Talk:Elon Musk

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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
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?


Frequently asked questions

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

Q1: Can you change "business magnate" to "business magnet"? (No.)
A1: No. Press reports and other published sources have identified Musk as a business magnate and so this Wikipedia article captures such usage. Musk himself during an interview asked jovially that the article instead be changed to say "business magnet" - a conversation in which he also claimed to be an alien.[1] That said, reliable secondary sources take priority over an article subject's suggestions, serious or otherwise. Believe us when we say we get this "request" on an ongoing basis.
Q2: Can you change "Tesla CEO" to "Tesla Technoking"?
A2: Unlikely. This is because his position of the company is still effectively a CEO and writing "Technoking" instead would create more questions than answers to readers. The goal of the article is to inform people, and not to correct a technicality that would confuse people.
Q3: Is Musk an engineer?
A3: Musk is the Chief Engineer of SpaceX, a title that applies within the company and that the press regularly mentions. He is not a professional engineer, a distinction within engineering that carries certain legal privileges in the United States, nor has he completed an engineering training program, nor has he ever been hired as an engineer. The article therefore does not include any of these claims. It does note that, from time to time, Musk has made initial product proposals at his companies that his trained engineers then research and develop. He does hold IEEE Honorary Membership.
Q4: Why doesn't the article identify Musk as co-founder of PayPal?
A4: The "PayPal" that Musk co-founded (PayPal, Inc., formerly X.com Corporation) was not the original one, but rather a successor and erstwhile competitor to the original (Confinity Inc. doing business as PayPal). As all three entities share history and to avoid misleading Wikipedia readers, the article identifies him as a co-founder of only X.com.
Q5: Why does this page include criticism of Musk's actions and stances?
A5: According to Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In accordance with this policy, this article includes notable discourse, both favorable and critical, about Musk found in reliable sources.
Q6: Why doesn't this page call Musk African American?
A6: African Americans are an ethnic group of Americans with total or partial ancestry from any of the Black racial groups of Africa. Musk does not have ancestry from the Black racial groups of Africa; his ancestry is European.
References
  1. ^ Joe Rogan Experience #1169 - Elon Musk. The Joe Rogan Experience. 6 September 2018. Event occurs at 9:53. Retrieved 2 October 2020 – via YouTube.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99.

Why does the article not describe Elon Musk as a co-founder of Tesla?

As a matter of court settlement he is a co-founder of Tesla, why doesn't the article fully state that he's thusly the co-founder of Tesla? Ergzay (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And to jump ahead of the argument "he wasn't actually a founder because he wasn't there at time of incorporation", it's quite common for startups to add co-founders after the actual founding, sometimes for example the very first employee if impressive, will get "co-founder status" and can call themselves a co-founder. Ergzay (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and here's a secondary source. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=f4610af46272 Ergzay (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a huge list of reliable sources mentioning him as founder in the archive Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Ongoing_Debate_As_of_April_2014 Ergzay (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We covered this is in a RfC. Consult the archives. QRep2020 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. This has already been addressed in a strong RfC. ~ HAL333 18:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors knows better than a court settlement. Warbayx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A court settlement, not unlike an NDA, is not always reflective of reality. Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in 2003. Musk did not become involved until the following year. I cannot understand how anyone can seriously claim that Musk founded Tesla. ~ HAL333 20:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
because nothing existed yet, no employers, no offices, no intellectual property, no trademark. EM and J. B. Straubel had already planed to start an electric car company until they realized a group was doing the same thing. Both of them planned to use AC Propulsion tzero technology and commercialize it. EM and J. B. decided to join up with Eberhard, Tarpenning and Ian Wright. Warbayx (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter. QRep2020 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How could they have created Tesla when they didn't even own the trademark? Warbayx (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what an RfC is? QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He is not the co-founder. The court settlement simply determined that he can call himself the co-founder without getting sued by the actual co-founders. Furthermore, there's already been an RfC which established consensus. BeŻet (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources on that? That's not what this settlement says https://www.cnet.com/culture/teslas-musk-gloats-over-eberhard-ruling/ Warbayx (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing or arguing a position on a Talk page is not subject to the same restrictions as introducing edits on a Wikipedia article. QRep2020 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC in 2021: "Contrary to popular belief, Elon Musk did not start Tesla." Case closed. ~ HAL333 01:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources in the article. The court case was about libel and breach of contract. It has no bearing on undeniable facts. BeŻet (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Warbayx: That's... not a settlement. A settlement is just an agreement between the parties involved. They could have agreed Eberhard call Musk the "world's smartest CEO", in exchange for a million dollars. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should proudly declare Musk the world's smartest CEO. It's just an agreement between them, not fact. BUT, what you've linked to is not a settlement at all. It's a judge ruling that the court wasn't going to unilaterally force the defendants to declare Eberhard one of only two co-founders. The judge wrote PLAINTIFF HAS NOT DEFEATED THE DEFENDANTS' THRESHOLD SHOWING THAT THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROTECTED ACTIVITY BY THE DEFENDANT. We have this thing called free speech. But just because it was free to be said does not mean it's factually accurate. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open a new RFC or propose an edit. Here’s a source that may help you: [1] SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A judge had already ruled against Eberhard being one of two founders almost two months before the defamation suit was settled. Warbayx (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok? The source says this: After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster. It’s a reliable secondary source saying they agreed Musk is a co-founder. That’s a decent basis for changing consensus in a proposal or RFC. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergzay can issue an RfC if he wants. Xpenz (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be opening an RfC as it's obvious the outcome of such an RfC in this environment on Wikipedia, regardless of what the truth of the matter is. Majority rules in such places even if the majority is wrong. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then why bother mentioning it at all? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, this hasn't happened since the RfC, and secondly, this is an agreement between two men. BeŻet (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no need to argue this. I was just giving OP an opening for building consensus should they choose. They choose not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is most peculiar then how Tesla's blog post from 2010 refers to Eberhard as co-founder, but not Musk: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-roadster-%E2%80%98signature-one-hundred%E2%80%99-series-sells-out. Furthermore, it clearly states in the boilerplate that "Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive." QRep2020 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020 Maybe because the blog post was written by those people. Ergzay (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is really simple. Musk calls himself the co-founder. He gets sued. Then people settle in an agreement. This doesn't change any facts, though. Just rich people stopped arguing. BeŻet (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the conclusion of the previous RfC and the rightful conclusion if I may be so bold. QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A blog post are you serious? There is literally a court ruling that already made it clear Eberhard cannot call himself one of two founders. Warbayx (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog post from the company, are YOU serious? QRep2020 (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This blog post could have written by anyone at Tesla it does not prove anything, and the fact that you believe it does speaks volumes about your bias. Warbayx (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elon literally posted his "Master Plan" on the blog so I think we can trust it as an official communications channel.
And I'll remind you that the Elon Musk Talk page is not the place to suggest that there is a bias or anything at all wrong with my editing/ writing. QRep2020 (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020 Since you are pointing to Tesla's website, I'll point you to this link: https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk where the Tesla website very clearly lists him as a co-founder: "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company."
You seem to be very motivated in muddling the truth in favor of anti-Musk claims on this matter, as well as other matters in this Elon Musk article. Please, leave your political leanings out of this article. It is probably best for the readers of Wikipedia if you spend your time elsewhere. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was already resolved in previous RfC. Musk wasn't one of the founders of Tesla, and the majority of reliable sources don't identify him as such. See: [2][3][4]. Stonkaments (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is loads of credible sources that mentions him as a co-founder aswell. [1] [2][3][4][5] [6]
[7] Warbayx (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Agletarang (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Warbayx that Elon Musk should have his co-founder of Tesla title restored on this page, as it has been from 2009-2020 before the "hive mind" stepped in and deleted objective truths from this page. Look at edit history if you don't believe me.
Although Tesla's own website is not a third party source, I believe it is still a crucial supporting website. https://www.tesla.com/elon-musk "Elon Musk co-founded and leads Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and the Boring Company." The court-settlement is further evidence that Musk is a co-founder.
If none of that convinces you, I point you towards @Warbayx other six third-party sources. Surely, we as Wikipedia editors don't know more than all of these sources combined. It's time to have a little humility.
We need to restore objective truths to this page. Not succumb to the "hive mind" who believes Musk has never worked a day in his life and received all of his wealth from a family-owned emerald mine. This is Wikipedia, not CNN or Fox. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has been stated multiple times in this section, inclusion will only be had with consensus from a new RFC. Listing sources in this talk section does not do a good job of building a changed consensus from the previous RFC. I encourage those of you who feel strongly about this to engage in the process. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RFC is based on "majority rules" and as is clear from reading the rest of this page, the majority is clearly anti-Musk.
The objective truth is that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. This is a fact, shown here: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/
To say that a RFC must be issued to state a fact in this article just shows how poltically biased this page has gotten. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not the "objective" truth. In actuality, the precise terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Tesla released a statement though: "Neither side disclosed details of the agreement. But a statement released by Tesla about the confidential settlement referred to the men as “two of the co-founders of Tesla." https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your source and your opinions on this matter literally contradict each other. Your LA times source literally says: "After months of legal wrangling, Tesla Motors Inc. Chief Executive Elon Musk and former Chief Executive Martin Eberhard have agreed that they, along with three others, are officially equals and co-founders of the company that makes the $109,000 Tesla roadster."
@QRep2020 You are clearly only reading what you WANT to read, huge confirmation bias. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion noted, faceless IP editor. Please take any further criticism to where it belongs. QRep2020 (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. The participants were well aware of what the sources say when the agreement was arrived at in the previous RfC. You nor anyone else have even addressed the arguments therein. This discussion is going in circles and should be ended. QRep2020 (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument was literally contradicted by the source you provided. I would prefer to talk to anyone else on this matter, considering how much bias you have shown on this page. 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two independent news sources have verified that Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The article should reflect this fact, and restore Musk's co-founder of Tesla title as it was present on this article from 2009-2020.
1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html
2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ 70.18.209.50 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Elon is clearly the co-founder of Tesla. Xpenz (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those men agreed to not sue each other over claiming being co-founders. That doesn't change any facts about the matter. BeŻet (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that the 5 of them agreed that each of them is to be considered a co-founder. Who are you to disagree with that? Are we living in YOUR reality? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They can call themselves whatever they like. Musk called himself a technoking, yet we won't include this in the article. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this discussion is still ongoing if nothing has changed since the RfC. There has been a decision made, consensus achieved via the RfC. Feel free to start a new one, but only if there have been some significant developments since then. BeŻet (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be. I would officially close the discussion but I know some users in particular would rage about it and use it against me. QRep2020 (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous RfC clearly did not discuss all of the published evidence. Specifically, these 2 sources are completely unambigous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla:
1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html
2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between (a) "Musk was one of the original co-founders of Tesla" and (b) "Musk was not really one of the original co-founders of Tesla but later reached a legal agreement allowing him to be considered as such". The consensus of the previous RfC was effectively that we should not say (a) when we mean (b). Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosbif73 Who are we, as Wikipedia editors, to decide who is and isn't a co-founder? A court settlement on this exact issue was reached between the co-founders of Tesla. This court settlement must supersede any opinions we may have as Wikipedia editors. 98.113.203.234 (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to found a company tomorrow, and then six months later I were to invest millions in it and persuade you to sign an agreement with me entitling me to refer to myself as "co-founder", would that actually make me a co-founder of your company? No, of course not. And if some reliable sources then document our little agreement, whilst pointing out that I wasn't there on day one, should Wikipedia refer to me as co-founder? Again, of course not. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, there is no law stating who can be considered a co-founder of a company and who cannot, so it is not your place to decide. The closest we have is the court settlement agreed upon by all 5 Tesla founders in September 2009, which allows all 5 of them to call themselves co-founders. With this settlement, Musk is referred to as a co-founder on Tesla's website and elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Tesla's history is actually highly accurate on this matter, you should probably read it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Founding 98.113.203.234 (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that there was a settlement. The article also reflects the reality that Musk did not found Tesla. It is perfectly accurate as it stands - give it up. QRep2020 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do we need to explain that this was a defamation suit filed by Eberhard against Musk, and both men have settled a dispute? BeŻet (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the dispute was settled and the result was that Musk is to be considered a co-founder. I am dumbfounded why the current state of the article refuses to acknowledge the existence of this settlement. 98.113.203.234 (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article does: "A 2009 lawsuit settlement with Eberhard designated Musk as a Tesla co-founder, along with Tarpenning and two others." QRep2020 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So our own article states that Musk is a Tesla co-founder, yet people are arguing that he is not? There is clearly a discrepancy here that must be resolved, and the people claiming he is not a co-founder are heavily outweighed on evidence! I have yet to see a single reliable source reporting that Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. Musk's co-founder title must be restored to the introduction of this article. Supporting sources:
1. LA times: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-sep-22-fi-tesla22-story.html
2. CNET: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/
3. Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/?sh=f4610af46272 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no discrepancy. The article first says, "[Musk] was an early investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008." And then the article says, "A 2009 lawsuit settlement with Eberhard designated Musk as a Tesla co-founder, along with Tarpenning and two others." Stop trying to force a change that is not warranted in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discrepancy is very simple: are we to call him a co-founder or not? We can't say he is a co-founder in one place in the article and not the other. And as the 3 sources above show, he is clearly 1 of 5 co-founders of Tesla. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a co-founder in the usual sense of the word, i.e. he was not one of the original founders. The settlement says that he is entitled to be considered as a co-founder, which is not the same as actually being one. This is what the article quite rightly conveys. PS: please read WP:BLUDGEON before replying again to this thread. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is not one of the original founders, i.e. a "co-founder". However, according to the result of the dispute, Elon Musk can call himself one without repercussions. This was a dispute between two people. Please drop the stick. BeŻet (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This was a dispute between two people" No - it was not. The settlement was between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, not just Eberhard and Musk. For this reason, it is much more substantial more than you lead on. It is not our place as Wikipedia editors to decide who can and can't be considered a co-founder of a company - that would be the job of the company, and more specifically an agreement between the co-founders, which is precisely what the settlement is.
Still waiting on a single, credible source that either: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company" (read more here).
From LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day."
You seem to be just making up rules about who can and can't be considered a co-founder without any supporting sources, while I have provided several. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can dispute this, Eberhard and Tarpenning both agreed that all five of the early employers deserved the co-founder title. That's why its different then if Elon just said "Hey im the founder now". The dispute was definitely not just between only Eberhard and Musk but for all the first five employers.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1367866/tesla-lawsuit-drama-ends-five-company-founders-emerge
"Eberhard and Musk have reached a rather unexpected resolution–instead of agreeing to share the title of “founder”, the pair has designated five people as company founders, including Musk, Eberhard, JB Straubel, Mark Tarpenning, and Ian Wright." Xpenz (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QRep2020 Do not circumvent the necessity to provide ample supporting sources by trying to prematurely close this discussion. There are unresolved matters in the comments above: Still waiting on a single, credible source that either: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company"
If neither a) nor b) can be provided, Musk's co-founder of Tesla title should be restored based on the settlement sources (also linked above)
From LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day." 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been talked to death and no one is required to respond to your demands. QRep2020 (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are not my demands - This is what Wikipedia demands. See: WP:NOR 75.127.162.34 (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no original research involved in calling him an "early investor". See for example [5] which uses that exact expression or [6] which says that Musk didn't start [Tesla] but became a major investor in the early years. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No - "early investor" is not the topic of discussion. The topic being discussed is whether Musk can be called a co-founder of Tesla. Those who are opposed have not provided a single source that: a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Since no sources have been provided, that stance is WP:NOR.
Us in favor of Musk being called a co-founder of Tesla have provided many sources: 1. LA times 2. CNET 3. Forbes which all unambiguously classify Musk as a co-founder.
In addition, this LinkedIn article clearly states that co-founders of a company do not necessarily have to be present on day 1. 75.127.162.34 (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS is what applies. Consensus was decided in previous discussion, and unless consensus changes here or in another discussion that will determine what goes in the article. No one is trying to define co-founder, or find sourcing to state he "isn't a co-founder", because those aren't the reason for it being excluded. It is due to the consensus from the previous discussion. WP:OR applies to what is in the article, it does not apply to the talk page discussions themselves. If the consensus arrive at decision not to include something, then that is what will be followed as long as what is put in the article is verifiable/not OR, and doesn't break any other rules. The article does not state "Musk isn't a co-founder", it simply doesn't say "Musk is a co-founder. There is no original research in the article. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't here for the previous consensus, so I cannot speak to it. But, as per @Rosbif73 "There's a difference between (a) "Musk was one of the original co-founders of Tesla" and (b) "Musk was not really one of the original co-founders of Tesla but later reached a legal agreement allowing him to be considered as such". The consensus of the previous RfC was effectively that we should not say (a) when we mean (b)."
If the consensus of the previous RfC was reached without using a reliable source to define what a co-founder actually is, this is literally the definition of original research, regardless of whether WP:CONSENSUS was used. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OR. "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". The previous consensus is why it is not in the article. Consensus isn't gained by (just) using RS, it is gained by discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the previous consensus did not use RS at all...
But, as far as I can see within the recent activity of this section, new consensus seems close but majority favors restoring Musk's co-founder fo Tesla title to the article.
Those who support: Myself,@Ergzay@Warbayx@Agletarang@Xpenz
Those who oppose: @BeŻet@Rosbif73@QRep2020 71.247.65.88 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your disruptive actions. QRep2020 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is really relevant, but two of the users on the "support" list have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia and multiple users have been left off of the "oppose" list. Furthermore, it is not immediately clear what Agletarang was agreeing to, but if one looks at their previous comment on this Talk page, they indicate that they do not see anything about the article that requires modification, which indicates that they likely would be opposing this significant change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1083031443 . I will assume good faith here as is the policy, but please try not to misrepresent opinion blocks. QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. While a consensus could be established from a discussion like this, right now there isn't a consensus to over turn previous one. A new discussion with reference to this and the older discussion(s) would be better, possibly in a RfC as multiple people have suggested. A section asking editors if they think it should be back, would be better than this section that simply asks why he isn't described as a co-founder and people explaining why he isn't described as such. The current section would be skipped over by several because the questions had been asked and answered. WikiVirusC(talk) 22:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what consensus means or how it works. As mentioned several times before, if new sources have appeared since the last RfC which drastically alter the factual landscape of the discussion, by all means start a new RfC. Otherwise, there is no point in prolonging discussion in this thread. BeŻet (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On @WikiVirusC suggestion, I think creating a new section asking editors if they think Elon's co-founder of Telsa title should be back is the best path forward, and we can attempt to reach a consensus there. I agree that the "Why?" question in the section's heading has been asked and answered, so we need to move forward to an actual discussion about changing consensus. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We've achieved a consensus already. What you're describing is an WP:RFC. You can start one if you believe there's some new evidence which can drastically affect the outcome. Otherwise, redoing RFCs until you get the result you want is disruptive. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BeŻet, they did start an RfC. See #RfC: Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox? below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elongate

Should the article mention Musk's request to call the flight attendant scandal "Elongate"? Though pop culture sources do verify the tweet, I don't the the major media sources mentioning this at all. If we do include it, we should include the criticism that he's received for the joke. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the way that, in his reaction, he sought to trivialise the allegations. I agree that any reliably sourced criticism of this should be included. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this but the criticism is sourced to 'Twitter users'. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found reference to his original tweet here and in reference to the flight attendant scandal here, so seems like it could be included, but weight seems to say no, unless others can find more. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, found another reference in Time. I'd support inclusion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mildly support. QRep2020 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose inclusion. It seems like trivia. But I don't feel all that strongly about it. ~ HAL333 23:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Isi96: wanted to make sure you're aware of discussion related to your recent edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for notifying. I've reverted my edit. Isi96 (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: wanted to make sure you're aware of this discussion related to your recent edit. We might now have consensus to exclude. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Firefangledfeathers. I think that if we make a consensus now, it is going to be excluded because of recentism bias. Feel free to revert my deletion though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the edit you made, CSC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should block the false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID

During the height of the pandemic, I saw some online interactions along the lines of:

Person 1: "Elon Musk is keeping the Tesla factory open during the pandemic and making things worse."

Person 2: "No, Elon Musk is using the Tesla factory to build ventilators!"

Later on, I saw debates like the following:

Person 1: "Elon Musk is a COVID denier."

Person 2: "How can Elon Musk be a COVID denier if he donated ventilators? He's doing much more to help the situation than you are."

In other words, there is misinformation floating around that Elon Musk was using his wealth and power to help the fight against COVID through his philanthropy. Currently, the relevant Wikipedia article passage says this:

In March 2020, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators for COVID-19 patients if there were a shortage.[1][2] After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio responded to Musk's offer,[3] Musk later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party.[1] However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.[4][5][6]

A reader who already thought "Musk donated ventilators" might think, after reading this, "Okay, maybe they weren't ventilators, but at least he was trying to help." Musk was not "trying to help", because a lot of the context is missing. Here is my proposed version with the missing context:

In March 2020, in response to a request to repurpose the Tesla factory to make urgently-needed ventilators, Musk promised that Tesla would make ventilators "if there is a shortage".[1][2] When Nate Silver responded that there was a current shortage, Musk replied, "Ventilators are not difficult, but cannot be produced instantly. Which hospitals have these shortages you speak of right now?"[2] After figures such as New York City mayor Bill de Blasio highlighted their hospitals' ventilator shortage and responded to Musk's offer,[7] Musk then later offered to donate ventilators which Tesla would build or buy from a third party.[1] However, Musk eventually purchased and donated medical devices that multiple hospitals noted were BiPAP and CPAP machines, not the much more expensive and sought-after invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) machines.[8][9][10]

In other words, given that he had to be told three times that there was a ventilator shortage before he accepted the reality, Musk didn't offer to build ventilators because he understood the gravity of the situation. He bet on the ventilators not being needed. Around this time, he was also tweeting that COVID cases were inflated by doctors, hospitalization rates were low in California, etc. The purpose of my proposed the change is not against concision and not about trying to give undue weight to Nate Silver. The purpose is to counter misinformation that Musk isn't a COVID denier because he donated ventilators, and that he should be credited for volunteering to help save lives during the pandemic. This is false, and Wikipedia should clarify this at the expense of conciseness. Conciseness is a virtue, but should not come at the expense of clarity. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC); edited to replace unsourced statement with sourced statement TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't a blog. Keep it short. And that's a strong no from me. Your proposal is not concise or well-written. I don't understand how bloating the first sentence improves anything, and the weird random choice to mention Nate Silver is clearly undue weight. And despite your reasoning (which is dangerously close to single-purpose), I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light. ~ HAL333 23:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to your assumption, my purpose isn't to "paint Musk in a bad light", but to counter misinformation, which is in line with Wikipedia's goals, in that misinformation is not permitted. If you think I am against the current version because it hypothetically paints Musk in a better light, that is incorrect and has nothing to do with my objection. Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words, and maybe without Silver announcing to everyone on Twitter to contact Musk if their hospitals had a ventilator shortage, Musk wouldn't end up donating medical devices to hospitals. However, I don't care about mentioning Nate Silver as much as disagreeing with the article suggesting that Musk, unprompted by criticism and of his own volition, offered to build or donate ventilators. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nate Silver happened to hold Musk accountable for his words Do you have a reliable source for that? If not, it's original research and shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 00:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure which part of this statement you find contentious, but the Engadget article directly quotes the Twitter exchange between Musk and Silver. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Engadget is a crap source anyways. But my main point is that this narrative you're trying to construct here—that Musk only promised to make ventilators as a bluff as he believed shortages would not occur—is not well documented in sources, let alone to a level that would merit mention in this article. We need to adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 02:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me a question and I answered it, and now you ask, "So what?" Engadget is a green reliable source for technology at WP:RSPSS and perfectly fine source for mentioning direct quotes. You are claiming without evidence that I am trying to "construct a narrative" when I am basically saying that I am trying to deconstruct a narrative. In my proposed change, I am using direct quotes without analysis, and it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusion given the wider context. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Engadget is a blog and subpar source. Note that RSP says all statements from it must be attributed. Regardless, I can promise you that FAC reviewers would demand its removal. (I've even had reviewers that made me remove Politico, which is taking it a bit too far.) My point still stands: if you can only get pissant sources thinly mentioning something about Musk (who is covered 24/7 by all top-notch RS), then it shouldn't be included. Once again: Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. ~ HAL333 03:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please, just think about the larger picture. Is this singular, poorly-covered Twitter interaction with Silver notable? Does it adhere to summary style? Are you getting into weird, vague minutiae? This subsection should summarize Views of Elon Musk, which curiously does not mention Silver or this slant of yours. Why don't you go write about it there? ~ HAL333 03:59, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this slant of yours You call it a "slant", yet you yourself admitted that the events I described are verifiable, responded with "So what?", and now your concern is that the green reliable source is not up to standards of Featured Article reviewers. Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, especially points 3 and 4. I haven't done anything to warrant this kind of response. If it is because of the accusation at Talk:Elon_Musk#Sources_and_neutrality, note that this is the same person who appears to think that not calling Musk a co-founder of Tesla is editorial bias. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HAL333, and I'm a particularly overly-wordy editor. I believe the passage is balanced and accurate as-is, and does not make Musk out to be saving humanity from COVID. I also don't see any aspersions, Hal did not say you were trying to "paint Musk in a bad light", they said "I don't think the current version is "misinformation" or paints Musk in a better light." SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The passage itself doesn't make out Musk to be saving humanity from COVID. That is just common misinformation floating around that isn't challenged by the passage. But the passage itself suggests that Musk offered to build ventilators by his volition and concern for the ventilator shortage, unprompted by criticism/someone calling him out to do it. HAL said my reasoning is close to SPA and suggested my objection is related to it hypothetically painting Musk in a better light, which implies my purpose is trying to make Musk look bad. They also said I was trying to "construct a narrative" and create a "slant". Also, I have no objections to the criticisms that my proposed change is badly written or wordy, and am trying to think of a better version. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Single-purpose editing is not misbehavior. Hal mentioned that because your reasoning does not seem aligned with the goal of the project, but rather serves a particular agenda.
You claim Silver held Musk accountable (unsourced), and also edited in a narrative that while true, was not written by most sources. [7], [8], [9], [10]. These sources determined it was not necessary to clarify it was in response to a random tweet, and CNN specifically tied it to efforts from other vehicle manufacturers. You are writing into the passage that it says it was unprompted. That is not implied. The slant Hal is referring to is that Musk was prompted by the tweet he responded to. There’s no evidence of that.
Your heading and section does suggest the passage is a part of a false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID.
Try to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. He’s pointing you to SPA so you can read how editing with an agenda can skew your bias into synthesis, original research, and undue weight.
Hope this helps. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well put, Square, QRep2020 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. It seems like they didn't read what I wrote to HAL, so I have to respond again with very similar things in different words. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Single-purpose editing is not misbehavior. Hal mentioned that because your reasoning does not seem aligned with the goal of the project, but rather serves a particular agenda. Single-purpose account specifically is misbehavior. My reasoning is to counter misinformation, which is aligned with the goal of the project. I don't see how this is an agenda, unless you think I am actually the one spreading misinformation.
You claim Silver held Musk accountable (unsourced), It is hard for me to distinguish this from bad faith misrepresentation. The source is already provided in both the original and proposed passages[2] and again in my response to HAL when he asked for the source, and here is is a third time.
and also edited in a narrative Oh, I see what happened. Originally, there was an additional primary source for Musk's tweet, and I described it as "in response to", because it was literally a Twitter reply where Musk's tweet has the tweet he's responding to nested inside, but this reference was removed by HAL in the current version. Primary sources are not prohibited for things like direct quotes, but I understand that they may be undue weight by themselves. There is a CNET article (green secondary source) that clarifies it is "in response to". I don't follow Elon Musk or Nate Silver on Twitter, but I originally became aware of the Musk-Silver ventilator context through secondary sources about two years ago. I also follow tech news. You perceive me as trying to "edit in a narrative", but from my perspective, this is non-original-research context already covered by the media that was omitted from the Wikipedia passage, and I am trying to restore the missing context that is the cause of many people being ignorant of the context of Musk's ventilator offer. Now I realize this perception of me being biased by stem from me reading more tech news than mainstream news.
Your heading and section does suggest the passage is a part of a false narrative that Musk is saving humanity from COVID. It was supposed to provide the background to frustrating misinformation that I have witnessed, but now I see that by highlighting the misinformation, I become associated with it, instead of being seen as trying to counter it. To be clear, the heading was not meant to suggest that the passage is part of the false narrative, but to highlight an existing false narrative in people's conversations that we should consider when we write for the benefit of the reader's understanding.
Try to give Hal the benefit of the doubt. He’s pointing you to SPA so you can read how editing with an agenda can skew your bias into synthesis, original research, and undue weight. Except I haven't done original research, which I already know is not permitted. I may have accidentally done synthesis when combining secondary sources to clarify something, but I thought I have been editing robotically and mechanically all this time without inserting any editorialism, just describing a facts as a sequence of events and taking care to avoid implying causality. You are the fourth person to accuse me of editorial bias, but no one has yet provided an example of my biased editing. (The one where I inserted "In response to" looks like it, because the primary source that shows this unambiguously had been removed by HAL during their cleanup activities, but it was a Twitter reply in the strict technical sense.) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Please stop reverting without reading the changes. The fact that you reverted the whole thing, instead of just changing the parts you disagree with, indicates that you rolled back without reading my edits yet again and makes it appear like you are against the editor instead of the edit. I replaced a yellow source with a green one and other improvements. Isn't the policy to change the parts you disagree with instead of wholly removing someone's edits? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the changes. That is why I reverted it. ~ HAL333 00:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why TechCrunch is a better source than CNET. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just got rid of it all together. That line is fully supported by the Wapo reference. No need for a superfluous CNET ref. ~ HAL333 02:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said TechCrunch, not Engadget. You had to replace the TechCrunch source with Vox, because the Bill de Blasio line was not fully supported by Wapo. You didn't want to use the CNET source, because it would be acknowledging that my edit was correct for replacing the TechCrunch source, yet you reverted the whole thing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, sources like Engadget and CNET are in a grey area. FAC reviewers would likely recommend to replace it with better sources. There's no reason to settle for mediocre sources when we have better ones at our disposal. ~ HAL333 03:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vox is better than CNET? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See this. Vox has a stronger, more recent consensus, while CNET is only reliable for tech. ~ HAL333 04:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I see:
"Vox is considered generally reliable. Some editors say that Vox is a partisan source in the field of politics. See also: Polygon, The Verge, New York". It has 4 archived discussions, the last in 2020.
"CNET is considered generally reliable for technology-related articles." It has 16 archived discussions, the last in 2015.
Musk and Tesla building/donating ventilators touches on both technology and politics, would it not? When you say Vox has a "stronger" consensus, how did you come to this conclusion? I thought 16 > 4. Do the archives show only consensus, or also non-consensus? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times something is discussed has nothing to do with the strength of a consensus. ~ HAL333 05:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that to meet FAC standards (which was the original reason you didn't accept my green WP:RSPSS Engadget source), we would eventually need to swap your Vox link for my CNET one you reverted? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Siddiqui, Faiz (April 29, 2020). "The return of erratic Elon Musk: During coronavirus, Tesla CEO spreads misinformation and over-promises on ventilators". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
  2. ^ a b c d Lawler, R. (March 19, 2020). "Elon Musk: Tesla 'will make ventilators if there is a shortage'". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2022-05-30. Retrieved 2022-06-07.
  3. ^ Korosec, Kirsten (March 19, 2020). "NYC mayor pleads with Elon Musk to start producing ventilators". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
  4. ^ Johnson, Martin (April 17, 2020). "California hospitals say Elon Musk sent them BiPAP, CPAP machines, not ventilators". The Hill. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  5. ^ Carville, Olivia; Hull, Dana (April 17, 2020). "Elon Musk's 'Ventilators' Arrived at Hospitals — With Some Assembly Required". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  6. ^ Walter, J. M.; Corbridge, T. C.; Singer, B. D. (2018). "Invasive Mechanical Ventilation". Southern Medical Journal. 111 (12): 746–753. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000905. PMC 6284234. PMID 30512128.
  7. ^ Korosec, Kirsten (March 19, 2020). "NYC mayor pleads with Elon Musk to start producing ventilators". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved June 7, 2022.
  8. ^ Johnson, Martin (April 17, 2020). "California hospitals say Elon Musk sent them BiPAP, CPAP machines, not ventilators". The Hill. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  9. ^ Carville, Olivia; Hull, Dana (April 17, 2020). "Elon Musk's 'Ventilators' Arrived at Hospitals — With Some Assembly Required". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 29, 2021. Retrieved January 23, 2021.
  10. ^ Walter, J. M.; Corbridge, T. C.; Singer, B. D. (2018). "Invasive Mechanical Ventilation". Southern Medical Journal. 111 (12): 746–753. doi:10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000905. PMC 6284234. PMID 30512128.

Cheeseburgers

I want extra, extra pickles please. QRep2020 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for new profile picture?

Current picture is 4 years old maybe time for a change? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elon_Musk_Colorado_2022_(cropped).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpenz (talkcontribs) 01:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the image is a little old, but the new one is of somewhat lower quality. (Completely tangential, but what's that weird scratch on his neck?) I lean towards to keeping the RS portrait for now, but a search for a new image is warranted. ~ HAL333 01:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second using new picture.
He has said the neck scar was due to a back surgery. QRep2020 (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. It never occured to me that they would go in through the front for c-spine surgery. I guess it makes sense. ~ HAL333 03:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elon_Musk_Brazil_2022.png perhaps? Xpenz (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is better actually, yes. QRep2020 (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also File:USAFA Hosts Elon Musk (Image 1 of 17) (cropped).jpg --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me as well. The man's appearance has experienced some significant changes in the past five years and perhaps that fact should be reflected in the primary image of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn’t matter that the photo is 4 years old when it’s the best image available. It’s of decent quality, he’s facing the camera and smiling. That’s all we need. Trillfendi (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above. We'll just have to wait; it would be great if a new image similar to the current one emerged. Wretchskull (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dredged up as many potential lead images as I could. Any keepers? ~ HAL333 21:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current image is the best. Other images look a bit on the uncanny valley side. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Tesla, Inc.

I think it is appropriate to mention this article here as we going along a NPOV discussion. This article is undoubtedly biased to certain controversies in my opinion, such as in section "Musk's unfulfilled promises", "Tesla fanbase" and "Passenger Play", where the length is disproportionate to the certainty and validity of the claims. I've also mentioned this issue at the article's talk page, just to be sure. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't appropriate. This is the talk page for Elon Musk. Articulate whatever complaints you have at Talk:Criticism of Tesla, Inc., not here. ~ HAL333 16:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with HAL, this is clearly an articulation of complaints, not of an "ongoing discussion", done in biased fashion. Furthermore, there is no current discussion to point to because the complaints are broad and mostly statements of opinion. Thus, inappropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: @HAL333: See WP:INAPPNOTE for guidelines on how users can inform others of an ongoing discussion. It's appropriate, but the notification needs to inform users of the discussion in an unbiased manner. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How, then, could I do so? I am aware of WP:CANVASS, but I don't know anyway better than this. Doing a RfC? Or pinging everyone at recent page history? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did not previously explain exactly what you took issue with, so I do not understand any of this escalation.
I saw that you finally have presented what you took issue with, and responded. Let's try having an actual discussion first. QRep2020 (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's do that before getting more comments. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's a very controversial figure, needs a "Controversy" heading

Musk denied and mocked the reported accusation that he sexually harassed a flight attendant on a private jet in 2016.

Unsworth sued Musk in 2018 for libel and slander after Musk referred to the diver as a “pedo guy” and a “child rapist.”

Musk made light of sexual harassment case.

Musk is famously anti-Union 2A01:CB18:80A6:AC00:BD3E:3EFD:53FB:5FD2 (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies surrounding him are integrated into other sections of the article. QRep2020 (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:STRUCTURE, "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2022

On the show "Joe Rogan Experience" #1169, aired on Sept 6, 2018, Elon Musk stated: "My Wikipedia page has me listed as a business magnate." To which Joe Rogan replied: "What would you call yourself?" Elon Musk: "Business Magnet". "Could someone please change my Wikipedia page to "Business Magnet?"" HadleyKay (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done No, we aren't going to vandalize our own articles because he asked to do so during an interview. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2022

The text "The family was very wealthy in Elon's youth; Elon's father was also elected" should be changed to "Elon's father was elected". It cites Ashlee Vance's biography, but the book doesn't make a claim that the family was "very wealthy".

In Chapter 2 of the book, "Africa" the closest statement is:

"The family owned one of the biggest houses in Pretoria thanks to the success of Errol’s engineering business. There’s a portrait of the three Musk children taken when Elon was about eight years old that shows three blond, fit children sitting next to each other on a brick porch with Pretoria’s famous purple jacaranda trees in the background. Elon has large, rounded cheeks and a broad smile.

Then, not long after the photo was taken, the family fell apart. His parents separated and divorced within the year."

This is a far cry from the "very wealthy" claim. emarkp (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I don't have entire book to even verify anything, but very wealthy isn't a far cry from what else is out there. See Business Insider South Africa & Time. Buffalo News and The New York Times compare his situation with wealthy and rich peoples in South Africa. If consensus can be found, changing from "very wealthy", to "well off" and citing the Time source could be done. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:32, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick remark: I recall the book talking about them having multiple housekeepers and going on many overseas trips, so at least "wealthy" is implied. QRep2020 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BI SA article seems strongly disputed by Elon & his biographer, and was published without getting comment from Elon. A longer in-depth dive into the facts strongly indicates the story of "emeralds in the pockets" simply isn't true: https://drewisdope.com/elon-musk-emerald-mine/
Additionally the book clearly shows that Elon's /grandparents/ had the private plane, which Errol inherited, which is where the "overseas trips" come from. emarkp (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Errol: “So we went to this guy’s prefab and he opened his safe and there was just stacks of money and he paid me out, £80000, it was a huge amount of money.”
  • With cash in hand, Errol was offered to buy half an emerald mine for half of his new riches (£40000) – and he agreed to the deal.
  • Errol: “So I became a half-owner of the mine, and we got emeralds for the next 6 years.”
Sounds like they were very wealthy to me. QRep2020 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Jenna Wilson

One of Elon Musk's children has filed a petition to change her name to Vivian Jenna Wilson, citing "Gender identity and the fact that I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form". This should be updated in Musk's page either now or after the hearing on Friday (June 24 2022), including changing sentences about the custodial arrangements of Musk and Justine Wilson's children. I understand it's best to cite the actual documents and not gossip websites, but I'm not really sure how to go about accessing them, so I'll settle for raising the issue. Aabernat (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this information has already been added to the article. However, it seems to me that saying "Twins Griffin Musk and Vivian Jenna Wilson were born in April 2004" is anachronistic. When the twins were born, they were called Griffin and Xavier. Would "Twins Griffin and Xavier (now Vivian)" or similar be acceptable in terms of trans etiquette?
On the other hand, should we really be naming them at all, and mentioning Vivian's change of name? WP:BLPNAME tells us that reliably sourced names of non-notable family members may be included only subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Do readers really need to know the children's names and gender identities in order to properly understand Elon? Rosbif73 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that in the time it took me to compose this reply, another editor has removed the non-notable children's names. The subject is thus moot. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I hadn't noticed this discussion before removing it. My reason for removing is the same as Rosbif73's. We don't need to know the children's names to understand the subject (Elon), and we don't need to know this particular person's name(s) to understand that they don't like their dad. – 2.O.Boxing 10:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how they decided to leave an infant and a toddler there just because the mom is notable. Either they gotta go too or all names have to be added back. Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either they gotta go too or all names have to be added back. That's not quite how BLPNAME works. The reason I didn't remove X AE A-XII is because I believe such an unusual name is worth noting (the media coverage was undoubtedly considerably more than any of his other children). That's the only non-notable family member that's named. – 2.O.Boxing 18:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Private family matters should be kept private. She said she no longer wishes to be associated with her father and I’m she she wouldn’t appreciate her gender being litigated on Wikipedia by his politics. While I’m all for public records, trying to cite court records is not the best solution. Trillfendi (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2022

Please consider adding the following to the section Elon Musk#Marriages, dating life, and children:

Upon reaching her 18th birthday, Musk's transgender daughter Vivian petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court in June 2022 to have her name change from Xavier Musk, the name given to her at birth, to Vivian Jenna Wilson. She lists as her reason for the name change as "Gender Identity and the fact that I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form."[1][2][3] -- 50.231.49.42 (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done (not by me, just marking as done). Rosbif73 (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greater weight given to hypothetical Martian colonists than real, living humans on Earth

I never understood why content affecting real, living humans on Earth covered by multiple secondary reliable sources with green status at WP:RSPSS is marked as WP:UNDUE, while the plight of hypothetical Martian colonists covered by one article is given more relative weight. Elon Musk should be about what secondary reliable sources publish on Musk, which focuses more on real human impact, not about how Musk or Musk fans perceive his aspirations. I am not saying coverage on hypothetical Martian colonists should be reduced, but coverage on impact to real humans should be expanded. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why: per WP:UNDUE we must present material "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". There's been a massive amount of reliable sources on Musk in the context of Mars. The fact that we only have four sentences on Mars colonization, despite the thousands of RS, really demonstrates the due weight threshold for inclusion on this main article. If you're interested in more Wikipedia policies, please read: WP:DETAIL, WP:BECONCISE, and WP:SUMMARY. ~ HAL333 03:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add/replace with green WP:RSPSS sources for:
Can you add at least one additional green WP:RSPSS source for:
  • direct democracy[3] Nevermind. "Direct democracy" is fine. I thought it was undue weight before, because it was duplicated in two sections and undue weight in (Earth) Politics, but I removed one of the duplicates already.
-- TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's because without Musk, Mars colonization wouldn't have the same prominence as it is today, and it may forever be in the sci-fi realm. Without Mars, Musk wouldn't be like he is today. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TechnophilicHippie:, please stop edit warring or I will report you to ANI. Let us discuss the issue here on the talk page. I fail to see how In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. is "misinformation" as you claim or how adding redundant fluffy text improves it. ~ HAL333 22:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brown, Mike (October 30, 2019). "SpaceX: Elon Musk Want to "Nuke Mars" and Create a Home for Humans". Inverse. Archived from the original on September 12, 2021. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
  2. ^ Delbert, Caroline (May 19, 2020). "Elon Musk Needs 10,000+ Missiles to Nuke Mars. 'No Problem,' He Says". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on May 11, 2022. Retrieved June 6, 2022.
  3. ^ Grush, Loren (May 11, 2020). "Elon Musk thinks the best government for Mars is a direct democracy". The Verge. Archived from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved May 11, 2020.

Misinformation from editorializing the suspension of remote work at Tesla and SpaceX

@HAL333: Stop lying to make it look you didn't commit a BLP violation twice. The unsourced/false misinformation you added twice[1][2] was (emphasis mine; previous inline citations re-included for easier cross referencing):
In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.[3][4][5][6]
This is misinformation, because Musk was threatening office workers, not factory workers. Now that you read the articles instead of just reading the article titles, you understand why it's unsourced/false misinformation, which is why you removed the contentious word "factory" in your most recent edit,[7] and added more misinformation on this Talk Page to obfuscate your previous edits[1][2] being BLP violations.
Your most recent edit[7]
In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.
is also highly misleading to the point of not being WP:NPOV and being borderline misinformation (versus the clear misinformation of your previous two edits on the topic[1][2]). The reason why your most recent edit is highly misleading and not WP:NPOV is that you are implying that there is some issue with Tesla/SpaceX employees working a minimum of 40 hours per week, which is the standard for a full-time job. It is completely reasonable that full-time hourly workers not working full-time hours should be fired; this is standard grounds for firing at any normal company, and not the issue. The issue is that Musk is threatening workers for not coming into office 40 hours per week, his tweet implying that remote workers are "pretending to work". You are taking Musk's side that remote workers using computers have been fake-working for two years since the COVID-19 pandemic started, and editorializing it into the article as if from Wikipedia's voice.
You seem to be unaware of why your edits are inaccurate or contentious, what is normal or abnormal for a large company, and why Ars Technica, CNBC, Reuters, and NYT highlight very similar information and deem these details to be notable. This is fine. These articles are all written by white-collar workers for white-collar workers, and not everyone has experience being a full-time white-collar worker for various legitimate reasons, including being a student. This is probably a bias from all the authors of the articles who are assuming certain background assumptions from the reader. Let me explain each point individually, which you call "redundant fluffy text":
In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work for SpaceX and Tesla office workers
This is notable, because it contrasts with the trend in tech companies to allow remote work for office workers, post-pandemic, to retain and attract talent.[4] (Also note that I kept your copy editing which changes Musk saying that remote work is no longer acceptable to "suspended", and so was not "edit warring" your copy editing for accurate concision.)
and also claimed that factory workers already must come in for more than 40 hours per week;
This is notable, because standard full-time hours are 40 hours per week. This implies that Musk requires factory workers to stretch themselves thin and work more than standard full-time hours on a regular basis, instead of hiring more factory workers to handle the expected work load. (Also note that I kept your copy editing that changes the passive voice to the active voice, and so was not "edit warring" your copy editing for grammar.)
he added on Twitter that those who think that coming into office is antiquated should "pretend to work" somewhere else.
This is notable, because Musk is accusing his office workers who were working from home of not actually doing work for two years while being on the payroll. He is not appreciating or acknowledging two years of work from his office employees, which is a sign of a bad boss.
Your edits mix up different points together to make some inaccurate[1][2] and/or non-WP:NPOV[7] claim. The fact that you perceive my version to be "redundant fluffy text" may also indicate that it isn't clear and is too terse. I had to provide more details above to explain the context. The target Wikipedia reader is someone with a high school education and experience, so perhaps the problem here is that there is an over-emphasis on concision that sacrifices clarity. If someone reads from it only one point with fluffy redundancies, instead of three points on the topic of "Managerial style and treatment of employees", then there is some kind of communication failure. If you understand my explanation now, how would you rewrite it to make it understandable to someone who is unfamiliar with the nature of remote work/office work/factory work? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 06:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC); edited to requote latest version TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, do not move my comments. I still support the concise status quo In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. It gives the reader everything they need to know, while avoiding pointless minutiae and adhering to summary style. The quote that Musk believes remote work is to "pretend to work" is redundant. His choice to suspend remote work and threaten to fire workers already demonstrates that he dislikes remote work. There is no need to add a repetitive and mundane quote from Musk. Imagine how bloated this page would be if we added on poorly written qualifying sentences with quotes for each sentence. It's also kind of elitist to think that someone who has a high school education does not understand "remote work", let alone "office work". And even if that were the case, they can always click on the link or use Simple English Wikipedia. ~ HAL333 14:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comments, because it is in the wrong section.
In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.
Besides implying that remote work was suspended only at SpaceX, and that only Tesla threatened to fire workers, it also implies that Tesla workers are lazy and working less than 40 hours per week, when all this time, Tesla factory workers have been extremely hard-working and sacrificial, working more than 40 hours per week. If interpreted as a summary of what Musk said, it also implies that remote work is fake work. This is a complete WP:NPOV violation and characterizes both Tesla factory workers and Tesla office workers as lazy and not doing their jobs. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move my comment once more and I will request admin action. STOP. ~ HAL333 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: It doesn't look like you get why Musk's statements are inherently controversial enough to be reported without comment, and why there's a controversy so you can't take sides, so maybe read this? Game Devs Tell Elon Musk He's Wrong About What It Takes To Make Something Good. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also kind of elitist to think that someone who has a high school education does not understand "remote work", let alone "office work". Just to reply to this, because it needs a response, although a high school student may understand "remote work" and "office work" conceptually, typically young people entering the work force don't know what a toxic workplace versus a normal workplace looks like, and many end up working at a toxic workplace for a few years until they realize they are being taken advantage of by the company. Understanding what a toxic workplace versus a normal workplace looks like is important background that would prevent the situation where an editor removes notable points on abnormal, toxic peculiarities at Tesla/SpaceX and replaces them with non-notable points on normal standards at a company, which aren't actually noted in the sources, because of said non-notability. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ergzay Do you still stand by this edit. TechnophilicHippie is edit warring over it and continues to add it without gaining consensus. ~ HAL333 01:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to escalate it to the "happy" wikizone. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I despise having to deal with stuff at the Great Dismal Swamp, but I opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ~ HAL333 03:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Restore Musk’s Co-founder of Tesla title?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

Is Elon Musk a co-founder of Tesla?

There was a previous RfC regarding whether Musk can be considered a co-founder of Tesla; previous consensus opposed its inclusion in the lede. The previous RfC did not discuss all of the publicly available information. Based on the 3 points below, I propose that editors restore Elon Musk’s title as co-founder of Tesla as it had been present in the lede of this article from 2009-2020.

1. A court settlement in September 2009 was reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, within which Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The following sources are completely unambiguous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla: LA times, CNET, Forbes
2. Tesla’s website names Musk a co-founder here
3. Some have made the argument that since Musk was not present on day 1 of creation of the Tesla “shell company”, he cannot be considered a co-founder. However, according to this LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day”.
The article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.

Please carefully consider the merit of these 3 points and consider restoring Musk’s co-founder of Tesla title. If there are editors in opposition, I respectfully request that they provide reliable sources that either a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.65.88 (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to present the initial RfC statement as: "Is Elon Musk a co-founder of Tesla?" (both neutral & brief), sign, and then add my stance in comments under the initial statement? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, normally you should give your reasoning below. I think something like "Should Elon Musk be described as a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lead and infobox?" would be ideal. But at this point, I think it would be best to close this RfC and reopen another one after a few other editors chip in on what would be a neutral question. Check out Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment for further guidance. Best ~ HAL333 22:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Other editors: would "Should Elon Musk be described as a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lead and infobox?" be a fair RfC question? ~ HAL333 22:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333:, I had already submitted a new RfC with neutral & brief language but it seems it was reverted. Shall I start a new discussion and a new RfC now? I was going to use the question: Should Elon Musk be considered a co-founder of Tesla in the lede and infobox? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus against calling Musk a co-founder of Tesla. Closed early per WP:SNOW. ––FormalDude talk 00:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Should Elon Musk be considered a 'co-founder of Tesla' in the lede and infobox? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

There was a previous RfC regarding whether Musk can be considered a co-founder of Tesla; previous consensus opposed its inclusion in the lede. The previous RfC did not discuss all of the publicly available information. Based on the 3 points below, I ask that editors consider restoring Elon Musk’s title as co-founder of Tesla as it had been present in the lede of this article from 2009-2020.

1. A court settlement in September 2009 was reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla, within which Martin Eberhard, Marc Tappening, Ian Wright, JB Straubel, and Elon Musk have all agreed with each other that all 5 are to be considered co-founders. The following sources are completely unambiguous about who is to be considered a co-founder of Tesla: CNET, LA times, Forbes
2. Tesla’s website names Musk a co-founder here
3. Some have made the argument that since Musk was not present on day 1 of creation of the Tesla “shell company”, he cannot be considered a co-founder. However, according to this LinkedIn article: "Co-founders are the people involved in the initial launch of a startup company. Anyone can be a co-founder, and a co-founder doesn't necessarily have to have been there from the inception, although that is usually the case. It also does not necessarily include all of the people who were there on that first day”.
The article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.

Please carefully consider the merit of these 3 points and consider restoring Musk’s co-founder of Tesla title. If there are editors in opposition, I respectfully request that they provide reliable sources that either a) disputes that Musk is a co-founder of Tesla or b) definitively states that all co-founders must be present on day 1 of the creation of a "shell company". Thanks. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333:"Co-founder is a vague term" Exactly, I agree. However, as stated in my previous comment: "The [LinkedIn] article goes on to state that there is no formal or legal definition of a co-founder. For this reason, I don’t believe it is our place as Wikipedia editors to decide amongst ourselves who can or can’t be considered a co-founder of a particular company. That would be the job of the company itself (point #2) or an agreement between the co-founders (point #1). The previous RfC did not make any attempt to use RS to define what a co-founder actually is.". For these reasons, although Elon Musk was not at Tesla's shell company on day 1, that does not mean he can't be considered a co-founder. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Tesla—a company that Musk now controls—describes Musk as a co-founder is irrelevant. That amounts to a self-published source, violating WP:SELFPUB. ~ HAL333 00:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We both seem to agree that there is no formal or legal definition of a "co-founder". For this reason, we must rely on company resources or legal settlements. We have a real, legal document for this case: the court settlement reached between all 5 co-founders of Tesla (point #1). There are 3 reliable, third-party sources that cover this settlement, also listed in point #1. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Hal333. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasons? 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They do not need to give them. Stop arguing with everyone. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. We are here to discuss. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People gave their comments, they do not need to engage you in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Relax. I'm not forcing anyone to engage with me. I'm just inquiring about the reason for their opposition. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Hal333 makes the case. Dean Irwin is a consultant in the medical device industry, not a scholar of corporate law or even a lawyer. That little essay he wrote, What is a co-founder? What does it mean and why is it important? is not authoritative, and leaning on that is not at all convincing. Carlstak (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diregarding Dean Irwin's article because it is not "authoritative" does not dispute his contention that there is no formal or legal definition of a "co-founder". However, in the case of Tesla, there was a legal settlement that definitively states who the 5 co-founders of Tesla are (point #1). Moreover, before this settlement occurred, a Superior Court judge dismissed Martin Eberhard's request to be considered one of only two co-founders of Tesla. Therefore, the Superior Court judge establishes the legal authority for this case. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 00:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not helping your case by replying to every response with a counterpoint, IP. I'm not here to debate you—you made a request for comment, so I commented. This is a quixotic move anyway with what little you've got. Carlstak (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. We are here to discuss. You inquired about legal authority on the matter, so I provided reliable sources. Specifically point #1 and the Superior Court judge's ruling. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "inquire" about anything, so stop putting words in my mouth. I quoted the title of the goofy essay you cited, "What is a co-founder? What does it mean and why is it important?. You won't persuade anybody with tactics like this, but the tide is strongly against you anyway. Carlstak (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you said: "Dean Irwin is a consultant in the medical device industry, not a scholar of corporate law or even a lawyer.", so I provided sources from corporate law and a Superior Court judge. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I said, and in no way is it an "inquiry". It was a statement, not an inquiry. Perhaps English isn't your first language. I will thank you to kindly not call it that, or pretend that it was an inquiry. Carlstak (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose , reasons given previously. QRep2020 (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The existing wording "early investor" is a more accurate description of his role in the inception of Tesla. The vast majority of reliable sources do not describe him as co-founder and nor should we. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Wikipedia editors, if we are to override a Superior Court judge's ruling, we must at the very least provide reliable sources that define what a co-founder actually is.
    Most people responding here are just stating "Strong Oppose" without actually addressing my arguments. Nobody has even addressed point #1 yet, which provides 3 reliable third-party sources that report a court settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla. It unambigously, definitively states that Elon Musk is a co-founder of Tesla, along with 4 others. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We are not overriding anything. The article mentions the settlement already. HAL laid out their points fantastically; I agree with them and I imagine many others here do as well.
    You are verging on combative editing. QRep2020 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HAL, nor anyone else in this section, has given a substantiative counter to a) point #1 about the settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla b) the Superior Court judge's ruling c) the fact that there is no legal or formal definition of a co-founder (so we can't make one up ourselves as Wikipedia editors).
    Until these issues are fully countered, we have more to discuss. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we really do not. Especially with HAL's and now WikiVirusC's responses. QRep2020 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, reasons given above and previously. Musk simply isn't one of the co-founders even if he's allowed to call himself that without being sued by a different "co-founder". BeŻet (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide a formal or legal source that defines what a "co-founder" actually is? Based on this Superior Court judge ruling, Martin Eberhard's request to be considered only one of two co-founders of Tesla was denied. This Superior Court judge is the legal authority on this matter. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No they're not, and I care very little about what the Superior Court in the USA says. BeŻet (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you choose to ignore 1) a settlement between the 5 co-founders of Tesla & 2) a Superior Court judge's ruling, you must provide some reliable source that defines what a co-founder actually is. As Wikipedia editors, we can't just write our own definition of a co-founder and ignore everything else. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone here is disputing that he can be considered as a co-founder. The question is should we call him that in the infobox and the lede. And the answer, so far at least, is a resounding "no". And beware, your excessive replies are not helping your argument at all. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    you must provide some reliable source that defines what a co-founder actually is - a co-founder is someone who co-founded the company, that is, started an organization together with someone else. Since that wasn't Musk, he shouldn't be called one. Once again, I couldn't care less about what the 5 Tesla people decided between themselves, or what an American Superior Court said, which, nota bene, isn't that Musk is a co-founder, but, I quote: "denied former Tesla Motors CEO Martin Eberhard's request that he be declared one of only two Tesla founders". BeŻet (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Mentioning it in body of article in the context of the lawsuit settlement is fine. Simply stating he is a co-founder of Tesla by itself, sounds like he founded it. I don't believe it is lede worth material to include it and/or the full context, which is needed to paint full picture. As toward other points: Definition of co-founder is irrelevant as we don't need to define it in article or in discussion. Reliable sources aren't needed for excluding something, they are needed for including something. The content is included in body of article regardless, and the needed RS are there. We aren't deciding what a company can do, we are only deciding what to include in the article, particularly right now in the lede. Right now Elon Musk, Tesla, Inc., and History of Tesla, Inc. all mention Musk as being now named co-founder. So we most certainty aren't even trying to "decide who can and can't be considered co-founder" in the way you are implying. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiVirusC:Thank you for the well-thought out response.
    What is a Founder? - Forbes "in business the founders are the people who establish the company—that is, they take on the risk and reward of creating something from nothing. Remember, an idea by itself is not a company, though most companies start as an idea. Some companies start out as one person’s idea and stay that way. More commonly one or two people might have an idea but then recruit a group to help execute the idea (because ideas are worthless without execution). The people who recruit that group and get execution going are founders. They split the original ownership in some way, and then work to bring in the resources they need to build an enterprise. Everyone who comes in after this initial ownership division is not."
    I think the real question that needs to be answered is whether Tesla was an actual company (or just an idea by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tappening) before Musk joined. Before Musk joined, there were no employees, no IP, no designs, no prototype, nothing but a business plan to commercialize AC Propulsion’s Tzero car (nothing but an idea based on the Forbes definition). Even the name “Tesla Motors” was owned by others. Tesla could never have gotten off the ground without Musk - he provided the crucial initial investment (ie the risk) and the execution needed to create something from nothing. Therefore, I think he is not only a co-founder of Tesla based on the legal sources provided above, but also the Forbes definition of a founder. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like defining co-founder isn't needed here, defining when it was an actual company isn't needed. " I think not characterizing him as a co-founder of Tesla"(edit conflict): The article does already characterizes him as a co-founder, as do the other two mentioned Tesla articles with more detail. Discussing whether co-founder goes in the lede is the focus here, and no one is advocating removing the mention from article. Consensus before was is it wasn't needed, and as of this point right now it seems to be same consensus, not to include in lede/infobox. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @WikiVirusC:I understand your stance of why the definitions are not needed to leave something out of the article. However, the reason you gave for leaving "co-founder" out of the lede is that it would confuse / mislead the reader. "Simply stating he is a co-founder of Tesla by itself, sounds like he founded it. I don't believe it is lede worth material to include it and/or the full context, which is needed to paint full picture."
    I am providing the definitions to refute the claim that it would confuse the reader, because Musk is a "co-founder" not only based on legal sources but also based on the Forbes definition of the word. Therefore, no additional context in the lede would be necessary. 24.186.123.95 (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say anything about confusing readers, I simply said my belief on how it sounds. My stance never was additional context was needed. I said I don't believe the mention is needed(by itself) and/or with context(that paints full picture). Regardless of whether it is or isn't needed, my stance was co-founder isn't worth mention/needed in lede, it is fine as it is now in article prose. You keep bring back up definitions and legal proceedings, but this discussion isn't about the content of article, it is where to put it. So if you want to keep talking about founder definition this, legal proceeding that, just refer to the first sentence of my original response as my response for any more replies. Oppose(in lead) - Mentioning it in body of article in the context of the lawsuit settlement is fine. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. There are far, far too many high-quality sources disputing this to ever remotely contemplate stating it as fact in the article voice. Court cases, settlements, and WP:ABOUTSELF statements do not override other sources - in fact, they are weaker WP:PRIMARY sources, contrasted with many high-quality secondary sources that view Musk's claims with skepticism. Especially when we look at sources that go into depth on that specific point (of which there are many), instead of just sources that mention it in passing - those sources overwhelmingly do not treat him as a co-founder. Relying on definitions of the term from elsewhere is also WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The IP's busy-bee and peremptory approach to discussion clearly isn't working, and if the editor thinks that countering every dissenting comment is going to sway anyone's opinion, the editor is deluded. The overwhelming consensus at this point is that other editors do not want to restore Elon Musk's title as co-founder of Tesla, simple as that. The editor is wasting our time with this exercise in futility. Enough is enough. Carlstak (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article: Talk:Elon Musk. Articles is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.