Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wihdinheimo (talk | contribs) at 09:06, 5 August 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.
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?

Founding Tesla

The summary of the article states that he was only an early stage investor, but the reference used actually says a court determined he was a full founder.

Musk was their first chairman from their very first meeting, and also was in charge of their first round of funding. He could not have just shown up and started running the board and doing fundraising on the day the deal was signed, it takes months to do this kind of work.

Besides the reference showing the court order, there is clear evidence that he was a founder who was there since day one.

This mattered discussed at length and a consensus was reached, the conclusion of which is presently expressed in the article. Besides, the article already addresses the ruling. QRep2020 (talk) 23:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest identifying him as Tesla's "founder-in-law" 172.58.38.186 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that Elon Musk made his first billion after the sale of PayPal to eBay in 2002? Source: multiple
    • ALT1:... that Elon Musk lost $16.3 billion in a single day, the largest in the history of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index? Source: [1]

Improved to Good Article status by HAL333 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Nationality

Please put American in the introduction due to being his residence.Greek zone (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)struck sock.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done There's a hidden note in the lead explaining why this information is not in the opening sentence, per talk page consensus. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we consider Elon a founder/cofounder of PayPal?

If Elon Musk is considered to be the founder of x.com, and X merged with PayPal, doesn't that mean we should consider him a Co-Founder of PayPal? I noticed the PayPal page considers him a founder. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal Shane04040404 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He founded X.com. Confinity was merged into X.com and X.com was renamed PayPal. That is how it is and that is how we describe it. No changes necessary. ~ HAL333 19:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paypal as a business and service was founded by Thiel et al., and not by Musk. Paypal as a corporation up until 2010 was co-founded by Musk as (X.com), but Paypal that separated from eBay in 2015 was not. Identifying him as co-founder of Paypal would obscure and not clarify, and would be unfair to the founders of Confinity who built the first release of Paypal without any involvement from Musk. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Politics Section- Sources include Musk and Erdogan Meeting as well as implications of Space X Turksat Launch

Change Politics from just focusing on contributions to Republicans and Democrats to including affiliations outside the United States to better represent his relevance in politics foreign and domestic to articulate his desire to use Space X as an aid to Turkish defense contractors/Erdogan.

[1] [2] [3] [4] Schillmaster69 (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be more appropriate for inclusion on SpaceX. QRep2020 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be a word-for-word substitution request. QRep2020 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

Change business magnate to business magnet because Elon musk himself asked for it to be changed on a podcast but couldn’t because it’s locked for obvious vandalism reasons 92.238.116.68 (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Read the FAQ. ~ HAL333 03:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tham Luang Cave incident, false info

In the article it reads the following:

In 2018, he was sued for defamation by a diver who advised in the Tham Luang cave rescue

According to a Reuters interview with the person in question, they aren't a diver.

Unsworth said he brought his knowledge about the cave to the rescue mission but added that he “no idea” what the diving conditions were like because he is not a cave diver.

Suggesting changing the diver into a retiree, or a caver like used in the article. Caver title however suggests some level of expertise in cave exploration, but the person in question seems to be only a hobbyist. The false title given to the person gives the illusion that they were a professional working in the scene when this wasn't the case.

The present reliable sources state otherwise. ~ HAL333 05:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What source are you referencing? Seems like this source is more reliable as it comes directly from the person in question, in a reputable source, stating in their own words that they are not a diver. In the article, there is no sources marked where this person is addressed as a diver, unless you mean the Tham Luang Cave -wiki page, which doesn't include a mention of diver along with Musk. Fix the error.

I am referring to the sources currently used in the article. And no, interviews directly from the individual are a quasi-primary source. Reliable secondary sources, such as the ones used in the article, are preferred. ~ HAL333

I looked through the sources before making this one, and couldn't see a single source claiming this person as a diver, so please do point the specific source. The information is demonstrably false, as the Reuters link proves.

Here's a piece from The Guardian used in the article. ~ HAL333 05:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki page describes the person as a caver in the expanded section. The Guardian article describes them as cave explorer, while the diver title is only used in the headlines. This title was widely spread as a mistake, but looking at later articles shows how media began switching the title from diver into caver. Reuters link describes the best evidence how this person is in fact not a diver, and this mistake should be fixed. Here's an example from a later Guardian source how they corrected the title.

This change was suggested previously and rejected. Feel free to refer to the Talk page archives. QRep2020 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Alexander Musk was born in 2002. [1]Sanskritysinha (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what the Wikipedia community has become, rejecting demonstrably factual correction with a pompous attitude, completely overlooking the evidence that proves how the person in question is not in fact a diver. There is a massive difference promoting questionable information of how this was an opinion from a professional diver, when it was in fact only from a retiree that enjoys exploring their local caves in their past time. When the person in question corrects the false title in an interview, you shamelessly argue to keep this diver title due to the media making the same mistake - NOT CHECKING THEIR SOURCES. Can you just admit that people like you are the key reason why Wikipedia isn't as accurate as it could be? Wihdinheimo (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]