Open main menu

Talk:Elon Musk


Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Information.svg To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. To view references used by an answer, you must also click the [show] for references at the bottom of the FAQ.


Contents

"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:[1]
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)

Request for comment: Tham Luang cave rescue/namecallingEdit

KEEP:
There is strong consensus for keeping the subsection regarding Musk's accusations of Unsworth. — Newslinger talk 12:42, 8 October 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.

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)[14]

"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)[15]

"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)[16][17]

"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)[18]

"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[19]

Also see:

  1. Noticeboard#False claims about the diver who got into a twitter fight with Elon Musk
  2. Noticeboard#Musk part 2: can an An RfC overrule our BLP policy?
  3. 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)
  • Comment : I must congratulate Guy Macon for their vigilance on this quite sensitive issue regarding WP:BLP policy and the strong arguments they put forth on the issue. Until very recently, I was siding with their position to exclude mentions of the Musk tweets. Now, however,we have a lawsuit. This has gone above gossip, speculation, and other trivia. I have recommended (see section above for my position in full) to present in the article a brief piece of information, properly sourced, about the lawsuit. It has become unthinkable not to have such a serious legal development in the Musk biography. Take care, all. -The Gnome (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I concur. A celebrity tweeting stupid things is one thing. Him being sued for it is quite another. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 2 October 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)

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 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
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Elon Musk made a request from an interview with Joe Rogan to have the words 'business magnate' changed to 'business magnet'. [1]Faerieland777 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Faerieland777 (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


Joe Rogan Podcast #1164 (I Think) he had Elon Musk on and Elon requested that someone change his wiki page to business magnet instead of business magnate. Thank you. Nathan's Brain (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPr5-27vSI time 10:10 - 10:27 in video
No. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

business magnet 136.143.141.181 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

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 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.

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[20] 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. [21]. 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)

Engineer againEdit

Joey1niner Regarding [22], 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)

Co-founder of PayPal?Edit

  • Confinity was founded in 1998 by Max Levchin, Peter Thiel, Luke Nosek, and Ken Howery.
  • X.com was founded in 1999 by Elon Musk
  • Confinity merged with X.com in 2000, retaining the X.com name and with Musk as CEO.
  • Later in 2000 Elon Musk was replaced by Peter Thiel as CEO of X.com.
  • X.com was renamed PayPal in 2001

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe try "Co-founder of x.com, which became PayPal"? Also, is it really a formal title? - not sure if that field should include that this does describe paypal as being founded by Elon Musk Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The infobox is a summary of the article body. The article body says that X.com merged with Paypal, so it's inaccurate and WP:OR to say he co-founded Paypal. Honestly, I'm in favor of removing non-formal roles from the infobox. They were just added today and are already causing edit wars. Better to just keep formal roles only. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
You make a good point. BTW, I have to apologize for an error. For some reason I thought "Co-founder of PayPal" had been there for years, but actually it was a new addition, and I should have noticed that and kept the status quo version without the claim while we discussed this. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
BTW the body doesn't say that X.com merged with Paypal. The infobox incorrectly said that, but I fixed it. The body correctly says that X.com merged with Confinity and was renamed PayPal shortly after that. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: No worries! Happens to all of us. Infoboxes aren't really that big a deal anyways 🙂 – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:01, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@FenixFeather: Actually, Tesla does state that Elon Musk is one of its co-founders. The ref & statement are already in the lead and imo should also be included in the infobox. XYZt (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh well that's more confusing than I thought. Should we go with what secondary sources are calling it though? I'm still not quite sure we should have unofficial roles like this in the infobox, but I suppose "co-founder" does have evidence backing it. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 07:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The explanation is probably the agreement reached in 2009 following a lawsuit over who is entitled to call themselves founders of Tesla [23]. As I understand things, Musk was not involved on day 1, so is not a founder in the usual sense of the word, but was involved sufficiently early to have been granted the right to be known as one of the co-founders. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

We have a very large amount of categories on this article, are there any more that don't really belong? This is especially because his occupations and attributes are counted for all three countries of his citizenship. Do all these categories belong for each country (as in, is he a South African automobile industry executive)? Furthermore I don't see any reason to keep him in the categories of people associate with basic income or solar power, those should be for people like economists and scientists. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Sixty-four categories are too many to be of benefit to the reader, so I WP:BOLDLY drastically cut them down. In my edit summary I invited anyone who wants to re-add cats to join this conversation on the talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
How many of the 28 hidden cats can we resolve and remove? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm adding back the transhumanist categories as he's one of the best known transhumanists in the world Deku-shrub (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub: Are you sure about that? Transhumanism isn't mentioned at all in the article prose, so that seems like WP:OR. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
He's a famous guy, he's done a lot of things Deku-shrub (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Not famous for transhumanism. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Deku-shrub, please don't edit the page[24] two minutes after joining the discussion on the talk page. First you should try to convince other editors that the transhumanism cat belongs. Do you have a better argument than "He's a famous guy, he's done a lot of things"? I see that somebody already reverted you. That makes three editors who disagree with you on this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
By that logic, everyone from Osama bin Laden to Cleopatra should be put under the Transhumanist category. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sued by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SECEdit

Musk was recently sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the "Funding secured" tweet concerning Tesla going private.

New York Times - S.E.C. Sues Tesla’s Elon Musk for Fraud and Seeks to Bar Him From Running a Public Company

The Verge - Elon Musk sued by SEC over ‘funding secured’ tweet

This should be added to the Tesla section.

XYZt (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  DoneFenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would call the term "sued" to be inappropriate and violating NPOV standards. If anything, the term used formally by the SEC is "charged" not sued. I won't make the change because I don't want to get into an edit war, but this terminology can and ought to be changed. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  Done, although I think it's more a matter of accuracy than neutrality. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A modest proposalEdit

I propose that all edit requests concerning magnate/magnet be deleted moved to the existing collapsed section on sight. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Modified 02:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I second that (e)motion. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree, we should simply move them where all the others are, into that collapsed section. I think it would be helpful to have a record of the people making these requests. More importantly, the edit notice needs to be restored. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I have changed my proposal above. Also, I see the edit notice is back. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Then of course you have my full agreement for your proposal! I had the notice restated and I think we will need to keep it there for a month more at least. Otherwise it's like not using an umbrella because there's no rain falling on us, because we are under an umbrella. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
That proposal is good as well. And I like the big message in red when this page is getting edited. --Ebyabe (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Another crash in share priceEdit

See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/07/tesla-chief-elon-musk-smokes-marijuana-on-live-web-show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.173 (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I am suprised that this has not been mentioned already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.202.173 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Someone cancelled an order when this came to light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:FC81:5A01:1423:CF00:A7BA:1329 (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  See Elon Musk#Joe Rogan podcast appearance section

You are quite right. A Turkish customer cancelled an order. This is not in the passage you refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:7C80:8401:3CA3:B9A7:24C6:5B4C (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
One customer cancelling an order is not noteworthy, and in any case you haven't indicated a source. If you find a source indicating that the incident triggered numerous cancellations, that would be another matter. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
See possibly https://www.dailysabah.com/automotive/2018/09/10/turkish-municipality-scraps-work-with-tesla-after-musk-smokes-pot-on-live-broadcast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.53.217 (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018Edit

Dr.R.P.ILANGHO 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Dr.R.P.Ilangho I would like to ADD the following to Elon Musks page, to help him reach his Life Goals;especially " Neuralink";as I have the same goal; for three decades and more.Kindly ADD the following.

A rare privately sponsored Human Pioneer of Elon`s guts and Wisdom-not plain intelligence- needs to be encouraged and supported-globally-by like minded pioneers-OFF the Govermental-Corporate-Grid!!! Reference is my article: --Dr.R.P.ILANGHO 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Dr.R.P.Ilangho -NeuralinkDr.R.P.Ilangho MD FRCP DTRD-LIFE-RESEARCH-by-west-east-to-stop-extinction-of-insane-human-race-the-ultimate-in-health-care-white-paper---Dr.R.P.ILANGHO 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Dr.R.P.ILANGHO-Neuralink Dr.R.P.ILANGHO 09:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk Resignation OpenAI boardEdit

The article says, in the section on views of artificial intelligence, that Elon Musk is a co-chair of OpenAI. Yet, he has resigned from the board of OpenAI due to conflicts of interest, something I think the article should be updated to reflect.[1]

References

  1. ^ Huddleston Jr., Tom. "Elon Musk Is Leaving the Board of an AI Safety Group He Co-Founded". Fortune. Retrieved October 19, 2018.

AnimeEdit

Add his recent talk of loving anime?Muur (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Are these talk page headings really non-neutral?Edit

@Guy Macon: I have no idea why you want to refactor that particular talk page heading (are you offended that someone thinks Musk isn't an engineer?) but there's a LOT of headings on this page that aren't "neutral" by your definition, eg "Musk was a Canadian Citizen at birth", "Award and recognition too large". So please stop trying to defend your refactor as "neutral". It's okay to make a statement in the talk page heading and it's done all the time. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 10:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, the policy on WP:REFACTORING states that we err on the side of leaving the other person's words untouched if there is disagreement on whether the refactor is good. There's no need to nitpick this heading here when this kind of talk page heading is common all over Wikipedia. Let's take a look at Talk:Dog: "The dog is the first species to be domesticated" should be "The dog was the..." and "Error in scientific name authority". Sure, you could rephrase them as questions, but what's the point? – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 10:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, you're completely misinterpreting what that policy is saying. It's saying you should be neutral about the edit you're talking about. Like don't say "this edit sucks", not that you can't make a statement in the heading. It's utterly ridiculous that you're interpreting this policy to mean "every talk page heading should be phrased as a question". That's absurd. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. Although the existence of an unfixed policy violation in one place in no way makes fixing the policy violation in another place improper, and certainly does not invalidate the policy I went ahead and fixed those as well.
The policy in question is "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it." --WP:TALKNEW.
What you should have done when you noticed our policy being violated in other sections was to remove those violations, not edit warring to re-insert the first violation that I removed. Now that I have informed you of our policy, I expect you to comply with it from now on, or face possible sanctions.
And yes, your preferred version in non-neutral. several editors have expressed the opinion that Musk is not an engineer, and several have expressed the opinion that he is. You are allowed to argue your position in your comments. Arguing it in the section headers violates Wikipedia's policies. If I see a repeat of this behavior we will be discussiing your willful policy violations at WP:ANI This is likely to turn out very poorly for you, so let's make sure that an ANI report isn't needed, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy, you are rules lawyering because you're pissed about that heading title. Go look all over Wikipedia. Nobody complains about simple statements being the topic of a discussion. Simple statements work fine as a topic of discussion, since you can easily agree or disagree with them (that's why we have discusions where "support" and "oppose" are votes rather than "yes" or "no". There simply isn't a need to refactor these talk page headings because, de facto, this is how Wikipedia operates. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 11:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Can you please, instead of threatening sanctions bla bla bla the usual wikidrama stuff, actually engage in a discussion here? Please restore the old section headings per WP:BRD and WP:REFACTORING. The policies are clear that if there is a disagreement, we err on the side of not refactoring. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 11:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
REFACTORING doesn't apply. You don't own those words per WP:TPOC:
  • "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. "
Enforcing WP:TALKNEW ("Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.") is not "wikilawyering". The policy is clear and you refuse to follow it. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
They aren't even my words. I just disagree with your refactoring. Also, the seciton you continually cites says it can be a good idea to initiate a discussion with the editor who started that section first. There's nothing wrong with talking things out. My point is that this is super common on Wikipedia, to the extent that any random talk page you go to is likely to have a statement as a section title. And there's really nothing wrong with that. They're just as capable of starting and labeling good discussions as the statement with a question mark appended to the end. You're applying this standard way too strictly, and you only used it as an excuse earlier to fix a section heading you didn't like, or you would've fixed the other headings around it. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 12:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that you didn't start all of the sections with headings you have been edit warring over Did you even start one of them? --Guy Macon (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

"Nothing of Tesla"Edit

@N2e and Birdfern: Once again, Elon Musk has decided to call himself something silly. Just as with business magnet, we aren't going to change his title to "Nothing of Tesla" or "president of Tesla" based on a single tweet. Please wait for reliable, third party sources to report on exactly what his title is now before jumping to conclusions. There is no need to rush this. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 00:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • If it gets too silly again, I'll put the editnotice back. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @FenixFeather: If you look again at that first edit that you reverted, you'll see that (a) this has been reported by third-party Reuters, and (b) this is not based only on a silly tweet on twitter.com, but also on changes made to his official biography on tesla.com. As for "He's more likely than not still CEO of the company": if given even-or-better odds I'd bet that it will become clear that he really is giving up the CEO title, but I agree that the "Nothing of Tesla" title is unlikely ever to be officially confirmed. I also agree there is no need to rush this. Birdfern (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I now see The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that his unique potentially-gajillion-dollars-worth stock-based compensation deal is "subject to Participant continuing as (a) the Chief Executive Officer of the Company or (b) the Executive Chairman and Chief Product Officer of the Company", and because his earlier tweets have already made option (b) impossible, I'm thinking I would lose that bet.Birdfern (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
He's the President of Tesla (former CEO, etc.) using a verified Twitter account. Wikipedia has decided in numerous cases that, for such a person in a corporate office, tweets can meet WP:V.
The Reuters and other secondary sources will be coming in; but the statement that he is president of Tesla Inc should certainly not be removed from the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The Reuters article is just reporting on his Tweets. It does NOT say that he is now president, or officially Nothing of Tesla in any way. It notes that those positions have been removed from his company biography, but does NOT indicate the new position of president. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, N2e, you realize that Tesla is a publicly traded company with a board, right? Elon Musk can't just declare on Twitter that something has changed and that means he's now legally not the CEO of Tesla. This is extremely shoddy sourcing. If the job change is legitimate, there WILL be coverage on it. Be patient. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator, not a leading one. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 03:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@N2e: Here's some reading on why deleting a few titles from a company website doesn't mean you resigned as CEO: Elon Musk Isn’t The Nothing of TeslaFenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 23:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, User:FenixFeather, the Tesla template that is included in the article has Musk's title at Tesla, not as President, which is supported by WP:V sources, but as "...". Take a look. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018Edit

Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an business magnate and investor.[1][2][3] He holds South African, Canadian, and U.S. citizenship and is the founder, CEO, and lead designer of SpaceX;[4] co-founder, CEO, and product architect of Tesla, Inc.;[5] 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.[6] As of October 2018, he has a net worth of $22.3 billion and is listed by Forbes as the 54th-richest person in the world.[7] Molikk (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC) please change enterpenuer to bussines magnate accordin Musk own description on Joe Rogan Experience #1169 - Elon Musk (https://youtube.com/ycPr5-27vSI?t=600) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molikk (talkcontribs) 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done Already extensively discussed and rejected. See Q1 at the top of this page. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Curtis, Sophie (November 10, 2014). "Elon Musk 'to launch fleet of internet satellites'". The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved June 23, 2015. Elon Musk, inventor and business magnate
  2. ^ Vance, Ashlee (September 13, 2012). "Elon Musk, the 21st Century Industrialist". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on April 26, 2017. Retrieved June 23, 2015.
  3. ^ "Engineer in Focus: Elon Musk". asme.org. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
  4. ^ Shanklin, Emily (March 27, 2017). "Elon Musk". SpaceX. Retrieved June 17, 2017.
  5. ^ "Elon Musk | Tesla". www.tesla.com. Retrieved 2018-09-07.
  6. ^ "The World's Most Powerful People". Forbes. December 2016. Retrieved December 14, 2016.
  7. ^ "The World's Billionaires List". Forbes. Retrieved October 17, 2018.

Minor edit proposal in Views, Artificial intelligenceEdit

I propose to modify the following quote

   The strongest argument for us probably being in a simulation I think is the following: 40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That's where we were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it's getting better every year. And soon we'll have virtual reality, we'll have augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.[218]

With this:

In June 2016, Musk was asked whether he thinks humans live in a computer simulation, to which he answered:

   The strongest argument for us probably being in a simulation I think is the following: 40 years ago we had Pong – two rectangles and a dot. That's where we were. Now 40 years later we have photorealistic, 3D simulations with millions of people playing simultaneously and it's getting better every year. And soon we'll have virtual reality, we'll have augmented reality. If you assume any rate of improvement at all, then the games will (eventually) become indistinguishable from reality, just indistinguishable.[218]

This would make the argument easier to understand at a glance, especiall for non-native english speakers.


Marianoberna (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2018Edit

For aesthetic reasons, change Elon's "Signature" file from [Elon Musk Signature.png] to [Elon_Musk_Signature.svg]

The file being used is a bit pixelated and the one suggested is much smoother. Tubulartopher (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  DoneDeacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2018Edit

Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a technology entrepreneur, investor, engineer, and business magnet. Vosvostra (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2018Edit

A minor change in title section, about the boring company...

Elon musk is not just the founder of the boring company, he is their CEO aswell

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapid=559369508 195.55.79.12 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  Already done  Spintendo  21:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk AXIOS interview add as severe injuryEdit

Please add / cover the Musk AXIOS interview as needed 'fact' about Musk as key ceo / personality. 3 days ago on nov 25 2018 Elon Musk interview on Axios / HBO indicated Tesla Inc almost expired due to bleeding money like crazy where the company would end in few weeks .... ref https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRb6kQE7uYc ... ; and in addition, Elon Musk further commentary during the AXIOS interview was further severe, indicating injury to him personally; which you can see and judge, as he appeared to be today injured from his working 20 hours day 7 days week during the Tesla Inc crisis and this clearly has left HIM / MUSK injured as in badly injured and so NOT able to MANAGE, be ceo etc (and possibly be 'bp') ... 69.121.190.81 (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC) willie musket sr f.n. AXIOS.com has no ref to this interview and no search function

OpenAI interview with Joe Rogan not cited.Edit

I don't see a reference to the interview regarding OpenAI with Joe Rogan in September 2018. This seems important enough to exist. (I hope I am submitting this suggestion properly; I haven't done this before and there is quite a lot to read through regarding rules and guidelines and such.) Silhalnor (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Elon Musk" page.