Open main menu

Talk:Elon Musk



Contents

Canadian?Edit

So he was born in South Africa, moved to Canada when he was 17, then moved to the US when he was 19. And we are calling him a Canadian? I don't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not call a Canadian citizen of Canadian descent a Canadian? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Definitely not. The "Canadian citizen" comes from his two-years in Canada - the rest of his life has been in South Africa or the US. And many people have dual US-Canadian citizenship; it is slightly more inconvenient to go to school and impossible to accept certain job offers without applying for citizenship.
The "Canadian descent" claim, while technically correct, is also dubious. His father, Errol Graham Musk, was South African-born and has English, Dutch Afrikaner, and French Huguenot, ancestry. His mother, Maye (Maiden name Haldeman) Musk, was born in Canada but moved to South Africa when she was two years old. She has English, German and Swiss, ancestry, and her father and mother were both born in the US. If ancestry is the way to determine nationality, you might as well call Elon Musk a Frenchman. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
A bit of interesting trivia: according to[1], Elon Musk figured out that it would be easier to become an American citizen as a Canadian than a South African. According to [2], "Elon made his move after he graduated high school. Though he already felt like an American, he'd done research and concluded that it would be easier to obtain American citizenship as a Canadian immigrant rather than as a South African one."
Marginally related: [3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not a source: It is a buzzfeed-style website that does not generate original content and instead copies text with a link to the source. For the statement about Elon Musk becoming Canadian, there is no functioning link to any source. Furthermore, the very same text appears in the 2nd source posted (the snopes source) which is effectively calling into the question the validity of that very text. There is no cited reliable information that Elon Musk considered himself American and only sought Canadian citizenship because it was easier. For that reason, I still reference my earlier comment, that there is not yet any reliable source in this discussion to indicate that having Canadian citizenship and living in Canada for a pivotal period of life makes one not Canadian. Sundin14 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
This is factually inaccurate - how would it be difficult to go to school in Canada without citizenship? The vast majority of international students in Canada do not require applying for citizenship to study there, nor do they seek to obtain it. There needs to be an established reason why having Canadian citizenship is not in and of itself grounds to apply the demonym "Canadian" to that person. So far in this discussion, the argument I am criticizing here is the only argument that seeks to argue against Canadian citizenship being grounds to use the demonym. With that argument nullified, I see no argument in here right now against the reverting back to it saying "Canadian American". One would need to establish why both citizenship and having lived there would not be grounds for the demonym, with precedents from other Wikipedia articles, which I have not yet seen posted here. For that reason, I feel it should be reverted back to its original form until that argument and precedent can be established. (5/18/2018) Sundin14 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, I want to challenge to the comment that his ancestry is not Canadian, argued by listing prior European ancestries of his Canadian mother. Elon Musk has explicitly stated that he is Half Canadian [5] Sundin14 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

He has different citizenships which makes it hard to tell, but since he is currently living and working in the US it's for now probably best to call him American. B-Movie Fan (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

He is a Canadian American. To call him a full American is misleading. GummoLosyMarxBro (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Tri-country citizenshipEdit

The article currently states:

Citizenship

South Africa (1971–present)
Canada (1989–present)

United States (2002–present)

Do each of these countries allow simultaneous citizenship in two other countries? Do we have a source that Musk is currently a citizen of all three, at the same time, in 2018? N2e (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The South African nationality law page states that "a South African citizen who by a formal and voluntary act acquires the citizenship of another country, automatically loses his or her South African citizenship unless they apply for, and receive permission to retain their South African citizenship before acquiring the citizenship of another country". The Canadian nationality law page states that "on 15 February 1977, the restrictions on multiple citizenship disappeared overnight". And the United States nationality law page tells us that the U.S. government "recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens". So (assuming all those to be true – only the SA one is properly sourced) there's no reason Elon couldn't holding all three nationalities provided he applied for and received the requisite permissions from South Africa. But I entirely agree that a recent source would be good. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found a piece in The Sunday Times from 2005 that says "Still a South African citizen, Musk has lived in Canada and California for 17 years", see here. Presumably if he was a citizen in 2005, he would still be a citizen now, as it would have been revoked at the acquisition of the Canadian or US citizenship, especially the time of the Canadian citizenship as he refused conscription. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
That's more than good enough as a source for him currently having triple citizenship.
On a related note, a misguided editor changed the 1989 to 1971 with the edit comment "Musk was a Canadian at birth. His mother is Canadian and he inherited his Canadian citizenship automatically."[6] That's wrong. Musk qualified for Canadian citizenship automatically at birth, successfully applied for it in 1989. If you were born outside Canada and at least one of your parents was born in Canada you are eligible for Canadian citizenship. Canada does not force citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship. To actually become a Canadian citizen, the person born abroad must use Canadian form CIT 0001: Application for a citizenship certificate. Musk applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17 as a stepping stone to obtaining US citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

South African-bornEdit

Using "South African-born" in the very beginning of the article appears unwarranted. The only thing of note he did there was being born. We don't call Steve Nash a South African-born Canadian basketball player, or Ted Cruz a Canadian-born American politician, because just like Musk, all they did of significance was having been born there. It is different for articles like Jim Carrey where the person acquires another citizenship much later in life and had already been noteworthy in their country of origin, but for people like Musk, Nash, and Cruz, this is unnecessary. DrJenkins365 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Musk left South Africa at age of 17, compared to Nash who left at age one, and Cruz who left Canada at age three. Also note that Britannica describes him as "South African-born American", see here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Per MOS:BLPLEAD, this should be deleted (and I will do so forthwith). Musk's place of birth is not relevant to his notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
His place of birth IS notable. Without his place of birth there would be no discussion. There is nothing in your statement "Musk's place of birth is not relevant to his notability" that can contradict this. It is where he was born, it is where he went to school, it is where his personality initially developed. It is part of who he is, psychologically, and socially.--Terry Patterson (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
As of today, all mention of his nationalities and place of birth has been removed from the opening sentence, but mentioned in the second paragraph. IMO this is the right decision - I entirely agree with you that his place of birth and his current and past citizenship are significant notable facts about Musk, but they are not the primary factors that make him notable and thus do not belong in the opening sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Terry Patterson (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018Edit

Elon Musk is a triple citizen so the first line should say he's a "...South African-born, Canadian-American..." Wizkoo (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: We've been through this before. MOS:BLPLEAD#Context isn't particularly explicit regarding how to deal with multiple citizenship, but consensus seems to be that "Canadian" doesn't belong in the lead as it isn't relevant to his notability. If anything I'd venture to say that his place of birth doesn't really belong in the lead either, for the same reason. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Second the suggestion to remove place of birth from the lead. It is well covered in the body. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Is it being well covered in the body not an argument for inclusion rather than exclusion in the lead? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
No. Otherwise we wouldn't have a body and a lead. WP:LEAD and WP:BLPLEAD tell us what to include. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
All the information in the lead is covered in the body. If being covered in the body is a reason to leave something out of the lead, the lead would not have a purpose. The born in South Africa detail establishes context. It would disorientate the reader to say Musk moved to Canada at 17 without mentioning where he originated from. We could remove the moved to Canada detail too and give the impression that Musk was born in America and for some reason attended a Canadian university for a couple years, but this would run contrary to WP:LEAD as the reader would have to read the whole article to have an overview of the topic. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"South African-born" and "Canadian" have been removed from the opening paragraph per MOS:BLPLEAD. I don't think anyone is suggesting also removing the information from from the second paragraph of the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks fine the way it is now. I am always amazed at the amount of effort some people put into trying to label famous people as being from their favorite country. Don't they have anything better to do with their time? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Casting aspersions and making insults on Wikipedia, while criticizing someone else for the use of their time? Alright, have a nice day fella. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I am fine with removing "South African-born" from the opening paragraph if there is strong opposition. I was responding to the suggestion of removing the born in South Africa detail from the "lead" entirely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rei Would you like to comment here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is so typically Wikipedia - Musk is South African, not just South African born and yet that information isn't in the lead. He isn't "American" by any normal persons interpretation of what that means. That he holds multiple citizenships is information that should be in the article not the lead. The lead, as present, is not just misleading - it is incorrect.

79.69.114.153 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no clear direction on this issue, unfortunately. The convention across all high-quality articles is something like this: "[Name] (birth-death) is/was a [nationality] [type of person] who...." With people like Musk, there's no specific instruction on how to handle the nationality part. WP:BLPLEAD only talks about including birthplaces in the lead, like saying "[So-and-so] was born in New York City and...", or like in certain European-language encyclopedic conventions in which they include birthplaces and death places in the person's date range (check the German Wikipedia article for any famous person to see examples of this). Here, I think "is a South African-American" or "South African-born American" is best. Musk grew up entirely in South Africa and still has a pronounced South African accent, and this seems most appropriate to him personally.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It's SouthbAfrican/Canadian GummoLosyMarxBro (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

kid-sized submarineEdit

Elon musk has started working with kid-sized submarine for thailand teams that has been trapped. [7] [8]

  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. JTP (talkcontribs) 05:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Musk was a Canadian citizen at birthEdit

If his mother is Canadian. He is a Canadian at birth.

That's how the laws work--162.216.46.182 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not how the laws in Canada work. Ignoring the fact that you have confused "Canadian" with "Canadian citizen", if you were born outside Canada and at least one of your parents was born in Canada you are eligible for Canadian citizenship. Canada does not force citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship. To actually become a Canadian citizen, the person born abroad must use form CIT 0001: Application for a citizenship certificate (Proof of citizenship) - adults and minors. Musk applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17 as a stepping stone to obtaining US citizenship.
And no we are not going to call Musk a Canadian. He was a South African at birth and is currently an American. This has been discussed extensively on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that citizenship is automatic. Kind of like how Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth (he later had to renounce this). I don't care about identifying Musk as a Canadian, but his infobox said he became a Canadian in 1989 (before I changed it to 1971)

"There are many laws and rules that affect if your children are Canadian. Most children born to Canadian parents before April 17, 2009, were citizens at birth. "

Check out this link: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=365&top=5

--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that Canada forces Canadian citizenship on citizens of other nations without the person in question applying for Canadian citizenship, you are mistaken. The following countries do not allow dual citizenship and may consider being a Canadian citizen as valid grounds for revoking an existing citizenship in that country: Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Burma, Bahrain, Botswana, Japan, China, Czech Republic, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Ecuador, Estonia, Iran, Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Japan, Peru, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Chile, Kiribati, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, Ecuador, Lithuania, Solomon Islands, Spain, Fiji, Malaysia, Mauritius, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Romania, Mexico, Nepal, Venezuela, Norway, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Are you not familiar with the Ted Cruz situation. He was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. He was a natural born American. However, being born in Canada he was also automatically a Canadian at birth. He had to renounce his citizenship a few years ago even though he never formally made an application. Admittedly this is a different situation as he was born in Canada. But the point is you can be granted citizenship automatically. Also, South Africa in absent from you list --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Of course South Africa isn't on the list. South Africa, like the US and Canada, allows dual and triple citizenship. But the government of Canada did not make its laws just for Elon Musk. They made them for everyone, including those who were born in countries that do not allow dual citizenship and who have at least one Canadian parent. If Canada just made them citizens at birth, they could be denied citizenship and deported by the country that doesn't allow dual citizenship. It is very likely that the Supreme Court of Canada would void any such law if it existed, which it doesn't.
The reason why the Canadian laws say you are automatically a citizen if, like Ted Cruz, you are born in Canada is because this is unlikely to cause any problems with citizenship in any other country. I know of no county that does not allow dual citizenship that also automatically makes a person born in another country a citizen. As far as I can tell every such country either has a rule saying that in such cases you have to apply for citizenship and renounce your citizenship in the other country or a rule saying that in such cases you are not eligible to be a citizen. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs to understand that when it's edited correctly, it should remain so. Musk is a Canadian citizen since birth. His mother was born in Canada and even if he claimed citizenship in 1989, the 2009 changes to the law retroactively and automatically made him a Canadian citizen since birth. That 1989 date needs to be changed to his birth year date of 1971 and left alone. There is nothing to debate. This is straight from the Canadian government:

First generation born outside Canada who was granted Canadian citizenship before April 17, 2009 [paragraph 3(1)(h)] Citizen’s date of birth: between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977

Paragraph 3(1)(h) recognizes as Canadian citizens persons born outside Canada to a Canadian parent between January 1, 1947, and February 14, 1977, and who did not become citizens by descent, but who were granted citizenship under section 5 of the 1977 Act before April 17, 2009. Under this paragraph, such persons are recognized as citizens by descent as a result of the legislative amendments on April 17, 2009, instead of citizens by way of grant [pursuant to subsection 3(6)], and their citizenship is retroactive to their date of birth [pursuant to paragraph 3(7)(e)]. --SCan1867 (talk) 00:22, 02 September 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares about your WP:OR concerning your interpretation of Canadian law. Canada does not force citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship. To actually become a Canadian citizen, the person born abroad must use form CIT 0001: Application for a citizenship certificate (Proof of citizenship) - adults and minors. Musk applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17 as a stepping stone to obtaining US citizenship.
If you want to claim that Canada forces citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship and who may lose their citizenship of the country they were born in because they were forced to become Canadian citizens against their will, find a reliable secondary source that supports your claim. And why you are at it, please explain the purpose of Canada's form CIT 0001 and explain why it is that Musk filled out that form at the age of 17. Why would he apply for and be granted Canadian citizenship if he was already a Canadian citizen? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


First off, all countries impose (force) citizenship on people. Nationality Law allows countries the right to determine who their citizens are. For example, in the United States, people born within borders of the country are automatically citizens. They are not asked if they want the citizenship or not, the United States automatically recognizes those people as citizens (whether they want it or not). If they don't want it, they have to renounce the citizenship and pay over two thousand dollars. Second, at the time Musk applied for the citizenship, the law was different. The Canadian government changed the law in 2009 and 2015. As I quoted directly from the official Canadian government website, they did in fact make all Canadians in the first generation abroad automatically and retroactively citizens back to the date of birth. Therefore, those people who became citizens earlier that were in the first generation abroad (i.e. Musk in 1989) are no longer recognized as being citizens from that date. They are now recognized as being citizens since birth (which for Musk is 1971). There is no need for any other sources. It's right there. You clearly do not know anything at all about Nationality Law and what the words automatic and retroactive mean. Yes, countries do grant citizenship to people without their consent all the time and they do change their laws. And yes, even though at the time he had to file the paperwork to become a citizen, his citizenship is no longer recognized as beginning on that date, but now it is recognized since his birth, and that is without consulting him. SCan1867 (talk) 04:22, 07 September 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:OR and WP:RS, then provide a citation to a reliable secondary source that backs up your claims. You might also want to find a reliable secondary source explaining why an alleged "Canadian citizen since birth" would feel a need to apply for citizenship using Candian form CIT 0001. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

InfoboxEdit

Right now the infobox says Citizenship: South Africa (1971–present). Canada (1971–present), United States (2002–present)., but this source [9] says that he applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17. So the 1971 date appears to be incorrect.

Do we know that the Canadian citizenship was granted -- not just applied for -- at age 17? According to [10] If it was granted at age 18 he may have lost his South African citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Missed something. The ref I cited above says "once they have reached the age of 18 years and they then wish to acquire a further foreign citizenship, they will then have to apply for prior permission to retain their South African citizenship. Failing to do so, they will automatically lose their South African citizenship." So the 2002 US citizenship appears to have taken away may have taken away his South African citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Why "appears to have taken away"? The ref clearly says that it is possible to retain SA citizenship, and there's no reason to assume Musk didn't apply for permission to do so. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Good catch! I have replaced "appears to have taken away" with "may have taken away" above. This is one of the things I love about Wikipedia; sharp eyed editors catching mistakes. BTW here is another source for the 1989 and 2002 dates:[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources [12] and [13] appear to be contradictory: one says he applied for Canadian citizenship at age 17, the other (citing Elon's own words) merely says he filled out a form and got a Canadian passport. One explanation of this apparent contradiction is that he was 'entitled' to Canadian citizenship from birth but did not take up this entitlement and actually 'hold' the citizenship until he applied for (or more correctly, until he was granted) the passport. If this explanation is correct then the dates ought to be changed back to "1989-present" - but a source confirming the distinction between entitlement and actual citizenship would be nice... Rosbif73 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thai Cave RescueEdit

We should have a dedicated section for his amazing and quick contributions to the Thai Cave rescue. Without him and his efforts, nobody would have even cared about the Thai rescue. I sure wouldn't have cared, but he used Rocket parts from the SpaceX, that should be highlighted given the advanced technology that his engineers designed so quickly. Thai cave rescues even thanked him for his practicality and innovative forward contributions at a time of intense peril. It would be useful in future cave rescues if need be. Rwat128 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Got a source for any of those contributions? All I see are some really interesting ideas (a small, child-sized submarine, a one meter diameter nylon tube (or shorter set of tubes) through the cave network inflated with air) but I hanen't seen any evidence that the Thais accepted any actual help from Musk. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
While it is great to see people from around the world join the effot to rescue the children+coach from the cave, Elon did not have any major direct contribution to this rescue operation. "Without him and his efforts, nobody would have even cared about the Thai rescue" is idiotic and not true. // sikander { talk } 20:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
There could be something in the article about his intervention in the cave rescue, which was rebuffed by all the experts and everyone in charge of the operation. It's an interesting aspect of his character that he believes that he and he alone has the correct solution to major issues, in the teeth of all the evidence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Do you have even a tiny shred of evidence that he believes that? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Musk was actually responding to someone else's twitter-request to participate. He didn't just impose himself out of some personal caprice, but decided not to ignore the request for his help. So there is no such 'aspect' of his character that Jamesinderbyshire thinks there is.192.252.160.102 (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy" section?Edit

Elon has been involved in a lot of Twitter drama lately, is it worth it to mention those conflicts? XYZt (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS for details, but putting a grab bag or garbage dump section at the bottom of any article us usually a bad idea, for many of the same reasons as WP:MISCELLANY/Trivia sections, or WP:POPCULTURE sections. It is a kind of POV fork, and it arbitrarily takes content out of chronological order, or whatever other system the rest of the article is using. Most bios describe the person's life in chronological order, so at whatever point in time they were criticized or involved in a controversy is where that content belongs. Or if you have one section where all the SpaceX stuff is, then all the SpaceX controversy goes there, not off somewhere else. If another section is all Tesla, then the Tesla controversy belongs there.

Because of the special reluctance that Wikipedia has to include negative content about living persons, I'd wait a few days to a few weeks, or even more, before adding this stuff, and only if citing the best quality sources. It is not urgent that a Wikipedia article be up to the minute current with the latest headlines.

All that being said, yes. The twitter drama and cave rescue drama does belong in the article, in a appropriate section, and after the dust has settled. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's already notable. The Musk tweet just made the Financial Times, one more RS and it's definitely noteworthy enough to pass BLP as is. Two if you want to be super-sure - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, shoulda checked: Guardian, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CNet, Fortune, Buzzfeed News, Sydney Morning Herald ... it's international news at that. There's no reasonable cause to delay this a few weeks - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, that's technically true. There are good enough sources to include this stuff. But that doesn't necessitate that you have to add it today. Any negative fact about a living person can turn out to be something else tomorrow: mistaken identity, hacked account, ulterior motives. It's very rare and unlikely, especially when a professional publication has fact checked it. But it does happen. And there is run of the mill nuance, mitigating facts that come to light once there is time for detailed investigation.

On the other hand, what reasons do we have to feel like we have to add this content immediately? None. If the article fails to mention this controversy for a few days, even for a few weeks, so what? In some sense, it helps remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is always helpful.

The fact that it is covered in every major news outlet around the globe ensures that nobody has missed out on this news. It isn't as if leaving it out of this article will mean someone is unaware of it. It only underscores that WP is not a newspaper and should never feel the slightest pressure to keep up with the very latest developments.

So whatever we write today might be minimally adequate, but what we write in two days or ten days will be significantly better. I would say the same on any BLP. Be a sloth. Take your sweet time. Wikinews is a great outlet for those itching to write something right now this second. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What isn't new is his use of Twitter to enter into extended insult trading, which seems pretty important to the article in terms of fleshing out what kind of character he is. The latest development is that he calls <a diver>, one of the leading British cave experts on the site and a key planner in the rescue, a "pedo" by Twitter to his 22m followers without a shred of evidence, because <the diver> had the temerity to denigrate Musk's proposals. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talkcontribs)
We will wait and see what comes out of this. If he has exposed someone who is a "pedo" then we should be thanking him instead of saying an insult trader. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
It's outrageous that Musk can label someone like this and that is taken as a fact waiting to be disproven here in Wikipedia. Did I miss the takeover by the Cult of Musk? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
If you are going to find the Cult of Musk on Wikipedia then you have come to the right page, but even still such people must follow the sources and not their own research. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
"If he has exposed someone who is a "pedo" then we should be thanking him instead of saying an insult trader." How can you say that? He provided absolutely no substantiation for the assertion, and he HAS removed the offending tweets. He made the comment, and unlike what the article says, <diver> is as of the date of this post still considering legal action. "... <diver> considered legal action against Musk over the tweet." is extremely premature, and clearly NOT substantiated by the link. It needs to be sorted out. Part of the problem is the US Speech Act, which prevents libel judgments in the UK and elsewhere being enforced in the US on the grounds that they undermine American standards of free speech.--Terry Patterson (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I suggest a rule of thumb, for hot news: why not hold off until enough time has passed for monthly publications to cover the events? Daily news reporters don't have time for much deliberation, but after the monthlies weigh in, we've probably heard it all. It's not mandatory; I'm only saying it's a wise practice. By that standard, there is no reason not to add details about Musk's history of insults and ill-considered tweets. The sourcing is there: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. (I'm not saying these are the sources you should cite; just giving examples)

Considering again what the role of an encyclopedia is, nobody should come to this article to catch up on the latest news about the cave rescue controversy, but someone who is reading about that in the news is very likely to turn to an encyclopedia for history and context about Musk's outbursts in years past. It's practicality the definition of encyclopedic (keeping a close eye on the rules of BLP). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is coming across as special pleading - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
What pleading is necessary? You aren't forbidden from going ahead and adding this content now. I've observed that such an impatient approach to BLPs creates unnecessary drama that wouldn't happen if editors took their time, but if you don't agree, you're allowed to go ahead with it now. You might want to consider that writing full coverage of unforced verbal errors by Musk over the years would plant you on firmer ground against anyone who would criticize it. If the article contains full context, adding coverage of the cave rescue kerfuffle makes all the more sense.

Controversy garbage dump sections are still dumb though. Put it up in the main body of the article, not tacked on to the end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

this is ridiculous of course the article should be up to date sometimes I think people are you get too obsessed with the rules and what Wikipedia is not to realize that Wikipedia should be up-to-date. It seems to me that Wikipedia is so concerned about blp standards that it's made a common mistake which is it's going to fall and no negative information can be added because God forbid there actually be negative information about a living person GummoLosyMarxBro (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Can someone correct the dates error in the Education section?Edit

He can't have moved on to California to embark upon a Ph.D. degree two years before he completed his undergrad qualifications at the University of Pennsylvania in (as the text currently stands) "May 1997". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.175 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He left in 1995 but didn't technically graduate until 1997. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we could make that clearer in the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Pedo" TweetsEdit

@Suffusion of Yellow:, never included it in the edit summary cause I clicked publish before I submitted it, but considering the media's response of the issue, the "pedo comment" section is necessary. Also, I wouldn't remove his name and call him "irrelevant", since that's the very person who Elon directed his comments towards (added the fact that many sources+the Thai govt called him a key player in the rescue). TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 02:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(ping not received) Well, the media fuss was just exploding when I last edited the page, and I'm not convinced that the section should be removed anymore. We'll see. As to including his name, I didn't call him "irrelevant" but rather "obscure" by which I meant "about 1/10000 as recognizable a name as Elon Musk". The unconscious mind is a dangerous thing, and we must be extra careful about including the names of such people anywhere in proximity to words like "pedophile" that they'd rather not be associated with. I'm not saying never, just slow down. Looking at this today, I'd say the horse is now a very long way out of the barn, and this guy is going to be associated with this forever regardless of what we do here, so I'm not going revert your change. But I always favor caution in WP:BLP matters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Wumbolo: How so? TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 17:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • An encyclopedic article on Musk should record what secondary sources have shown to have long term significance. I don't think it is possible to explain that associating someone's name with pedophilia due to an angry outburst is not a good idea—the beholder needs a certain amount of worldly experience and will either find it obvious or not. At this stage (intense media excitement and delight) the current text is probably all that can be achieved but in due course it needs to be heavily pruned. Musk was attacked and responded very unwisely—that's the encyclopedic information (when a secondary source says that). Naming the other party when they are totally non-notable is gratuitous nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove the section. Celebrities getting into twitter fights with other celebrities is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder, but celebrities getting into twitter fights with non-celebrities is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder that has a very real potential to ruin lives. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Elon Musk apologizes for calling Thai cave rescue diver 'pedo guy' --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused; are you saying that it would somehow reflect badly on the diver for it to be known that Musk made this baseless accusation (and doubled down on it in subsequent tweets/comments)? Because I don't see how that would be the case, so long as we relate the full story as presented by reliable sources: that is, that Musk had a meltdown and repeatedly asserted that another person was a sexual predator not based upon even one shred of evidence to suggest as much, but just because he was angry and could not control himself. If anything, since some small fraction of readers may come to this article looking for information on this incident, we wouldn't be mitigating the damage done to the diver's reputation if we refuse to cover this noteworthy episode and provide the full context--rather it would be just the opposite, since partial or absent coverage could lead the reader with the impression that Musk actually had a reason for suspecting this of the diver.
Regardless, the diver is considering suing for defamation and Tesla shares are down over the affair, so I don't think we can presume the story is going away immediately. If the article were structured a little differently, I would suggest this affair needn't have its own subsection, but there is no section for general discussion of Musk's generally combative history with critics, so placing a subsection after the Pravda subsection seems the only viable option. And not for nothing, but both of the sources which I've read in the last couple of days regarding this affair explicitly connected the event to a pattern on Musk's part for a short fuse when it comes to criticism, and particularly for leveraging social media to strike back. None of which is to suggest we should be following suit at present (there's WP:WEIGHT issues there), but at the same time, I do think it's perfectly fair to present these outbursts (or rather just the ones that meet a certain threshold of coverage) as RS relate them, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Looking at the section on this latest event, it's hard for me to see any one statement that we could "prune" as you put it, without removing potentially vital context. Could you be more specific about what you imagine being pulled out, other than the diver's name? (I'm 50/50 on that one, but you may very well be right that it's more trouble than it's worth. Snow let's rap 06:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on "musk pedo diver"
And I still maintain that celebrities getting into twitter fights is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious. Musk, like many other onlookers, was moved by the plight of the team, but Musk, unlike almost all onlookers, did what he could to help. To have that written off with the pathetic language used would be intensely irritating and it is easy to see why Musk exploded with an unwise rejoinder. We will know in six months whether the issue has any encyclopedic significance because if it has, secondary sources will have recorded ways in which Musk's reputation or business have been affected. Further, if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suppose you could always RfC the issue if you both feel that strongly about it, but I suspect we are on the same page that the result will be a keep, not withstanding your good faith reasoning of trying to protect the diver. And honestly, that's because said reasoning here is out of step with policy, no matter the altruistic motive. We can't actually shield this "non-notable" person in the way you suggest; this story is out there and we aren't some EU media regulatory authority who can try to enforce the right to be forgotten--which in any event only ever invites the Streisand Effect; I know you think you're doing this man a favour by trying but, A) it just doesn't work that way in the internet era, and the best thing we can do is provide accurate information about the exact sequence of events so there is no question that Musk's comment was unfounded in any factual reality, and B) the person in question isn't even seeking to remain anonymous or to have Musk's words forgotten; he is engaging in a very public war of words, and has specifically challenged Musk on those comments (again, remember there were multiple comments and that Tesla, a company of global significance, lost 4% of its stock value over them), and has made a public statement that he is considering legal action. I very much doubt he would want our help in protecting his name (as he seems to want Musk to answer for the behaviour), and, in any event, it's not our appropriate place as Wikipedia editors to insert ourselves into the matter in this way. Especially when it would mean omitting significant details about the fortunes of the company Musk is best known for helming and his relationship with its shareholders.
Additionally, your argument on how WP:WEIGHT is established misstates the requirements of the policy: there is no "we have to wait and see how 'lasting' the coverage is" requirement; once an event has hit a certain threshold of coverage, it is simply WP:DUE and there is no "sustained coverage" requirement. In fact, as regards notability, we have policies which explicitly say the opposite, and the reasoning behind those guidelines applies just as well as to the present editorial question. Anyway, I'm not going to push the matter, as I actually just arrived here via an RfC below and commenteded here incidentally. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts that other editors here are going to oppose removing this content and that, if it thereafter went to RfC, you'd have slim chances. At the same time, I understand your motivation, and that you may feel bound to give it a shot anyway. Snow let's rap 11:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Snow Rise, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees publishe the following resolution in April 2009:[21]
The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... 2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.
I agree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing in that statement that I disagree with either, but I believe you are providing a false dilemma if you are suggesting that the WMFs sentiments there are inconsistent with anything in my previous post. Snow let's rap 18:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
BLP guidelines are not meant to protect living individual from negative press. The tweets and the fallout were covered by the press, and there is nothing wrong with the article mentioning that. It is absurd to suggest that any notable person should be immune to bad press and having it mentioned in an article. Mrathel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Mrathel, please note that the cave diver fellow is not (yet?) notable. MPS1992 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
And is unlikely to be either unless they do something more significant in the future, since BLP1E would come into play. No one is going to have an article about a living person that centers about this twitter crap. And Mrathel, its to protect the non-notable diver, *not* Musk. There needs to be consensus to include it, not exclude it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I went back and removed his name from the section; but a notable person can commit a notable act to a non-notable person. Just because the diver was not notable doesn't mean that Musk's actions were not newsworthy. Mrathel (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
And I have removed it again. You need to gain consensus to include the material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
We can remove the other party's name from the section if necessary, but you are wrong in that the standard is always for inclusion over exclusion of sourced content.Mrathel (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to go suggest changes to WP:BLP. Until that happens, no. For biographies of living people the standard is to include, not exclude. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
BLP considerations can be taken into account without removing the entire section. The name of the diver has been removed from every reference in the article. While this is silly given the amount of media coverage with his name, there is no reasonable objection to the rest of the section remaining; BLP objections do not apply, therefore sourced content cannot be be reverted citing the BLP rule. Mrathel (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I can do this all fucking day. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Or you can spend a little bit reading about civility. I have removed identifying mention of the diver. Your insistence that BLP still applies, without bothering to mention here, is not justified. Use your words.Mrathel (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Its flatly impossible to cover this without Identifying either directly or indirectly through linking to the material. Since the diver is a non-notable non-public figure, I am not satisfied after looking at the various sources that it is possible to comply with the BLP and cover this while protecting the diver. BLP applies regardless of if the person is explicitly named if they can be easily identified. Now you need to gain consensus to include the material, do not replace it again. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't care if you are satisfied or not. The situation was covered by news media around the world. To suggest that this story cannot be covered because a person who is not notable might be indirectly identified is absurd. I do not need to gain consensus to add material; you need to gain consensus to delete it. Citing BLP to suggest that you get card blanche to dictate what sections are included and what sourced material to include is silly.Mrathel (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Please point to the policy that says "[you] do not need to gain consensus to add material; you need to gain consensus to delete it." I believe you are mistaken, and that any challenged edit is subject to consensus. General Ization Talk 19:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I've restored just the non-controversial first paragraph of the Tham Luang cave rescue section - leaving it for someone else to attempt to devise a BLP-compliant (and more generally policy-compliant) version of the public insults part.Rosbif73 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I've hatted the below bullshit. Talkpage's are for discussing improvement to the article, *not* OR soapboxing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not relevant Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Musk heard others calling him pedo-guy and just decided to go with that nickname. It doesn't mean anything. He could have refer to him as depo-guy, or pepo-guy, or fake-pr-guy. you can interpret nicknames as you wish, in many possible ways.45.58.200.63 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I hope everyone realizes Musk was the one who was viciously attacked with violently perverse humour in front of the whole world on cameras. He is the victim here. He didn't cause the confrontation.45.58.200.63 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Now pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
"...made an unsubstantiated claim that the diver was a paedophile". This text is what is 'unsubstantiated'. How can you have this written on the page, this is obviosly against wikipedia policy. Musk never made any "claims", he just put some silly nickname that was passing around, in his response to a recent celebrity that viciously attacked him publicly, and deleted it shortly after realizing it is not a good nickname. Although it can be even interpreted as a friendly gesture to refer back with a silly nickname to someone who attacks you. He didn't respond back to aggressive profanity that includes hurting and being hurt with aggressive profanity.45.58.200.63 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Got a source for your claim that Musk heard others calling him pedo-guy? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There might be a source in some format, but it is irrelevant for wikipedia. Relevant is that Musk never claimed that the diver was paedophile as it says now on the page, and that should be changed. Calling with joke-nickname pedo-guy someone who challenged you attacking with a much worse joke about you, is NOT a claim (accusation) of paedophilia. It is just a joke-response. Even a retard can understand that.45.58.200.63 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
ok, i see the pedo word issue is removed from the main article. as long as it stays like that, there is no need for me to explain the logic behind the nickname. thanks.45.58.195.45 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I restored all of the content that was there before. I agree that it is a little long, but none of the information is inaccurate and the sources (NYT, Fortune, etc) more than establish that the content is notable. Considering virtually all media coverage of Musk in relation to the Thai cavers is based upon the Pedo tweet, it makes no sense to mention the episode at all without bringing up the tweet and the falloutMrathel (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Only in death and Mrathel: You have now both greatly exceeded 3RR, and I strongly suggest that you stop lest both of you be blocked from editing (though at this point that is the likely outcome even if you stop). General Ization Talk 19:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, as there is a good faith issue that including the section is a BLP violation, it needs to stay out until consensus is to include it. Also good faith BLP reverts are exempt from edit warring. So I can literally do this all day. If consensus *is* to include the material, I will of course, not revert it out further. But there is clearly none of that above. I have requested page protection at RPP and at ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, no, you can't do it all day; there is a question of degree, and you have far exceeded it. Since you have not reported the issue to a noticeboard, as far as I can tell, all you are doing is perpetuating the conflict rather than seeking assistance in interpreting and applying policy to the question. I wouldn't be too confident, if I were you, that your edit war is justified by policy. General Ization Talk 19:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
If you have reported it to a noticeboard (I note you mention ANI, though this belongs at BLPN), you would still do well to stop the war while the matter is considered there. General Ization Talk 19:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
They reported it to WP:RPP and an administrator with local knowledge has taken action to stop the edit war. MPS1992 (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I previously reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk. The subsequent comments on that page made it clear that this is an unambiguous BLP violation to be removed on sight, and that the removals are exempt from our edit warring rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2018
Just to clarify: Including the divers name in my opinion is an unambiguous BLP violation (which is where I started from earlier in the day) but initially thought the material could still be included. After looking at all the sources I cant see how including it doesnt identify the diver regardless of if their name is in the article. We still link to sources that list it, its still a completely bogus and defamatory (in the commonly used sense rather than legal) accusation, really if I say "Editor <hidden link to Guy Macons userpage> likes to eat babies" but dont include the name, its still a violation of a number of policies. I cant see how this could be used to that extent without identifying them. I dont think this is unambiguous, but I certainly think it falls foul of the spirit of BLP which is minimising harm. WP:BLPGROUP applies the policy to small groups of people - who are often not named directly. Why should an un-named individual receive less protection just because their name is not used? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Well I do enjoy Baby Back Ribs without giving much thought to the babies... :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────That is absurd. The name of the diver was removed from the article, which changes the BLP status, no? I mean if we can't mention any divers in the article because someone mighht indirectly identify the non-notable person in question. My god, I remember why I left WP now :) Mrathel (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Was it over BLP issues? MPS1992 (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
That cannot be used as a blanket reason to cover everything. I removed the name of the diver, as OID suggested, and still he kept 3rr'ing the the article. The concept that we can't include an incident if it involves a non-notable person is absurd. If a celebrity gets a DUI and hits a non-notable person, would that not go into his or her article? I cannot believe that position is being suggested, never-the-less requires a consensus to refute. Mrathel (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
"User:Mrathel finds it to be absurd" isn't a good way of making policy. I agree with Only in death; There is no way we can include this without violating BLP. and here on Wikipedia, completeness of an article is a lower priority than our BLP policy is. Find some other example of Musk being a jerk on Twitter -- one that doesn't link a non-public figure with pedophilia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
this is the type of Wiki lawyering  that is ruining Wikipedia GummoLosyMarxBro (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I saw news the diver has gone through with filing the lawsuit today, which I have added (but left the diver's name out). I don't watch this page but aware of the BLP issue on this (hence why I added that when I saw the news). I will say with the lawsuit, the logic to keep the name out weakens a bit, but not enough to turn above consensus around on omission of the name, but do caution that a new discussion might be necessary depending how far these go. (KEeping in mind that the diver's name might be a needed searchable term). I leave that for discussion. --Masem (t) 19:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: NationalityEdit

Arguments, where policy based, largely focused on different interpretations of MOS:BLPLEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO with some editors citing these as providing guidance on the basis that opening sentences should not be overburdened, while other editors cited the lack of specificity in these as evidence of flexibility in approach. Ultimately, neither argument was stronger than the other and - with 14 editors registering decipherable opinions - no option received a majority of support, let alone a consensus. The discussion closed with Rosbif73 suggesting that it might be worth revisiting the MOS:BLPLEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO guidelines to achieve consensus on a better solution, or at least clarify the existing guidance and this is probably the next step, realistically, at which time the phrasing of the opening sentence here could be reexamined. Chetsford (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the opening sentence describe Musk as:

  1. a South African-born...
  2. an American...
  3. a South African-American...
  4. a South African-born American
  5. (other) or
  6. nationality omitted?

THE DIAZ userpagetalkcontribs 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • D. MOS:BLPLEAD gives very few guidelines on how to describe a multi-citizen, but it seems that Musk is obviously notable for his works in the United States as well as his being from South Africa (vocality on South African issues and speaking with a heavy accent). He's notable for being from South Africa, and also for being a U.S. citizen. THE DIAZ userpagetalkcontribs 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • D. Second choice B or F. In particular, I reject any attempt to call him Canadian based upon the two years he spent in Canada with the express purpose of making it easier to become an American citizen or based upon his US-born English/German/Swiss mother. BTW, "African-American" has an existing meaning which makes "South African-American" confusing to many readers. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Modified 17:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • F. (i.e. as today, with no mention of his nationalities and place of birth in the the opening sentence, but details given in the second paragraph). Musk's place of birth and his citizenships are not the primary factors that make him notable and thus do not belong in the opening sentence. They are, however, sufficiently notable facts about him to be worthy of inclusion in the second paragraph of the lead. MOS:BLPLEAD and more specifically MOS:OPENPARABIO mentions birth place, though not nationality: Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and should appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates [my emphasis]. Also note MOS:LEADSENTENCE: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • B. MOS:OPENPARABIO recommends including "the country of which the person is a citizen" for context. D is justifiable, but I'd argue that Musk is far more notable for being an entrepreneur than for being South African-born, and the second paragraph already starts with his place of birth. The article itself does not mention Musk's views on South Africa or his accent. C0617470r (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • F. It reads perfectly well as it is, and doesn't try to cram massive amounts of information into the first few sentences. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • D or B, per guideline 3 of MOS:OPENPARABIO. I argued for "South African-born American" above and I personally prefer that option, but just "American" is fine. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • B as per C0617470r. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • C or D. His dual citizenship must be respected and acknowledged. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever option (listed or otherwise) most accurately reflects the WP:WEIGHT of descriptors used in sources, obviously. This inquiry is long on proposals but short (that is to say, complete devoid of) any objective, policy and source-based explanation of the value of those options. Respondents are therefore responding with completely subjective assessments based on idiosyncratic criteria, with predictably scatter-shot results. But policy is abundantly clear on how this determination is meant to be made; not on our best independent rational of which option makes sense, but rather how WP:reliable sources describe the subject in general.
If respondents can be provided with some degree of understanding of the sources here (which should have been a part of the previous discussion of this matter before; incidentally, some degree of talk page effort to iron the issue out should have preceded as well) then they will be able to make an objective policy-based determination of that issue. If things proceed as they have been, on the other hand, this discussion is doomed to a no-consensus outcome (and even if it doesn't end that way, its result will be very flimsy against future challenges as not based in policy but rather just the random outcome of idiosyncratic voting). Snow let's rap 06:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • C it is the most informative and accuarte of the possible options Zubin12 (talk) 9:52 pm, Today (UTC−7)
  • F per Rosbif(Summoned by bot) Else you have to include Canada through his mother, but South African Born Canadian American is ridiculous. Ditch from lead altogether if we have to. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Would that be his US-born English/German/Swiss mother? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same person? Maye Musk, Canadian born? I agree with your above comment which is why I wrote but South African Born Canadian American is ridiculous. The lead as is is just fine. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I misremembered what I wrote on this page earlier: "His mother, Maye (Maiden name Haldeman) Musk, was born in Canada but moved to South Africa when she was two years old. She has English, German and Swiss, ancestry, and her father and mother were both born in the US. If ancestry is the way to determine nationality, you might as well call Elon Musk a Frenchman.".
Note to self: Next time, smoke crack AFTER editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • D. Musk is obviously notable for being born and schooled in South Africa and now a US citizen. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
  • C - Since it is the most concise and accurate of the options. Meatsgains(talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Accurate? It sounds like an African-American who lives in the south of the United States. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTA He is an American citizen who, apparently, also has South African and Canadian citizenship. Handling tri-nationality in a short sentence is nigh impossible. One might be able to say Musk was born in South Africa and now also has Canadian and American citizenship. Which is as close to being accurate as anything. Collect (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • F. The details are explained well enough in the following sentences. No need to cram all that stuff into a single sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
  • D - C is awkward and the others leave out important information. Seraphim System (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

The main problem with including one or more nationalities is the endless edit wars that we have seen, with American, Canadian and South-African all being added and removed repeatedly from the opening sentence. By relegating this information to the second paragraph, where it can be explained properly, it becomes less contentious. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That suggestion makes a lot of sense to me, but as someone who has responded to dozens of random RfC notices to these BLP nationality debates over the years, I can tell you that getting editors to forgo any mention of nationality in the lead is probably a WP:SNOW no-go, more's the pity. Snow let's rap 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Were those RfCs for historical figures of disputed nationalities, or cases like this where someone is clearly at least a dual national? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Most edit wars about nationality are caused by someone
[A] insisting` that someone belongs to their favorite nationality (they tend to do this on multiple BLPs),
[B] Insisting that the information b`e in the infobox, lead, or both, and
[C] `edit warring and treating the article like a WP:BATTLEFIELD.
In this case, pretty much nobody has a problem with American or South African, and I doubt that anyone would suggest removing either if not for the nationality-pushers trying to label him as Canadian based upon his two-years in Canada.
"Elon made his move [to Canada] after he graduated high school. Though he already felt like an American, he'd done research and concluded that it would be easier to obtain American citizenship as a Canadian immigrant rather than as a South African one."[22]`--Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Honestly though, Guy, you're only strengthening the case for why it may be smartest to either avoid the nationality label in the lead entirely or replace common nouns with a concise description of where he has been a resident. Because your line of analysis, while perfectly rational and reasonable to my ear, is nevertheless nothing short of pure WP:Original research: "Look, we have a source saying that he only viewed Canada as a means to an end. Ergo, he was never a "true" Canadian." Ok, fair enough, but another person may have a definition of citizenship, residency, or other aspect of nationality which views intent to stay as irrelevant. And in order to litigate that point, you each have to fall back on increasingly convoluted and subjective arguments pulling more and more facts and more and more personal analysis. That's just not how content decisions are meant to be made on this project.
And yet, that's all that's happening here, outside of Rosbif's suggestion; pretty much every single !vote selection above is just each editor selecting the flavour of WP:OR theory that makes the most idiosyncratic sense to them, without a single reference to WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT, which is how policy actually directs these questions be established. The choices here, if people were following policy, are either go with what the sources converge on by way of convenience or just eschew simple descriptors and opt for detailed coverage, either in the lead or omitted until later. But nationality is clearly something that blindsides editors via sympathetic reactions (even those that insist they are not of the class usually subject to it) at a high rate, because fully one-in-three times that I arrive at one of these nationality-in-the-lead RfCs by notice, the discussion is proceeding much as it is here. And the consequence is what you are seeing here: the !votes are all over the place precisely because the objective WP:WEIGHT test, that usually converges experienced editors on a common shared methodology for analysis, is completely absent, and everyone is instead employing their favourite "common sense" WP:OR metrics. And when you have a number of choices in an area of plurality of perspectives like this, it pretty much guarantees a "no consensus" deadlock.
In a couple of weeks, when a closer does in fact cap the discussion as no consensus, local editors here should instead try re-approaching this matter through the standard WP:WEIGHT process. If that can't succeed because the sources are too vague or too inconsistent, I would suggest the only option left will be to cobble the descriptions together into a summary of Musk's immigration history. Snow let's rap 03:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
You make some very good points. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been known to get my foot on the ball every once in a while. :) Snow let's rap 04:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Given the above, and the fact that this isn't the first time nationality has been an issue in BLP opening sentences, might it be worth revisiting the MOS:BLPLEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO guidelines to achieve consensus on a better solution, or at least clarify the existing guidance? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AncestryEdit

According to ethnicelebs.com (which cites geni.com, genealogy.com and wikitree.com):[23]

Elon Musk was born in Pretoria, Transvaal, South Africa. He now lives in the U.S.

His father, Errol Graham Musk, is South African-born, and has English, Dutch Afrikaner, and French Huguenot, ancestry.

His mother, Maye (Haldeman), a model and dietician, is Canadian-born, from Regina, Saskatchewan, and has English, and some German and Swiss-German, ancestry.

His first name, Elon, is likely after the middle name of his own maternal great-grandfather, John Elon Haldeman.

Elon is the brother of Kimbal Musk, a businessperson, and Tosca Musk, a producer and director.

Elon has six children with his former wife, Canadian author Justine Musk.

Elon’s paternal grandfather was Walter Henry James Musk (the son of Harry Musk and Lucy Frances Champion). Walter was born in Pretoria, South Africa.

Harry Musk was born in Exning, Suffolk, England, and was the son of Eliza.

Lucy Frances Champion was born in Caledon, South Africa, the daughter of John Irish Champion and Jacoba Louisa Theron.

Elon’s paternal grandmother was Cora Amelia Robinson (the daughter of John Robinson and Breghie Elizabeth Theron).

John Robinson was born in Liverpool, England, the son of Levi Robinson and Matilda Marsh.

Breghie Elizabeth Theron was born in Beaufort West, South Africa, the daughter of Johannes Nicolaas Theron and Amelia Elenora van Vuuren.

Elon’s maternal grandfather was Joshua Norman Haldeman (the son of John Elon Haldeman and Almeda Jane Norman). Joshua was born in Minnesota.

John Elon Haldeman was born in Illinois, the son of John O. Haldeman and Evaline [?]

Almeda Jane Norman was born in Minnesota, the daughter of Joshua Norman and Almeda [?]..

Elon’s maternal grandmother was Winnifred “Wyn” Josephine Fletcher, the daughter of Harold Fletcher.

Way too much detail for a Wikipedia BLP, but I wanted to document the claim here in case the website goes down. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I iterate my belief that "extended genealogies" are poor material for biographies of living persons. Ancestry.com now has given me on the order of four hundred+ notable likely relatives (i.e. with Wiki articles, at least) and I find such lists to be fun, but not encyclopedic. Where the relatives are not even notable, not even fun. Collect (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Totally useless for inclusion in the article. Useful as a quick reference for use during the endless debates on this talk page of the form "His paternal grandfather was from Freedonia and his mother spent 3 years in Elbonia, so that makes him a South African-Elbonian-Freedonian-American". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Additionally, genealogy sites are usually not WP:RS as they're made up from user submissions - and I've seen plenty of stuff on them that is compete nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Not reliable, to the point we've given it to a bot User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Tham Luang cave rescue/namecallingEdit

This RfC was made to discuss whenever the subsection regarding Musk's false accusations of Unsworth should be kept or removed. See Talk:Elon_Musk#Pedo_Accusations for previous discussion and the edit before the edit war began as reference. TomasTomasTomas (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • Keep section, with name - For reasons stated in Talk:Elon_Musk#Pedo_Accusations, namely by Snow_Rise (talk · contribs). Unsworth's name is already interwoven in the story, and the legal action is a relevant addition in terms of explaining the effects of Musk's accusations. The accusations in a whole was not only widely reported by news sources, but is also relevant in the scope of Musk's companies, where major stockholders expressed uncertainties in Musk due to said comments. All in all, it's a relevant part of one Musk's more controversial actions that should be listed. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 20:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Side addition I would have to agree with some users saying that "accusation" is too strong of a word, it's moreso just name calling and rudeness. I would suppose to keep the section if it doesn't call it an "accusation" but moreso just name calling. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 18:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What outcome is proposed? What responses are wanted here? If it concerns associating a non-notable person with pedophilia, the votes of passers-by do not count. Sorry, but BLP is something people either understand or don't, and reverting BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. There is no reason for Wikipedia to name the person. It is fine to link to references which include all the details, if the material is found to satisfy WP:DUE as far as long-term significance for Musk is concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - It gained major coverage from big media across the world as story unfolded, often over span of a few articles, making it not just a minor event but something of encyclopedic notability. Just few examples of major news networks: Guardian, Time, Wired, Fortune, CNN, BBC, The New York Times, Independent, France24, Euronews, RT, TVN24 and so on, and so on. Having section about Tham Luang cave rescue without mentioning entire "pedo" makes it look oddly like a PR page of Elon Musk and not an online encyclopedia (in particular given that the whole submarine was inconsequential to the rescue). Also I'd like to point out that there is a number of similar events, some of which had much shorter life-span, that were covered by Wikipedia, notable example being Matt Taylor (scientist)#Shirt controversy. If we suddenly stop covering events like that - there should be a movement across the Wikipedia to clean them out, which would be weird, to say at least... SkywalkerPL (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's significant and notable, to omit mention of it would impinge on wikipedias reputation for telling the whole story about something in a balanced way Lyndaship (talk) 07:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • But keep what? I can't see a clear question to be resolved by this RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep brief text, but as part of the 'Cave' section. There is no need - or advantage - to naming the diver attacked, which it is fairly abundantly clear was a baseless accusation anyway. Pincrete (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Relevant part of the story, and covered by numerous news outlets so it's a relevant part of the story and there are no shortage of citations. Seems Elon Musk's fan club thinks his wiki page should be scrubbed of any negative information since their favorite billionaire really put his foot in his mouth. (or more accurately, was spewing bullshit forth from his own, accusing the diver) Sarr Cat 13:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but shorten The "pedo" episode is relevant to the discussion of the cave rescue and not a violation of WP:BLP without naming the diver. However, we should avoid giving it undue weight, the section that was reverted before the protection is longer than the section about his founding of PayPal. Mention the tweet but keep it close to a sentence, the relevance of this episode is already fading by the day as Musk generates headlines at a rate of 1 per hour.
  • Keep but shorten It is a significant event, those accusations are descriptive of Musk’s brash character, however, in the big picture of his life achievements and projects this should be a mere footnote and not given UNDUE weight. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but shorten, and focus on the sub. Musk made a kid sized submarine in an extremely fast time and flew it to Thailand. That's notable even without the namecalling incident. Diver, under understandable stress, with lives at stake and time of the essence, said it was useless and didn't use it. Musk had his feelings hurt and called diver a pedo, after which he drew intense international heat and apologized. That's what we should write, a short paragraph, focusing on the sub, not on the namecalling. We don't need to give the diver's real name, this article is not about the diver, and it would be a BLP violation to associate the diver's name with this ridiculous claim. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If we focus on the sub, it isn't the fact that he made it quickly, but he faced criticism from media and the diver himself because it seemed like a publicity stunt instead of having true intentions to help the situation. The reason why the name calling is an important piece is because it ties into the sub as well. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 15:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we are going to keep the section about the cave rescue then we should keep the parts about the accusations. Withholding seems biased as so far we only have positive aspects of the story (Musk offered to help, but was turned down), while omitting negative aspects (Musk attacked a diver who criticised his sub). 7r33 (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the importance of the diver's name. It was added very late in the editing process; earlier versions of this section didn't include his name. I'm not sure why the editor that engaged in the edit war claimed that this was a BLP violation against Unsworth, which is not only false, but doesn't require deleting most of the entire section. If we can't agree whether to include the diver's name or not, just restore to a version without a name. It's simple. If people want to know more details they can click on the sources and go to the articles themselves, which aren't shy about naming the victim of Musk's attacks. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 09:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per my comments in the previous thread. Additionally, I do not feel that the previous wording was particularly WP:UNDUE. And given the WP:SNOW result of community input with regard to the BLP issues here, I hope that said content (or the lion's share of it anyway) will be promptly returned when this thread is closed, without disruption or further edit warring over the matter. With respect to Guy, one cannot de-legitimize an RfC by saying that it violates a policy when the entire question submitted for community adjudication was whether or not the content in question violates that policy, and clear, near-absolute consensus was achieved saying the content was in fact consistent with policy. That would be begging the question in the extreme. Snow let's rap 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a significant event. Robertgombos (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussionEdit

  • CALL FOR IMMEDIATE PROCEDURAL CLOSE: An RfC cannot overrule our WP:BLP policy. I would have no objection to a new RfC asking whether the material in question is or is not a BLP violation, with the new RfC posted on the BLP noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Comments - Question @Guy Macon: WP:BLP has a large array of conditions, you need to be more specific for what points of BLP you feel this violates. Also SkywalkerPL pointed out that all the issues have been widely covered by the media and the consequences of the issue. The section was sourced and I didn't see a problem with it, some of it I thought was a bit petty and trivial. I thought it should be been toned down. Govvy (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    The BLP issue has been discussed at length elsewhere on this page and on the BLP noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    The BLP issue needs to be reassessed. It makes virtually no sense to say that a notable person's actions covered in mainstream media outlets cannot be added to the article simply because they are in relation to non-notable person. I partially understood the logic behind removing the name of the diver and did so in the most-recent version of the text to appear in the article, but there is no logical justification for saying that even mentioning the episode is a violation of the diver's right to privacy. It was international news. Mrathel (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Still need to be specific about BLP arguments, you can't just say close this and say BLP! Being clear and precise helps! The incident clearly had an effect on share price, the text should be returned. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Asked and answered. No, I am not going to repeat here what you can read for yourself at Talk:Elon Musk#Pedo Accusations. Please stop asking. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, you don't want to say, then this RfC remains open per negation. Govvy (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
    Fair enough, you don't want to read, then nothing you say about this RfC has any validity. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I apologize for the length of the following, but Govvy is unable or unwilling to scroll up a few inches, so I am forced to spoon feed him the information that he refuses to read. :(

"I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on 'musk pedo diver' --Guy Macon 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[24]

"Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious.... if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack." ---Johnuniq 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[25]

"I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.)" --Only in death does duty end 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[26][27]

"Its flatly impossible to cover this without Identifying either directly or indirectly through linking to the material. Since the diver is a non-notable non-public figure, I am not satisfied after looking at the various sources that it is possible to comply with the BLP and cover this while protecting the diver. BLP applies regardless of if the person is explicitly named if they can be easily identified. Now you need to gain consensus to include the material, do not replace it again." --Only in death does duty end 19:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[28]

"I previously reported it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk. The subsequent comments on that page made it clear that this is an unambiguous BLP violation to be removed on sight, and that the removals are exempt from our edit warring rules." Guy Macon 20:03, 30 July 2018[29]

Also see:

  1. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk
  2. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A attempt to overrule our BLP policy with an RfC?

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I was asking for a clear and precise BLP argument, not an essay! I have read the points from the previous conversations above. Simply referring to BLP as a whole never helps anyone, all you needed to add was a few extra pointers. Govvy (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No response would have satisfied you. You weren't happy when I asked you to read the section where the BLP issue was discussed, you weren't happy when I spoonfed it to you after you repeatedly refued to read it, and you would not have been happy with any pointers and/or summary I might have posted. Why don't you try addressing the BLP issue rather than criticizing whatever I do? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


I had already read the discussion but still had reservations about the blanket use of Claiming BLP to suggest removing the content. It is actually silly to suggest that a famous person’s article can’t contain incidents of behavior that affect non-notable people. As an example, the Aron Artest article covers the incident where he even punched a non-notable fan and even names him. Using your logic (mostl OID’s really) the Anthony Weiner article should not cover his illicit photos because they were sent to a non-notable minor! I am not saying the incident warrentd a ton of coverage in the article, but the excuse being used to omit it is beyond absurd, and it is time to listen to consensus over trying to use a wildly stretched interpretation of BLP policy to shut down the opinions of others. Mrathel (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You honestly can't see any difference between "Mrathel was punched by a basketball player", "Mrathel was sexually harassed by a politician" and "Mrathel was accused of being a pedophile by a billionaire"? I already had a contributor to this page blocked and his edits removed from the page history because he posted claims that the non-notable person actually is a pedophile. That alone should tell you that such accusations tend to stick to a person.
I find that "Mrathel thinks that is is silly" to be a poor reason for associating an otherwise non-notable person with accusations of pedophilia. And no, simply omitting his name isn't good enough. We have to omit every citation that names him. This is the exact kind of situation that our BLP policy was created to address. Again, can't you find some stupid Elon Musk tweet that we can report without contributing to the damage caused by those who claim that the non-notable person must be a pedophile if Elon Musk said he was? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I would say that is fair, however Unsworth is publicly prosecuting the claims, and the previous revision did explicitly state that the accusations were said to be baseless and untrue. As well, Unsworth was a major leader in the rescue, and I would say it's pretty relevant to say the leader's name specifically rather than calling him a "diver" in a section that's explicitly about the rescue. The specific tweet was about Unsworth, and the media+stockholder's reactions were due to that specific tweet. We can't just take another "stupid tweet" when the controversy surrounded that very specific tweet. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 07:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Guy, you are following a very illogical, or silly, train of thought. The action made by the subject of the article is notable. That is beyond dispute. To say it cannot be here because it affects another person is absurd. It was in the news, the lawsuit is public, and it belongs in the article. It is not within the scope of the project to worry about if there was a BLP violation in the NYT; I believe any reasonable person can look at this and say that that enough BLP consideration was taken by avoiding using the diver's name in the article. Mrathel (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Got it. The three people who disagree with you are all illogical, silly, absurd, and unreasonable. I am going to stop replying to you now and will let the above "argument" stand on its own merits. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd say that the BLP criteria leave little room for doubt here. Specifically, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE clearly apply to this case. The latter is particularly relevant: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. WP:BLPCRIME gives another reason not to include the information at all. If, despite the above, the incident were to be mentioned in the article, WP:BLPNAME makes it clear that the diver should not be named: When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media [...] should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.Rosbif73 (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly right. I would add the following question; Does this information tell me something about the subject of this article that cannot be told without linking an innocent person with pedophilia?
It turns out that the answer is yes: Elon Musk has made a number of other tweets that can be used as examples without violating BLP. (Whether what is being expressed with the examples should be in the article is another issue; I am only concerned with the BLP violation).
See Elon Musk: A Deep Dive into the Tesla Chief’s Tweets in Barrons or 4,925 Tweets: Elon Musk's Twitter habit Dissected in The Wall Street Journal for a wealth of alternative tweets that could be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(...Sound of Crickets...) The fact that the proponents for inclusion have so far refused to address the above comment is duly noted. I will not speculate at this time why they insist on associating an innocent person with pedophilia when an alternative that doesn't associate an innocent person with pedophilia is readily available. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
We have three events or facts: (1) Elon attempted to contribute to the cave rescue; (2) in the context of the cave rescue, Elon had a controversial Twitter exchange with one of the divers; (3) Elon has a history of hasty replies on Twitter and has publicly admitted as much. The first point stands for now, though only time will tell whether it is truly notable. The second is out of bounds according to BLP policy. Perhaps, Guy, if you were to write a "controversy" section addressing the third point without directly touching on the second, it might placate those think that the current state of the article is not sufficiently NPOV. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Rosbif, thank you for explaining those policies. I will grant that not publishing the name of the private individual has a case to be made, and I have made a point to avoid using it myself when possible. But if the cave incident is to be described at all, it would seem that the article is not providing an accurate account without explaining that: 1.Musk volunteered his services 2. those services were not used 3. Musk made public accusations about one of the rescuers which generated negative publicity and for which he eventually apologized. The logical jump that is necessary to say that this story cannot be in any way told because WP has an obligation to protect the unnamed individual goes beyond what anyone voting above would even deem rational. If a famous person were to be convicted of rape but were to respond in court that the victim was asking for it, would the incident not be able to appear on WP at all because there is no way to tell the story without repeating an un-substantiated claim against a private individual? If as Guy contends the diver is the victim of slander, then how is it that this strange protection extend to the famous person who slandered him? As a public figure, Musk's communications are notable in that they reflect either positively or poorly upon the organizations he represents. The incident in question came from the CEO of a publicly traded company and had a real world impact upon shareholders. To say that this can never be put in WP format because of BLP issues means that WP has a blind spot. Mrathel (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts. False analogies about rape are unhelpful. The first issue concerns whether the material is WP:DUE as far as long-term significance for Musk is concerned. Media excitement is not the test for DUE—whether DUE will be satisfied cannot be known until a few months have passed (or until something significant happens). Whatever the result, the name of a non-notable person will not be recorded in an article to associate them with evil—it's a totally unnecessary part of the story. Arguing about that is a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
If the Cave Rescue subsection is within WP:DUE, then the comments he made are as well. Considering the minor contribution Musk actually had, Unsworth's comments shows the argument made that the submarine was for publicity. Musk's offhand comment showed Musk's reaction to one of the criticisms, similar to some offhand twitter comments he made in the past. The comment/accusation/whatever addition is crucial for the "Musk Cave Story", so it makes no sense to question that part's due weight while believing the Cave rescue section apart from that is due weight. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 06:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
What? No arguments were made by anyone that the submarine was for publicity. There was only an unsupported claim by someone with no relevant information—that is not an "argument". A confusing feature of this one-sided discussion is that people are not stating their preferred position. I suppose your repeated gratuitous mentions of the person insulted by Musk indicate you favor recording his name in the article. That won't happen. In a month, please re-read the comments on this page to see how BLP works. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Along with the diver himself, many others suggested that the public efforts made by Musk could possibly be for publicity. Even the diver's claim itself was supported by evidence (saying Musk should've known the cave was impossible for a sub to transport, but kept on publicly working on it anyway).
Also, I don't know how my siding on the issue has been unclear, I was explicitly making points for one side. As well, we should focus at the topic at hand, being WP:UNCIVIL won't get us anywhere. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 13:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

FUQ!! (Frequently Unanswered Question)Edit

Does this information tell me something about the subject of this article that can be told without linking an innocent person with pedophilia?

It turns out that the answer is yes: Elon Musk has made a number of other tweets that can be used as examples without violating BLP. (Whether what is being expressed with the examples should be in the article is another issue; I am only concerned with the BLP violation).

See Elon Musk: A Deep Dive into the Tesla Chief’s Tweets in Barrons or 4,925 Tweets: Elon Musk's Twitter habit Dissected in The Wall Street Journal for a wealth of alternative tweets that could be used.

So why don't we use one of the other tweets instead? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Guy, as I suggested above, since you have a potential source for a Twitter controversy section, why don't you just add it or post a draft here? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-answer to the question asked noted. I have not edited the page or suggested an edit because the recent history of this page -- and the fact that nobody will discuss the actual question I asked above -- tells me that doing so will unleash a shitstorm. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Users had responded to this question before, the purpose isn't just to show Elon's Twitter behavior pattern. The name calling is a part of Musk's "Cave resuce" story: Elon Makes a Sub - > critics suggest that it's for publicity - > Musk slaps back at one of the critiques, the diver - > backlash from public and many shareholders - > Musk apologizes. You can't tell the Cave story without mentioning the tweet. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 23:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
the events are not quite correct, only one critic 'suggested' the sub was for publicity (ignoring the fact that he made the submarine after being asked to, on twitter), and that 'suggestion' came in AN EXTREME FORM OF INSULT... And only then did Musk 'slap back'...45.78.200.250 (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said before, many others suggested that the public efforts made by Musk could possibly be for publicity. As well, the tweet was from a uninvolved twitter user. However, I agree the rudeness of the diver himself should be heavily noted. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 15:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Musk was responding to someone else's twitter-request to step in with some engineering. It wasn't his idea at all, he just sincerely wanted to help, not ignoring that request and recognizing that he might indeed do some good. So it is unfair to say that his reasons were for publicity. He already had enough good and affirmative publicity, so it doesn't even make sense that that was the reason he stepped in. 45.58.219.145 (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is idiotic Wikipedia is too important a source to be held up with this Wiki lawyering of course the day we should be published it's part of the story people who want to find out what happened a going to want to know the babe and I shouldn't have to go to another website just because a couple people are worried that someone's reputation might be hurt by something that's already in the public domain plus it's not our job to worry about their reputation our job is to report the news what happened the who what when where and when responsible why GummoLosyMarxBro (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 August 2018Edit

Musk will only collect his full $2.6 billion (in the form of stock options) if Tesla hits growth targets, and some are quite ambitious https://nypost.com/2018/03/24/new-york-taxpayers-gift-to-elon-musk/ Vic Sha (talk) 08:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please specify what edit you wish to be made to the article. Fish+Karate 12:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 August 2018Edit

In Tham Luang cave rescue section, change "kid-size submarine" to "kid-size submarine", linking to the most specific article, per WP:BUILD. Diego (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Not done @Diego Moya: this page is not currently protected, you may edit directly. — xaosflux Talk 20:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Award and recognition too largeEdit

The whole section is quite large and basically just a large list with no further notes. Comparing it to similar sections on e.g. Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, it is either much shorter or has more prose in it. I would remove up to half of the list based on notierity of the award or organisation. Chaosquo (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed these easily arguable non-notable awards:
  • "R&D Magazine Innovator of the Year for 2007 for SpaceX, Tesla, and SolarCity."
  • "The Aviation Week 2008 Laureate for the most significant achievement worldwide in the space industry."
  • "Automotive Executive of the Year (worldwide) in 2010 for demonstrating technology leadership and innovation via Tesla. Prior awardees include Bill Ford Jr, Bob Lutz, Dieter Zetsche and Lee Iacocca. Musk is the youngest ever recipient of this award."
  • "In 2010, Musk was elected to the board of trustees of the California Institute of Technology, however no longer holds the position."
  • "In a 2010 Space Foundation survey, he was ranked as the No. 10 (tied with rocketry pioneer and scientist Wernher von Braun) most popular space hero."
  • "In 2011, Musk was honored as a Legendary Leader at the Churchill Club Awards."
  • "As of 2015, Musk serves on the board of advisors of Social Concepts, Inc."
  • "In 2016, The Drive, a division of Time, named Musk the most influential person in the car business and as the second most influential person in the automotive tech sector."
  • "In March 2017, Musk was listed by UK-based company Richtopia at number 3 in the list of 200 Most Influential Philanthropists and Social Entrepreneurs."
For anything else I feel it's best to have a discussion here. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 15:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of ThudEdit

Should we remove Thud as one of Musk's projects? Doesn't seem to be anything other than the tweets he sent out, and articles covering those tweets. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

edit requestEdit

"Musk responded to Mark's censure" should read "Musk responded to Zuckerberg's censure". LeverageSerious (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done Yunshui  13:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Early ChildhoodEdit

Was just noticing that the text of the last sentence of the first paragraph is identical to the text of the second paragraph. One of either should be struck.

Edschminke (talk) 12:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Have made this an edit protected request (what edshminke means is that the last sentence ("He has a half-sister, and half-brother.") of the first paragraph of Elon_Musk#Early_childhood is the same as the text of the last sentence of the next paragraph)Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done; that whole paragraph was duplicated. Yunshui  13:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not an engineerEdit

The entry states that Elon Musk is an engineer, referencing an Association of Mechanical Engineers bio. However, as the article states, Mr. Musk does not hold a degree in engineering, nor is he licensed to practice engineering. He should not be referred to as an engineer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.102.180 (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The cited article does indeed state that he does not have an engineering degree per say (sic), but goes on to say that few dispute his assertion [...] "I'm an engineer, so what I do is engineering. That's what I'm good at." . Of course, certain engineering tasks are regulated in some countries, but that's not the point here. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
I would also claim that common usage of the word "engineer" does not imply occupational license from a government at all, unlike terms such as "medical practitioner". DpEpsilon (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
In common usage he is not an engineer either. It is a self-described term, as is clear from the source. The source itself has made no attempt to verify that Musk is an engineer in any sense of the word. Blatant failure of WP:NPOV and WP:RS, bordering on essentially self-published.
Even more, the position of engineer clearly doesn't belong in the first line, even if somehow he was an engineer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk is a DESIGN ENGINEER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.86.29.173 (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Business magnate / magnetEdit

Various "business magnet" rubbish

All you have to do is include "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate (self described "Business Magnet" [Link and Time Stamp]), investor[7][8] and engineer.[9] He is the founder, CEO, and lead designer of SpaceX;[10] co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc.;[11] co-founder and CEO of Neuralink; and co-founder of PayPal. In December 2016, he was ranked 21st on the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People.[12] As of August 2018, he has a net worth of $20.2 billion and is listed by Forbes as the 46th-richest person in the world.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.241.252 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.147.131 (talk)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"business magnet" instead of "business magnate" per Elon's request on Joe Rogan's podcast Dwk9 (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Magnate is the proper term. --Ebyabe (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps in your point of view, but even then I'm not sure that's a valid justification if it still links to business magnate... He's made an effort to purposefully be called a "Business Magnet" as a new term, my vote is to change it to "business magnet"(sic). I suggest we open a vote to change. Aeonx (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If Elon is a self-professed business "magnet" he should damn well be able to be called that here. Brenae wafato (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

If the description is from someone else originally (cite 7) then it is sourced. If you want to change it to according someone's current preference, that is a strange source. If he wanted to be called an 'Einstein', would we do that? No. Not just because he said so. Shenme (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

First: cannot believe that someone beat me to it, but I should have expected that someone from Wikipedia is always listening (by default). Second: he calling himself that, as one where labels are difficult, is perhaps the "best" source for such a change. I will leave you to it. S1id3r0 (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1037976743963840512 Arcadus (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Direct link to the relevant section on the Joe Rogan interview here. This is a specific semi-protected edit request from Elon Musk. "What would you call yourself?" "I'm a business magnet. Can someone please change my Wikipedia page [from 'magnate'] to 'magnet'?" gringer (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Even then, we'd only be able to report that he asked - humourously - for that to happen. We wouldn't actually change "magnate" to "magnet" in the lead, of course. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links but ephemeral jokes are rarely featured in an encyclopedic article; instead, correct terminology is used. In six months, if reliable sources are still talking about "business magnet", something might be added to the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Musk clearly attracts business in vast quantities, so surely he could be labelled as both a business magnate and a business magnet? Gareth1893 (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

as per Elon musk request changing "business magnate" to "Business magnet" in his profile https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra3fv8gl6NE check out his request :P I'm just kidding but it would be fun to do so :P IamPrincely (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

no Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

According to the interview on Sep 7th 2018 on the Joe Rogan show, he is a business magnet, not a business magnate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.103.145 (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The suggested mutation shall be signed. Danieljoquinn (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change "businesses magnate" in the first sentence to "business magnet", as per Musk's request on Joe Rogan's podcast [1]. Acsands13 (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Q: How many legs would a dog have have if you called its tail a leg?
A: Four. Calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this change; see above. Yunshui  15:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal: Job descriptions are vaporous and fluid like human names, conflating names with nouns is a strawman. If I wish my title to be "business magnet", then my freedom of self labeling overrules your freedom to classify people into bins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B021:335C:78BB:FFD0:9709:655D (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal: Wikipedia's policies of using reliable, significant, secondary source coverage overrules your philosophy of freedom of self labeling. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal: Reliable, significant, secondary source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1037976743963840512 69.10.120.28 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal: WP:PRIMARYFenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@FenixFeather:, you're trying to do the right thing, but I strongly suspect no one who wants to make this change is going to listen to anything you have to say. This is a game, and the object is to troll us. I suggest you not waste your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Rebuttal: Please, change it to magnet 69.10.120.28 (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.153.65.45 (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the recent Joe Rogan Experience, Elon Musk stated that he wants "business magnate" to "business magnet" [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.121.20 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  See aboveFenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 16:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

hi there,

please update the following to be more accurate:

"Elon Reeve Musk FRS (born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate..." Change to "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (born June 28, 1971) is a business magnent..."

-Per Joe Rogan

thanks, 65.152.138.202 (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Please stop spamming, or this page will come under protection too. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
fenixwhatever, the man himself, Elon Musk, asked for it to be changed to magnet so do it before you're off wikipedia and never again reborn as any silly skypigeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.7.140 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
🤔 – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 21:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone didn't much care for my previous tone, so instead I will merely present the edit as it should take place. There is no legitimate reasoning for blocking a mention of his request.

Framed Thussly

All you have to do is include "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate (self described "Business Magnet" [Link and Time Stamp]), investor[7][8] and engineer.[9] He is the founder, CEO, and lead designer of SpaceX;[10] co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc.;[11] co-founder and CEO of Neuralink; and co-founder of PayPal. In December 2016, he was ranked 21st on the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People.[12] As of August 2018, he has a net worth of $20.2 billion and is listed by Forbes as the 46th-richest person in the world.[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.241.252 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done See above. General Ization Talk 02:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change business magnate to business magnet 222.153.105.16 (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done See above. XYZt (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please include Elon's nickname "Business Magnet" as per his request. Source: [1] TimBerce (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Read the numerous sections above which contain similar requests, all rejected. General Ization Talk 22:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please change business magnate to business magnet. Thank you. 2601:646:C600:2570:9006:76DD:BA82:E00D (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Bradv 20:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Elon recently requested on the Joe Rogan Experience to have his description of a "Business Magnate" changed to "Business Magnet".

Can someone that has authorization please make this change?

Reference the Joe Rogan Experience Podcast on video on YouTube "Joe Rogan - Elon Musk on Artificial Intelligence at 00:32"

Thank you, Eric Lipps ericlipps@hotmail.com 69.14.142.241 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Musk calling himself a business magnet is not a significant enough event to be covered in this article, and we would never add that based on a Youtube video as Youtube is not a reliable source. Bradv 00:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

He physically says it himself on video! How is that not a reliable source???

Can you change it to one of these; "Business Czar, Business Mogul, Business Proprietor, Business Tycoon, Business Baron", taken directly from Wikipedia's page of the definition of "Business Magnate"?

I like "Business Tycoon" myself!

Tycoon is not used enough these days, and needs a rebirth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.142.241 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Subjects of articles do not have any sort of editorial control over the articles. Him calling himself a business magnet, or even a business typhoon, would not make it so. Bradv 00:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Remove category "naturalized citizen of Canada"Edit

It's not true, if his mother was born in Canada he automatically is a citizen which would mean he never naturalized. ( SailingOn (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC) )

This is correct, but more importantly there is no source for him being a citizen of Canada by naturalisation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. Elon Musk became a naturalized citizen of Canada when he applied for citizenship by filling out Canada's form CIT 0001 at the age of 17. Canadian law says that you are automatically eligible for citizenship if one of your parents is a Canadian citizen, but only those born in Canada are automatically a citizen at birth. Those born in foreign countries (some of which will deport you if you have dual citizenship) have to fill out the form CIT 0001 before they become Canadian citizens. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked the Canadian nationist for a reliable secondary source that say that Elon Musk became a Canadian citizen at birth. No such source has ever turned up. Here is a source that he obtained Canadian citizenship in 1989, at the age of 17:
"Musk indeed entered the United States an immigrant, but there is little evidence that he was ever in the U.S. without documentation. According to an Esquire profile of Musk, he was born in South Africa and obtained Canadian citizenship through his mother in 1989: 'Elon made his move after he graduated high school. Though he already felt like an American, he’d done research and concluded that it would be easier to obtain American citizenship as a Canadian immigrant rather than as a South African one. His mother was from Canada. Most of her family still lived there.' " Source: Snopes
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
That is not citizenship by naturalisation. This appears to be citizenship by birth, albeit received when he was 17. It is correct that this is not citizenship at birth. Citizenship by birth does not necessarily mean the person becomes a citizen at birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Ah. I see the distinction, and fully agree that Elon Musk was a citizen by birth but not from birth.
I am not so sure that this precludes naturalization. As our article says:
"Naturalization (or naturalisation) is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done by a statute, without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application and approval by legal authorities."
And indeed, Musk becoming a citizen of Canada at the age of 17 involved an application (form CIT 0001) and approval by legal authorities (they verified that his mother was a Canadian citizen, and then granted him citizenship. If I filled out form CIT 0001 it would be denied). How is this not naturalization? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Naturalization is the process of BECOMING a citizen, however Elon Musk was automatically a citizen through his mother so he does not need to apply for naturalization. (( SailingOn (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC) ))
Do you have a source for that claim? I already provided a source[30] that says that he applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship at the age of 17. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes. The Canadian Citizenship Act. [31]. So basically between 1947 and 1977 citizenship could only be passed down through the father, but the 1977 act allowed children from married mothers to acquire citizenship as well. This is through a process called Citizenship by Descent which is separate from citizenship by naturalization. It would be impossible for Elon Musk to meet the requirements to naturalize under the 1977 Citizenship act and could only become a Canadian citizenship through descent. Him applying for citizenship is just him applying to be granted citizenship he was already entitled to. The Canadian Nationality Law wikipedia page has a good explanation, cheers. ( SailingOn (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC) )
Ignoring for a moment WP:PRIMARY, do you have an exact quote from that document that specifically says what you claim, or is this just more WP:OR (reaching or implying a conclusion not specifically stated by the sources)? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
If it's obtained through the mother then it's not naturalisation. The source doesn't say it isn't naturalisation, but of course it also does not say it was naturalisation. You were correct to say he was a citizen by birth but not from birth. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
In the hustle and bustle of arguing with multiple POV-pushing editors that claim that Musk became a Canadian citizen at some age other than 17, the question of whether he was naturalized is an open question. I can't find a source for it. A web search on "Elon Musk" "naturalized Canadian" turns up coworkers who are naturalized Canadians and lots of references to Musk being a naturalized US Citizen, but nothing about musk being a naturalized Canadian. Based upon the lack of sources, he shouldn't be in that cat. Please disregard any previous opinion I posted on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
"was born outside Canada, before February 15, 1977, of a mother who was a citizen at the time of his birth, and was not entitled, immediately before February 15, 1977, to become a citizen under subparagraph 5(1)(b)(i) of the former Act, if, before February 15, 1979, or within such extended period as the Minister may authorize, an application for citizenship is made to the Minister by a person authorized by regulation to make the application." Right from the act. ( SailingOn (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC) )
What part of "if an application for citizenship is made to the Minister by a person authorized by regulation to make the application" are you having trouble understanding? Why do you imagine that Elon Musk filled out that application at the age of 17 and was at that time granted Canadian citizenship? This is why we don't allow WP:OR and why we have our WP:PRIMARY rule; editors like you who misinterpret complex legal documents. You really need to find a reliable secondary source that supports your claims instead of relying on your own original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to point out, in a BLP explicit sourcing is required. Including for categories. Unless something is obviously sky is blue, which given the above discussion, this clearly isn't, it can't be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. Unless, of course, someone comes up with a reliable secondary source for either claim (that he was naturalized or that he was a Canadian citizen (as opposed to being eligible to become one) before he applied for Citizenship at the age of 17.) I searched extensively and found zero sources for either claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Please keep conversations polite. I would suggest familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's editing etiquette which can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette ( SailingOn (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC) )
I stand by my comments above, and would suggest that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies on original research and interpreting primary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 September 2018Edit

This is in regards to the last sentence of the section on pravduh.com. It currently states that "It currently links to Musk's Twitter page, and its future is unclear." However, I just tried accessing the website, and it appears to be completely empty with no content or redirect. This sentence could be amended to say "It initially linked to Musk's twitter page, but it is currently empty. Its future is unclear." or some such, but the information currently given there appears to be outdated now. Request amended, see below. EclipseDude (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest completely removing the sentence "It currently links to Musk's Twitter page, and its future is unclear", as it is unsourced OR. Bradv 03:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
That was my other thought after I submitted this Bradv. It's probably better to remove it completely. EclipseDude (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to be thorough, I checked the HTTP response:

 HTTP/1.1 200 OK
 Date: [today's date; tested on 14 September 2018]
 Server: Apache
 Last-Modified: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:20:22 GMT
 ETag: "30800a7-0-56d0d7f648b94"
 Accept-Ranges: bytes
 Vary: User-Agent
 Content-Length: 0
 Connection: close
 Content-Type: text/html

The "HTTP/1.1 200 O"K plus the "Content-Length: 0" tells you that the .htaccess is properly set up and the domain is valid, but the document has a length of zero

If the person controlling the website ever reads this, it would be better to return a "204 No Content" response (if there may be content in the future) or a "410 Gone" response (if it is never coming back).

BTW, the domain's Registry Expiry Date is 2023-05-25 T17:58:50Z. If nobody renews it, there is a 0-45 day Auto-Renew Grace Period followed by a 30-day Redemption Grace Period before the domain actually expires.

Typically, if a domain with inbound links expires a domain squatter snatches it and puts up advertising, porn, or malware, so starting around June of 2023 we should check the site and delete all link to it if it has been snatched. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"unsubstantially"!Edit

Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know that "unsubstantial" and "unsubstantiated" don't mean the same thing. Musk's accusation against the diver was unsubstantiated - he offered no evidence to support it. But you can't really say "unsubstantiatedly", which is presumably what caused the writer to make this error. The only answer is to rephrase: "Musk made an unsubstantiated reference to the diver as a 'pedo guy'". Such misuse of English - which is, unfortunately, common on Wikipedia - easily gets copied by non-native users of the language, and even by native users who like using "fancy" words they don't actually understand!188.230.240.75 (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  Fixed General Ization Talk 11:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Engineer againEdit

Joey1niner Regarding [32], I was not aware that "Lead designer" = "Engineer"; nor is it the case that job titles determine how we describe people; it is independant reliable sources. Please provide some that describe him as an engineer Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I personally like using the term "engineer" here; I'm one myself, and find its (frequent) appropriation by people not licensed as engineers somewhat annoying. However, that's immaterial; there are several references that refer to him as an engineer: CNBC, Rolling Stone, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (this last one currently used as a reference for "engineer"; it's still in the article even after "engineer" was removed). It doesn't really matter if he calls himself an engineer (see the "magnet" idiocy above), but these are profiles in two reliable sources, and a blog (yeah, I know, I know) published by ASME. This is apparently a hot topic on reddit/quora/etc mostly as fodder for arguing between fans and critics, but none of those really matter to us either. I'd say this is enough to put "engineer" back in. Note that if there's ultimately a consensus to take it out, there are a lot of engineering categories that will have to go as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think those are really enough sources. There are a lot of sources about Elon Musk and we can't include every term he has been described as in the first sentence of the lead: I think entrepreneur and businessperson/magnet dominate over say engineer or other terms and thus should be what is included in the lead sentence Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
No one is trying to include every term he's ever been described as; "engineer" has been in the article for (literally) years, sourced to the ASME reference the whole time. It was taken out 3 days ago. You asked for some reliable sources that describe him that way, I provided two more that did exactly what you asked for, and now 3 isn't "enough". I have seen this Wikipedia debate tactic before, and am not invested enough in the outcome to play along; moving goalposts can be a fun game for the person moving the goalposts, but not so fun for the poor sucker trying to kick a field goal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I was the last one to revert the addition of "engineer" in the lede, in order to force discussion to the talk page. That said, the ASME source is pretty convincing, and probably one of the best authorities in the US on exactly who is an engineer. Anyone mind if I self-revert? Bradv 20:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The article, which is published in an engineers' publication, was written by an engineer. Doesn't seem independent enough to me. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
me-today is a blog, hardly authoritative Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
For the lead sentence, of a very high profile article, that two or three sources use it doesn't mean much; apologies, in my initial posting I should have said something like "at the minimum we need some independent reliable sources describing him as engineer, but even then we'd need to see if there's enough WP:WEIGHT in sources to put engineer in the lead sentence" to clarify my intent. I am not trying to shift the goal posts; it is simply that from surveying the sources, the vast majority of the time Elon Musk is described as an entrepreneur or CEO of Tesla/Paypal or something along the lines of that - including say Britannica, which says "South African-born American entrepreneur", with no mention of any engineering anywhere. Essentially sources focus on him as a businessman/entrepreneur, not as an engineer, and thus I don't see the due weight for inclusion in the lead sentence. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
On a different note, since the lede is supposed to reflect the body, I think there would have to be content in the body that describes Musk's role as an engineer in order to make it WP:DUE to describe him as an engineer in the first sentence. Given that the article doesn't cover any of Musk's engineering activities, I don't think it would be a good idea to put that label in the first sentence, even if multiple sources label him an engineer. There needs to be in-depth discussion of exactly what he has done as an engineer, rather than just passing labels. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the most convincing point I found through all of this. The article is about his life as a businessman rather than a engineer. Regardless if sources refer to him as an engineer, are there sources explicitly outlining what specific work he did as an engineer? If not, the article should not refer to him as such. From the articles I see, they're referencing "Elon's Engineers" instead of Musk himself. TOMÁSTOMÁSTOMÁSTALK⠀ 12:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

He's objectively not an engineer. Even if he was, there's no reason to put that in the opening sentence, we might as well list there that he is a father and uses Twitter. Now it's true that one source seems to give justification to considering him an engineer, but what do people of that suggestion actually want to write in the article about his engineering? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Broader discussion of leadEdit

I don't think he should be called a business magnate in the opening sentence either. Not only does that border on promotional content, it's not his primary notability. I contend that the opening sentence should essentially say that Elon Musk is the owner and CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, et cetera. This reflects his notability much better, and is much more accurate than the more ambiguous term of magnate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The first step would be removing him from Business magnate as the fact that he's mentioned as an example of a business magnate seems convincing. wumbolo ^^^ 20:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, the Business magnate page currently describes him as an engineer!
Notwithstanding, it seems to me that "entrepreneur" would be more apt as a description in the lead. A brief look at google hits for "Elon Musk is a(n) XXX" gives more hits for entrepreneur than business magnate and thus seems more likely to pass the WP:DUE weight test (though this is just at a first glance; I haven't looked at the hits in any great detail, in particular to eliminate those that are merely quoting Wikipedia). Incidentally, "Elon Musk is an engineer" gets far more hits than any business-related term I've tried. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2018Edit

In September 2018, Musk appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast (The Joe Rogan Experience). In the current Wikipedia entry it says that his stock dropped in price due to him smoking a spliff on the show. I think it would be important to add how the Chief Accounting Officer at Tesla left after less than a month in the job, and how that may have been the reason the stock price dropped.

I would just add a short sentence after stating that the stock price fell due to Musk smoking. The former Chief Accounting Officer of Tesla leaving is no way related to Musk's appearance on the podcast, but should be added to the reasons why the stock dropped. Tomdotguam (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you propose a specific edit? Bradv 20:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. wumbolo ^^^ 21:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Return to "Elon Musk" page.