Talk:Elon Musk

Some of the sources in this article are ridiculously bad

I don't get how this article seriously can have something like that as a source: https://newrepublic.com/article/177695/elon-musk-scoundrel-year-2023-new-republic

It's literally a straight up hater article on the level of an angry reddit user, where they claim he is the ultimate evil and make statements that almost hurt from it's stupidity like this one "The rockets from his rocket company, SpaceX, keep exploding".

It apparently does not matter what quality a source has, as long as it supports the point of view of the (generally left leaning) Wikipedia editors. Lrzw (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Amen! I was just reading the Wiki about Elon. Same hate on him in Wiki. Accusing him of misinformation about Covid (untrue). All of these writeups are incorrectly done on Elon. They list his accomplishments and then bash him for his opinions, which we all have and can change as one gets wiser to the world and the people in it. These lefties have not grown up yet and refuse to, because they act as though they already know it all. They dont seem to understand that people grow and change over time. Its called WISDOM. 2603:6010:1105:E395:8C1F:67A9:3A0F:D22D (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

He is good 204.111.243.146 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think some people need to read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Random editor passing by, I looked over that New Republic article and its use in this wiki article; it's only cited to support the claim that The New Repuublic labeled Musk as "Scoundrel of the Year", which they did. Now I personally disagree with the content of The New Republic's opinion piece, but in this case there's no need for this source to be removed, as the New Republic on the wiki has been described as opinionated but "generally reliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_New_Republic, and no one here has opposed including the New Republic's ""award"" for Elon Musk into the article. I'd say keeping it in actually helps the section its in (Public perception) keep towards WP:NPOV. Were there any other "ridiculously bad" sources you had in mind @User:Lrzw? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because a source is WP:GREL does not warrant inclusion. "Scoundrel of the Year" is a non-notable anti-award (no wiki page), so one can claim that it fails WP:DUE considering other listed awards/honors in that section have their own article. That is also probably why other "Scoundrel of the Year" winners (e.g. Zuckerberg, DeSantis) don't have it mentioned on their pages. Ptrnext (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. WP:NOTNEWS says information in Wikipedia should be enduring in nature and not content appropriate for a gossip magazine. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it given there appears to be consensus. Ergzay (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this edit. BoldGnome (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? No. I disagree, Slatersteven does, and clearly SpacePod9. Please change it back. QRep2020 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you articulate why you disagree, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Simply saying you disagree is not sufficient. And why you haven't previously responded to the above arguments if you feel strongly about the inclusion of the content? I'm noticing a concerning pattern on this article. BoldGnome (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I added it originally. And agree with SpacePod's argument. QRep2020 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Please be mindful of WP:OWN. You do not own this page. It's irrelevant who added it originally. Ergzay (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say your interpretation of what I attempted to convey is completely wrong and politely leave it at that. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You stated that you disagree with removing it after it had already been removed. When asked why you disagree with removing it, you stated that it was because you added it originally, which isn't a valid reason. If I am misinterpreting what you said then you'll need to clarify what you actually meant by that statement.

As to who agreed/disagreed. You had not offered any opinion. Slatersteven had not offerered any opinion just an unrelated comment. SpacePod9 was the only one who gave any statement against it and Ptrnext and JamieBrown2011 both disagreed with SpacePod9's argument and gave reasonable reasons to back their opinion up. Ergo, there was, and continues to be consensus as I am also in agreement with all the statements and reasonings given. Ergzay (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The New Republic is a reliable source per WP:RSP, though its opinions should be attributed, which they are/were in the Musk article. The publication references its award elsewhere in its publication history, so it isn't some one-off hokey attempt, and it specifically mentions the 2023 award again at https://newrepublic.com/article/179867/ceo-pay-tax-dodging-corporations.

The 2023 award is referenced by a secondary source, the Hindustan Times, at https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/elon-musk-dubbed-2023-scoundrel-of-the-year-by-us-website-evil-unserious-101703842084560.html. WP:NEWSORGINDIA contains a warning about using articles from the Brand section of the Hindustan Times, but that doesn't apply here. The Reliable Source Noticeboards offer discussions of the general respectability of HT, especially in its primary regions of readership.

Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mention - for example, the FAI Gold Space Medal doesn't have one (only the FAI Gold Air Medal gets that treatment). Its inclusion balances a paragraph otherwise devoted to how often the Times talks about his importance, which, if you think about it for a second, is probably one of the reasons TNR issued him this title.

As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source. QRep2020 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to better read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It states "Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media." If it's pervasive and deeply integrated you can't separate them. I would discard that as not really helping your point.

> As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source.

Sure and we should not make the problem worse.

My biggest issue with that statement is that it's so severe to fall to the level of violating WP:Libel. Putting in some other negative source to balance it I think would be fine, as long as it's an accurate criticism. Ergzay (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting TNR paid Hindustan Times? I think that would require some evidence. Again, the only reference to Hindustan Times' involvement with advertorial content points to its Brand section - the article isn't in the Brand section.

This is the first time you've brought up libel. How is it libel to state that a major publication called him a "scoundrel" and making it clear that it is a title by saying it was awarded, worded with capital letters, etc.? Its attributive in definitive form. He himself hasn't even accused them of libel, and its a pretty tame epithet with little legal actionability at that. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times is not a reliable source. BoldGnome (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected."

It should be noted that this source is not just "quoted" in other RSes as claimed by the above editor, but used as a source of information. Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information ("According to..." etc.), not just mention it. So actually there is an evidence, and the evidence is more than clear.

QRep2020 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you link this one? tsk tsk BoldGnome (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That section is supposed to summarize contents in Elon Musk filmography and List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk. There are many other notable awards (with their own article) in the main awards page that are not included in this section, so adding this obscure anti-award certainly appears to be undue. If you wish, you can add this obscure anti-award in the awards page. Also, note that all the awards and honors listed in the section have been awarded for decades and generally have a lasting impact. This anti-award has been around for what? 5 years, with no known impact? Ptrnext (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family"

This is what I'd expect when describing the Kennedy's. It's a bizzare opening considering just how inconsequential Elon's family was. His father had an $80k share in an emrerald mine? But even that's disputed. Tikaboo (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend we remove or rewrite to remove "wealthy". There are several citations in Walter Isaacson's book which don't indicate that the family was wealthy.

- Page 19: "They divorced when Elon was eight. Maye and the children moved to a house on the coast near Durban, about 380 miles south of the Pretoria-Johannesburg area, where she juggled jobs as a model and dietician. There was little money. She bought her kids secondhand books and uniforms. On some weekends and holidays the boys (but usually not Tosca) would take the train to see their father in Pretoria. “He would send them back without any clothes or bags, so I had to buy them new clothes every time," she says. “He said that I would eventually return to him, because I would be so poverty-stricken and wouldn’t be able to feed them.”

- Page 23: "At age ten, Musk made a fateful decision, one that he would later regret: he decided to move in with his father. ... His [the father's] career had many ups and downs, but at that time he was feeling flush."

- Page 41: "A myth has grown that Musk, because his father was on- and-off successful, arrived in North America in 1989 with a lot of money, perhaps pockets filled with emeralds. Errol at times encouraged that perception. But in fact, what Errol got from the Zambian emerald mine had become worthless years earlier. When Elon left South Africa, his father gave him $2,000 in traveler’s checks and his mother provided him with another $2,000 by cashing out a stock account she had opened with the money she won in a beauty contest as a teenager. Otherwise, what he mainly had with him when he arrived in Montreal was a list of his mother’s relatives he had never met."

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It's one source dude. I know he might want it splattered all over the place, but let's keep up appearances. QRep2020 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source for the statement "The family was wealthy during Elon's youth." is also just one - the single The Independent article. So I don't see how this is a good argument. If anything, given how sourcing works, text should be left out if contentious and not having enough sources to verify it. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Wealthy family is well sourced and not contradicted by a divorced mom having financial troubles or Musk having $4k as a student. Feoffer (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources say a bunch of stuff, we have to decide what's appropriate to go in the article, how much emphasis should it have, and how to say it. As I said, the current version in the lead is just bizzare given the actual family circumstances and it's something I would expect to see in an article on the Kennedy's. I propose cutting it from the lead and just have it as "Elon was born in..." It's already mentioned (and in a much more appropriate way) in the childhood and family section anyway: "The family was wealthy during Elon's youth." While we're on the topic, I would also like that to be less vague. Were they upper middle class? Or wealthy as in travelling in private jets? But perhaps we have to keep it vague considering the dearth of good sources. Tikaboo (talk) 15:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

From the lede, maybe, but not form the body. Its relevant to his life that he was not poor. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source I see for the word "wealthy" in the article is the October 2022 https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-made-money-rich-b2212599.html. That reliable source relies on statements from Errol Musk that the family was wealthy.

But the Walter Isaacson biography came out a year later, in September 2023. The biography is a reliable source. In the biography, Isaacson gives proof that Errol is not a reliable source in at least one case ("In this case, [a story by Errol] was provably false"; see below and above for the details). Isaacson also casts doubt on ANY statements from Errol being reliable. And the Isaacson biography has several statement that indicate that the family was not "wealthy".

Elon has said that he grew up in a "lower, transitioning to upper, middle income situation". https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1654971702571331584?lang=en

One reliable source said the family was "middle class" (https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-says-he-did-not-have-a-happy-childhood-mom-reveals-they-stayed-in-a-one-bedroom-apartment-2376225-2023-05-08)

So, I believe that we should follow the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability and "immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced", because (1) it is contentious, and (2) it is poorly sourced, given that a reliable source was relying on a now-proven unreliable source for the conclusion that the family was wealthy.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope. QRep2020 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is Elon MUsk a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Elon Musk is a reliable source. I'm saying that the material is contentious, and poorly sourced.

ReferenceMan (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The basic story of the mine from Isaacson (page 15):

"Like the Haldemans, he loved flying. He bought a twin-engine Cessna Golden Eagle, which he used to ferry television crews to a lodge he had built in the bush. On one trip in 1986, when he was looking to sell the plane, he landed at an airstrip in Zambia where a Panamanian-Italian entrepreneur offered to buy it. They agreed on a price, and instead of taking a payment in cash, Errol was given a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines that the entrepreneur owned in Zambia.

"Zambia then had a postcolonial Black government, but there was no functioning bureaucracy, so the mine was not registered. “If you registered it, you would wind up with nothing, because [sic] the Blacks would take everything from you,” Errol says. He criticizes Maye’s family for being racist, which he insists he is not. “I don’t have anything against the Blacks, but they are just different from what I am,” he says in a rambling phone discourse.

"Errol, who never had an ownership stake in the mine, expanded his trade by importing raw emeralds and having them cut in Johannesburg. “Many people came to me with stolen parcels,” he says. “On trips overseas I would sell emeralds to jewelers. It was a cloak-and-dagger thing, because none of it was legal.” After producing profits of roughly $210,000, his emerald business collapsed in the 1980s when the Russians created an artificial emerald in the lab. He lost all of his emerald earnings."

So basically we have Errol here recanting/retracting his prior claims that he "owned" the mines. He claims that it can't be proven one way or the other because the whole thing was below-board out of necessity. He claims to have made significant amounts of money on black/grey market transactions which dried up when synthetic emeralds were invented.

The whole thing is "The dog ate my homework" levels of verifiability. The only support for any of this being true that I can find is tangential anecdotes from other members of the Musk family.

Errol's claims should be mentioned because they have received significant coverage, but I suggest that the article should hold any version of the story at arms length and avoid endorsing it as true, including the version where he owned the mine. Foonix0 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It may be contentious, its not poorly sourced, it has received wide coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the argument that he's also lying about having a plane and building a lodge in the bush? Because newsflash: poor families in South Africa at that time had dirt floors, not airplanes and hotels. There isn't a way to spin this where the family isn't wealthy, at least in relative terms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The argument is not that he was poor. The argument is that the article's stated basis for claiming that the family was wealthy and the source therein is contradicted by other reliable sources and is a dubious story to begin with.

And yes, an airplane was obtainable on something like an "upper-middle class" engineering income at the time. Foonix0 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

An airplane was obtainable on something like an upper-middle class engineering income in the US... Not in South Africa which was radically poorer and where the exact same level of income in dollars would put someone solidly in the upper class. In 1980 when the plane was bought for apparently 50,000 dollars the average South African laborer made under $500 a year... Making it a hundred years worth of average income. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, by that standard, the average person in the US at the time was "wealthy" then. Few people in the US lived in dirt floor huts. The average income in 1980 was $7,787, making 15x the $500 figure every year.

The question boils down to where do you split the cohort lines? If you lump the Musks in with oppressed, poverty stricken South Africans, sure. If you count them closer to US/Europeans, not so much. The argument for the latter is because they were in the SA "ruling caste."

But this whole discussion is getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. To try to get back out if it: The whole point here is multiple RSs have contradicting information. I'm just saying that the article could be potentially improved by something like clarifying that they were "wealthy" by SA standards, or as pointed out above, including well-sourced material indicating there is more to the story. As it stands, there is a large information gap between stating that claim, and other related interesting things such as how much money musk had when immigrating to Canada. Foonix0 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've clarified that they were either wealthy (by American standards) or very wealthy (by South African standards). Again, try explaining to someone in the US that your dad has a private plane and owns a safari lodge (in addition to a day job) but that you're not wealthy... Just the very very upper edge of middle class. I don't see the information gap between "stating that claim, and other related interesting things such as how much money musk had when immigrating to Canada" just because you come from a wealthy family doesn't mean they pay for everything or that your path is shoveled with a silver spoon. Musk can be both self made and from a wealthy family, there is no contradiction there unless the argument is that he inherited his wealth from his family which as far as I can tell exactly no-one argues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"just because you come from a wealthy family doesn't mean they pay for everything or that your path is shoveled with a silver spoon. Musk can be both self made and from a wealthy family, there is no contradiction there unless the argument is that he inherited his wealth from his family which as far as I can tell exactly no-one argues. "

Right, I agree, but the article doesn't say that. Why not? Foonix0 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Say what? If no-one is arguing something why would we need to say it wasn't true? We don't call Musk an heir, we call him "a businessman and investor" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Would adding something along the lines of "According to Elon his father ceased to support him financially when he graduated high school." to the body alleviate your concerns? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would help a lot. Thank you. That's what I was trying to get at with bringing up the other side of the wealth story.

It might also be worth mentioning the quote above about getting $4k when moving, potentially in the Education section that discusses moving to Canada. (Isaacson is the source.) But I'm dropping the stick. So thanks for at least hearing me out. :) Foonix0 (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Except, according to our current article text, his father helped finance Zip2. Feoffer (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's him supporting Elon financially. It looks like that was Elon helping his father by getting him into a sought-after funding round. Tikaboo (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well that is a bit of a pickle, probably best to leave out Musk's claim then as unduly self serving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why we go my what RS say, please provide one RS that disputes the claim they were wealthy. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it was already stated in this thread, but here you go:

https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/elon-musk-says-he-did-not-have-a-happy-childhood-mom-reveals-they-stayed-in-a-one-bedroom-apartment-2376225-2023-05-08

See also the quotes from the Isaacson biography above, which is also an RS. Foonix0 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The Indiatoday.in story is repeating what Musk tweeted. It's hardly an independent reliable third party source. QRep2020 (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As for Isaacson, I encourage editors to step back and consider why the story of the qualities of Musk's childhood changed drastically from one biography (Vance) to another when their subject is living and contributed to both. Especially since the second one came after Musk started pushing his rags to riches narrative. In the face of contradictory sources, we sometimes need to consider context. Hell, Musk has even accused Isaacson of getting things wrong: https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/1/23895069/walter-isaacson-biography-musk-review QRep2020 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Isaacson acknowledged a mistake and made a correction weighs in his favor in terms of reliability. Foonix0 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

How? It shows Isaacson might want to get things right, but doesn't mean he did or does. QRep2020 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NEWSORG, "Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest."

The same concept is applicable here. Foonix0 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this change due to agreeing with this reasoning and, given that user QREp2020 has not replied in 9 days, assume there is no argument against this change. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:0:0:0:1E3E (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

given that user QREp2020 has not replied in 9 days, assume there is no argument against this change. That's not how it works. Multiple editors have opposed the proposal, they don't have to restate it every week. Feoffer (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 If you've read Vance's other books, he doesn't treat his books as biographies, he treats the people in them as "characters" (that's the term he uses). They're written in a certain style that embellishes rather than tries to remain factual. It is not the first time Vance has written things that disagree with multiple other sources. I can't speak to Issacson, but Vance certainly isn't very reliable for intricate details. His most recent book about other space companies is full of this type of content with multiple provably incorrect things in it, or at least things that disagree with other sources. Ergzay (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The article's current source is also just repeating what Errol said. Foonix0 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It also does not say they were not wealthy, just that they were middle class (which does not preclude being wealthy} and at some point in 1989 (the year he moved to Canada) he stayed in a "one bedroom apartment", which tells us nothing (I believe he still does, is he not wealthy?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also clarification, are we talking about removing this from the lede, or the whole article? Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I can tell Foonix0 and Tikaboo want to remove it from the whole article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I want it removed from the lead, and if possible be less vague in the body. Tikaboo (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

None of the statements are vague though... QRep2020 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't imagine people reading know what we mean by "wealthy", especially since we're talking about South Africa. I suppose if his father was worth millions of dollars during his childhood then just keep it as "wealthy". If it's less then that then maybe just "wealthy by South African standards". Tikaboo (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We also say that he was an "enthusiastic reader" - should we clarify how much reading he did relative to the average person of his age group at the time? What about him being "estranged" from Errol? Should we say slightly? Fully? Unequivocally? Some words are quantifiably vague and but convey meaning regardless. They had enough money for a plane, multiple houses, a computer when it wasn't a ubiquitous consumer good yet - they were wealthy. QRep2020 (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It all depends what those things were worth. Today a small single engine plane can be bought for the price of a car, was it different back then? Multiple houses, were they small and in average areas or big mansions in expensive areas? Figuring this out makes the difference between "wealthy" and "wealthy by South African standards". Also "upper middle class" could be an option depending on the answer to these questions. Tikaboo (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is why we by what RS say, as we can assume they did some research, how much did Musk pay for his plane? Also upper middle class and wealthy are not exclusive, you see, to be thinking of rich.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If they've done research they seem to say what it is, I don't think there's any unsaid info. Yes wealthy and upper middle class aren't exclusive, the second is less vague though. Anyway, just for the lead are we all in agreement that this should be removed "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family"? Tikaboo (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about his family and childhood in the lead, we should characterize the family as wealthy, per RS. (Also, per Horse Eye's Back's, let's remember a typical family in 1971 South Africa had dirt floors. ) Feoffer (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why "Wealthy by South African standards" might be more appropriate. We really don't talk about his family and childhood in the lead, the bizzare "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" precedes just this: "Elon was born in Pretoria and briefly attended the University of Pretoria before immigrating to Canada at age 18". Tikaboo (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems perfectly ledeworthy to me. Solution in search of a problem. RSes say wealthy. Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we have consensus that it isn't bizarre or unsupported. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I recommend we remove it from the lead. Tikaboo wants it removed from the lead.

Slatersteven said: "[Remove] From the lede, maybe, but not form the body. Its relevant to his life that he was not poor.

The lead is supposed to be "summary of [the article]'s most important contents". The lead currently says: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family,..."

The article body only currently states:

"The family was wealthy during Elon's youth. Despite both Musk and Errol previously stating that Errol was a part owner of a Zambian emerald mine, in 2023, Errol recounted that the deal he made was to receive "a portion of the emeralds produced at three small mines."

Whether the family was wealthy isn't an important aspect of the article. And by putting it into the lead plays into all of the discussion as to whether Errol owned an emerald mine, which is no longer in the article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. By putting it into the lead plays into the much-discussed perception that Errol owned an emerald mine, which is now refuted in article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The distinction between "owning a mine" and "owning the gems it produced" is a subtle one. Precision is important, but it's hardly a "refutation". Feoffer (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats not a refutation by any reasonable expectation. Whether or not one thinks it should be in the lead is also separate from whether or not it is "bizarre or unsupported" but you appear to be directly conflating them in a misleading way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we need to do an rfc regarding its inclusion in the lead? It seems obvious to me that it doesn't belong in the lead (failing the requirement of a "summary of [the article]'s most important contents") and just the phrase itself is strange considering the actual family circumstances. Again, something I'd expect to see in an article on the Kennedy's, not a fairly bog-standard upper middle class family. Tikaboo (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I have never run into a "fairly bog-standard upper middle class family" with a private plane (not a starter plane either, pressurized twin prop) and investments in a safari lodge. Thats not in any sense standard until well into upper class. Middle class families by definition aren't making significant investments in businesses they don't run, the families who do that are by definition part of the capitalist or upper class. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The next step would be Dispute Resolution.

Also, note that the first sentence for Musk family mentions their wealth. And rightfully so: Elon is wealthy, his brother is wealthy, etc. If we are to bring up that he is a member of the Musk family and their wealth is mentioned by the article elsewhere, then clearly their wealth is something to state early. Or is there reason to think the family is not at least currently wealthy? QRep2020 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what the plane or safari investment was worth. If his net worth was in the millions then sure, wealthy, if it's less then they're best described as upper middle class imo.

It's notable that Elon is the richest man on earth, that should be mentioned in the lead. His father's wealth is pretty irrelevant, certainly too irrelevant to mention in the lead. Tikaboo (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say anything about his father's wealth specifically, then or now, it only says the family is wealthy: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family". QRep2020 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in Pretoria..." Because of what follows it reads as if he was born into this Kennedy-like family. Tikaboo (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It would have to start with "Born a member of the wealthy..." to convey that. Right now, all that clause does is state that he belongs to a wealthy family.

If it helps, we can simply change it to "Elon is a member of the wealthy South African Musk family. He was born in..." QRep2020 (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It definitely already conveys it. It shouldn't precede "he was born in..." at all, because it sounds like he was born into a famous wealthy family (Kennedy-like). Perhaps later in the lead you could link to the article noting that there are other notable family members. Again though I question the reason for that given they are largely irrelevant, and the Musk family article is the first link in the body. Tikaboo (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If we said that they were prominent (as we do at JFK) that would convey famous and wealthy... Wealthy just conveys wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

"A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in..." sounds like he was born into a notable wealthy family, which isn't true. At the most we can say his father was wealthy, though again we run into the issue that it doesn't belong in the lead. Are we at an impasse here and need to do dispute resolution? Tikaboo (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

There are other ways to frame it, we could follow The Independence lead and talk about being born into a position of financial privilege rather than into a wealthy family[1]. Would something like that be more amenable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For the lead it's better than what we currently have. A better forumation imo is "Elon was born to a wealthy father in..." The whole wealth thing is an issue too though since we don't seem to know his father's wealth, was it millions of less? If it's less then options are "somewhat wealthy", "upper middle class", "wealthy by South African standards". I still find it out of place to put in the lead though. Tikaboo (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Slatersteven said: "This is why we go my what RS say, please provide one RS that disputes the claim they were wealthy. "

Here's an interview with Ashley Vance (Elon's biographer) where Vance says "He [Elon] grew up in South Africa and had the good fortune of doing so in an upper-middle-class home. But that's more or less where the good fortune ended."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-05-22/elon-musk-speaks-frankly-on-coronavirus-spacex-and-rage-tweets

With that as additional evidence, I would like to remove "wealthy family" from the lead. We will continue to work on the phrasing in the body of the article.

ReferenceMan (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Upper-middle clas does not say "not wealthy". And an interview only means we can say "which Elon Musk has denied" (nor am I sure that a COVID denier could even by an RS). Sorry, none of this says he was not wealthy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the wording in the body of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 12:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I will remind users of wp:v, if an RS says it that is what we say, to challenge it an RS must EXPLICITLY challenge the claim, not merely not make it. RS saying "water can turn into ice," is not saying water is not wet, nor is saying "it can turn into steam", we would need a source saying "water is not wet". Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we're confusing multiple things here.

1) Elon Musk is certainly a member of the wealthy family that consists of himself, his brother Kimbal, and his cousin Lyndon Rive, all of whom are wealthy, on or after the year 2000 (when Zip2 was sold to Compaq). I believe that is why the article on the Musk family says that the family is wealthy. See Musk family.

2) It's not clear (to me, anyway), that any of Errol or Maye's ancestors were wealthy.

3) It is not clear (to me, anyway) that the family of Errol and Maye Musk and their children were wealthy before Errol and Maye divorced in 1979.

- Ashley Vance says Elon "grew up in an upper middle-class home". "Upper-middle class" is NOT wealthy. See: https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/family-finance/articles/where-do-i-fall-in-the-american-economic-class-system "One way some researchers divide individuals into economic classes is by looking at their incomes. From that data, they split earners into different classes: poor, lower-middle class, middle class, upper-middle class and wealthy"

4) Is is not clear (to me, anyway) that Errol or Maye Musk were wealthy after 1989 (when Elon left for college).

5) The debate (to me, anyway) is whether Errol was wealthy after he and Maye divorced, from about 1980 to about 1990.

To me, the lead saying: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in Pretoria ..." implies #2 or possibly #3 above, for which I have found no citations.

I recommend the phrasing in the lead of "Elon is a member of the wealthy South African Musk family, which includes his brother Kimbal and his cousin Lyndon Rive", and put that sentence at the end of the first paragraph, NOT immediately before "Elon was born..." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The recommendations keep changing. Is this the final version, the one that's been signed off on? QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The linked article cites Pew... Pew defines down middle as "two-thirds to double the median family income" with upper being those with more and lower being those with less. Double the median family income in South Africa in 1980 was about a thousand dollars a year. We're talking about a Musk family income that is on the lower lever an order of magnitude greater than that. For *white* South Africans they would possibly have been upper middle class, but for South Africans they were wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That's why "wealthy by South African standards" would be a good option. Tikaboo (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not engage in wp:or if a source says X, we can't say Y. For all we know they did not mean "by the standards of South Africa". Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone object to ReferenceMan's phrasing? If not, should it go in the lead or the body? I don't think the family is notable enough for the lead so should go in the body. I'm fine either way though. Tikaboo (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Because we'd also have to add white if we're saying "South African standards" and "A member of the white wealthy by the standards of South Africa South African Musk family" is just too wordy. It would also be inherently US-centric because it assumes US as normal, which is not how English wikipedia works... We're a global encyclopedia which reflects global standards, not British or American ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It goes without saying that this wealth would be within the context provided, as per "the meaning of wealth is context-dependent". It's inherently US-centric to think that this reference is based on US standards, hence the wording is unnecessary. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree; it would be perfectly reasonable (from a reader's point of view) to assume US or worldwide standards for the statement about the family's wealth, particularly given the context we have established in the first paragraph of the lead which tells us that Elon is one of the wealthiest people in the world. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" which is the only context here. If readers misunderstand the obvious context, and instead attribute it to the first paragraph, then they will likely struggle to understand most of the article that is based on the format of WP:PARAGRAPH: "When the topic changes, a new paragraph should be started". CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that context we invited, I am not sure any RS say that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought I had. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The current wording in the body (The family was wealthy during Elon's youth) is backed by a single source and contradicted by others, so should probably be removed or at least qualified. The current wording in the lead (A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born...) reflects the current body, but I'm far from convinced that any mention of a wealthy family is DUE in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There are some other sources to consider from an initial search:

• https://time.com/6127754/elon-musk-net-worth-person-of-the-year/ "Musk's family was well-of" GREL
• https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/11/17/elon-musk-emerald-mine/ "The wealth earned from the investment in the mine was quantified to be about $400,000 USD, taking into account inflation when Arnold's piece was written in 2021, according to Errol." GREL
• https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-dad-tells-bi-about-the-familys-casual-attitude-to-wealth-2018-2 " the family’s considerable wealth" MREL

As a side note it'd be worth including Musk's denial of the Emerald mine in the body per Daily Beast:

• https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-dad-errol-shares-deadly-secrets-of-the-fabled-emerald-mine-in-zambia?ref=scroll "Later that year, Elon began to distance himself from the emerald mine story, arguing that there was no proof it ever existed." MREL

Edit: Do you have a list of RS that refutes this claim, other than Musk himself? I couldn't find it in the body, it should be added to make informed decision over the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me make this clear, until I say yes, just assume I am saying no, it is easier. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We're at a bit of an impasse for how to discuss the wealth of his father. For now though does anybody object to removing it from the lead and just having it in the early life section? So instead of the current lead A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Elon was born in... it changes to Elon was born in... We leave the current early life section as The family was wealthy during Elon's youth and for the word family we link to the Musk Family article. Tikaboo (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

does anybody object to removing it from the lead Yes, many. Feoffer (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

What dispute resolution should we go to? This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Tikaboo (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I spend a lot of my time reading Wikipedia articles but have never edited anything or felt the need to use the talk page but this article is clearly absurdly biased. It's deeply unsettling to me that this is allowed. This sentence and particularly the location of it is very clearly designed to degrade Elon by making it seem that his "membership" to the Musk family is one of the most notable things about him, and implies that it is a primary reason for his notability. I am not disputing whether his family was well off or upper class, but this sentence is clearly deceitful, incredibly degrading and ultimately nonsensical. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, the degradation of the mention of belonging to a wealthy family. Obscene. QRep2020 (talk) 17:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not that it was mentioned that he belongs to a wealthy family. That is okay although I'm not sure if "wealthy" is the best description. The significant issue here is that it's said identically to the pages of the Rothschild's. It's clearly designed to imply that the Musk family is notably wealthy and that his membership to the family is a primary reason for Elon's notability. The usage of "Musk family" and the fact it has it's own page implies they're the Windsors or the Rothschilds where in both of those cases the family is more notable and significant than any one member. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the Musk family not notably wealthy though? And is Musk being the primary source of that wealth not notable? If we want to make that second part clearer, I could see that working. QRep2020 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see his family being notably wealthy enough to talk about it in the lead, especially since Elon himself is like 95+% of that wealth. It's also a problem considering it's followed by "was born in..." so implying this wealth was from before he was born. Tikaboo (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree. ReferenceMan (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Hard agree. 101.98.188.156 (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Do not mock people on talk pages. Ergzay (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"In one incident, after having called a boy whose father had committed suicide "stupid", Elon was thrown down concrete steps."

I don't understand the relevance of the father suicide comment. There's no indication in the sources that the father's suicide had anything to do with Elon calling the boy stupid. The source of this is Elon's father and he only mentions it as a reason why he didn't go hard on the boy who attacked his son. Tikaboo (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend we remove the "whose father had committeed suicide" phrase. We know that Errol's comments are not reliable.

From Walter Isaacson's book "Elon Musk", page 39:

"You’ll be back in a few months,” Elon says his father told him contemptuously. "You’ll never be successful." As usual, Errol has his own version of the story, in which he was the action hero. According to him, Elon became seriously depressed during his senior year of high school. His despair reached a head on Republic Day, May 31, 1989. His family was preparing to watch the parade, but Elon refused to get out of bed. His father leaned against the big desk in Elon’s room, with its well-used computer, and asked, “Do you want to go and study in America?” Elon perked up. “Yes,” he answered. Errol claims, “It was my idea. Up until then, he had never said that he wanted to go to America. So I said, ‘Well, tomorrow you should go and see the American cultural attache,’ who was a friend of mine from Rotary.” His father’s account, Elon says, was just another of his elaborate fantasies casting him as the hero. In this case, it was provably false. By Republic Day 1989, Elon had already gotten a Canadian passport and purchased his airline ticket.   [emphasis added].

ReferenceMan (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

lol QRep2020 (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Please don't mock people on talk pages. That's against Wikipedia policies. Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

We should mention that Musk sustained injuries required hospitalization along with the circumstances that reportedly triggered the incident. Feoffer (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Separate issue. Also, not needed. QRep2020 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't even mention him getting malaria. Honestly, I think all mentions of this "incident" should be removed. QRep2020 (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources say a bunch of stuff and we decide what's relevant to include. Could you make an argument why it should be included? Tikaboo (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

None I am responding to "We know that Errol's comments are not reliable", I want a better argument as to why we should remove sources long-standing content than "well I think its a lie". Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok, I just think the "dad suicide" part of the story should be removed, I'm indifferent to the rest of it. Tikaboo (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is someone able to do this? I don't have enough edit history to do it. Tikaboo (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If no one has done it, it may mean no one agrees. Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about removing mention of the suicide part of the story, which I've only seen agreement on here. Tikaboo (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Either the entire mention of the incident should go or the article should continue to provide the context for the event per the reliable sources. QRep2020 (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

From the source we're using the dad's suicide has nothing to do with Elon calling him stupid so I don't see why we would include that. Tikaboo (talk) 15:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Given the suicide has nothing to do with Elon calling him stupid and therefore has no bearing on the context, do you still object to its removal? Tikaboo (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it. BoldGnome (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Why has this even been necroed, nothing has changed. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the well-sourced text about suicide. Feoffer (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Feoffer, The Business Insider article requotes Errol Musk's statement in the Isaacson book. The Isaacson book does not adopt Errol's claims as fact and says of Errol's account: "Both Elon and Kimbal, who no longer speak to their father, say his claim that Elon provoked the attack is unhinged and that the perpetrator ended up being sent to juvenile prison for it. They say their father is a volatile fabulist, regularly spinning tales that are larded with fantasies, sometimes calculated and at other times delusional."

And that's without going into the implication that Elon Musk called the boy stupid because his father suicided, or that he was deserving of the beating he received.

I'd suggest that the text is not well-sourced and this account should not be included in wikivoice in the biography of a living person. Interested in your thoughts. BoldGnome (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

They say their father is a volatile fabulist We could include that rebuttle, though Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. There's also probably room to polish the language, but it's longstanding and supported, so just deep sixing the whole issue probably isn't viable. @Slatersteven could probably answer better than I. Feoffer (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer Could you clarify what you mean by it being supported? The relevant pages (3-4) of the cited book are available on google books and there's a quite clear distinction between what the author believed to be verifiable and what he attributes to the contested account of Errol Musk. The source contradicts Errol's account of the cause of the fight that you've restored in wikivoice: "a student who was horsing around with a gang of friends bumped into him. Elon pushed him back. Words were exchanged. The boy and his friends hunted Elon down at recess...". The source doesn't even verify that the boy lost his father to suicide. Also according to the source, the brother, Kimbal, was an eye witness to the assault and is not Elon Musk, so Mandy Rice-Davies doesn't apply. BoldGnome (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to BI, not Isaacson book. Feoffer (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read the sources or at the very least read the discussion about the sources before restoring contentious material to biographies of living people based on those sources. BoldGnome (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if we allow that Musk did not provoke the other child, that hardly precludes him saying it. Provocation turns on the intention to FAFO - maybe Musk intended to just be mean?

As for fabulist stuff, plenty of people have said the same about Musk himself and it wouldn't be difficult to see why. If you want to argue for an inclusion that Musk disputes the history, at least then there are facts to lean on, though I disagree it warrants mention. QRep2020 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As we do not know what relevance it has, but RS seems to think it has, it is logical to assume they know stuff we do not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to the attention of the BLP Noticeboard: [2] BoldGnome (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in, as I saw the note on WP:BLPN. This is far from well-sourced material and should be removed. The Business Insider article directly quotes Errol Musk's words to the author of the book – Isaacson. They did not make an editorial judgment to represent the quotation as fact; rather, they present it as a claim made by Errol, which is what it is. The second source is the very Isaacson book referenced by said BI article. Neither source represents Errol Musk's claim as factual; including it as such, in Wiki voice, is WP:OR. Normally, I would wait for discussion to peter out, but this is a BLP and WP:BLP applies, so I'm going to go ahead and introduce more neutral wording from the same source until/unless there is consensus to restore the content under discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 01:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Also here from BLPN, just noting that I agree with AlexEng's reading of the sources and their edit. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer Did you see this comment? Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I did, and I concur the article is improved by direct attribution of the quotations about the incident to Errol and Elon themselves. Feoffer (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You concur with whom, sorry? Your text solely quotes Errol Musk's claims regarding the "cause" of the beating. The version included by the third party BLPN participant and agreed to by another third party BLPN participant, and by myself, and presumably by Ergzay, is more neutral. Please stop, you are testing the limits of the assumption of good faith. BoldGnome (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

you are testing the limits of the assumption of good faith.

It's clear this is a topic you have both a lot of knowledge about, and also a lot of passion about. But understand that not everyone here brings that same level of energy and expertise; I'm just learning about Elon's bio as we go, and we're all doing our best. Feoffer (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"It's clear this is a topic you have both a lot of knowledge about, and also a lot of passion about." I actually have neither, and seemingly less "passion" about this subject than yourself. I'll take it from this response that you'll drop the stick. Thank you. (Never mind, wishful thinking.) BoldGnome (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I see BoldGnome has removed the well-sourced material, even as it's directly attributed as a quote to Errol. My reading of the above is that the objection to the material was it being relayed in wikivoice, which I understood and corrected. It seems to me it should be restored, as both Isaacson and BI discuss it.

Additionally, that edit also deleted the discussion of Elon's wilderness school experience -- is there any actual objection to documenting that material or did it just get lost in the shuffle. Similarly, any objection to listing his siblings earlier in the section rather than after the hospitalization? Feoffer (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see the only relevance of the attacking boy's father's suicide is that Elon's father stated it as a reason why he wasn't too hard on the boy for attacking Elon since he was going through a lot. I don't see how that can possibly be relevant to include in this article. Tikaboo (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that can possibly be relevant to include in this article if the objection is about its relevance, a consensus for that change should be developed on talk. Its inclusion in BI and other sources establishes its relevance to Musk's bio. Now that material is directly attributed to Errol and Elon quotes in RSes, it is not a BLP violation. Feoffer (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"BI and other sources". Please acknowledge that The Business Insider article directly quotes what Errol Musk said in the Isaacson book, as has been explained multiple times. BoldGnome (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the BI source is clearly quoting the Isaacson book! I keep mentioning BI because it's not as if we, wikipedia editors, cherrypicked the childhoodhood assault and hospitalization as worthy of discussion from the totality of the Isaascson book -- BI and others are the ones who chose to highlight that section of the book, not us. Feoffer (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't realise you were referring to sources not used in this article. If you're going to refer to them to establish the noteworthiness of Errol Musk's statement could you please provide them here for us to see? BoldGnome (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well you seem to think I'm trying ot pull one over on you. Any source I cite WILL trace back to the Isaacson book, but BI is far from the only ones to give the significance to the childhood experience of being beaten and then berated by a father who sides with attackers. Issaacson himself has singled that incident out in his NYMag interview. Feoffer (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Well a Wikipedia article is far more limited in what to include that an entire book biography, or an individual website article discussing one specific thing. Tikaboo (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"PhD" not supported by citations & "dropout" refuted by citations

With regard to:

"In 1995, he was accepted to a PhD program in materials science at Stanford University.[47][51][55] However, Musk decided to join the Internet boom, dropping out two days after being accepted and applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

The citations establish that Musk was accepted into a "graduate" program in Materials Science Engineering. That could be either a Master's program or a PhD program. It is not specified. The citations also establish that Musk did not enroll, which means "dropping out" was impossible.

I suggest the passage above be rewritten as:

"In 1995, he was accepted into a graduate program in Materials Science Engineering at Stanford University, but did not enroll.[47][51] Musk decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

Note that I omitted the Bloomberg [55] citation as it merely repeats the "dropout" claim without providing information contradicting the letter from Stanford that says he did not enroll [51]. StanfordMSME (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you for the clarification! Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the article (that he "dropped out after two days") should probably also be amended. According to the letter from the admissions officer, he did not enroll.

He failed to graduate from Penn after being admitted to Stanford, so it is possible that he was admitted but had his admission rescinded. 2603:8080:1301:16DC:618C:D41C:D0DC:6B3 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no room in the article for things that are possible but not established, nor for things that are impossible, such as "dropping out" of a school one hasn't attended. Suggested: "but instead co-founded Zip2, an online city guide software company, with his brother Kimbal." 2601:642:4600:D3B0:80D3:EA:68F8:1E43 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024

Change "Owner, CTO and Executive Chairman of [[Twitter|X (formerly Twitter)]]" to "Owner, CTO and Executive Chairman of [[X (social network)|X (formerly Twitter)]]" (the article about the present). J3133 (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 13:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

ART4+ most valuable artwork for auction

Elon Musk will launch and announce the auction of the most valuable artwork titled ART4+ created by Daryush Shokof at start price of 11 Billion USD. 84.174.149.43 (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

When it is announced and it achieves some notability we might be able to add this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion for just "born into wealth" part of "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family" statement

The above discussion is trying to discuss too many parts of this statement at the same time like for example other statements of wealth elsewhere in the article. So lets break this down into more narrow issues. The statement as written implies that the family at the time Elon Musk was born was already wealthy. There is no source anywhere on this page or anywhere on wikipedia that implies that the family was wealthy at the time of Elon's birth. In multiple sources (ex: [3]) Errol Musk is described as simply an engineer that Maye Musk met when she was in high school. This is not a description of a "wealthy family". Further there is no source discussing any generational wealth from Errol's parents. Whether they were wealthy or not later in life is a separate discussion. @QRep2020 and @Slatersteven you two seem to have the biggest issues with changing things. Is this level of change acceptable? I'm going to go ahead and make a bold change. Revert it if you disagree. Ergzay (talk) 21:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(Frankly, as this is a WP:BLP page, if sources can't be immediately provided, and revert is done again without sources I'm going to just take this to noticeboard, which is where it should have gone a long time ago.) Ergzay (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Remember to mention everyone who disagrees next time. QRep2020 (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You were the only two I saw in a brief skim of the discussion (it's too long to follow), if there's others feel free to mention them. It's not my intention to leave people out. Ergzay (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

From my point of view there's already consensus for removal, at least that's what I saw in my skim of the discussion. It was mostly the two of you pushing back against many different people. Ergzay (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am no Musk expert, but we can all agree he is widely alleged to be a child of wealth. So far as I'm aware, that allegation is correct, but as I say, I'm no expert. At the same time, the "wealthy Musk family" language does feel a bit forced, and googling shows that the phrase is essentially unique to us: never a good sign. I wonder if anyone has ideas for some middleground solutions? Feoffer (talk) 08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Group think is not a valid source for a wikipedia article. He was more well off by the time he was a teenager and went to live with his dad, but his mom is described as being too poor to be able to afford a personal computer and was stated as one of the reasons that Elon left to live with his Dad. However that has nothing to do with their wealth at the time he was born. Ergzay (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, an argument was made in the previous discussion that owning a computer was somehow a sign of wealth. While it certainly means you were not poor, at the time frame we're talking about it wasn't a sign of wealth either. These were not multi-million dollar machines. Ergzay (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If it is unsourced remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It's sourced in the body (for the purposes of how I have read the statement). QRep2020 (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a claim it is not, so maybe provide the source here? Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The statement as it was written was not sourced in the body. Ergzay (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus so I'll go clean up the previous edit I made. Ergzay (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there, I see one yes, one no and one maybe, that consensus does not make. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nuance in the wording in the lede on the term "early investor in Tesla"

Yes Elon Musk was an "early investor" in Tesla, however I think some additional clarification or wording is needed to avoid the default assumption that is made when people read that statement. As written it basically implies that Musk had no involvement in the company after investing and "early investment" brings an image of a company that already exists and is growing at the time of investment. Neither of which is true. Simply saying he helped found the company isn't accurate either but wording that represents the position somewhere in the middle is needed. Does anyone have any suggestions? Can we simply add "very" to "early"? What about "invested in and became involved with"? I'll make an edit and then we can discuss further changes. Ergzay (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The original wording in no way implies universal acceptance of Musk as making antisemitic statements, so the addition is superfluous. Additionally, the edit is paradigmatically weasel wording, so I recommend all invested editors (re)read the appropriate MoS section closely. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 It's the opposite of weasel wording. Weasel wording is when you use words to prop up a statement. What I'm doing is properly contextualizing wikivoice into closer to what the rest of the article states.

Quoting: "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Ergzay (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What part of "In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO." has weasel words? Ergzay (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing or making so many changes so quickly to this article that I ended up referring to changed text in the wrong place. As you could obviously tell, what with me discussing antisemitic matters instead of what he was doing in 2004. Take a breather. QRep2020 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The following text was reverted by QRep2020 claiming above that it contains weasel words:

In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO.

back to:

In 2004, Musk was an early investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, assuming the position of CEO in 2008.

Pinging some people to see if there is consensus for this change. If you have issues with it, be constructive. @Slatersteven @Feoffer @BoldGnome @ReferenceMan @Tikaboo. Ergzay (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no view on this matter other than that it's abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense or understanding of weasel words that neither text includes weasel words. BoldGnome (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the change, it's a little less vague with more detail. Tikaboo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a toughie cause I do see what we're trying to do by improving on "early investor". He wasn't just an early investor, he was (my OR words) early and pivotal. That said, the first text feels REALLY forced, like we're going out of our way to remind the reader how important he was.

My instinct is to try to find a RS quote calling him something more than an mere "early investor"? How much is "most", what is "heavily involved" -- we can pin that down more. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like "He was an early investor who provided most of the initial financing in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.)." Describing him becoming the chairman, etc. in the following sentence already implies his heavy involvement. QRep2020 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

Citation: Isaacson, p. 128. "Eberhard faced a problem. He had an idea and a name, but he had no funding...After a follow-up meeting that included Tarpenning, they agreed that Musk would lead the initial financing round with a $6.4 million investment and become chair of the board...The pieces thus came together for what would become the world’s most valuable and transformative automobile company: Eberhard as CEO, Tarpenning as president, Straubel as chief technology officer, Wright as chief operating officer, and Musk as the chair of the board and primary funder. Years later, after many bitter disputes and a lawsuit, they agreed that all five of them would be called cofounders." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice -- I think my favorite wording for the first sentence is yours: "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. " I think I would like to see the $6.4M figure included and "chairman" specified as 'of the board' for people readers who aren't familiar with corporate structure; see what others think. Feoffer (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should say he bought a majority stake rather than 'led the initial funding', which doesn't have clear meaning to most readers I think. Tikaboo (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. How about: "In 2004, Musk provided most of the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the chairman of the board. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

ReferenceMan (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tikaboo, "majority stake" sort of suggests maybe they had lots of funding already but Musk bought those funders out; I don't think that's the case.

I'm good with your first sentence if others are. Product architect is its own thing, I don't [yet] know what it means or when it happened. Feoffer (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Product architect is a good question. The earliest reliable source I've found is from 2009:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/24/plugged-in

"Musk, thirty-eight, is the chairman, C.E.O., and product architect of Tesla Motors"

which is corroborated by a tesla.com blog post from 2010:

https://www.tesla.com/blog/stanford-business-school-taps-tesla-motors-global-executive-program-customer-in

"said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk."

ReferenceMan (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer It was more than "majority stake". Majority stake just implies over 50%, whereas Musk was at 90%. I think it's important to clarify, in effect, the company was almost fully owned by him from the day the company really got going. Ergzay (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

More than the numeric value I think it's important that the percentage value be important, which was according to available sources, 90%. Ergzay (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure why not. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why add words? Slatersteven (talk)

Conduct dispute

No suggestions for article improvement here.

Ergzay's history shows extensive Elon Musk related edits across Wikipedia, either burying negative information, or injecting weasel words. He's been warned before, but doesn't seem to have learned. Zone10 (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC) @Zone10 Please don't misrepresent my edits in the way you have here. If you have specific issues with my edits address those on the relevant talk pages. Secondly, I have not been "warned before" about anything you're referring to. Finally, what you're doing here is violating wikipedia policies, making personal attacks. Please don't do that. If you continue it may result in administrative action after discussion at a notice board. Ergzay (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Your edits are WP:TE and 90% centered around Elon Musk. Zone10 (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC) I'll also note that your account was created today specifically to write this comment, which likely means you're a sock puppet account, something very much against wikipedia policies. Ergzay (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) Submit your evidence to SPI then. QRep2020 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

SEC suit in the lead and the body

Should mention in the lead and in the body that Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle. - https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-us-sec-bastards-forced-settlement-over-tesla-tweets-2022-04-14/

Maybe something like this? In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk, alleging that he had falsely announced that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. To settle the case, Musk stepped down as the chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle as banks would not provide capital to Tesla with the suit ongoing. Tikaboo (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

IN the lede no, in the body yes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Errol Musk

Errol Musk redirects to Elon Musk. The link should be removed. --Achim Adotz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why, is he notable in his own right? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:CIRCULAR. CNC (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FAQ question removed

I removed the following FAQ question and answer:

What is the deal with Musk's father supposedly having partly owned an emerald mine? Both Elon and Errol have said as much in the past but recently changed their stories, leaving the facts murky. In terms of prior confirmation, journalists with access to them have reported it as part of Elon's background. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon. While today Elon disputes almost everything about the story, Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of emeralds from his dealings.

The rest of the questions and answers pertain to this article and the editorial decisions that have gone into its writing. This question has nothing to do with the article, and instead may be taken as a frequently-asked question about Musk, which it is not Wikipedia’s place or job to provide answers to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)