Elon Musk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	Elon Musk has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 4, 2021 Good article nominee Listed July 24, 2021 Peer review Not reviewed August 23, 2022 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 1, 2022 Good article reassessment Kept A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Elon Musk lost $16.3 billion in a single day, the largest in the history of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index? Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:Vital article Automobiles GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Business GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spaceflight: SpaceX working group GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by SpaceX working group. United States GA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. South Africa GA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. University of Pennsylvania GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of University of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject University of PennsylvaniaUniversity of Pennsylvania articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 17–22, 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

	Other talk page banners

The claim for Errol Musk being half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine is completely unsubstantiated and denied by Elon himself, therefore the wikipedia article should reflect that ambiguity. As this is a widely-contested claim, with obvious far-reaching implications, this must be addressed as soon as possible. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not completely unsubstantiated. There are four citations after the claim. There's also this Business Insider piece that quotes Errol Musk on how he came to own half the mine. And, Elon can deny it all he wants, but per WP:MANDY, we don't have to give that weight. Of course he would deny it. That doesn't make it false. Here's a story about Elon selling the emeralds to Tiffany & Co. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Elon's claim should not mean removing Errol's. It does not make it true either, the claim needs to remain in the wikipedia article, but as worded now it does not reflect the fact that the only evidence in any of the sources is that Errol Musk "says" he owned one, there are no actual records, no tangible evidence. To your point, Elon "says" there was no emerald mine, but this contention is not reflected in his wikipedia. If hard evidence comes to light that he truly did own one, the article should reflect that.

As far as your point about motives, fair enough. But one can easily see why Elon's estranged father would portray himself as an emerald magnate.

What it comes down to is the facts of this matter are hearsay, from both sides, but must be reflected as such. VeritasIpsumLoquitor (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length. QRep2020 (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some has done an analysis about the emerald mine at length here. Yes, this is just a blog post and cannot be cited on Wikipedia, but at least to me it is a fascinating read about the topic. Courtesy ping to @Muboshgu, @QRep2020 and @VeritasIpsumLoquitor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a blog. What you find to be a fascinating read is completely irrelevant. Jibal (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia's PoV, a Substack is basically a blog. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:HAL333 I had posted my proposal here, and I have gained consensus. What do you want from me? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want us to discuss, develop a consensus, and most of all be civil. I'm all for improving the lead, just in a coherent and consensus-supported manner. ~ HAL333 04:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please give feedback instead of just reverting. I think that the revised lead is good enough to replace the old lead, but we can have a chat together and make it better :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the current lead is somewhat of a mix of the status quo and your proposal. Could you make a bullet point list of what you want to change and we can discuss each one? ~ HAL333 05:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make the lead more compact at Elon companies and mention public perception about Elon. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for concision in the third paragraph as long as it still covers the basics. For example:

• Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.) --> Tesla
• eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008 --> becoming CEO in 2008
• I would also be fine removing the hyperloop mention from the lead. He didn't invent the concept or coin the term: he just talked about a lot in the early 2010s and never did anything with it.

In my opinion, the fourth paragraph already gives weight to the public recognition section, but my ears are open. ~ HAL333 06:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here it goes:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was later acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. As a result, he is a highly polarizing figure, being admired and detested by the public. He has also been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation, and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk for tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla, which the SEC described as false. Musk stepped down as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine as part of a settlement agreement with the SEC.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333, @QRep2020, is the lead ok now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph here looks good except for:

• "that was later acquired by Tesla" -- > Let's remove "later". It's redundant.
• Let's put also before "the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation" for flow.

The second paragraph has some issues:

• "As a result" : he is not polarizing just because of his statements. That's undue weight and just false. The current Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a highly polarizing figure. does it fine imo
• "being admired and detested by the public" should be cut. It's redundant and repetitive. That's what "polarizing" means: some people like him and some don't.
• "and for his legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue" should not be lumped with "unscientific and misleading statements". There's nothing scientific about it. Calling somebody a pedo is a different thing from Musk spouting random crap on Twitter to grab headlines. Also why remove the mention of the submarine fiasco? That needs to be given weight.
• "which the SEC described as false" is wordy fluff. Just say "falsely tweeting" or nothing at all.

That's all. ~ HAL333 17:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the fourth paragraph isn't ideal and might be missing a few things. A little clunky. When I have the time, I'll propose a revised one. ~ HAL333 17:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"falsely tweeting" as the tweet was indeed false. QRep2020 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all of your suggestions, so the revised lead would be:

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla. He became its chairman and product architect and becoming CEO in 2008. In 2006, he helped create SolarCity, a solar energy company that was acquired by Tesla and became Tesla Energy. In 2015, he co-founded OpenAI, a nonprofit artificial intelligence research company. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink, a neurotechnology company focused on developing brain–computer interfaces, and he founded the Boring Company, a tunnel construction company. In 2022, Musk purchased the social media platform Twitter for $44 billion. He is also the president of the philanthropic Musk Foundation.

Musk has made controversial statements regarding politics and technology, particularly on Twitter. He is a highly polarizing figure and has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including spreading COVID-19 misinformation and tweeting that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. The false Tesla takeover tweet has caused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to force Musk stepped down temporarily as chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. He has also been involved in a legal dispute with a British caver who had advised him about the Tham Luang cave rescue. (I don't know how to add the submarine part)

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about the cave rescue from the last paragraph. It seems sort of out of place for that section and minor compared to everything else in that section. --Malerooster (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  George Floyd is a controversial figure but is not polarizing for the vast majority of people (the internet will tell you otherwise). However, Elon is both controversal and polarizing as there is vastly different views of him, swinging between admiration and detest. So I actually think we should keep "polarizing" and remove "controversal". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One or the other ought to be removed, User:CactiStaccingCrane. “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” That would be fine, and implies the statements have been controversial. Alternatively: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This matter was brought up in another part of the Talk page already. No need to multiply discussions. 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved that other section to here as a subsection👇. These two proposals were not discussed in that other section:

• [A] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.”
• [B] “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have contributed to making him a polarizing figure.”
  

Either one is fine with me. Both versions comply with WP:LABEL and avoid redundancy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer A because it is shorter and more direct. B is also fine for me. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, Slatersteven and myself took issue with such changes. Therefore, the discussion is ongoing and the latest edit is unwarranted.

If forced to, I could see B working. QRep2020 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be glad to change it to option [B] which seems to have unanimous approval. The two options were proposed at 23:12 on 10 December, and I’m not aware such changes were presented earlier than that. In any event, it seems important that we not transgress WP:LABEL, and also not beat the reader over the head by saying stuff that is already implied. Option [A] seems better because it doesn’t slap a label on him, but option [B] would still be an improvement. Per WP:LABEL, “Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy….” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HAL, the discussion about polarity is over here now apparently. QRep2020 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can be generalized as HAL333 hints "Musk took business actions and made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect." I'm not sure. The business actions that have caused polarization is mostly due to their political aspects anyway. In any regards, the number of contentious labels should be reduced Jatlin1 (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or

"Musk has made polarizing statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, along with his business actions [or business decision]"

Hmmmm. Jatlin1 (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose both and think the status quo: Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. is the way to go. Musk is not polarizing simply because of statements. His actions have irked a lot of people as well. ~ HAL333 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a good idea. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you seen mine? We can still reduce it and say the same. Jatlin1 (talk) 11:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Second. QRep2020 (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent sentence of BLP policy

The last paragraph of the lead says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” The propriety of this wording has been discussed at this talk page, but I would just like to also bring attention to this sentence of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” In my view, the sentence in the last paragraph of the lead violates this part of our BLP policy. The problem could be easily fixed by writing instead: “Musk has made statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, that have had a polarizing effect.” Also keep in mind WP:LABEL. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than I thought. Because even if Elon Musk is a polarizing figure, he is also something else. You might say, yes, the lead calls him CEO, founder, etc., etc., but these are all formal roles. "Polarizing" in the phrase "polarizing figure" says or suggests something about his psychology, but the notion that his psychology is defined by one trait, or overwhelmingly defined by one trait such that no other trait deserves to be in the lead, is completely absurd, and breaks at least with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Jatlin1 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says nothing about his psychology. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But suggests, yeah, at least Jatlin1 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to insert in-line attribution for the statement in the lead about being polarizing, but was reverted.[1] In-line attribution wouldn’t solve the problem, but would ameliorate it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, because it's not necessary. Gain talk page consensus and stop edit warring. ~ HAL333 22:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one, it is not only Vance:

https://dalquestnews.org/22614/commentary/opinion-why-is-elon-musk-so-polarizing/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/04/30/elon-musk-twitter-polarizing-conservatives-liberals/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2022/11/23/can-psychological-research-help-us-understand-elon-musks-polarizing-brand-of-leadership/

22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020, your first source is explicitly labeled commentary and opinion. Your third source is a medical opinion of a psychologist who has evidently never met Musk, and moreover it does not use the redundant combination about being controversial and polarizing too (same for your second source). We cite a Washington Post article that says this:

The last paragraph of the lead says the tweets have been controversial, and it also says they’re polarizing. This is redundant overkill. Moreover, we say he’s a polarizing figure in a general sense, whereas the cited source only suggests he’s a polarizing figure on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're cherry-picking a single source to support this weird slant. Check out the list of reliable sources above. ~ HAL333 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your corncerns, @HAL333

You have, frankly, misunderstood WP:CHERRYPICK

In the context of editing an article, cherrypicking, in a negative sense, means selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says.

By the way, we can't break WP:SYN Jatlin1 (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the clarity Johnnie Cochran, but I was using "cherry-picking" as a word and not in reference to the policy, hence why it wasn't linked. ~ HAL333 02:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:HAL333, you seriously think the long blockquote in my last comment was cherry-picking? The body of this BLP only mentions “polarizing” once, when it says “Musk was described by Vance as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’.[448]” Therefore I quoted at length (not a snippet) from footnote 448. That seems like pretty much the opposite of cherry-picking. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the fact that Musk is polarizing is implicitly stated throughout the article beyond Vance saying it outright. What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? And you are cherry picking if you're trying to refute that RS say Musk is polarizing when we have a whole basket of sources above. ~ HAL333 04:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call it if some people praise you and others criticize you? Controversial. So why are we being redundant in the lead, User:HAL333? We’re also over-generalizing, as the cited WaPo article says he’s a “polarizing internet provocateur” rather than polarizing in other contexts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying a controversial thing and being controversial yourself are two separate things. Clarity has never done a human harm. ~ HAL333 04:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polarizing

The lead presently says, “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.” Per MOS:LABEL, the word “controversial” is “subjective and vague”. But suppose we keep “controversial” in the lead. Who makes controversial statements and is not polarizing? I support removing the redundant phrase “and is a polarizing figure”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not synonymous, I can say something controversial and if everyone but me thinks it's controversial it's not polarizing, as everyone agrees. Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still don’t get why this is lead-worthy. The only support for it in the article body is this sentence: “Celebrated by his fans and hated by critics, Ashlee Vance described him as very polarizing and ‘part philosopher, part troll’”. So someone named Ashlee Vance says he’s polarizing, and we can just say so in wikivoice in the lead? That doesn’t make sense. Also, I would appreciate an example of a situation where he’s said something polarizing but not controversial, or vice-versa. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also have [[2]] and [[3]]. Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, controversies are almost always polarizing. Your first link says that Musk's buyout of Twitter was polarizing. Other reliable sources say the buyout was controversial. If there is any difference in meaning there, it is not sufficiently great for the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add on: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". It's entirely due. ~ HAL333 21:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we too short it down to "polarizing statements"? Or that's too contrived perhaps. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this reply, HAL.

The Talk page is a convoluted mess right now. What can we do to streamline? QRep2020 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in that sense that there is some redundancy issue here. I'm not sure about in which way it should be reduced, but there is a redundancy issue, yeah. Your suggestion is better than status quo, definitely. - Copenhagen University IP [[Special:Contributions/130.2

We should keep both. ~ HAL333 03:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we want to make such pronouncements in the lead of a biography of a living person in the voice of Wikipedia, without attributing it to a source. IMO, it looks quite distasteful and not in the style of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion man. ~ HAL333 04:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section includes the following claim:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, and comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler."

This is eliding the actual controversy over Elon Musk, and the reason that he is taken more seriously (as a threat) than your run-of-the-mill big twitter account or Republican politician, who might criticize the social or legal requirements to engage in pronoun announcement/acknowledgment or may compare a beloved left wing ruler such as Justin Trudeau, to a despised historical figure. The actually controversial statements that Elon Musk makes are those which suggest that Republicans and conservatives should be allowed by US law and Twitter policy to post political speech online. The controversy there is that most Democrats (hello, fellow editors) believe it should be against social media policy, and also a crime for Republicans to engage in political speech online:

"Roughly three-quarters of Democrats (76%) now say tech companies should take steps to restrict false information online, even at the risk of limiting information freedoms. A majority of Republicans (61%) express the opposite view – that those freedoms should be protected, even if it means false information can be published online."

"Today, 70% of Republicans say those freedoms should be protected, even it if means some false information is published. Nearly as many Democrats (65%) instead say the government should take steps to restrict false information, even if it means limiting freedom of information."

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/ 199.241.231.199 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. And? ~ HAL333 07:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And... make the statement true by adding the actual controversy: Elon Musk has made statements suggesting that Republicans should be allowed by policy and law to engage in political speech online. Every single person knows that is the controversy - that there is significant disagreement on that statement - that is why we are all here - that is why capitalhunters created the false twitter claiming Elon's degrees aren't real (spawning numerous subjects in this talk) - and it is backed up by RS data by Pew.

In the interest of honesty and of educating the reader, anything referencing 'controversy' over Twitter must also include the context that Musk's biggest detractors belong to a group that thinks it should be illegal for their political opponents to engage in political speech online. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But Republicans already can engage in political speech.... And a single tangential Pew isn't enough for the above regardless. ~ HAL333 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:

"Musk's statements have provoked controversy, such as for mocking preferred gender pronouns, comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler, and suggesting that it should not violate Twitter policy or US law for Republicans to engage in political speech on Twitter."

I am aware that this statement may anger many people who find it controversial that Republicans should, by Twitter policy and US law, be allowed to engage in political speech online, such as expressing skepticism over COVID origins or treatments, expressing skepticism over education policy, expressing skepticism over border policy, or expressing opinions on any other matter the US government engages with. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This isn't notable or due. ~ HAL333 08:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable or due, but in fact, the only reason any of us are on this page, and the only reason that it has generated so much discussion since late November.

RS polling data that a supermajority of Democrats disagree with Musk's statements on free speech, but no, those statements aren't the real controversy, even though they coincide with the massive increase in activity on this page, even though we all know those statements are the reason we are here. No, those statements aren't nearly as controversial as comparing a world leader to Hitler. That's notable, due, and of course, captures the true controversy.

Thanks for your input on this discussion but I think you've made your point of view clear. 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Elon Musk sent up the Bat Signal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business,” said Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. “They have reacted accordingly.

Mr. Musk, who did not respond to a request for comment, has been vocal about being a “free speech absolutist” who believes in unfettered discussions online."

"“We have advised Musk that Twitter should not just keep the policies it has had in place for years, it should dedicate resources to those policies,” said Yael Eisenstat, a vice president at the Anti-Defamation League, who met with Mr. Musk last month. She said he did not appear interested in taking the advice of civil rights groups and other organizations.

“His actions to date show that he is not committed to a transparent process where he incorporates the best practices we have learned from civil society groups,” Ms. Eisenstat said. “Instead he has emboldened racists, homophobes and antisemites.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html

JACK WHITE HAS been keeping up with Elon Musk’s Twitter regime — and has some pointed words about it. On Friday, the “Love Is Blindness” musician shared his thoughts on Musk’s allowance of certain people (read: Donald Trump, neo-Nazis) and certain hate (read: antisemitism, white supremacy) on his platform.

“So Elon, how’s that ‘free speech’ thing working out?” wrote White, who left Twitter last month, on Instagram. “Oh, I see, so you have to CHOOSE who gets free speech and who doesn’t then? What kind of crybaby liberal suspends someone’s free speech? Hmm….”

“Conspiracy liar Alex Jones doesn’t get ‘free speech’ either? I see. So you’re learning that these folks incite violence and hatred but trump…DOESN’T?” he tweeted. (White said before that he left Twitter because of Musk’s decision to allow the former president back on the platform.) “Or is it that liar Jones, and anti-Semite egomaniac Kanye can’t provide tax breaks for billionaires the way the former president could?”

“Or that maybe the controller of this ‘free speech’ is insulted personally?” White continued with the rhetorical questions. “It’s nice to watch in real time as you learn that all things need to be regulated, whether that be guns, drugs, alcohol, assembly, or speech because of the danger of someone or something being hurt or destroyed. They’re sometimes called ‘laws.'”

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/jack-white-slams-elon-musk-free-speech-hypocrisy-1234640651/

On Monday, in response to a reporter’s question about Twitter, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that social media platforms have a “responsibility” to “take action” on “misinformation” and “hate.”

What Jean-Pierre meant by “responsibility” is unclear.

https://www.thefire.org/news/free-speech-culture-elon-musk-and-twitter

And because I'm not going to continue to scan for quotable sections demonstrating that Musk's comments about free speech as a policy at Twitter, here are more links, all of which provide viewpoints against what Musk describes as free speech, demonstrating it's notability, and how controversial it is.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/28/elon-musk-twitter-free-speech-donald-trump-kanye-west

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/twitter-musk-reverses-suspensions/

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/elon-musks-twitter-beginning-take-shape-rcna58940

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/29/us/politics/elon-musk-free-speech.html 199.241.231.199 (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything. I'm concerned that my voice won't count because I'm writing via IP adresss since that apparently doesn't count in the consensus.

Can anyone give me some tips on how I can confirm my identity? It is me who has written from https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/130.225.188.128 so I'm a student from Copenhagen University.

I'm very confused why his views on free speech hasn't been mentioned? The entire discussion about Twitter has revolved around the balance between free speech and hate speech, and all the controversy seems to be about that that balance is tipping toward seemingly more free speech at the expense of seemingly more hate speech.

The user above me has already linked countless links that confirms this.

I don't wanna post more links because it is obvious to a ridiculous degree.

Elon Musk has also at numerious media been described as a free speech absolutist and he has even himself used that label.

"mocking preferred gender pronouns" is not backed up by any source.

"pronouns suck" what does this even imply? How does it imply that he is mocking PREFFERED?

Elon Musk's utterence is extremely vague. Why are you inserting information in this article that is based on Elon Musk writing two words in a tweet?

Do you think 2 words, which doesn't even include "gender", frankly, in a tweet is something that can describe Elon Musk at general level or describe his views on gender pronouns?

Or does it suggest that he is extremely opiniated/concerned/committed/etc. about this case to such an extent that it is a relevant to his biography? I can't see that.

At least "preferred" should be removed in this instance. "mocking (gender) pronouns" is enough - anything else relies on subjective interpretation

In any instance, it is absurd that the free speech discussion is not mentioned at all. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he says something does not make it true. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am unsure we need the latest Twitness here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem about the entire article that it does include the latest twitness.

IMO the entire article should be rolled back to 2021. It has been hijacked by political motivation and recentist bias. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you propose seem unsupported/contradicted by any reliable sources I can find.XeCyranium (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The links you post aren't saying the things you attribute to them. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one sentence on the "Twitter Files" are due. There has been significant coverage: Politico, Wired, Axios, NBC, Rolling Stone, Variety, Salon, Daily Beast, etc. And this was all initiated by Musk himself, so I think it's pertinent to his bio. ~ HAL333 16:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly one sentence in the Twitter section. He released emails pertaining to the decision to suppress the content, which were revealed by Matt Taibbi. Something like that is sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure its already not overloaded, this (after all) is an article about him, Twitter is one recent acquisition. Nor am I sure what this new material tells us about him, as a person. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wired, The Twitter Files Revealed One Thing: Elon Musk Is Trapped. I imagine more analysis will be coming, especially as Elon has promised "Episode 2" tonight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can my original proposal In December, Musk released internal documents relating to Twitter's moderation of Hunter Biden's laptop in the leadup to the 2020 presidential election. be improved in any way? And, I agree about the section being a bit overwrought and I'll try to condense it when I have the time. ~ HAL333 17:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is cool with me, and I'm sure there's lots of places this article can be trimmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, HAL. And kudos for not including a wikilink to that attempt at an article... QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made, based on an article from The Intercept detailing close coordination between Elon Musk and far-right troll Andy Ngo, have been removed. But the chorus has grown louder, with the NY Times and the Washington Post also voicing concerns now:

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/03/twitter-antisemitism-violence-jan-6/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/02/technology/twitter-hate-speech.html

The NY Times article is based on statistical analysis showing a sharp rise in hate speech since Musk took over Twitter. Is none of this notable for this entry? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is already present in the Twitter subsection. ~ HAL333 14:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, link to it. I'm not finding anything in the entry addressing these concerns, and I just skimmed through the text after reading your comment. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A study of millions of tweets following the acquisition indicated that hate speech on the platform has become "more visible" under Musk's leadership." last line paragraph 4. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This very brief passage addresses neither the issue of direct coordination between Musk and extremist propagandists such as Ngo, nor the reinstatement and promotion of previously banned Nazis (as opposed to mere verification of never-banned extremist users). Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if either of your sources supports the claim of direct (or even indirect) coordination between Musk and extremists (and you need to read wp:blp). But we could add a few words such as "and following his acquisition Musk reinstated a number of extremist accounts". But as (I think) the section is already bloated I am unsure it adds much to what we already say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of direct coordination between Elon and the far-right is detailed in The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elon-musk-twitter-andy-ngo-antifascist/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read wp:v, it does not say there was direct coordination, it implies there might have been, but this is not enough for us to say there was. We might be able to say "the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club said in a statement to The Intercept. “Whether this is an indication of the future of leadership of Elon Musk’s running of Twitter, we cannot say but we can say that the timing and reasoning is deliberate and targeted.”", but (again) in an overly bloated section the views of one group may not be relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is bonkers. Elon publicly asked far-right troll Andy Ngo to list him which accounts should be banned; this is direct coordination. And it's in the article. And I don't think the section as it stands, with one or two sentences about the rise of hate speech on Twitter after Elon's takeover, is bloated at all. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get that impression from your sources, he was asked to do it, he did not (as far as I can see) ask who should be banned. As I must have missed it can you provide the quote? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This passage is hard to miss if you actually read The Intercept article, but OK: 'In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him.' Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK then we can say that "according to the intercept...". Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercept is a reliable source according to our guideline and doesn't need attribution for statements of fact. And anyone can click on the link to Elon's tweet and see that things happened exactly as descrived by The Intercept. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBC News and Business Insider reported on Ngo pointing out an account to Musk, which was then suspended. So, that is a level of "direct coordination", but the way Musk seems to be doing it, and the way reliable sources are reporting it, is that it's fairly ad hoc as opposed to a more concrete strategy imo. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one Twitter interaction more notable than the thousands of others covered in reliable sources? More notable that his spat with an Egyptian minister] on whether aliens built the pyramids? More notable than him unbanning Trump? Or banning (the newest antisemite on the block) Kanye? Wikipedia isn't news. We don't need to be the first to cover everything. It's also a recentist bias. ~ HAL333 18:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One Twitter interaction isn't that notable, but when the owner of the site takes suggestions from right wing agitators to block left wing accounts, then there's something there. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More high profile commentary in Reliable Sources on Musk's pro-extremist policies on Twitter https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/06/twitter-ads-elon-musk/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More reliable sources on Elon Musk's reinstatement of previously banned Nazi accounts: https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/business/nightcap-twitter-neo-nazi/index.html Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change "[...] is a highly polarizing figure" to "[...] a highly debated figure".

Why? What constitutes a "highly polarizing figure" is very subjective and is not based on any sources. It might also be problematic because any person who is heavily involved in the process of reforming the world in a way that is subject to a political discussion, which Elon Musk indeed is, can be labeled as a "highly polarizing figure".

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

Why? The fact that a person with one of the largest numbers of followers in the entire world and who is the richest person in the entire world - for example, 86 million followers on Twitter at the time - publicly criticizes a person and that at least 2 followers (=some followers) out of all those followers take that as an opportunity to post aggressive utterances is extremely, extremely trivial - trivial to an extent that you wouldn't expect anything else. If it had caused severe death threats, and Gadde had filed lawsuits (and eventually had won those lawsuits), it would have been a different story, put in another way, if she had been victim of criminal actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because RS say it? Slatersteven (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is RS, by the way? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I am unsure its already not overloaded, this (after all) is an article about him, Twitter is one recent acquisition. Nor am I sure what this new material tells us about him, as a person. "

Do you think this reasoning can be applied to "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" as well? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue saying he has "86 million followers on Twitter" is trivial given that an estimated half of them are bots.[4] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that 43 million followers on Twitter are trivial or that the richest man in the world doesn't have a large following, frankly. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know that he's rich and he has lots of followers who aren't bots. We also know that reliable sources call him "polarizing", even in the headlines.[5][6] "Highly debated" is much weaker language. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I'm sorry, I replied on myself by accident below. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem about the extremely trivial story is that it doesn't even relate to Elon Musk's biography. It doesn't even relate to the content of Elon Musk's tweet.

If something as trivial should be inserted, it should at least relate to Elon Musk's biography. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the evidence still lack though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked further into it. Even New York Times prefers to sum the situation up with the subtitle

"In tweets, Musk takes aim at Twitter executives, creating outrage"

So the source has not even been used properly, instead very specific details about the situation have been highlighted,

but what shall be highlighted shall ofc. be the general about the situation that is the outrage. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative use outrage or verbal harassment instead of "sexist" and "racist" -

It is also worth noting that the source used to back up "which lead to ..." is from New York Times a left-leaning paper which makes it even more problematic

since these words "racist" and "sexist" tend to be buzzwords on the left. Scrolling down this wall https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1518664847768006656

which I believe to be the Twitter in question, it isn't my impression that there is any tendency of racism or sexism, but more like "bullying", "rage", "verbal harassment", "trolls", etc. Considering that Elon Musk's tweet didn't contain any sexist or racist content, it doesn't make sense to use these words in this context.

I talked about how this isn't relevant to Elon Musk or Elon Musk's critique in any way, but if he indeed is a polarizing figure,

then words such as outrage would fit better. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, wrong replied to the wrong person again, but I would like you to check my post "I have looked further into it ..."

The source isn't even used properly. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it can be formulated in many ways too.

A right-winger would probably prefer something alike

It led to "more people being open about their critique/opposition"

It "inspired more people to come forward and criticize ..."

All these formulations are true as well, but we have to pick the one that is most general.

The problem about words as "racist" and "sexist" is that they frame Elon Musk as "someone" who inspires racism/sexism which doesn't make sense considering his tweets was not about that.

I think creating outrage directed toward Gadde (formulated in a better way - my English sucks) is definitely the most neutral. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to source 14.

But I can see the gap in the level of trust between Democrats and Republicans was larger before Elon Musk took over - now it is more equal.

I would see that as polarization has reduced. But it depends on how it is defined.

But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!

It is worth pointing out that Elon Musk has just taken over Twitter, fired numerous people, and is in the process of trying to reorganize the entire organization.

We cannot in any way say that this is indicative of how it is gonna be in the long term. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"But if the word is rigorously defined in a commonly accepted expert terminology, and that is how Jordan Marlatt uses the word, then indeed, that is, ofc., correct!"

I must correct myself here. Maybe not, because this is a biography, not a social science article or anything alike, so the definition should rather fit the one we use in natural language (descriptive definitions, for example, definitions in Oxford Dictionary). 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

highly discussed is better though 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we can go with polarizing figure without highly. Degree adverbs along with attitude adverbs, etc., tend to be inappropriate for neutral articles. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh, I got you wrong about triviality! Yeah, we should probably reformulate "[..] to his 86 million followers" in a more cautious way. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree against both recommendations. QRep2020 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. But I would really like to hear your inputs on

Change "[...]which led to some of them engaging in sexist and racist harassment against her" to nothing.

if you have some 176.22.160.62 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely agree to removing "highly" as unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both, but fine with removing "polarizing highly". ~ HAL333 07:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that is what I have done. The polarization criticism is referenced, but should not be made written about his person, in the voice of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2022/11/23/musk-wars-with-the-left-left-suggests-activists-killed-moderation-plan-and-baits-black-lives-matter-supporters/?sh=67b70a152aaf the source is rightfully more cautious than Wikipedia in this regard using the word "baits". The problem is that Black Lives Matter is a political movement. We can't say that Elon Musk has criticized Black Lives Matter because Elon Musk has pointed out that a federal investigation found no support for one of their slogans or because he has criticized financial issues with regard to "Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation". We need sources that back up that he is critical of Black Lives Matter as a "political and social movement that seeks to highlight racism, discrimination, and racial inequality experienced by black people." or that he is critical of the POLITICAL symbolics of the slogan in question. Otherwise, we need to be more specific and say that he has criticized one of Black Lives Matter's slogans because a federal investigation didn't find the support for it - though I don't think it says any general thing about Elon Musk's personality that is worth including in his Biography. Another problem is that the sentence is not separated from "He has promoted conspiracy theories [...]" - which is rather confusing as that can suggest that this is another conspiracy theory.

The problem is too that that would imply that the report itself is critical of Black Lives Matter or that the federal government was who made the report - but we can't say that the federal government's report was critical toward Black Lives Matter since it doesn't relate to it is a political or social movement. A financial lawyer isn't critical of Black Lives Matter either because she/he/they find the finances of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation critical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.128 (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked further into it. The claim in the Wikipedia article isn't backed up in any way.

Here is what he said which is the source that Forbes links.

https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-tweets-cop-killed-unarmed-black-man-ferguson-1849815713

He doesn't even mention Black Lives Matter, but the Ferguson protests.

We could say he has been critical of the Ferguson protests. To be very specific, he has been critical of "Ferguson Protest's use of ..."

Whether that is equivalent to being critical of Ferguson Protests, in general, is also questionable. 130.225.188.128 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recentist bias is an interesting phenomenon that HAL33 brought up.

Many of the problems I have found about this article come from pieces of text that have been added this year based on events that have happened in this year.

In this instance, the information was only added 2 weeks ago. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of this story would be beneficial to readers

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394?refresh=1670024869 Wpow (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanna say that, ofc., should the Twitter files be covered in the Wikipedia article at some point - perhaps already. The problem is that the recentist tendencies to cover every move Elon Musk has done in 2022 have introduced enourmous bias into the article from activists - something I have tried to cover too. If we continue to add information to Elon Musk that is recentist, this bias will continue to grow. Especially a case like the Twitter files that is very complex (as it stands now), activist will read into that what they will. When I heard people complaining about Wikipedia not adding Twitter files, I thought they actually got it wrong. If it was added, it would very likely not be covered objectively, but used as another tool to attempt to cause reputational damage on Elon Musk. We need the Twitter drama, etc., to calm down. It is also problematic that the Wikipedia article contains information that suggests that hate speech has increased since Elon Musk took over based on 2 weeks (or 1 month?) and after nearly firing the entire moderation team AFAIK. 2 weeks say nothing, and the information will likely be outdated next year. But I will not start that discussion. Just pointing out the issues about recency bias. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane:, I see you've moved[7] the FAQ from its own page to a pinned note at the top of this page, with an edit summary saying that this is for "easy reading". Firstly, could you expand on your rationale for this move? And secondly, I note that you've rewritten much of the text in the process. If moving the FAQ was really necessary, it would have been preferable to start with identical text so that we can see exactly what has changed... Rosbif73 (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ subpage was originally made for the {{FAQ}} banner, which will not display on mobile, so I transcluded the page to here. Many months later, I figured there's no reason why we need to bury the FAQ at the subpage when we can just place it here, so I do just that. To address one of the main criticism about the discussion here is perceived elitism from editors, I also rewrote the FAQ to be more welcoming to newcomers. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't see what was wrong with the transclusion. We now have two versions, one here and one at the subpage. Secondly, the text at the subpage has its own edit history that should be preserved. And most importantly, the subpage was the result of consensus over several months, whereas your new text is (IMO) less consensual and also has several grammar errors. I suggest you revert your edit to return to the transclusion, then discuss your proposed changes here. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be two versions of the FAQ. The FAQ page is unprotected and can be edited to better summarize past discussion on these questions. Please consider a few points that have come up in the past, though. The first ("magnet") question targets the sort of person who hears Musk say a thing on the Rogan show and rushes in here as a kind of participatory entertainment. The second targets people who can't tell Wikipedia from a social media site. For these answers to be effective the language of both should be kept very simple, concise and undemanding. Furthermore, the FAQ should be civil and never bitter in tone, and should avoid references to a royal "we" in accordance with WP:OWN. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'll revise the FAQ in the sandbox now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020, Rosbif73 Here it is: User:CactiStaccingCrane/sandbox. What do you think about it now? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I commented above under "Lead improvements" but will start this as well. The last paragraph of the lead section is about controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure. I removed the part about the cave rescue from this section. It seems sort of out of place for that section and minor compared to everything else in that section and the overall bio. Thoughts? Thanks. Malerooster (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the cave rescue story is significant enough a part of Elon's biography to be mentioned in the lead. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, its is a minor part of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The episode constitutes a significant portion of the article and there was a highly publicized trial about the subject. It is worthy of a single sentence in the lead. QRep2020 (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not major enough to include in the lead. – Anne drew 18:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is not a failed proposal either. It was rejected. And it's even unsure whether a rejected proposal is a failure. A proposal that is taken into use and fails is definitely a failure, indeed. I wanna comment on QRep2020. This person seems to be obssessed with Elon Musk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QRep2020 Obviously the person has also written https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSLAQ Every edit he makes on the articles related Elon Musk frame him negatively. The person also rejected two of my suggestions without giving any reason. I just want you to be aware of this person

- Copenhagen IP 130.225.188.131 (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable enough for the lead. There was a massive amount of coverage in the press. ~ HAL333 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all instances, if it shall be put there, it should be rephrased or reflect sources in a neutral way. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It fails to cover the efforts (or "actions" is perhaps more neutral) that Elon Musk put into the situation by anonymizing the efforts under the word "proposal" which easily can be misunderstood as another random and awkward Elon Musk tweet. https://www.vox.com/2018/7/18/17576302/elon-musk-thai-cave-rescue-submarine It wasn't unambiguously a failure eithe " While Thai rescuers praised Musk’s technology, some said it wasn’t “practical” for their plans. “Although [Musk’s] technology is good and sophisticated, it’s not practical for this mission,” Narongsak Osatanakorn, the head of the joint command center overseeing the operation, told the Guardian. " "Fails" is a subjective interpretation by QRep2020 - who spends all his/her/they time on adding negative information on every matter related to Elon Musk - that is not reflected by any reliable sources. But I don't support that it stands in the lead. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal failed to be adopted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't introduce the language. QRep2020 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t think the pedo thing belongs in the lead. Most of the coverage in reliable sources occurred before Musk was found not liable, but after that the suspense was gone, and RS’s reduced coverage tremendously. This matter would more appropriately be in the lead of the pertinent article about the cave rescue, but not here in Musk’s BLP, because it’s a much bigger percentage of lifetime total RS coverage for the cave rescue than for Musk (presently neither Musk nor the “pedo” remark is anywhere in the pertinent article about the cave rescue which suggests they weren’t very significant according to RS’s). If Musk had been found liable, I assume coverage in RS’s would now be much greater, but that did not happen. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Seconded. There is massive coverage of just about anything Musk says or does, but I don't see any significant lasting coverage of the cave rescue or the "pedo" lawsuit that would justify a lead mention. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ok, it looks like maybe 7 editors think it doesn't belong in the lead, and 2 do? I know its not a vote but. --Malerooster (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree it doesn't belong in the lede. Schierbecker (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    With regards to:
   "Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/ EE-lon; born June 28, 1971) is a business magnate and investor."
   This suggestion is very close to undiscussable imo.
   It is absolutely undiscussable that Elon Musk is an entrepreneur.
   This seems to be his most common label, and the label can even be found on book covers too.
   https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book
   https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE
   Otherwise:
   https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk
   https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/
   "He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)
   https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231
   "Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."
   https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp
   On Investopedia they have even put him under the section "Entrepreneurs".
   I can't even find any sources that call him an investor - I can find sources that talk about how "he invested in x company" how he was an "investor in this company". Finding sources that describe him as an investor, in general, seems very difficult and even if such sources exist, they must be very underwhelming compared to the sources that call him entrepreneur.
   I have seen sources that call Elon Musk an inventor (the danish Wikipedia call him that actually), but I find that is likely to be disputeable, but I don't know.
   One thing is sure "entrepreneur" should be included in the sentence before "investor".
   "investor" should probably be removed too. "business magnate" can arguably stay or not, but
   "entrepreneur" should come first.

It is finally worth noting that the Wikipedia page used to contain that word since ever, but the word was removed in 2020 september

A rare good point from an IP. I would prefer entrepreneur to investor -- he's no Buffett. How do other editors feel? ~ HAL333 04:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. "Investor" points to how he was an early investor in Tesla - a fact that is still lost on most people - and everything that happened with Twitter very recently. QRep2020 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investing is an exception for Musk, not a rule. He invested in Tesla and Twitter and then became executive of both, but he is not known to manage a portfolio of investments the way that Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn do, or Paul Allen did. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He invested $44 billion dollars in Twitter. Quite the move for a non-investor.

Previous recent discussions if anyone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Investor, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5#Removal_of_investor QRep2020 (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was quite a move for someone who isn't known as an investor, as Musk is not. Whether he has made large investments, or investments at all, is not disputed by anyone. In a Google news search for "Elon Musk" "billionaire investor", the investor referred to is usually someone other than Musk (e.g. Carl Icahn). Besides that there is his statement in 2019 that he did "basically zero investing" notwithstanding his substantial investment in Tesla. I know that he doesn't have the last word here, but isn't rather arrogant for the article to say "oh yes he is" against both his opinion and the dominant opinion of journalists? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how we know the "dominant opinion of journalists" in this matter. QRep2020 (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I just give you this?

I don't know whether these authors are journalists, but that doesn't matter. You have people writing biographies about him calling him an entrepreneur on book covers.

https://imusic.co/books/9798648453920/caleb-bennett-2020-elon-musk-paperback-book

https://www.saxo.com/dk/elon-musk_paperback_9781761036835?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7N-E3KHr-wIVAwWiAx3wWgINEAQYAiABEgIm-PD_BwE

Otherwise:

https://www.biography.com/business-figure/elon-musk

https://astrumpeople.com/elon-musk-biography/

"He is not only an entrepreneur but [...]" (they make it sound like it is obvious for everyone)

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61234231

"Born in South Africa, Mr Musk showed his talents for entrepreneurship early, going door-to-door with his brother selling homemade chocolate Easter eggs and developing his first computer game at the age of 12."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/061015/how-elon-musk-became-elon-musk.asp 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly seems exhaustive of the collective opinion of journalists. QRep2020 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep talking about journalists? Just say "Hardly seems exhaustive of the collective opinion of reliable sources". Journalists aren't experts in economical matters, actually it's the very opposite, lol. Anyway, I have looked into your discussions. You don't have any reliable sources that call him an investor, anyway. So why are you asking me about an exhaustive list of reliable sources when you don't have any? I don't agree also. That's a pretty big list of reliable sources and includes even authors that have written biographies about him. I could easily find more, by the way. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also making a big investment != being an investor, lol. If you are a big investor, you are likely to be more involved in the company, thus required to have entrepreneurial skills. Elon Musk's fortune comes from owning companies or having large influence/power in companies. I know this is my opinion. But that's why I'm using reliable sources that call him an entrepreneur. You are not, but doing original research and likely failing to understand what it means to be an investor as in general. An investor is someone like Warren Buffet. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I know that he doesn't have the last word here, but isn't rather arrogant for the article to say "oh yes he is" against both his opinion and the dominant opinion of journalists?"

Indeed 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at most of it. It's a terrible discussion because you are not using any sources, but doing original research. Making an investment != investor, as in general. Your example with regards to Twitter shows that he is not an investor, as in general. He invested, later bought it entirely, changed the entire organization, fired half the staff. That's not what an investor does, that's what an entreprenaur does. In any instance, the sources that characterize him just as entrepreneur is overwhelmning compared to sources that describe him as investor. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:130.225.188.131, if you're going to participate in discussions, will you please look at how people format comments in other discussions and try to do likewise? This is not a text message conversation. You don't have to start a new line after every sentence and that's very unpleasant to read.

QRepo202, as you know Wikipedia is bound by what reliable sources say, and most of the sources in Musk's case are news reports. I'll repeat: a ready sample of reports that refer to "Elon Musk" and a "billionaire investor" mostly are referring to two or more different people. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had never been aware of this issue, haha. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now ... In this section just xD 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

25.188.131|130.225.188.131]] (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A user called SquareInARoundHole inserted this, but it is not backed up by any sources. The story comes from the very bottom of this article https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/15/elon-musk-british-diver-thai-cave-rescue-pedo-twitter "He also responded to one critic who had called the submarine idea “absurd” a week earlier, writing: “Stay tuned jackass.” That tweet too was deleted." This story about the "jackass tweet" used to be in the Wikipedia article, later removed, and was supported by the source from theguardian. By the way, it (Elon Musk's deletion of "pedo tweet" along with "jackass tweet") fits better with the telling style of this source where it somewhat says that those tweets were deleted all at once https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/is-elon-musk-losing-it-he-just-called-the-diver-who-rescued-12-thai-boys-pedo-1287286-2018-07-16 . Elon Musk's deletion of the tweets that respond Cher has not been connected to be part of this story by any sources.

SquareInARoundHole inserted this story, making it appear like it would fit smoothly into the story via the word "along", but it's another story, though a story from somewhat the same period I guess (maybe the deletion of those tweets is actually a part of the same story, but no sources back it up, at least not the source actually used). Later the authentic story (deletion of "jackass tweet") was removed from Wikipedia. I have looked at the story about Cher, and it is very unclear, lacks details, say nothing about what Elon Musk tweeted, nor Cher tweeted - the only I can find is something from first-hand source https://twitter.com/jeremyminer/status/1518734309921902592/photo/1. It should probably be removed. Back in the days there was a long section about this story "Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case", but was later deleted, prob. due to political motivation. - Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.131 (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. The user was banned too, ofc. Lmfao.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SquareInARoundHole 130.225.188.130 (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh. There is more to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_184

Oh god, what are these activists, sorry my language, fucking, doing here. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This could also suggest that maybe all editions made by SquareInARoundHole should be scrutinized. At the other hand, I can't understand either why a person https://www.reddit.com/r/elonmusk/comments/u86csy/guys_we_succeeded_qrep2020_is_now_indefinitely/ who is literally public known for trying to defame Elon Musk on Wikipedia and who has been banned before from this page is allowed to edit this page. Biographies are written conservatively, and all evidence suggest that he keeps doing the exact opposite. We have put this Wikipedia article under semi-protection, yet we haven't protected it from the most obviously biased person. It's not right. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are Elon's fans organizing to shape this entry and/or undermine editors outside of Wikipedia? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment the substance instead of questioning my motives. We have a story in the Wikipedia article that isn't backed up by any sources and was added by someone who was banned and was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source . In any instance, biographies are written conservatively, thus if Elon Musk fans have sound arguments, then they should be more than welcome. But to be transparent. My opinions about Elon Musk are mixed because of his relationship with the Chinese State including. I like his stance on free speech and transparency, but I question whether he has the integrity it requires. He is a businessman after all. Maybe not. Time will tell. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really jazzed about including the Scarlett content, but it is supported by the citation that follows it, this Fortune piece: "after software engineer Cher Scarlett criticized Musk’s handling of the cave incident, the tech billionaire fired back and she was soon being harassed by dozens of Musk’s online fans. He later deleted the posts, but not before Scarlett had to lock down her account". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the "along"

He deleted the tweets [about pedo, etc], and apologized, along with deleting his responses to critical tweets from Cher Scarlett.

I can't find any sources that suggest he deleted those tweets along with the tweets headed toward Cher Scarlett. Whilst the "jackass tweet" was definitely deleted along - which the Wikipedia article used to contain and was backed up by sources. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this change address your concern? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes!

My concerns are now of the type that I wrote in the bottom of my first post of this section. But that's another discussion 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah. The user who inserted this was alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1093142001&diffmode=source 213.237.95.117 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a very uncontroversial suggestion. Fact of matter is that Adolf Hitler analogies are extremely common on every political party. If we wanna have an insight into Elon Musk's views, we need to understand how he uses the analogy. So insert something like this "comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler in the light of Canada convoy protest". - Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.131 (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not the first time I have seen you break neutrality policy. Jatlin1 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out with the aspersions bud. ~ HAL333 22:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1125261053&oldid=1125251632 Jatlin1 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's uncivil and if you continue to do so I will bring you to the Great Dismal Swamp. ~ HAL333 22:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, was this edit ever brought to the talk page? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It was a revert to the status quo, which was agreed upon in a compromise. Visit the archives. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my account. Nope, it was never agreed on. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one hand. So what?

Consult the archives at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_13 QRep2020 (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He voiced support for the 2022 Canada convoy protest and was criticized for comparing Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. ~ HAL333 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah? Jatlin1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not, we could perhaps talk about it? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler comparisons don't actually come out often from the mouths of prominent people, and Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League often object to their usage as trivializing the Holocaust. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of those two sentences are very critical

"It was reported that Musk allegedly spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin prior to the proposal, which Musk denied.[352][353][354][355] Shortly thereafter, Musk announced that SpaceX could no longer supply Ukraine with Starlink satellite units at its own expense,[105] but he reversed his stance a day later.[356]"

It is written in such a way that it suggests that Elon Musk stopped supplying Ukraine with Starlink satellite units because of Putin. The source tells an entirely different story: "Musk on Friday said that in asking the Pentagon to pick up the bill for Starlink in Ukraine, he was following the advice of a Ukrainian diplomat who responded to Musk’s Ukraine peace plan earlier this month, before the letter was sent to the Pentagon, with: “F*** off.” "

Obviously, this shall be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.130 (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually terribly written. It's not even clear whether Elon Musk announced that he would stop the supply, just after talking with Putin, or just after the critique of the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REPLY TO THE COMMENT BELOW ME(=IP 130.225.188.130) SINCE I CAN'T REPLY TO IT SOMEHOW

Alright. But we have to make it clear whether it was after talking with Putin or after the critique. We also have to include Elon Musk's own reason. Once again the Wikipedia article suffers from bias issues. It depicts him as he is sensitive to critique. That might be true, but we also have to cover that he was told to fuck off, and that is actually what he uses to explain his motivation behind his descision. We can't just assume that Elon Musk is lying. That's bias. But at the other hand, we also have to make it clear that the proposal was in general met with critique such that the reader can make his own opinion on the question "Was it because he felt mocked or is he just too sensitive to critique"? 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We say Musk denied it, and plenty of RS cover it. Nor do we say he did, it say it was claimed he did. 10:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

We do we said musk denied it, we include his response. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I might mix stuff now. I talk about that Elon Musk's motivation behind stopping the financing of the satelitte units have to be included too. He expresses his motivation in a tweet that has widely been covered by reliable sources too https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall that came after the Uklrianian's response to his statement. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean his statement on withdrawal of Ukranian satelittes? Nope.

https://twitter.com/melnykandrij/status/1576977000178208768?lang=en 3. October. He announced his withdrawal the 14. october. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will not question whether the hypothetical conversation between him and Putin should stay there.

But we have to make it clear that he announced his withdrawal of satelitte units after the backlash of the proposal, not before the proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So he announced this because a Ukrainian official told him to fuck off, that is what you want us to say? And why did the Ukirians official say that? would we not also have to include that? Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1580819437824839681 Yes, but it is a hint too that fits into the situation. He wasn't just met with critique, but anger https://time.com/6219480/elon-musk-ukraine/ - I'm pretty sure that is covered in many reliable sources. He points at this anger and somewhat hints "if you don't respect me then ...". That is my interpretation. But it is not my interpretation that he refers to the anger in his motivation behind his reason, that is Elon Musk himself.

Ofc. we can include the motivation behind the Ukranian official. But I'm pretty convinced he is just responding to his peace proposal. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be necessary to include his apparent motivation directly. But we can't just say "after the critique" ... We have to include "After critique and outrage ...". It wasn't just critique. Many reliable sources confirm this, and Elon Musk confirms that in his motivation behind the descision. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I have has my say, time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very simple edit which makes it more clear. We don't have to state Elon Musk's motivation directly.

Replace "Shortly thereafter" with "Shortly after the condemnation to his proposal".

Replace "which was criticized by Ukrainian officials" with "which was condemned by Ukrainian officials with one of the officials telling him to 'fuck off' "

Makes it more clear. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that. My english is not too good. It can also be more elaborate. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 11:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that reliable sources do not link Musk's peace proposal or his later announcement about discontinuing Starlink's services in Ukraine, with the Starlink outages that occurred around the same time. According to the Financial Times and other reliable sources, there were other reasons for the outages [8], so the current text looks like OR, or unbalanced. I recently tried separating the peace plan proposal from the issue, by moving the former to the Views and Twitter section, leaving the latter two in the Politics section [9]. I hope HAL333 and Slatersteven understand my reasoning now. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was not the reason you stated, it was we needed to put his view. Are you now saying this is wp:synthases? Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand the context properly since I have had limited time to look at the previous talk pages. I didn't talk about the outages here, but, yea, that context about the outages also completely misses. There is a lot of contexts that misses here, and some of the information is misleading too, for example, how the backlash of his proposal just gets reduced to "critique". The context that doesn't miss here is, strangely, some very hypothetical conversation between Putin and him where we have no idea what they could have talked about either, that subtly and misleadingly can being readen (by readers) as the entire, only, or main reason why he had an interest in this withdrawal - which is not balanced in any way and actually propagandist, lol. It has to be rewritten Slatersteven Jatlin1 (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, because the issue of expensiveness comes from the outages, but the Wikipedia article doesn't even talk about that - it just mentions the expensiveness (but uses a source that elaborates on that, yeah). The WK article says nothing. It even makes it look like he just didn't bother with the expenses any longer. The paragraph is terribly non-neutral, unbalanced, misleading, ambiguous, etc. It should definitely be rewritten. Jatlin1 (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It misses that Twitter actually concluded that Musk's statement was not definite misinformation because of the context and therefore the tweet couldn't be deleted. It is also worth noting whether it is misinformation depends on Elon Musk's understanding of the word "immune". He posted a graph that showed that no children had died in Italy which suggests his understanding of immune was not the medical one. But the medical definition of "immune" isn't the only one. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/immune?q=immune definition 2 and definition 3 - these definitions are more open to interpretation. I know this is somewhat original research I'm carrying out here. But point is that we need more context here. -Copenhagen University IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.130 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the only definition that maters when we are discussing medical issues. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting

"Twitter told Business Insider that Musk's tweets didn't violate its rules when looking at the overall context and conclusion. The firm said it would continue to consult its fact-checking partners to identify misinformation that was most harmful." As I understand it, the conclusion was not aligned with what he said - that makes sense because the graph didn't show that no children had been infected in Italy. It's definitely a problem that this context is hidden away. We need to embrace neutrality and cover both sides. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 12:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So? As we do not say he broke Twitter's rules the fact they say he did not is irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you adhering to the principles of biographies must be written conservatively and neutrally? Both sides shall be covered. It has been marked as misinformation by some sources - almost by no realiable sources by the way. BBC, for example, doesn't call it misinformation. You are reducing the matters here and ignoring that Twitter's rules were to combat misinformation. Twitter concluded also that the tweet was not definite. A statement that is not definite is not false (or at least not necessarily false) 130.225.188.130 (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if you can find a source that says that Elon Musk was right we can include the as a counterpoint to him being wrong. But him not breaking Twitters rules is not a counter point to him saying something that was not true. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)@[reply]

Again, you are reducing everything. https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-misinformation-elon-musk-children-coronavirus-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

Twitter said it would suppress (emphasis ours): "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. But couldn't conclude it broke that ruling, but you know better than professionals, apparently. Also, you are implying a statement is either true or false, but that is not true, for example "I love the weather today". In mathematics, for example, a statement can be "undefined" or "not well-defined" - but that is not a false statement. I think it's important that a few journalists have called it misinformation. But it's also important that Twitter whose job, including, is to tackle down these issues couldn't conclude that the statement was definite or that it broke the rules that disallow the specific misinformation in question. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-wrongly-tweets-kids-are-immune-to-coronavirus-twitter-is-okay-with-it-1657807-2020-03-20

the word "definite" can be found here including. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elon tweeted medical misinformation and was called out for it. Therefore, Musk also claimed falsely that children "are essentially immune" to COVID-19. is factual and neutral. The end. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the end unless you ignore every source that cover this subject that talks about how Twitter couldn't conclude that.

Twitter said it would suppress (emphasis ours): "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. But couldn't conclude it broke that ruling which I told you.

You are cherry-picking information which certainly isn't a way of writing biographies neutrally or conservatively. Yes, it is factual that he wrote that. It is somewhat also factual that it was said in an overarching context where he contradicts himself - thus isn't actually necessarily stating that, but writing it, definitely, yes. That's the point. We need the context. We should not delete anything here, but we need the context. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter community notes is not the arbiter of what is or is not medical misinformation, and the sentence doesn't say anything about twitter. The full context is that Elon tweeted medical misinformation and was called out for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have no sources of medical experts calling it misinformation, anyway. Twitter also said

Twitter told Business Insider that Musk's tweets didn't violate its rules when looking at the overall context and conclusion. The firm said it would continue to consult its fact-checking partners to identify misinformation that was most harmful. Strange, we can't find any medical experts calling it out in any sources. Instead we rely on journalists whose area of expertise isn't within that area 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT TWITTER RULES BUT YOU. It is medical misinformation. Does "despite the fact that it contradicted information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" work for you as a "medical expert"? It should, because this isn't controversial in medicine. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article you sent me doesn't say that anywhere. It seems unbelievably unintuive for you, but if you say x and later deny x, then you haven't said x. But if you insist on isolating the context only looking at the statement of x, then yes, then you can easily make Elon Musk look like an idiot. That's why we need the context instead of cherrypicking. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It literally says that in the last sentence of the first paragraph. Elon doesn't need our help to make him look like an idiot, he does it on his own when he says that kids are "essentially immune" to something that they are not immune to. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, my bad. But it doesn't change my point. The source that is used in the Wikipedia article from Axion already calls it misinformation and actually seems to be somewhat the only reliable source that calls it misinformation, so no news. Also you forget that Buzzfeed isn't a realiable source. It's a journalist who doesn't have any medical education. You also forget that Buzzfeed is very left-wing https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/buzzfeed/

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/buzzfeed-media-bias . My point still stands anyway that Twitter, a team of employees who are educated in moderation (and not a, frankly, fucking journalist), couldn't conclude that Elon Musk broke their ruling on "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick. ... they even refer to the conclusion of Elon Musk's tweets so that is somewhat the factual content side of Elon Musk's tweet.

And I have to stress a thing that I didn't see myself. Elon Musk said children were essentially immune.

"Essentially immune" isn't a medical term. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed News is a reliable source. Check WP:RSP, it's in green. And Musk using a non-medical term to say something medical just demonstrates the nature of the disinformation. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. They have two departments. Still doesn't change my point. It also appears like the media outlets that call it misinformation are overwhelmingly left-wing. I can only find Indiatoday who appears to not have a left-wing bias. No, it doesn't demonstrate the nature of misinformation - it demonstrates the nature of undefined statements and statements that reflect how people casually talk with each other.

Broadening our definition of harm to address content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. Rather than reports, we will enforce this in close coordination with trusted partners, including public health authorities and governments, and continue to use and consult with information from those sources when reviewing content.

Twitter dealt with this professionally, in teams, in coordination with experts, but couldn't conclude what I have told you million of times. But I'm not saying that those individual journalists don't have a right to their interpretation, but clearly their interpretation doesn't stand alone. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have been over this many times. It stays. QRep2020 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears like you haven't read anything. I have never wanted it removed. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias. The part about misinformation is fine as is. There is nothing to correct or contextualize further. QRep2020 (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could add that this COVID misinformation doesn't violate Twitter TOS, but I don't see the need for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unneeded. QRep2020 (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOS on "Denial of established scientific facts about transmission during the incubation period or transmission guidance from global and local health authorities, such as 'COVID-19 does not infect children because we haven't seen any cases of children being sick." Yeah. But there is more to it. They have also made statements on the matter to the media. Why do I have to tell you this over and over, but you simply reduce it to "not breaking TOS"? Which TOS? How didn't it break the TOS when Twitter's TOS clearly state this? All those question? Every news article do adress these questions, but you don't. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be more biased than Buzzfeed News or than every single article on the matter. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the need for that, despite every single article that covers the subject sees the need for it? 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is lovely how anything now, even the dryest, briefest descriptions of Elon Musk's online fails, gets called Wikipedia Bias, and the people doing it can't even point out anything unfactual about what they're objecting. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it is the dryest and briefest descriptions of Elon Musk's fails, yet find it notable enough to be included in the Wikipedia article. Hmmmmm? Oh, you suggest it should be removed altogether? Yeah, possibly.

we will enforce this in close coordination with trusted partners, including public health authorities and governments, and continue to use and consult with information from those sources when reviewing content.

I still don't acknowledge that individual journalists have more saying here than a complex of professionals in social media moderation and public health authorities. - At least not to such an extent that it isn't worth including the opinion of a complex of professionals in social media moderation and public health authorities. But I can easily point out that it is unfactual, but we aren't allowed to do original research here, so I will refer to Twitter's statements on the matter. But to make it short, it's unfactual because the statement in question is not coherent with the context, his conclusion, and not even his statement is well-defined because he uses a word open for subjective interpretation "essentially immune" - somewhat in the same way as 1 divided with 0 is not false, but undefined. 213.237.95.117 (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any statements about this on Wikipedia should be cited to WP:MEDRS. But for me, I cannot shirk from saying that my five year old unvaccinated granddaughter got COVID-19. Then her vaccinated parents got breakthrough cases. Then her double vaccinated and triple boosted grandparents got the virus after 2-3/4 years of studiously avoiding it. Her grandmother with significant preexisting conditions ended up in the hospital for five days and is struggling to recover another five days later. We do not know whether we got it from our granddaughter or a local grocery store. But extrene caution is still called for. Cullen328 (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, any statements about this on Wikipedia should be cited to WP:MEDRS

Agree! I understand you man. I do also find Elon Musk's statement unprofessional (also considering the context) 130.225.188.131 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening with the deluge of messages from Copenhagen University IP? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss user actions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I have finally made an account. I deleted a comment from myself because I misunderstood something. I tend to sometimes not reading carefully enough. My bad, I lack some experience in talks. I will also start to use Grammarly after this post. Anyway, where is the right place to discuss user actions? Jatlin1 (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not backed up by any source. I have checked the two first sources and the third one for the two statements respectively. None of those articles refer to his statements as being a cause of controversy. The second statement (about the Canada convoy) is not just backed up in that way that the statement isn't characterized as cause to a controversy, the statement itself is not anywhere to find in the article! You might subjectively interpret the first statement as a controversy, but that's not allowed, and even if it seemingly is intuitively self-evident (which I don't agree with at all), it isn't allowed because the sources lose its reliability on this matter because that would suggest that many think it [Elon Musk's idea/opinion] is a bad idea according to Oxford Dictionary, but that statement is within the expertise of a polling institute (or something alike) because it deals with numbers. It's also a contentious label. Rewrite the bullshit. Ofc. this Wikipedia article information is also from 2022, lol.

EDIT: I have looked more into it. The story was written "elaborately" and sourced as well back in times: "In February 2022, apparently supporting the convoy protesters, Musk tweeted and later deleted a meme comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler." Later an activist shorted it down to Elon Musk comparing Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler without the context, and the source (a Reuters article) was also replaced with another Reuters article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatlin1 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced in the body. ~ HAL333 21:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations."

WP:RS ? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is sourced in the body, it does not need to be sourced in the lead paragraphs. Perhaps consult WP:MOS more closely. QRep2020 (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You link me a page dealing with WK policy, yet "Sourced in the body" isn't a term in the WK policy, please elaborate, instead of creating your own private language.

If I understand it correct, it is implicitly justified considering the entire context. Contentious labels are definitely not justified in the body. That's even directly said in MOS:LABEL "Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight." Jatlin1 (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Body" is the term and it is used many times in WP:MOSLAYOUT. The specifics of citation use in the lead are available at MOS:LEADCITE.

And the sources cited in the body of the article certainly establish the existence of controversies surrounding the man. QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They need to connect controversies to the statements in question. Especially when they are contentious labels.

By the way,

Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead. Jatlin1 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not describe what you are doing as a challenge. Regardless, there was a recent Talk discussion about the sentence where the consensus was that the current wording is fine. QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go check out Donald Trump -- no source is required in the lead to support that he has made racist/racially charged statements. ~ HAL333 22:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a statement about Donald Trump or label on Donald Trump, it's a statement that some people (where the subject some people is hidden away via the passive verb have been) have characterized many of his comments as racially charged, etc. That's indeed a more considerable way actually. It's also different because the sentence is general and don't refer to specific events. Anyway, why do you not have sourcing for statement 2? Elon Musk never said that according to the source in question. Jatlin1 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of well-verified controversy. "Have provoked controversy" is actually the understatement of the year. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the entire article fails the WP:NPOV? Jatlin1 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? ~ HAL333 22:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jatlin1, you seem to have missed the "well-verified" part. I'm going to repeat some of the things that were said here, and I'll add a note or two for your and our benefit. First, citations in the lead are not necessary, but the lead should summarize well-verified material. Second, unsourced "controversy" isn't immediately a matter of POV; it's first of all a matter of being unverified, so if I'm reading your misreading correctly, you pointed at the wrong problem. Third, "have been" is not a "passive verb" (there is no "passive verb" in English, and "have been" is two verbs), but I understand what you mean; however, the lead should summarize, and if the material in the article is well-verified and properly ascribed, there is no problem with such a summary. The sentence is general: yes it, because it is the lead.

Since I left my note for you, a few hours ago, you made a dozen edits, and two editors had to come by and explain things to you. That's what I was pointing at on your talk page. Please be advised that uninvolved administrators (such as myself) have a variety of tools at our disposal to prevent or stop disruption on this and other such articles--the notification on your talk page, which you removed, provided valuable information about those tools. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your contribution. I can't find the term "well-verified" in the WP:G sorry. I have never questioned whether citations in leads are necessary or not. Second, I'm not sure about which "unsourced pov" you refer to. True, passive voice, I forgot the third verb characterized. Okay, the lead shall summarize, cool. I was not talking about the lead, but the first paragraph in Personal views and Twitter usage section.

Anyway, the inline-citation source does not back up the Adolf Hitler comparison story. Jatlin1 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes now lists Bernard Arnault as the richest, with Musk falling to second place.[10] — Red XIV ^(talk) 23:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would let it sit for a few days as the Tesla stock price is volatile. QRep2020 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]