020, Musk resided in California where both Tesla and SpaceX were founded and where their headquarters are still located.[315] As of December 2020, Musk resides in Texas.[315][316][317] maybe mention why he decided to move to Texas?

Done. ~ HAL333 17:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You have a knack for asking the controversy-laden questions! ;) I'll see what I can find in some source material. QRep2020 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I have not found anything that I believe will work to explain his reasoning here and I do not want to hold up the GAN further. Maybe we can table this point for now? QRep2020 (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture

Actually a decent IPC section! Though Elon Musk in popular culture could use some help, that's out of scope here.

• I'd mention him hosting SNL, that was kinda a big deal.

 Done ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Recognition

Again, List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk could use some improvement though that's not in scope to this review. This section seems to do well at only mentioning the most relevant awards, so I don't see any issues either.

Notes and references

No issues here, well within the bounds of acceptable citevar. A few CS1 errors, might wanna fix those.

External links

Yeah, also fine.

@HAL333 and QRep2020: I've gone through the entire article now. It seems like most of my suggestions have been addressed, so in a few days I'll read through it again, see if there are any things that are still issues, and if so see about dealing with them. Sorry about how long this process has taken, but it's quite close to becoming a GA, at least. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Elli, No worries - my lack of haste in responding to your comments is a large cause of that. But I believe I have finally addressed them all. ~ HAL333 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

List (after review and improvements)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   As mentioned below, uses leadcite - the lead accurately summarizes the important parts of the body. All other criteria are fine too.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   After extensive review, the sourcing situation has improved to be sufficient for a GA (assuming good faith for the offline sources cited). Leadcite is applied appropriately. As for copyvio - earwig's findings look initially disturbing, but only because there are a significant number of websites that have mirrored this article. When looking at reliable sources, the only things that look suspicious are quotes - which, well, copying those is kinda the point.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Sections that could be overly detailed are instead split into subarticles as summary style dictates.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Somewhat impressive, given the article, but it certainly seems neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems to have stabilized.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Nice job on getting this to GA - thanks for hanging in with me for the long time it took to review this (hopefully future reviews will not be so lengthy).

@HAL333 and QRep2020: passing the article. Nice job! Elli (talk | contribs) 17:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Elon's stock manipulation.

Elon's company has taken a big position in the cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. He's typically known across the internet to be a stock manipulator due to his frequent tweets on Twitter that causes a specific stock or asset to move a specific way (he's even done this with his own company). A section could be added about his affiliation and love for crypto and how it has impacted not only his stock but others well. He seems to be the motivator for several other companies now beginning to accept Bitcoin as a source of payment. This could be the beginning of something great for crypto and the overall market.

Glf1williams (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The recent disclosure of the company Tesla that they had acquired an amount of Bitcoin is relevant for that company, but not for Elon Musk himself. As for the implication that Elon Musk in engaged in stock manipulation, that seems to be more a matter for US law enforcement agencies than for Wikipedia. Lklundin (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I believe the article Views of Elon Musk should be merged with Elon Musk#Views. I don't think it's appropriate to have a separate article on this person's views when we don't have a separate articles for other people's views, especially notable politicians, where the views of those people are more widely discussed in sources. There is lots of overlap between the article and Elon Musk#Views, also. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've also come across Philanthropy of Elon Musk. I would like to hear what others have to say about a merger of this article as well. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 13:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think these separate articles are WP:POVFORK with no rational reason for splitting, such as article size or complexity. He's just a normal dude. Elizium23 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Would rather just delete than merge. Would give undue weight to trivial things. I split it from that article as it was way too long and I was working towards summary style. There is already a precedent in usage for similar articles: Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein, Political views of Albert Einstein, Political views of Adolf Hitler, etc. ~ HAL333 14:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel that Philanthropy of Elon Musk can definitely be merged, but I feel that Views of Elon Musk should remain as is. We do have a lot of articles about politicians' views, and in my opinion, we should have more. Musk's notability is not just due to his wealth. His companies and his work are already shaping the future for many industries and for nearly every country in the world. I feel that many people find his views notable for these reasons. Unfortunately, it looks like everyone else might be in favor of deletion/merging, and if that's the case, then I respect that. Thanks! GrammarDamner how are things? 17:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I should clarify that I would rather keep than delete. But merging is the worst of both worlds. The article already summarizes these articles and the level of detail in those subarticles is just not suitable for a biographical article. ~ HAL333 21:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Very well then. Perhaps taking the articles to AfD to let the people decide? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would note that many books have been written on the lives of Einstein, Hitler, and others, so it only makes sense that there are articles discussing their views, actions, lives etc. The difference is that Musk doesn't currently have this type of coverage, and most of the sources are news articles about the odd tweet he makes, rather than views he solidly holds. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. ~ HAL333 00:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge the Philanthropy of Elon Musk article. That section is way to short to have ever been considered for a split in the first place. The views article is more justifiable. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Support. The Views article is substantial and fleshed out enough to warrant its own page. The Philanthropy article is small enough on its own that it can be merged into the existing "Philanthropy" section in this article. That Philanthropy of Elon Musk article has content issues too like declaring Elon Musk as the richest man in the world, which no longer holds per Forbes and other sources, so it adds additional maintenance. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Support Merge Philanthropy of Elon Musk. Keep Views of Elon Musk --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep views. I'll begrudgingly agree to merge philanthropy. ~ HAL333 04:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234 It looks like we have a pretty strong consensus to keep the views article and merge philanthropy. Would it be okay if I merged the article and ended this discussion? It's holding up a GA review. ~ HAL333 21:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I was confused by the matter long ago. I don't mind what you do to the articles, as long as you don't end up blowing up Wikipedia or something like that. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ HAL333 23:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Views section

So, how do we decide what goes into the Views section, and what goes into the separate article Views of Elon Musk? Not sure about it. A possible approach is to move almost everything to the separate article, and to leave here only a short summary (as is done with "In popular culture" and "Recognition" sections). A summary might looks like this (please feel free to suggest edits):

Elon Musk is known for his controversial views on many subjects, including AI safety, simulated reality, brain-machine interfaces, space exploration, COVID-19, short-selling, cryptocurrencies, public transportation, subsidies, basic income, pronouns, religion, and politics

--Thereisnous (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Summary style. The section should summarize the subarticle Views of Elon Musk. I'll look at refining it. However, his views are much more relevent to his biography than a list of awards or popular culture trivia, so a larger section on his views is warranted. ~ HAL333 20:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, a slightly larger-than-average summary section is ok. But currently, that we have in the Views section is an arbitrary selected subset of his views. It's indeed not a representative summary of his views, as his views are diverse and numerous (see the partial list above). For example, there is a large subsection on politics, but a small subsection on AI, in spite of the fact that he talks much more about AIs, and gets much more coverage in press about it. --Thereisnous (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If it really is the case that Musk's stance on AI has received more coverage, then I would recommend expanding the AI section at Views of Elon Musk. As it is, Views of Elon Musk's politics section is around five times the size of the AI section, and what we give weight to in this article is determined by its representation in the subarticle. ~ HAL333 22:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

HAL has done a great job of sculpting the section on this article to represent the topics that largely comprise the Views article. The section here does not need to be comprehensive, but representative. QRep2020 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I second Thereisnous. There is a large subsection on pronouns, but a small subsection on AI, in spite of the fact that he talks much more about AIs. --JShark (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Views section is an arbitrary selected subset of his views. --JShark (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Subsections? Neither of those two topics have subsections on Elon Musk. What are you arguing for exactly? QRep2020 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

He means subset, not a subsection. There is a large set of views held by Elon (from memes to the ultimate fate of the universe, with a lot in between). Some of his views are especially notorious and were expressed by him on hundreds of occasions (for example, on AI). Other views were briefly mentioned in a tweet or two. The current version of the Views section is a semi-random selection of a small fraction of his views. Thereisnous (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It is not a "semi-random selection". If you want a view's representation to be increased, show that it has significant coverage by reliable sources by expanding the corresponding section on the subarticle. ~ HAL333 19:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography

It seems that Elon has published at least 2 articles in notable peer-reviewed scientific journals (the one about COVID in Nature Communications, and the Neuralink one published in Journal of Medical Internet Research). I would suggest to create a new section - Bibliography - to list his works (as in Barack Obama#Bibliography) --Thereisnous (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. There are other examples of people who are not notable for their academic career yet have a section with their scientific publication(s), e.g. the actor Danica_McKellar#Published_papers. Lklundin (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

We mention the COVID one already. The Neuralink one can be mentioned in the Neuralink section. A "bibgliography" is not needed for two papers, one with 31 co-authors mind you. QRep2020 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Together with these 6 articles, it's 8. There are also several patents, but I'm not sure if we should add them to the Bibliography section --Thereisnous (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I second QRep. ~ HAL333 16:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

regarding the argument based on article count, please bear in mind that the above linked WP:BLP has a section consisting of a single, peer-reviewed scientific paper. Lklundin (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

What other editors do on another articles (especially low quality articles like the above C-class biography) is irrelevent. This is an issue to be determined by local consensus. ~ HAL333 22:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I second Thereisnous. I second Lklundin. A new section - Bibliography - to list his works. Excellent contribution to the article. --JShark (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is a difference between a bibliography and a publications list. Notice that Albert Einstein's article has a publications list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Publications, and that is likely because there are virtually no books by Einstein on it. A publications list is a better option than a bibliography for this article, but I think neither are appropriate. Secondly, there are clearly items on Thereisnous's list that are regular articles versus journal articles, despite being published in a journal. A Careers quasi-opinion piece is not elevated because it is in a journal. Given that, why include mention of Musk's regular articles when we do not make a habit of featuring lists of all the articles written by people whose occupation involves writing them? Thirdly, and most importantly, the Wikipedia articles that tend to feature bibliographies or publications lists tend to be ones about committed researchers or authors and trying to make a case for Musk being one of those two on top of being a CEO of multiple very well-known companies, etc. will be a bit of a stretch. If there is a desire to make a Wikipedia list article about these, feel free to go ahead and make one. QRep2020 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. These articles aren't noteworthy, and Musk's contribution to these articles hasn't been covered in reliable secondary sources (with the possible exception of the few articles already discussed, which should be included in the relevant section(s), not a separate Bibliography). Stonkaments (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not how Bibliography sections are written on Wikipedia. See, for example, Barack Obama#Bibliography, Karl_Marx#Selected_bibliography, Albert_Einstein#Publications, Henry_Ford#Bibliography. Same for every or almost every biographical article --Thereisnous (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

articles

It seems that Musk authored a lot more articles than expected. From Google Scholar (will format the list properly later):

• NASA's approach to commercial cargo and crew transportation (link). In Acta Astronautica
• Making Humans a Multi-Planetary Species (link)
• Making Life Multi-Planetary (link)
• An Integrated Brain-Machine Interface Platform With Thousands of Channels (link). In Journal of Medical Internet Research
• Discrete SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers track with functional humoral stability (link). In Nature Communications
• I Hope Artificial Intelligence Is Nice to Us (link)
• The Falcon V Medium Lift Launch Vehicle (link). A AIAA meeting paper
• Once a physicist (link). In Physics World
• The Falcon I Launch Vehicle (link). A report for Small Satellite Conference
• Risky Business (link). In IEEE Spectrum

I'm also not sure how to sort them. By topic? Year? --Thereisnous (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Expanding Philanthropy section

Isn't there some information missing from this section now that the main 'Philantrhopy' article has been deleted? Namely, his donations to schools during the Flint, Michigan water crisis. Flyedit32 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The issue with that section is how do we give equal weight to the over 350 philanthropic contributions that Musk has made. If we mention Flint, why should we ignore the other 349+? Unless the contribution receives heavy coverage by reliable sources or is exceptionally large (like the $100 million for carbon-capture), it isn't notable/due. ~ HAL333 20:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't mention every time he spends some pocket money on something. BeŻet (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I think at least donations of $ 5 million or more should be added. That's a lot of money, and most philanthropists donate even less than $ 5 million. And to be fair to big philanthropists, donations of $ 2 million count, too. --JShark (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Very few people in the world have donated $ 100,000 or more and probably most of the people on this planet will never donate that amount of money in their lives. --JShark (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. 5 million is too small to mention, that's like 0.003% of his wealth. I've donated more yesterday. BeŻet (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of his equity is in Tesla and SpaceX. None of which pay dividends. Cash is not the same as stocks. He does not receive a salary. Throughout that year, his net worth increased by $150 billion, largely driven by his ownership of around 20% of Tesla stock. During this, Musk's net worth was often volatile. For example, it dropped $16.3 billion in September, the largest such plunge according to Bloomberg. --JShark (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is about Elon Musk and it is not an article about you. No one is interested in this article if you donated more than Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You claim to be a socialist according to your Wikipedia page. I think maybe you have a conflict with capitalism and businessmen like Elon Musk and maybe you don't have a neutral point of view about the difference between cash and the value of stocks. --JShark (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

JShark Please stop with the allegations of political bias. That's a uncivil personal attack that'll wind you up at ANI. ~ HAL333 21:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for copying and pasting some stuff from the article. I am saying that tiny payments he made are not WP:DUE, proportional to his wealth, and I'm providing a comparative example which has the point of showing - exactly like you said - that nobody cares if I donated more, relative to my wealth, than Musk; likewise nobody cares if Musk donated some pocket change somewhere. Also, I am perfectly well informed about the difference between cash and stock value, which in this case is irrelevant, because I'm talking about his wealth and not about how much money he physically has currently direct access to. BeŻet (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you have no idea that Elon Musk cannot sell his company shares at will since that would also cause Tesla shares to fall sharply in the market. He does not have billions of dollars in his pocket as the value of his shares in Tesla says. The article is about Elon Musk and therefore his donations are relevant in this article. Your donations are not relevant in this article since you are not Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your page says the following: This user has read anarchist literature, agrees with a lot of points and expresses full solidarity with anarchists. You probably have a strong bias with this article and your point of view may not be neutral. --JShark (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not saying we should write about me in this article, so that's a strawman argument. Secondly, my political views are presented for full transparency, but I should be judged on my arguments and not on some vague assumptions regarding my "biases". I am simply saying that 5 million dollars isn't a big enough donation, relative to his wealth, for it to be mentioned in the article, unless of course it has been mentioned in many different sources. My political beliefs are irrelevant here. BeŻet (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your political beliefs can influence what you consider to be wealth. 5 million dollars is a lot of money in donations since Elon Musk does not have billions of dollars in his pocket as it seems according to his percentage of shares in Tesla and that means that he is donating a significant part of the money he has in his bank account. In addition, it must be remembered that he sold many of his properties and perhaps an important part of the money that he has available in the bank is related to the sale of his properties in California. --JShark (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

You are comparing yourself to Elon Musk and that does not make sense or importance in this article. --JShark (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a lot of money to him, it's pocket change. Which donation specifically you want to talk about? Can you show sources, so we can establish whether its due? BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the $10 million from the foundation to OpenAI, Musk donated at least $10 million to the Future of Life Institute, which researches safety in artificial intelligence; $10 million for a prize focused on promoting global literacy. Elon Musk donates $5 million for coronavirus research in Boston. Elon Musk, recently donated $5 million to non-profit educational platform Khan Academy.

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_MB2RClG4 - Elon Musk $5 million donation to Khan Academy thank you
• https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/19/nation/elon-musk-donates-5m-coronavirus-research-boston/ - Elon Musk donates $5 million for coronavirus research in Boston
• https://futureoflife.org/2015/10/12/elon-musk-donates-10m-to-keep-ai-beneficial/ - Elon Musk donates $10M to keep AI beneficial
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2019/05/16/meet-the-winners-of-elon-musks-15-million-xprize-to-end-global-illiteracy/?sh=32089384139e - Meet The Winners Of Elon Musk's $15 Million XPRIZE To End Global Illiteracy.
• https://www.inverse.com/article/52701-openai-documents-elon-musk-donation-a-i-research - OpenAI: Documents Reveal Elon Musk’s Huge Donation to A.I. Research

There are many more. --JShark (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was asking which specific one you're talking about, so we can establish its importance. We are already talking about his donations to OpenAI, which, nota bene, has a for-profit element; and his involvement in XPrize. BeŻet (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Those are some pretty low quality sources. Primary sources are a big no. Forbes.com contributors are considered generally unreliable per the perennial sources list. And we're not going to use YouTube as a source. ~ HAL333 21:44, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest to list all recipients that fulfill the following criteria:

- the recipient is a notable organization (has its own page)

- there is a reputable source confirming the fact of the donation

Even if the donation is small in comparison to the Musk's net worth, it could be still be enormous by any other measure (even $50k is a hell lot of money for most non-profits). Thus, I would not use any arbitrary monetary threshold here. Thereisnous (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a complete non-starter. A list of hundreds of donations would bloat the section and give undue weight to his philanthropy. ~ HAL333 21:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that he made donations to hundreds of *notable* organizations. Mentioning only notable orgs is realistically doable. It's also easy to verify and easy to keep the section neutral Thereisnous (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There really is no point mentioning small donations, and it's not like he's donated a lot anyway: most of this donations went through the foundation which were spent on his other organizations like OpenAI which has a for-profit segment. Other significant ones are already mentioned. We should only mention those which received significant press coverage. BeŻet (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"small" is relative. Almost every sum is small in comparison with his current net worth. But in comparison with the budgets of the non-profits he donated to, the sums are huge. BTW, he left OpenAI in 2019, and at the time it was still purely non-profit Thereisnous (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is relative, but we should judge whether its worthy of inclusion by how widely has it been reported in the news. Most billionaires spend small amounts on non-profits for cheap PR and tax "optimizations". BeŻet (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

The subject of this article prefers "business magnet" to "business magnate". Acknowledging that the latter is true - and thus should not be removed - I propose the addition of "business magnet" in a line near the beginning of this article.

Self-description and humor are worth capturing. Thank you for your consideration. Diggyjohnson (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Except there's no reliable independent source, and while you might think it is funny, this is an encyclopedia, not a list of funny quips by article subjects. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Elon left OpenAI

It seems there is some confusion among some editors about when Musk left OpenAI. As the sources in the article indicate, he left the board of the organization in 2018, and then he left the organization in February 2019, citing disagreements about the company's development [1]. Also note that OpenAI got its for-profit structure in March 2019 [2], after Musk left. --Thereisnous (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Read the article a little more closely: It is about a tweet that Elon made explaining why he left the board a year ago. Also, why is it important to note that OpenAI went private after his departure? QRep2020 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you provide the exact quote from the article there it says so?

It is important to note that OpenAI went private after his departure because the previous version of the article incorrectly stated that "between 2012 and 2018 he donated money to OpenAI that has a for-profit arm", or something like this. OpenAI became for-profit in 2019 Thereisnous (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You want an exact quotation of what, where the article states what it is about? The article does not have an abstract and it does not need one. Here is a better question: Are there any sources besides this albeit confusing at first one that mention something about Musk leaving in February 2019?

Since the point about his donating to a for-profit part is no longer there, it seems superfluous to add mention of the company's change in status, especially since there is discussion of it on OpenAI. QRep2020 (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites harm astronomy

Astronomers have raised concerns about the constellations’ effect on ground-based astronomy and how the satellites will add to an already jammed orbital environment. It ignited conversations about the ethics of a single company unilaterally changing the night sky’s appearance. --JShark (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This information is tangential to Musk. It's also just speculation - we shouldn't dabble in that on a biography. ~ HAL333 12:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly speculation if astronomers are talking about existing, tangible side-effects that are already impairing their work. However I agree that this could perhaps go in the Space X article. BeŻet (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify. Starlink has negatively impacted visibility of the night sky. That's not speculation. But both the text addition and the ref were written in the future test and were hedged - speculation. This article, and Musk, has/had an issue with overly heavy predictions/promises about the future. ~ HAL333 22:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BeŻet. Arguably tangential to Musk, but not speculative. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It is referenced on Starlink already. QRep2020 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Starlink satellites passing overhead and visible with a naked eye. These satellites launched on 22 April 2020.

Signal pollution in a 333-second exposure image taken from the Blanco four-meter telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

It is not speculative. --JShark (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not say it was?? QRep2020 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 March 2021

change Tesla title of CEO to Technoking of Tesla

SEC filing: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459021012981/tsla-8k_20210315.htm 81.242.249.180 (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please participate in #Reverted Updated lead to reflect change of job title instead. ~ Aseleste (t, c, l) 08:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Reverted Updated lead to reflect change of job title

[6] was reverted by QRep2020 with the comment "Let us discuss this latest "development" on Talk page before making changes" yet no discussion ensued. I don't know what there is to discuss; the change is factual and well documented (DanJWilde's provided source, and [7]) other than the lack of capitalization. Please provide a valid argument and/or reverse the reversal. --Trougnouf (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My first reaction on seeing the edit was that the "Technoking" title was along the same lines as Elon's request via Joe Rogan to have us change "business magnate" to "business magnet" – which we have ignored for reasons well-documented on the archives of this talk page. The SEC filing does make this seem somewhat more official, but it's still very much Elon being whimsical, and there is no valid reason for us to make the change until it becomes the WP:COMMONNAME used in a large number of reliable secondary sources. I also note that the SEC filing explicitly states that Elon retains his position as CEO. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech-noking?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I think jokingly asking on a show is in no way comparable to making an official statement through both the company PR and government filings. From what I understood, WP:COMMONNAME only concerns the article title, not what can be listed as its content. Moreover finding media sources repeating this is in no way challenging given his notoriety; [8]. --Trougnouf (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, there are plenty of reliable sources mentioning the new title, but well-referenced trivia is still just trivia. And while you're quite right that COMMONNAME technically refers to article titles, its point, that we should use the name preferred by a majority of reliable sources, is valid for article content in general. Time will tell whether "Technoking" deserves any mention at all on Wikipedia, but at most it should be the subject of a minor note somewhere well down in the body of the Tesla page. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me that this is just an early April Fools on your part. ~ HAL333 16:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would it be? He is powerful enough to change his title to whatever he wants, including when the sole purpose is "shits and giggles", and he appears to have followed the correct procedure to do so. People come here for factual information and Wikipedia's goal is to provide it; I think that trying to assess whether a title is too ridiculous to be included in an infobox violates the neutral tone of the article. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

He can say his title is whatever he wants, anyone can (Not because he is "powerful enough"). However he is still CEO and I'm pretty sure if we are coming to Wikipedia "for factual information" I'm sure many people who are just looking at the word "technoking" would be very confused as to what a "Technoking" title is and what it means. It causes unnecessary confusion and is not relevant at all, just like someone else said above, its like the whole business magnet vs magnate. JailIT (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. You're never going to see us describe Idi Amin with his self-declared title of "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, CBE, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular". ~ HAL333 19:55, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

But he is described exactly as such in Idi_Amin#Erratic_behaviour,_self-bestowed_titles_and_media_portrayal "His full self-bestowed title ultimately became: [...]". Whether that sounds respectable is besides the point, and it likely has no place in his infobox because he is not active and that doesn't summarize his lifetime achievements. --Trougnouf (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That happens outside of the lede and lead paragraph, though.

It seems the infobox (and lead paragraph) typically lists current positions (eg: CEO, lead designer, product architect) and lifetime achievements (eg: (co-)founder, head of a country) so imo it belongs there as a current position and should be scraped to some obscure trivia once it's no longer current. --Trougnouf (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Such information could be perhaps included in a section entitled "Elon's childish behaviour" or "Musk's desperate need for attention" - there's plenty of material which could be included there - but outside such a hypothetical section there isn't an adequate place to mention Musk's edgy teenage meme activities. If this gets big enough coverage, we could consider adding it somewhere lower in the article, but the lead is definitely not the right place for such wisecracks. BeŻet (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Well stated. Same logic for why we don't include "business magnet" in the lead; the fact that the title was announced in a corporate filing doesn't change anything. Stonkaments (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering how well this compares with calling him an engineer (I guess the matter was already discussed ad nauseam, so this comment should be ignored, unless it helps to consider things from a different or more general point of view) Personuser (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't justify excluding accurate, well-sourced information because we think it reflects poorly on Wikipedia, and certainly not based on a dislike for the subject of the article. The method in Zach Kirkhorn's article is a better solution; it describes his actual position alongside the nominal position "Master of Coin". Also consider Walt Disney World Casting Center, the article about the Disney Parks recruiting office, which follows the company's use of "casting" and "cast members" to refer to recruiting and employees generally. Maltice (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Zach's article is very short, so one could justify inclusion of that title in the lead. In Elon's case, we should keep his "jokes" away from the lead. It is 100% factual to state that he is the CEO of Tesla. BeŻet (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Personuser: That's a good point; we probably should revisit whether we should call Musk an engineer based on his own claims rather than any credentials. Consistency would seem to indicate that "engineer" should be removed as well, or at least moved out of the lead. Stonkaments (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I also support removing the "engineer" bit. Hiring engineers does not make one an engineer. ~ HAL333 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Third. QRep2020 (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We've been through the whole engineer debate several times before on this page, including an RFC not so long ago which concluded that there was no consensus to remove "engineer". Can we stick to the "Technoking" issue in this section please? Rosbif73 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether it's been discussed before is not relevant. Consensus can change. ~ HAL333 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine to discuss the engineer issue here, as the discussion on 'Technoking' seems to have resolved with a clear consensus that it is not suitable for mention in the lead at this time.

As for "engineer", as noted there was a RfC last year that concluded "no consensus" on whether to describe Musk as an engineer. I'm not familiar with the relevant policy guidelines here—can we make a bold edit and remove it, or do we need to start another RfC? Stonkaments (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the clear consensus part. --Trougnouf (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Opening an RfC would be a good (and appropriate) approach. ~ HAL333 19:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since it is only a half year ago that we had an RfC on whether Musk is an engineer we should surely not start a new one on that now. As for whether Tesla's SEC filing naming Musk "Technoking" is notable here, I guess we could. Lklundin (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any rules about how long one must wait until restarting or initiating a new RFC. The fact that it did not end with a consensus seems to be just cause enough for revisiting the matter. QRep2020 (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not need an RfC on "technoking". The discussion regarding it has been quite extensive with many participants and has a pretty clear consensus. The previous engineer RfC had no consensus and another RfC is reasonable. I just hope everyone has the good sense not to open it immediately and delay the GAN further. Give it a few months. ~ HAL333 22:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Will also assist with the GAN where I can. QRep2020 (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As for a repetition of an RfC on whether Musk is an engineer, I will then point out that this talk page is embellished with the template {{Round in circles}} - exactly to help editors avoid spending time unnecessarily restating already made arguments. Lklundin (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, I don't agree we have a consensus regarding "Technoking". So far I, Maltice, DanJWilde (through the original addition), and anonymous editor 81.242.249.180 have expressed their support for the addition, and HAL333, Stonkaments, BeZet, JailIT, Rosbif73, and Martinevans123 have expressed their opinion against it. That is hardly a consensus. Just because arguments have already been laid out and the discussion is not moving does not mean there is a general agreement. I would be in favor for a request for comments since the vast majority of potentially interested readers have no idea this discussion might exist, though I don't really care enough to get involved much more in the subject. At this point I mainly disagree with a "consensus" being repeatedly declared when no one has changed their view on anything and there is simply nothing constructive to add. --Trougnouf (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose. I also encourage the anonymous editor to contribute more to the discussion in order for the opinion to truly hold merit. And even if there is not a consensus in the opposition's favor, there is certainly no consensus at all, and therefore the article will stay as is as I understand the policies. Let us wait and see how this title change plays out and if it amounts to anything more than a publicity stunt or a joke - we should not forget Musk's remarks about the SEC and therefore their filings. QRep2020 (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I was clearly naive to expect the mention of the engineer thing to lead to some productive discussion about what are the similarities/discrepancies and how well some arguments hold in these two cases. There are some actual differences between the two situations. The term engineer can have a fuzzier meaning, while technoking is a title, recognized by official documents and should be considered as such (the template page doesn't seem very clear: formal title, awarded title, job title; it probably should be considered in the same way as silly titles of dictators and similar, except that this could be changed very soon and updating the article every time Mr. Musk wants to make a joke seems annoying; I hope no one is actually supporting adding technoking to the lead; there is probably enough material for an "eccentric behavior" or similar section, if well sourced; calling that "childish" doesn't seem encyclopedic and may be offensive to children). For the engineer part, I don’t like it and I guess it could be offensive to engineers, but among the current references there’s only one addressing the issue, which reports Musk calling himself an engineer and stating that few would dispute that claim (something that doesn’t seem likely to be said about an actual engineer, with or without a degree). The rFC mentions [9] and possibly other better sources (I’m disappointed that no one supporting leaving engineer in the lead cared to add this reference in a highly active article like this), a well sourced not blank "Engineering" section in the article is naturally welcomed. Anyway, while comparing the two cases could make sense, discussing a new RFC and what it would be about seems better fit for a different section. Personuser (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - archived reference

The currently linked archived link for ref 3, point 3 (Elon Musk, the 21st Century Industrialist)[10] seems pretty useless. I suggest to change it with [11] or to address the issue in some different way. I think it was an issue with archiving, but if it was only a local problem, I'm sorry for bothering. Personuser (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Request to locking the page into BLP and AP2 sanctions

For administrators like El C, please locking the Elon Musk article into WP:ARBBLP and WP:ARBAP2 discriminatory sanctions. I believe the page is more relevant to both DS rather than COVID GS sanctions. In noticeable, Elon Musk is an BLP article, so it needs an DS sanctions for the article. 36.69.52.139 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Musk's treatment of employees

@JShark: could you please explain your removal of content, and what edit war and complaint are you referring to? BeŻet (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Even his authorized biography touches on his alleged treatment of employees. When I have the time/energy, I'll pull out some material. ~ HAL333 21:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I just want serious sources and not speculation. You should also accept that there are many people who dream of working in companies like SpaceX. That fact indicates that working in these companies is not bad as their critics say. If he was such a bad boss, I bet thousands of people wouldn't show up to work at companies like SpaceX. In every company there are people who do not adapt to the way of working and that does not mean that the boss is very bad. Musk says he wants innovation in his companies and that if employees don't try to innovate, they are probably not fit to work at companies like SpaceX. Personally, I prefer demanding bosses like Musk, who create an environment conducive to innovation. --JShark (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying WIRED, Business Insider and The Wall Street Journal are not "serious" sources? Also, you're talking about SpaceX, not Tesla. Finally, your speculation is of no importance. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Stop being so emotionally involved: we're writing an encyclopedia article not a slobbering Instagram fanpage. ~ HAL333 04:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Learn to speak respectfully. Just because you don't care doesn't mean the world's billions of people think like you. --JShark (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Learn how to use a talkpage instead of just pasting massive walls of text. ~ HAL333 04:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I posted important information from an interview about Elon Musk's treatment of his employees. There is nothing wrong with that. You get irritated by everything and you should learn to calm down or drink something for your nerves. --JShark (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

An interview with Elon Musk is probably the most terrible source I can think of to talk about his treatment of his employees. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't make convincing arguments about it. Interviews allow you to know people's thoughts and give a voice to the accused of being an awful boss. --JShark (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me or I'll copy and paste War and Peace. Fight that. ~ HAL333 04:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy has very good books. It is good to read a lot. You have more books to recommend me and I will gladly read them. And let's stop fighting like little children because love is better than war. --JShark (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no personal beef with you, JShark. It's just that I think sometimes you're too partial. An editor must be capable of writing critically of subjects they admire and objectively of those they despise. ~ HAL333 17:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp8smJFaKYE - RAW Elon Musk Interview from Air Warfare Symposium 2020

17:45 The workforce is a key component in radical innovation. What do you do to motivate a workforce to help them become more radically innovative?

The most important thing to do is to make sure that you have an incentive structure where innovation is rewarded and lack of innovation is punished. Carrot and stick. People that are innovating should be promoted sooner, and if someone’s in a role where innovation should be happening and it’s not, then they should not be promoted or exited. "Then let me tell you, you’ll get innovation real fast. How much do you want?"

19:40 Wouldn’t that make people too risk averse?

You have to have some acceptance of failure – failure has to be an option. If you don’t allow trying and failing you might get something worse than lack of innovation – things may go backwards. "You want reward and punishment to be proportionate to the actions you seek." Reward for trying and succeeding, minor consequences for trying and failing, and major negative consequences for not trying. "With that incentive structure you’ll get innovation like you won’t believe."

44:00 Intellectual property – how do you protect it in a world where information is constantly under attack?

The real way you achieve protection is by innovating fast enough. If innovation is high, you won’t need to worry about intellectual property because competitors will be copying something you did years ago. Innovation per unit of time is what matters. What is your rate of innovation, and is that accelerating or decelerating? Big Business tends to get less innovative per employee and also sometimes in absolute terms, and it’s likely because of incentives. Incentives must be aligned with innovation.

50:40 How do you create a culture of enthusiasm at Tesla and SpaceX?

There is a pretty big selection effect, because especially in important engineering roles, they look for people that have demonstrated innovation. As mentioned earlier, the incentives in the company help – they reward innovation and punish lack of innovation. --JShark (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your original research is of no value here. If you have no solid argument against including well sourced information, the subsection will be returned to the article. BeŻet (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Clearly your supposed unbiased information is not. You can accuse a person of many things but there is no conviction that says that Musk treats all his employees badly. Most of his employees continue to work for him. I don't see Elon Musk in jail for mistreating his employees. --JShark (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact (a judge or a jury). If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. --JShark (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. We are reporting what sources are saying. Do you have a source which disputes what is stated in the original sources? Arguing that people still work for him so it's all good is pretty wild. If this is the extent of your argument, I will return the subsection. BeŻet (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Every media has a political line. There are journalists who only speak ill of Elon Musk. An encyclopedia should not put speculative information but truthful and real information. You should place sources of jury verdicts otherwise Musk could sue you for defamation. Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime. --JShark (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Please stick to real Wikipedia guidelines and not made-up ones. BeŻet (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You probably don't have verdicts that Musk treats all of his employees badly. That is why you are afraid to place those sources and prefer only to add speculative information. In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. --JShark (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop copying and pasting nonsense. We are literally stating what sources are saying, and clearly attributing that to said sources, which is perfectly legal and permitted on Wikipedia. Being an awful boss isn't a crime, so I have no idea why do you bring up courts and verdicts. BeŻet (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You are not impartial. Musk is not regarded by everyone and all of his employees as an awful boss. You're making a generalization by saying that everyone thinks Musk is an awful boss. If he was such an awful boss then no one would work for him. --JShark (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing content that you simply don't like. You have not presented a single argument backed up by Wikipedia policy. BeŻet (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The content that was added and then removed seems to be properly cited and relevant, and therefore should be reincluded. Does anyone besides JShark have some legitimate reason for this content to not be added? QRep2020 (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Although neutrally written, properly cited description of criticism can be perfectly valid under WP:NPOV policy, including it in the main article is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. The content has its place on the Criticism of Tesla, Inc. page – though that page needs a serious overhaul before it could be considered as neutrally written. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to make recommendations. QRep2020 (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

There is a huge number of sources reporting on his managerial style and treatment of employees. I think it's easily DUE. BeŻet (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)