Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateElon Musk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleElon Musk has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 24, 2021Peer reviewNot reviewed
August 23, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Elon Musk lost $16.3 billion in a single day, the largest in the history of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

RfC: Infobox image

[edit]
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.
There is a strong preference for Option A. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the images below should appear on the infobox? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following are images that have been used in the last two years. Options D and G are images that have not been used in the infobox and have been added to elicit discussion. The infobox image should not be changed during the duration of this RfC.

  • (Option A; 2018)
    (Option A; 2018)
  • (Option B; 2022)
    (Option B; 2022)
  • (Option C; 2022)
    (Option C; 2022)
  • (Option D; 2023)
    (Option D; 2023)
  • (Option E; 2023)
    (Option E; 2023)
  • (Option F; 2024)
    (Option F; 2024)
  • (Option G; 2021)
    (Option G; 2021)

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the above. Definitely this one. https://x.com/Inkbox/status/1849467491287703733/photo/1 2600:1700:5240:E50:549D:94AA:51E0:CB3 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a serious image and it's more than likely not under a free license. He's also wearing a hat. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
The Alphabet does not go A B C D F. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he's saying either A or E. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or Option B - Both have the best lighting and expressions. C has bad lighting, D depicts him sweating and with an unprofessional facial expression, E could be higher resolution, F is too low resolution, and G is especially unprofessional. That said, please use this higher resolution version of option A instead if that's the one you're going to use. (edit: the picture used on this list was changed to the higher resolution version I recommended) AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option B has pretty bad lighting as the camera was white balancing for the blue background making him look green. Also his facial expressions look off. Ergzay (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four of these are basically the same picture, any of these works as a top photo although in general I would lean towards one of the ones where he is in generic business dress rather than branded stuff because this page covers the whole breadth of the subject's experience and accomplishments, those seem like better pictures for SpaceX or Tesla Inc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And even then, neither of the two are professional images and Option F is low quality. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E — Option A is too old, 6 years old at this point. Option F and Option D make him look bad, additionally Option D has likely copyrighted trademark logos in it. Option B, C, D and F all have him looking away from the camera making them poor options. That remains Option E and Option G as the valid options. Of the two Option G has unkempt hair so I'll go with Option E. Edit: Option F and Option G are both completely out as they are low quality. I forgot to check by clicking on them and they're both full of camera sensor noise so neither is any good. Ergzay (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the copyrighted logos fall under de minimis? They're not the focal point of the photo; Elon Musk is. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but we're arguing degrees here. An image without copyrighted logos (holding everything else equal) is better than one with copyrighted logos. Ergzay (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree and I wasn't saying the image should be used. The image is very unflattering and you can even see some sweat on his face. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No thats just not true, in some contexts an imagine with a copyrighted logo (holding everything else equal) is better than one one without. This just isn't one of those contexts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in some cases would an image with trademarks and copyrighted logos be better to use. This would not be one of them, however we're looking for the best image of Elon to use, and Option D ain't it. It's a pretty unflattering image of him. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this isn't one of them and we agree on the unsuitability of the logo shirt pics in this context, I'm just pointing out that your generalized statement that holding everything else equal we prefer images without copyrighted logos isn't true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also important to note that a choice of Option A will prompt a lot of editors to try and replace it with newer images given that it's so old. 2018 was two years before covid happened, as a benchmark in people's minds. Ergzay (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that it does not really matter that Option A is old. The image is the most high quality, and I believe that matters more than age. An example is the page for Neil Armstrong, the main image was more than 40 years before his death, and is better compared to the images taken of him later in his life. Wcamp9 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That was because the peak of Neil Armstrong's career and what he is most well known for is landing on the moon. This is the same across all pictures of astronauts. Ergzay (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (invited by the bot) "A" is best. Looks neutral and representative. B & C are bad. "E" is non-typical. The rest are OK. You really should ask everybody to weigh in on every image; otherwise weird things could happen. North8000 (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ElijahPepe My preference is for Option E. I think we should use one of the photos where he appears prepared for a formal portrait, so not G, F, or D.
Option A is too old, or will soon enough be too old. He looks quite different now than he did then. I agree with the person who said people will keep independently changing it if it is left as Option A.
Option B has him looking away at an odd angle, with branding in the background, and Option C looks strange because of the black suit blending into the black backdrop, and because he is looking away.
Option E does make him look a bit like he's running for political office, but it looks much more like a formal portrait than the others, except for A, and because it is more recent, and he is a living person, it is more accurate and helpful than A. Vsst (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option E is lower quality than Option A Wcamp9 (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right on that. And having now had the chance to view them on desktop, I think A is also the more flattering picture by far. E looked a lot better on mobile than it actually appears at higher resolution/larger size, though I feel the opposite is the case for A.
And at the larger size, what I perceived to be a difference caused by the relative age of the photos is less apparent.
More people will view this photo on mobile than on desktop, but perhaps other phone screens might handle it better than mine does, too.
So I have changed my mind on this. Option A is best.
I do suspect it might be possible to hunt down a higher quality version of E, if we were so motivated, though.
Vsst (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on what "glazed portraits" means? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His eyes appear glazed over in them and the photography resembles what you see in portraiture. Option C is a crisp digital photograph and has less of a stuffy, contrived look to it without being candid. QRep2020 (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option C makes him look bad as he's frowning. Ergzay (talk) 05:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that it has no contrast AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. F and G are of relatively poor quality for purposes of a lede image. B and D are needlessly unflattering depictions of him; the former depicts him frowning and looks like he hasn't bathed while his facial expression in the latter makes him look chimp-like. C has a dark background which obscures the outline of his head. While E is a better choice than most of the above mentioned, the way it is framed (particularly with the flag in the background) makes him look like an elected official which he is not; hence my opposition to it. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B It is the best quality one that is also recent. A is too old. It doesn't matter that it is at an angle, many portraits on infoboxes don't look straight into the camera.
  • Option A then E Highest quality photograph, and one in which is he looking clearly at the camera. He does look particularly different from 2018 to current day so it is still approriate to use. E is slightly lower quality but it still taken at a level angle and he is looking at the camera.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C, E, or F Those are the best three images, IMO. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option E. A is too old, B is alright, C doesn't have good contrast, D has poor lighting, F and G are a bit blurry. Cortador (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A or C. Yes, the image is old, but the subject still looks the same. It does not impact recognition/identification of subject. These are the only two where Musk looks into the camera and have a non-distracting background. Ca talk to me! 11:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose F and G. They look like it was taken with a phone camera(oversaturated) and are low-resolution. I weakly oppose Option B, D, E. They have distracting background and have non-neutral contexts (I agree with Horse Eye's Back's point). Ca talk to me! 11:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A The best looking "official" style picture with no distractions in the background or on his clothing. Those sort of pics are fine later on but for the main infobox image, we want the best neutral picture we can get and I think A does the job perfectly fine. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

Mention Elon Musk's radical rightwing agenda and activism in lead

[edit]

The problems with this article, and many of them involving Trumpism, reminds me of those rare instances when we we don't assume the assumption of good faith.WP:AAGF

Musk's role in shamelessly trying to (re)elect Trump, and all far-right conservatives, using his own resource, time, energy, and even his company Twitter/X (which originally was meant to be an apolitical digital town hall), and that he is completely biased in his radical far-right opinions and information (much of which is misinformation), make his role as a rightwing activist one of the most important (if not important) WP:NOTABLE distinctions about him. And should, thus, be properly put in the first sentence of & in the lead, mentioned as such: "far-rightwing political activist". As an example, Musk has recently confessed on Twitter, and as it is well-documented in the press, that his main reason for existence (i.e.getting human beings to set foot on Mars) is now only possible should Trump be elected insofar as he is personally & politically concerned. As there is no evidence, scientifically-speaking, that such an event would make a difference. It's purely political in nature, as the press has reported.

Musk is now actively pushing debunked election denialism conspiracy theories and misinformation, and has been doing this sort of thing for a while now in the interest of far-right wing politics. So it would be appropriate to mention in the lead his role, in addition to his strong beliefs in outlandish conspiracy theories about us all living in a 'computer simulation', as "a conspiracy theorist" too.

But at least, for the sake of our readers, it is important we finally grow a spine as an editors' community and mention WP:NOTABLE information in the WP:LEAD where it matters what is not only obvious about Musk, but what is well recognized in the consensus by the Press and the world by this point. He's is wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat in his profile pic on Twitter, and campaigning publicly in favor of Trump, using Twitter/X in every way conceivable to elect Trump for personal rightwing reasons, as he has attested publicly. And he plans to become part of Trump's political cabinet, as he publicly declares with Trump's blessing and advocacy.

So he's not only publicly boasting about his professional job now as an extreme "rightwing activist", but he's deliberately NOT any making effort to bury this fact, NOR is he attempting to hide it. So neither should we. EmmaRoydes (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:lede, this is not a major enough part of out article (or his life) to go there. Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're much too old to be making that mistake... WP:LEAD and on the topic here it is a major part of our article which currently receives more coverage than all of the subject's other activities combined. I don't currently see any argument to exclude based in policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
his politics (including stuff about voting for Clinton and his spat with Starmer) seem to take up less than 10% of our article. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we do mention it, it already gets as much coverage in the lede as it deserves. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you keep saying lede and not lead doesn't give me any confidence that you know what you're talking about (the opening two sentences are after all "In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. It is located at the beginning of the article, before the table of contents and the first heading. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.")... I'm not wedded to the language that EmmaRoydes is offering but I do think we undercover it in the lead (especially how we shoehorn it all into the last paragraph) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd them that my link also worked, almost as if its a variant spelling and this is just a semantic argument without any real validity policy-wise, shall we go down this route? Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A deprecated variant, please respect consensus and use lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So deprecated, the link still works as a redirect. So shall we stop this now, or continue? Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All up to you, still waiting for you to comment on the meat of my response to you instead of choosing a weird hill to die on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What not knowing what the policy is, even though I link to it? or the fact it only makes up less than 10% of our article? Or the fact we already mention it in the LEAD? What point have I not addressed? Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is asking for it to make up more than 10% of the lead so thats a red herring... We mention it only at the very end of the lead, which doesn't seem due (we aren't supposed to cram negative information together at the end, we're supposed to work it in) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that is makes up such a small percentage of our article it is, in fact, undue to give it more prominent coverage. But I have had my say, its now down to others. Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It makes up a relatively large percentage of our article (neither SpaceX or Tesla is more than 10% of the article either) and a disproportionate amount of the recent high quality coverage. If thats all you want to say thats fine, but I'm used to your arguments being a lot better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tentatively agree, a sentence about Musk's political activism in the first paragraph of the lead is probably due at this point. Though I'm not sure reliable sources support characterizing his activism as "radical" or "far-right"—it's important to use neutral wording and follow what sources say. Alternatively, it may be worth trimming the second and third paragraphs, which seem to have excessive biographical details that would be better suited for later in the article. Stonkaments (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stonkaments @Horse Eye's Back Strong support.
I concur. So, this is more than WP:NOTABLE for the WP:LEAD, which demands it, so can someone with privileges PLEASE finally state the obvious and honor this request, and implement the change?
It should read:
"Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a businessman and investor known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc., and as an extreme rightwing activist and conspiracy theorist, in addition to Donald Trump's second-largest individual political donor."
If you all want to leave out conspiracy theorist, that is fine. And if the use of "extreme" is too much for your personal tastes, then we can leave that for another day despite it being true on all counts. Same goes for his political donor status, which is notable though, and significant.
But Musk's proudly public role as a "right wing activist" is more than backed by reputable sources, and a consensus in the press from ALL political sides and venues. And consensus-wise it is both WP:IMPLIED, and LONG overdue. Omitting it now is a clear example of WP:CENSORing content. And, no, mere mention of it buried in the lead gives the impression that this is a small matter. Doing so is trying to have it both ways, so we can say we are holding onto journalistic integrity and censor this well-documented reporting to appease the MAGA movement.
To give a brightline here of sorts, this isn't actor Kelsey Grammar, for instance, who has come out as MAGA Trump supporter, but insists on keeping it quiet, private and personal. Musk on the other hand has defiantly and proudly staked his personal reputation and even his existence on a radical rightwing authoritarian takeover of American government, and he isn't ashamed about it. He's also gone all in with the MAGA movement that they will not honor the democratic outcome of the 2024 election should Trump lose, and has made it clear that he will only support Trump's victory as the only reasonable outcome. This is about as radical, politically, as one can get. And it too is well-documented in the press.
So, Musk has made the radical MAGA rightwing agenga his own personal brand, and plans to be essentially the third in line of power if Trump is elected, as the American national budget and bureaucracy czar of sorts tasked with radically eliminating and cutting American government according to extreme rightwing ideology.
the tl;dr version- I like how the OP says, "If Musk is boasting about his job as an extreme "rightwing activist" BOTH publicly and in the press, and HE is NOT hiding it, then neither should we". So let's get this moving along.2601:282:8980:C0F0:8418:A77A:EF1A:5430 (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second. QRep2020 (talk) QRep2020 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one example of mainstream coverage demonstrating that Musk's involvement in the presidential election is highly notable, calling it "unparalleled in modern history". [1][2] Stonkaments (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with much of what EmmaRoydes’s says. But as this is fairly recent, I’m not sure additional space in the lead is the correct course at this time. Considering the extent of recent actions, including the suit over possible election meddling, a case could be made for adding “political activist” to the first sentence. Additional text in the body makes sense, particularly in how, whatever Twitter is called today, is being used. But practically speaking, hard to imagine we’ll result in a consensus before the election and things may change thereafter. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000 "Recent" isn't true, for starters. And is irrelevant here. It is now one of the most important, if not important, WP:NOTABLE distinctions of Musk's personal brand in his own words, and well-documented in the press consensus. And the consensus is already implied, and debate over this is not necessary given that it is WP:DUE by this point. If anything, that is an attempt to delay and WP:GAME the outcome by way of delay, if you personally don't like it.
    Again, as others here have pointed out (and as reflected in ALL reputable sources and the press consensus) Elon Musk is publicly boasting about his existential and professional role/agenda as a proud extreme rightwing activist & major MAGA Trump supporter & operative, and he is NOT hiding it, so neither should we. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:8418:A77A:EF1A:5430 (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, Musk's activism has garnered more attention lately with the election cycle, but it's not altogether recent. See this article by the Atlantic in 2022 calling Musk a "far-right activist", for example. Stonkaments (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a bold addition to the lead ("Musk has become active in American politics, promoting conservative right-wing views on X and supporting Donald Trump's campaign in the 2024 US presidential election."), but was reverted. Does anyone have any suggestions for improvement? The revert explanation was "this is already covered in the last paragraph of the lead, and that's way way way too many refs". But consensus here seems to be that it deserves mention in the first paragraph of the lead, and I copied the refs from a similar statement in the lead of Views of Elon Musk,[1] which seemed appropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted it because, as I said in the edit summary, it's already in the lead. If you want to move it from the last paragraph to the first paragraph I won't object, but it doesn't belong in the lead twice. As for the refs, there shouldn't be any in the lead. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^

"This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § This is Elon Musk Tesla cofounder and CEO until a consensus is reached. Killarnee (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency only mentioned once? What about DOGE?

[edit]

In the article the favored word of Musk "efficiency" is mentioned only once. How can that be? That which is now commonly outside of the Wikipedia referred to as DoGE or DOGE seems to have started as "government efficiency commission" suggested by Musk in an August 13, 2024 conversation with Trump on X. Thereafter the idea has evolved to "Department of Government Efficiency" Oct 26, 2024 tweet by Musk. Trump even suggested that Musk would head such an Agency 5 September 2024 BBC. Manorainjan 14:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. DODGE is just another bitcoin, B. There is no evidence that the "government efficiency commission" started out as a bitcoin. Trump is not yet president, so there is no "Department of Government Efficiency". Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have clearly called DOGE an idea. I did not write or imply it to be an existing, working agency. You are totally barking up the wrong tree here, otherwise called Strawman argument. And it is written DOGE or DoGE not DODGE. So, I really don't know, what You are talking about. What is Your point here and how would Your comment ever contribute to the improvement of the article? Manorainjan 15:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What then do you want us to say, based upon RS? Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the apology for the anitsemitic theory?

[edit]

I'm trying to verify the second half of this: "endorsing an antisemitic theory; he has since apologized for the latter". I can't find this statement in the article, which is a violation of WP:LEAD. There are three sources cited but the words "apologize" and "sorry" don't appear in any of them. In fact one of them says "Despite widespread criticism, Musk has not backed off his antisemitic claims" which is kind of the opposite of an apology. I see this was already discussed on the talk page in June but that discussion doesn't answer the question. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it, in the "Accusations of antisemitism" section. Not sure how I missed it before. I still think it's misleading to have three refs in the lead, none of which support the preceding material, and if I get ambitious I'll try to fix that. GA-RT-22 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Musk needs a new portrait

[edit]

Mr. Musk needs a new portrait. I am aware of the survey at the top but consider that he has changed tremendously since 2018. Please make a second survey or give him a new portrait all together, suggest Opinion E. Thank you. Sincerely, a random IP User. 2601:483:400:1CD0:4012:42FA:169B:52B8 (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

[edit]

I would like to suggest that Musk be described as "a business magnate, oligarch, and investor known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc."

This more accurately describes his role in the economy, media, and politics. Firecat93 (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oligarch?

[edit]

I would like to suggest that Musk be described as "a business magnate, oligarch, and investor known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc."

This more accurately describes his role in the economy, media, and politics, as Musk, the richest person in the world, controls X, spent hundreds of millions in the U.S. election, and has been promised a major regulatory role in the upcoming U.S. administration.

Firecat93 (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does it, I disagree. It seems to be that he may be an oligarch soon, but he is not one yet. And business Magnet has been rejected more than once, as he is not often referred as that (or oligarch). Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An oligarch is "a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence." Why wouldn't Musk meet this criteria? Firecat93 (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask RS, as they need to say he is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is RS? Firecat93 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wp:rs reliable sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read MOS:OPENPARABIO, which documents how we describe people in the opening paragraph of a biography. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many reliable sources which clearly and unambiguously call him an oligarch so I do not think its appropriate. What might be appropriate now is "known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc as well as his support of Donald Trump in the 2024 Election." if you want to highlight his seemingly newfound political superstardom (it does seem due to do so). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. That's perhaps a better alternative. Firecat93 (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to that. His support of Trump isn't part of what makes him notable. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confusing what someone first became notable for with why they are currently notable. In the last two years the political stuff has gotten as much significant coverage as his involvement with all his companies in that same time period combined, I'm not saying I agree with the relative importance (I tend to think that the media undercovers technology and overcovers politics) but we follow the coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with Horse Eye's Back. I believe we have reached a consensus. Firecat93 (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus here. GA-RT-22 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let us put it up for a vote. Do you have an argument against including it? It has generated significant media coverage. Musk's election related content has generated billions of views. Firecat93 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFC? OK. Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, can you please initiate it? Firecat93 (talk) 11:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said OK, why do you need to ask? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar with the process. I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Sorry. Firecat93 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I;ll try, but remember I am not you. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on expanding description.

[edit]

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

  • Oppose – Not in the first sentence, per MOS:FIRSTBIO. I would be ok putting it in the opening paragraph as long as it doesn't just duplicate what's in the last paragraph. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this would be pure WP:RECENTISM. It is way too early to say if his current notoriety as a Trump supporter will be a long-term factor in his overall notability. The existing mention in the final paragraph of the lead is sufficient. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. (Summoned by bot) Not in the lead sentence per MOS:FIRSTBIO. The support contributes to Musk's notability, but did not make Musk notable. The support should be mentioned later in the lead section, just not in the opening paragraph as that would be recentism. Politrukki (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, genuinely not seeing how you can use MOS:FIRSTBIO and WP:RECENTISM to oppose inclusion... This would be the "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." that we cover in addition to "The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not the main thing he is known for. If he gets a position in Trump's cabinet, I would support including that in the opening paragraph. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose not in the first sentence, possibly later included in the first paragraph. At this point in time, it's too soon to tell if this description will be notable enough to include. According to Views of Elon Musk, he supported Obama in 2008/2012 and Hillary in 2016, and Biden in 2020, and now Trump in 2024. He's all over the place, and we aren't on a deadline. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Musk has played a major role in the Trump campaign, including through X, which he owns, and this has contributed to his notoriety. Firecat93 (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

[edit]

Reverse titles of 1997 baccalaureate degrees FROM Bachelor of Arts in Physics and Bachelor of Science in Economics TO Bachelor of Science in Physics and Bachelor of Arts in Economics.[1] 47.45.77.8 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a more complete citation that could be used to verify this? I was unable to verify the current wording despite there being six sources cited. But a few of them say that BA in Physics is correct. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ University of Pennsylvania website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=1256369137"