Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateElon Musk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleElon 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 24, 2021Peer reviewNot reviewed
August 23, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know 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

Request for comment on expanding description.

[edit]
CONSENSUS AGAINST
There's a strong consensus against this change per MOS:FIRSTBIO. Recently, Musk has had a high profile association with Trump. Tthis information could eventually be a part of the lead. Some time needs to pass to properly weight how important it is to the biography to avoid WP:RECENTISM Nemov (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

Should we add "as well as his support of Donald Trump in the 2024 Election." after ""known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc "? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Request for comment on expanding description)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

[edit]

Add Elon Musk’s political party and fix the current error with his designated office, says “Assumed” instead of “Assuming”. Vlklng (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he’s a registered independent, that is what his political party should be. Vlklng (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Musk's political affiliations are complex, and we've written quite a lot about the topic. I don't think we should be so quick to summarize his party in the infobox as "Independent" when that could be misleading—particularly with the amount of coverage he's received lately as one of republican president-elect Donald Trump's top supporters. Also, the "Assumed office" text is a standard part of the {{Infobox officeholder}} template and can't really be changed here. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2024

[edit]

In October 2024 Tesla loses a Court Battle in a Swedish Labor Dispute. A district court ruled that Sweden's constitution prevented it from taking a side in a labor dispute between Tesla and local unions that has dragged on for 11 months. Steenskadhede (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a better fit for Tesla and unions. QRep2020 (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To protect Elon’s page while adding things that aren’t yet true decreases Wikipedia credibility. There is also an entire page to a department that is not yet created. He is NOT yet a commissioner of anything. As the efficiency commission nor department has been established. This is different than a nominee to an existing dept. other pages include a line that points to the announcement. Please correct and stop protecting polarizing people - just because maybe the head editor is a fan. I have noticed others not protected Punachar (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just what are you on about, @Punachar? BarntToust 20:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry was it not clear? This commission doesn’t exists. Whereas actual nominees like Tulsi Gabbard those pages don’t seem to be protected. If Elon is now in the public realm it makes no sense to protect bogus information on his website Punachar (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Punachar, if you think Gabbard's page should be protected in order to comply with WP:CTOP process now that she is associated with perhaps the most controversial figure in the 21st century, you should make a request for that at WP:RFPP. However, it appears there is currently a backlog, so your request may not be attended to with swiftness.
As for the comments on the commission not existing, it is notable enough. It is a proposed entity, which is not without relevance, as it passes WP:GNG. BarntToust 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government infobox

[edit]

Given that his position in DOGE is considered “outside the government” by various reliable sources, should we keep the government infobox? 107.115.171.128 (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NO as it does not even exist yet. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it exists, should we? I don't know if it will be something relevant enough especially after the 2nd Trump administration is over. For example, Pelé was minister of Sports of Brazil from 1995 to 1998. He still has this position in his infobox, but below everything else that makes him relevant and memorable. Lucafrehley (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't need any more infobox bloat. ~ HAL333 20:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communist categories

[edit]

@MagicatthemovieS has re-added three categories to the article: American, Canadian and South African anti-communists, claiming that [t]he article mentions that he hates his kid's supposed communism. I see no such mention, nor any reliable sources stating that Musk is actively anti-communist. Am I missing something? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see they're referring to the second paragraph of the 'Relationships and children' section, which reads: Musk blamed the estrangement of his daughter on what the Financial Times characterized as "the supposed takeover of elite schools and universities by neo-Marxists".
However, I do not consider this strong enough to justify those categories; it appears to be WP:OR. We'd need sources that explicitly call him anti-communist. — Czello (music) 08:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Relationships and children" section MagicatthemovieS (talk) 08:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a leap from him blaming the estrangement on supposedly neo-Marxist influences to claiming that he is anti-communist. Do you have any sources that make that leap, i.e. that specifically state that Musk is anti-communist? Rosbif73 (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the categories seem misplaced at the moment. In addition to wondering if there are sources that make the claim explicitly, I wonder if |sources do so frequently enough to meet WP:CATDEF's "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the cats. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same nonsense that goes nowhere

seriously wiki?

[edit]

everything i don't like is right wing conspiracy theories. Jesus. the bar is so low you people.... Tyler.J.P.Merritt (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC) — Tyler.J.P.Merritt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

NO, we go by what RS say, that is our bar. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it doesnt help when only left-wing sources are accepted here. The fact that Fox News is banned but not CNN is literal insanity and makes zero sense. --FMSky (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not wholly true, plenty of right-wing sources are accepted, and this is bordering on soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats just not true, I use "right wing" (in both US and foreign contexts) sources all the time and Fox News is not blanket banned... You can still use local Fox affiliates (which is most of what we use anyway because thats where the good reporting is in that ecosystem). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the wealthiest

[edit]

Elon Musk is rich, filthy rich, but he is not the richest guy in the world. For starters, there are people with more clandestine wealth that wipe their bums with banknotes in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Russia. This is well known, often reported, and Musk himself has spoken about it in the past. But he also doesn't literally have $304 billion dollars to throw around as we speak. It's in total assets, if he sold them all tomorrow to purchase something, they'd lose their value and he'd end up with tens of billions less. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis is always going to be an issue, as it will change often. As such (I think) it is just a bit too newsy for an encyclopedia, but others disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not wrong, didn't we establish a consensus against describing him as the "wealthiest" a while back? (I still feel that way at least.) ~ HAL333 05:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a source that says he's the wealthiest. Do you have one that says he's not? GA-RT-22 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GA-RT-22 Firstly, I advise you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Secondly, no one is advocating for the lead to expressly state that he is not the wealthiest person. Thus we need no source for that. It seems unwise to include a highly unstable attribute like "wealthiest" when Musk is superseded every other month. As it changes often, the claim will inevitably and frequently become either outdated or will violate WP:CRYSTALBALL. Net worth estimates are also highly unreliable, and we should not conclusively state that Musk is the wealthiest when someone like Putin is almost certainly "wealthier". The best approach would be to simply say that "Musk is one of the wealthiest men in the world." ~ HAL333 00:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability. We have a source for "wealthiest individual". YFM wants to remove this because he believes the source is wrong. We don't normally do that unless we have another source that contradicts the first one. That's why I'm asking if he has such a source. There may be other reasons to remove "wealthiest individual" but I'm not addressing that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and within it you should have found WP:VNOT: i.e. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. You haven't given a single reason for the inclusion of this claim besides "I have a source." Why shouldn't we go back to the old status quo? Why should we include this volatile and unencyclopedic claim when it flies in the face of WP:VNOT, WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:NOTNEWS, and the other policies that you are apparently unable to "address". ~ HAL333 19:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second.
Also, hi Hal, good seeing you in these parts again. QRep2020 (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YFM wants to remove this because he believes the source is wrong.
One day you're going to end up making this assumption about a woman and you'll be blasted for it.
The world's wealthiest person as per the sources in the article changes frequently. Bezos and Bernard Arnault have snatched that title from Musk several times, and so it would be far more practical to just call Musk “one of the wealthiest”. On a deeper level, you, Musk and I both know there are people with more clandestine bank accounts, whose riches far exceed those of paper billionaires like Musk and Bezos. Again, if Musk liquidated all his Tesla stock overnight for whatever reason, he would tank its price and be left with far less than $300 billion. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polarizing views

[edit]

The lead section mentions that "Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure", which I will certainly not dispute. However, unless I'm mistaken, it is fairly recent (2020 or so). Shouldn't we specify this ? Right now, the intro makes it look as if he always was polarizing. The fact that his views evolved over time is mentioned in the lead section of Views of Elon Musk. Psychloppos (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How to appropropratly document the perception of Musk as an oligarch in this article ?

[edit]

I Think I already brought up the topic once before, but I feel due to current events, the Topic needs an update anyway. Maybe my Question could become part of the FAQ, since I guess I might not be the Only one considering Musk as an Oligarch. And their are a lot of International News Article where Musk is considered an Oligarch so why not document this perception in this article? Aberlin2 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like it would make an appropriate addition to the section Elon Musk#Public perception. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=1259210166"