m →Out of context quoting: clarify comment |
Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) →Out of context quoting: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 452: | Line 452: | ||
::::::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] You're misconstruing that page. Someone's own words are most certainly the best source of truth of the opinion of that person. A secondary source re-interpreting someone's words and then stating what their opinion is, is a distortion of the truth. The truth is rather best achieved by directly quoting or neutrally summarizing the words of the person at hand. The previous source piecemeal took only parts of sentences and then wrote an article around those few words and it wasn't even directly citing the interview, it was citing it's own summary of the interview so it wasn't even a secondary source anymore. Do note the primary thing about [[WP:BLP]] and that is "Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" which this article is unfortunately full of, including what I just edited. |
::::::@[[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] You're misconstruing that page. Someone's own words are most certainly the best source of truth of the opinion of that person. A secondary source re-interpreting someone's words and then stating what their opinion is, is a distortion of the truth. The truth is rather best achieved by directly quoting or neutrally summarizing the words of the person at hand. The previous source piecemeal took only parts of sentences and then wrote an article around those few words and it wasn't even directly citing the interview, it was citing it's own summary of the interview so it wasn't even a secondary source anymore. Do note the primary thing about [[WP:BLP]] and that is "Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" which this article is unfortunately full of, including what I just edited. |
||
::::::Secondly [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] does not say to not use primary sources like you claim, it's entirely about the privacy of the individual and that is why care should be taken on primary sources. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::::Secondly [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] does not say to not use primary sources like you claim, it's entirely about the privacy of the individual and that is why care should be taken on primary sources. [[User:Ergzay|Ergzay]] ([[User talk:Ergzay|talk]]) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Yes, and your edits have not been taking care with the primary sources. You've amalgamated parts of a primary source to present a narrative that is not in the original or in any cited secondary source. ''Insider'' is not a tabloid. I'm also adding a CNN and CBS source to bolster the secondary source coverage in the article. {{pb}}You have only been able to maintain your version of the article due to edit warring. Please self-revert and take the time to build consensus for your changes. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The general theme of Musk criticism commonly cited in this article and the job of Wikipedians == |
== The general theme of Musk criticism commonly cited in this article and the job of Wikipedians == |
Revision as of 12:47, 8 June 2022
Elon 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. | |||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
Frequently asked questions
While today Elon disputes almost everything about the story, Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of emeralds from his dealings.
- ^ "Joe Rogan Experience #1169 - Elon Musk". The Joe Rogan Experience. September 6, 2018. Event occurs at 9:53. Retrieved October 2, 2020 – via YouTube.
Lack of citation in opening summary
No citation in final paragraph of opening summary. Either citations should be included in opening paragraph or content moved to another header to be consistent with other biographical entries. The uncited quote "Musk has been criticized for his unscientific stances and controversial statements." should immediately be referenced, removed or moved in light of recent developments to enhance impartiality- 25 April 2022.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.231.114 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lead paragraphs do not require citations: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section#References in the lead? QRep2020 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu
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 (article contribs).
Views section should be trimmed and be more of a summary of most important/noted ones
The views subsection should be trimmed and be more of in Summary style most important/noted ones. The rough structure of Politics, COVID-19, and technology subheadings (as seen here [1]) I think were much better than what we have now with a dozen of so subheadings based on a tweet or two. More detailed summaries or less noted ones can be placed as Views of Elon Musk. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 10:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Anyone have any thoughts before I try and BOLDly do this myself? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle: I agree with a trim, and I like the rough structure you propose. Any thoughts about which subsections you're thinking to cut and which can be condensed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I count only one cite of an actual tweet, and the three or four titles that mention Twitter are about Musk and his relationship with Twitter, so it's quite a misrepresentation to characterize all those subheadings as "based on a tweet or two"; they are well sourced with many reliable news sources. I do agree that having so many subheadings is overdoing it; the effect of so many subheadings is like that of a bunch of bullet points. Although this asshole Musk's every little musing is not of great import, I think the information given should be kept, and consolidated, because it does reveal something about his character. Carlstak (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Spy-cicle:, please take a stab. Any reduction would be an improvement from the current. As discussed on the Views of Elon Musk page, having the same information in both places makes absolutely no sense Wiki-wise. In fact, I would support moving the last paragraph of the lede to the "views" section as a summary and then linking it to the Views of Elon Musk page. This would solve a number of issues that have been previously discussed. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wholeheartedly agree. The section currently feels like an WP:INDISCRIMINATE jumble. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- The archived version you linked was worse. All topics on Politics were lumped together in a big wall of text, so the reader had to read the whole thing to find Musk's views on specific topic they cared about. There was a section called "Artificial intelligence, Metaverse, and public transportation", but this was an artificial category of miscellaneous things thrown together that didn't cleanly fit into Politics. The current version is better, because the reader can browse topics they are interested in. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- The section on the cave defamation case needs significant trimming, it's longer than every single other section of the article but is far less notable, yet I was reverted when I attempted to remove parts of it. Bill Williams 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I readded because it gained a great amount of coverage so has large WEIGHT assigned to it. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle:, were you able to take a stab as of yet? If not, I would be more than happy to give it a shot.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Unfoutunately I have unexpectactedly really busy right now IRL to be able to work on it right now, you're more than welcome to give it a shot. Also, I do not think the Canada convoy coverage is worth including on the main bio page and longstanding consensus is not a couple of months of it not being reverted. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I really like the idea of a separate Views of Elon Musk article page. A lot of times pages can suffer from people who want to put WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT on the views section, it gives a little bit of a bias to the article as a whole, it can be a very non-neutral experience to a uninformed reader who doesn't have full context. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is already a Views of Elon Musk page that is a POV fork that censors Musk's conservative-leaning views. Specifically, @CNMall41: keeps removing Musk's view on the Canada convoy protest under the reasoning that consensus must be achieved to include information, and as an individual, they should be able to veto the inclusion of information from any Wikipedia article.[1][2][3] They also believe that including the fact that Musk compared Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler is clear editorializing,[4] perhaps because it makes Musk appear extremist, which must be clearly wrong and biased, because Musk said himself that he was a moderate. /s TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC); edited to include references TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie:, being that you have no idea what I "believe" about anything, you may want to consider removing your WP:WIAPA above. Saying I believe and then attempting to explain "why" based on your own belief is ridiculous. And don't ping me with an accusation again unless it is done at ANI. Read WP:CIVIL.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I tried to update my comment as per your request to follow WP:WIAPA with links to diffs, but it was reverted due to WP:TALK#REPLIED. To keep things on topic, Views of Elon Musk is currently a POV fork because of active efforts to exclude Musk's right-leaning views. I think Views of Elon Musk should exist to document things like Musk's views on Wikipedia, but there is a systemic problem there where documenting Musk's extremist political statements (including quoting him directly) is viewed as non-neutral, biased, defamatory editorialization (versus factual information reported by "green" secondary sources) that ends up getting deleted. Therefore, requests to move certain views from this article to Views of Elon Musk may effectively censor Musk's right-leaning views from being documented on Wikipedia. I am also actively trying to trim down this (Elon Musk) article's Views section to make it shorter and more concise. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie:, being that you have no idea what I "believe" about anything, you may want to consider removing your WP:WIAPA above. Saying I believe and then attempting to explain "why" based on your own belief is ridiculous. And don't ping me with an accusation again unless it is done at ANI. Read WP:CIVIL.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is already a Views of Elon Musk page that is a POV fork that censors Musk's conservative-leaning views. Specifically, @CNMall41: keeps removing Musk's view on the Canada convoy protest under the reasoning that consensus must be achieved to include information, and as an individual, they should be able to veto the inclusion of information from any Wikipedia article.[1][2][3] They also believe that including the fact that Musk compared Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler is clear editorializing,[4] perhaps because it makes Musk appear extremist, which must be clearly wrong and biased, because Musk said himself that he was a moderate. /s TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC); edited to include references TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I really like the idea of a separate Views of Elon Musk article page. A lot of times pages can suffer from people who want to put WP:UNDUE WP:WEIGHT on the views section, it gives a little bit of a bias to the article as a whole, it can be a very non-neutral experience to a uninformed reader who doesn't have full context. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Canada convoy protest
This section has been around for a while in some form, so I don't think it can be completely cut when there's a dispute over it unless there's a clear consensus to do so (per WP:NOCON.) I'd oppose complete removal, since Musk's views on the protest have had significant attention on multiple occasions, roughly comparable to similar amounts of text devoted to his other views in that section; and it seems well-sourced and neutrally-worded enough that it's hard to see how it could be a BLP violation that would justify immediate removal. --Aquillion (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I support keeping the status quo language for now. As noted in the above section, I support a trim of the Views section, but I don't think wholesale removal is warranted for that particular view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Aquillion:, Regarding your edit summary on the reversal, that actually is EXACTLY how ONUS works despite your belief. I am aware there is currently a discussion about the conflict between ONUS and NOCON, but that has nothing to do with the current revert here. There is already another article where his views are stated, there is currently a discussion (see above) about the views section in this article being too long, and there is nothing stable about that section as I removed it a while ago and it came back. There is also nothing about "stable versions" being allowed to remain when there is a BLP violation. It is not my duty to go to the BLP noticeboard. It is your duty to get consensus if you want it include it. I am also surprised that an experienced editor would edit war to keep material in a BLP that is being disputed. You may not agree with ONUS, but that doesn't allow for adding the content without consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 Your memory is incorrect. Your edit warring history was at Views of Elon Musk to remove "Canada convoy protest", not at Elon Musk. In Elon Musk, "Canada convoy protest" has been long-standing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- A couple of months is not "long-standing". Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie:, Actually, I believe it was both. You will need to look through the history if you want an exact date. Regardless, it is being objected to now and ONUS applies. Also, as a new editor who seems to have a keen interest in editorializing Elon Musk on Wikipedia, I will be blunt and let you know I will not tolerate incivility. Do not accuse me of edit warring. If I have done so, ANI is that way. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I pointed this out below, but just to be sure that it isn't lost: While I object to your interpretation of ONUS, it doesn't really matter because there's a rough consensus to include at this point. --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You first removed "Canada convoy protest" at Elon Musk on 11 May 2022, very recently. I don't think I have been editorializing Elon Musk, just including information that had been omitted and belongs in the article. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's useful to repeat that discussion here (and besides, I'm seeing a consensus to include), so I'll just point out that WP:BLP only imposes the requirement to default to removal for that meets the requirements of WP:BLPREMOVE. Do you assert that that is the case here, and, if so, in what way? Note specifically that believing something is undue is not sufficient - you must assert that there is a problem with the sources or the way we are summarizing them. I don't think that that can reasonably apply here, since they're very straightforward and our wording directly summarizes them. In any case, given that I'm seeing (at this point) at least three people (myself, TechnophilicHippie, and Firefangledfeathers) who think it should be included in some form and only you arguing for complete removal, I think there's a rough consensus to include, so... rather than arguing about process, it would be more useful for you to focus on why you believe it should be completely omitted. As I said, if you want to assert that this is a BLP violation, you'll have to point to the specific part of BLP you feel this text violates. If you just think it's undue, that's not usually a BLP issue outside of truly egregious situations; and in any case if you focus on specific, detailed problems you have with the current sourcing, that will give us something to focus on in terms of answering your objections (eg. finding more / better sources, for whatever definition of "better" reflects your objection; or tweaks that address whatever problems you have with how the current sources are used.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You don't see an editorialization issue?? "which was founded and internationally funded by far-right activists, and associated with the QAnon movement." Why they hell would someone put that there unless they want to try to tell readers that Musk must support QAnon?? That's just the tip of the iceberg. And no, the fact that it was there does not mean ONUS should be ignored. It is a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose that line for sure. To be clear, the version I support (for now) is this one, which Aquillion recently restored. Firefangledfeathers ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]
- @TechnophilicHippie: would you still support inclusion if the line about far-right/QAnon is left out? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Originally, the line about far-right/QAnon wasn't there, but I added it after @CNMall41 first removed "Canada convoy protest" with a comment about "This is not lasting". I interpreted it to mean that they thought the protest was over and no longer relevant, so I added the context about the far-right and QAnon to show how it is still relevant. Later on, Bill Williams removed that line in particular, because they thought the connection between the convoy and the far-right/QAnon was contentious. This indicates that the meaning of "Canada convoy protest" is opaque, and readers will not know the political context of the protest unless it is explained.
- I support inclusion if that line about far-right/QAnon is left out, as that was how it was originally. However, there should be some improvements to be made to that section if editors of Elon Musk are surprised and skeptical that he endorsed a far-right movement. This indicates that the Elon Musk article isn't properly explaining his views. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am also unsure why we are reporting every Tweet this guy ever makes. They are also covered in-depth so should we make a page called "list of Tweets by Elon Musk?" Absolutely not. So why is this one being included? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)]
- I agree that subarticle would be a bad idea. Ideally Views of Elon Musk would include views (not necessarily tweets) that are given weight by reliable sources and this main article would summarize those views. Perhaps we could restore the content to the Views article (removed recently) and discuss how to shorten/summarize here? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, we decide what's important based on what gets coverage, and this has received significant coverage. It doesn't mean we must include it, of course, but I at least think it's enough that it doesn't make sense to treat it as an obvious exclusion. And if I had to guess why his tweets get a lot of coverage, part of it is probably because Twitter was a large part of his branding and identity even before he announced he was going to buy it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, that's a more useful reply. Based on that objection, I've restored the rest and left that fragment out - I agree that it could possibly be WP:SYNTH. You'll have to be more specific about the rest of the iceberg, though, since I'm genuinely not seeing any other problems. But please don't remove the entire section again unless you can actually articulate how every single part of it is unsalvageable - I'm seeing a rough consensus to include in some form here, no real way the rest could be construed to be a BLP violation, and I'm making at least some effort to address your concerns. No matter how strongly you feel it's undue, that's not sufficient to let you just ignore three other editors on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose that line for sure. To be clear, the version I support (for now) is this one, which Aquillion recently restored. Firefangledfeathers ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]
- I think you see discussion towards some type of consensus, but not actually consensus so I guess I can agree that at least it is moving in the right direction. You are correct about SYNTH as well. I would be up to getting rid of the entire section until we come up with a summary for the views that link to his Views of Elon Musk page, but I know others likely will not agree on that. So, I would hope you have the same passion for the discussion above (reducing the views section) as you do about restoring the content specific to the Canada convoy protest. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- You don't see an editorialization issue?? "which was founded and internationally funded by far-right activists, and associated with the QAnon movement." Why they hell would someone put that there unless they want to try to tell readers that Musk must support QAnon?? That's just the tip of the iceberg. And no, the fact that it was there does not mean ONUS should be ignored. It is a BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @CNMall41 Your memory is incorrect. Your edit warring history was at Views of Elon Musk to remove "Canada convoy protest", not at Elon Musk. In Elon Musk, "Canada convoy protest" has been long-standing. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@HAL333: "Canada convoy protest" isn't just about two tweets, but many tweets in support of the protest. Not all his tweets in support of the protest were listed individually, because the subsection is a summary/overview instead of a detailed description. I am not sure if you read the section itself when you removed it, because this and the fact that it's not a "trucker protest" was explained in the subsection text. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Insider Article
Are we going to update the page to include the revelations from the insider article showing that Musk sexually harassed an employee [5], seems very pertinent. His followup statements and the preliminary tweets he made upon finding out the article was coming out should probably also be referenced. Not sure about the procedure on editing articles this prominent so I will wait until someone more knowledgeable on the etiquette can get back to me Lgnj (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- As this is a blp, not from one source no. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Lgnj, you're doing the right thing etiquette wise. Until it's clear that there's consensus here to include the content, it should stay out of the article. As I said in an edit summary, I'm mostly on the fence for now. There's secondary coverage in moderately reliable sources of the "according to Insider" variety. I think it's worthwhile to be cautious and patient. I assume the most reliable sources are working on independently verifying the facts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with a policy stating multiple sources have to report on an issue before sourced info can be added. Can you point to that? Because what is the threshold? Two sources? Three? Seems arbitrary to me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPBALANCE might be said to cover it, this is one view. WP:PUBLICFIGURE might also cover it (as I am unsure "well documents" can apply to one source). Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- The most applicable policy here is WP:ONUS:
"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included ... The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"
. There's also WP:BLPPUBLIC, with"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)- That said, there are a dozen reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation already. There are also articles documenting Musk's responses to the allegations. QRep2020 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clear responses; So should other verifiable sources on the matter not traceable to insider appear corroborating the account in this article, then it can be added to the page? Lgnj (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- A lot depends on what they say, and what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- While the initial article did not have varied RS, Musk has publicly replied to the allegations and Tesla's stock dropped accordingly, both of which have been widely reported in RS, such as CNN; CBS; NPR; The Guardian; and USA Today, among others. I understand the wanting varied sources if we were only including the Insider article, but the fact of the matter is, it's moved beyond that into analysis of Musk's denial and impact on his businesses. I think it now merits inclusion. Kbabej (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- A lot depends on what they say, and what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clear responses; So should other verifiable sources on the matter not traceable to insider appear corroborating the account in this article, then it can be added to the page? Lgnj (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- That said, there are a dozen reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation already. There are also articles documenting Musk's responses to the allegations. QRep2020 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with a policy stating multiple sources have to report on an issue before sourced info can be added. Can you point to that? Because what is the threshold? Two sources? Three? Seems arbitrary to me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Last time I had looked, it was mostly Vox/Verge/Salon-tier sources that were covering it. The entry of ultra-green sources like CNN, NPR, and The Guardian push me over the fence onto the side of inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers, that makes sense with Vox/Verge/Salon/etc. Thanks for the reply. @Slatersteven, what are your thoughts? It seems as if @QRep2020 and @Lgnj are in favor of inclusion from their above comments. With the sensitive nature of sexual misconduct allegations in a BLP, I understand wanting to gain consensus. If you agree at this point, the editors participating in this discussion (up to this point) would be unanimous in wanting to include the material. Kbabej (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "COVID-19 pandemic: Great attemtp to put the information back. Final warning to anyone adding this. its contentious information and per WP:ONUS you need consensuse".
- ^ "Revert again per ONUS. You may not agree with it but it is clearly stated you need consensus".
- ^ "→Views: This was already previously objected to but see that someone reinstated. Yes, ONUS would apply. Consensus will be needed. This is not lasting and we dont report everyt Tweet from this guy or we would need a page 10 times longer".
- ^ "→Views: There you go. No editorializing, states that he supported it (which is his view - exactly what the section is about). No subjeading needed either".
- ^ McHugh, Rich. Insider. Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-paid-250000-to-a-flight-attendant-who-accused-elon-musk-of-sexual-misconduct-2022-5. Retrieved 20 May 2022.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
Update: It looks as if another editor not engaged in this conversation has added the information to the article. As we have a general consensus, I support the information staying in at this point. Feel free to ping me if anything comes up - I will not be watching this page. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
As I seem a lone voice I will not oppose. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The subheading "Sexual misconduct settlement" implies that a sexual misconduct settlement actually took place, which Musk denies. The subheading should be renamed "Sexual misconduct allegation". Headings & subheadings should be based on objective truths. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Sexual assault allegation
There should be a unique section for the sexual assault allegation. As it stands it's just an offhand (literally two short sentences) remark under "Managerial style and treatment of employees". Reality check: sexual assault is far more serious than just being a mean boss. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:D0E7:8869:1B29:1F1E (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that sexual assault is a really big thing which should not be lumbed together with his managing style, but right now it is just an accusation from a somewhat-reliable Business Insider. That dedicated section would be a pretty nasty thing to put on the article if it turns out to be not true, so we should just place it under the "Managerial style and treatment of employees" section and reduce Musk's rebuttal, as it is obvious that Musk would deny the accusations. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with CSC. I'm neutral on whether it should be in the §Managerial,,, section or §Personal life. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- If found guilty by a court, otherwise (even if settled out of court) it remains an allegation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- What sexual assault allegation are you talking about? I can't find any sources claiming there has been an assault. Are you talking about the sexual misconduct allegation by Business Insider? We need to watch what we are claiming on WP and what words we are using, especially with such a highly trafficked BLP and level-5 vital article. As to where the information appears, there's a subsection for the sexual misconduct allegation under the 'Personal life' section. Consensus was gained for the inclusion of the material in a 5/20 discussion (just a section or two above this discussion, if you want to review it). Kbabej (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Excerpt: Sara Nelson, head of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, a flight attendant's union, stated, "Flight attendants are not just another accessory on Musk's little rocket. Musk believes that money gives him the right to do anything that he pleases, regardless of the rights, humanity or protestations of others."
Seems unfair to include Sara Nelson's statement when she has no additional information about the allegations, has never met Musk personally, and is only giving us her own interpretation of the Business Insider article. Nelson's statement is based entirely on hearsay, which is also the basis of the Business Insider article. As written, this section is biased heavily towards the side of the accuser's friend. To provide both more balance and insight, it makes sense to include Gwynne Shotwell's statement, as she is the president of SpaceX, would have direct access to any settlements that her company has made, and has worked with Musk personally for 20 years. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/23/spacex-president-gwynne-shotwell-defends-elon-musk-over-sex-misconduct-allegations.html “Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations,” Shotwell wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.65.88 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP is not a court of law with hearsay standards. The quote from Sara Nelson makes sense in this context. She leads the largest flight attendant union in America and her response to the allegations was covered in RS. --Kbabej (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- You did not comment on my suggestion that Gwynne Shotwell's statement should be included. As I said, she is president of SpaceX, would have direct access to any settlements that her company has made, and has worked with Musk personally for 20 years. Her statement (linked above) is concise and can be added to this section to provide balance & insight. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Shotwell's comment is not an official statement from SpaceX. As for Nelson's comment, it was a statement on behalf of the union as one can tell from the language of it ("we've", etc.): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTPi02MWUAE1QTo?format=jpg&name=large QRep2020 (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- You did not comment on my suggestion that Gwynne Shotwell's statement should be included. As I said, she is president of SpaceX, would have direct access to any settlements that her company has made, and has worked with Musk personally for 20 years. Her statement (linked above) is concise and can be added to this section to provide balance & insight. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Seeming sentence written by heavily pro-contemporary trans rhetoric person
There is a sentence that says that Elon Musks “pronouns suck” tweet was “widely perceived as transphobic” and it cites a very opinionated and not impartial article from the observer.
From a factual perspective this is invalid, the article is not a source providing documentation on public sentiment over the tweet, rather it is merely the opinion of the author.
The sentence should be changed to, “journalist X of the observer considered the post transphobic”, or the sentence should be deleted. Julkhamil (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The assessment of the tweet being transphobic is actually from two sources which are both listed as green-level RS at WP:RSP, not opinion pieces. What evidence do you have that “From a factual perspective this is invalid…”? The article is the source, and The Hill uses a lot of info to come to that conclusion. Kbabej (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Kbabej: sorry for not following up here. I pulled out the Observer opinion piece that Julkhamil referred to and replaced it with the two reliable sources in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs)
- @Firefangledfeathers: Ahhh that makes sense! Thanks for the clarification. --Kbabej (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Kbabej: sorry for not following up here. I pulled out the Observer opinion piece that Julkhamil referred to and replaced it with the two reliable sources in this edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs)
- Mr Musk is a contemporary person, so he can be judged by today's standards. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Racial discrimination lawsuits
The sources we're using in §Racial discrimination lawsuits either don't mention Musk at all (NPR) or mention him in passing (Time, LA Times, The Guardian). Is there more coverage out there of Musk's role in the suits or the company behavior that led to them? If not, we should cut the section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It should be cut or merged into Tesla,_Inc.#Racism. None of the reports of racial discrimination involve Musk directly. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I second that it should be cut or moved to the Tesla article. It seems to imply Musk is directly involved in the racial discrimination rather than an ongoing issue at a company he heads. Kbabej (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Third. Seems out of place. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
SpaceX executive defends Elon Musk against misconduct accusations. Add the statement from the president of Spacex.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/technology/spacex-elon-musk.html
Read Ms. Shotwell’s email to employees below:
SpaceX team-
I want to directly address the story that mentions our company and CEO with serious allegations. Let me be clear — SpaceX does not tolerate harassment of any kind — I am saying ZERO tolerance. We firmly believe everyone at SpaceX deserves to be treated with respect. And every accusation of harassment is taken very seriously, regardless of who is involved. HR thoroughly investigates all claims that are brought to their attention and takes appropriate disciplinary action. If you have any questions or concerns about this policy or our workplace, please reach out to me, your manager or your HR rep.
Admittedly this is a difficult topic to navigate. It’s natural to have questions and to want definitive answer. For privacy reasons I will never comment on any legal matters involving employment issues. However, what I can share is that Elon has made a public statement via Twitter that the allegations are utterly untrue. Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations. Anyone who knows Elon like I do, knows he would never conduct or condone this alleged inappropriate behavior.
I believe SpaceX is an extraordinary place to work because of you. And I remain committed to ensuring it’s a place where all employees can do their best work.
--JShark (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- It would be undue to add an entire statement in response to these allegations. And of course his company and his employee are going to say the allegations are false. "Well [s]he would, wouldn't [s]he?" - Mandy Rice-Davies. Kbabej (talk) 21:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Spacex was also accused and the most senior executive has a right to answer about these accusations. She is a woman and president of the accused company and therefore also has the right to speak about these accusations. Why can the friend of the alleged flight attendant make accusations and the president of the accused company cannot speak about what happened? --JShark (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course SpaceX has the "right" to respond to the allegations, which they have. No one is stopping that, or saying that they shouldn't. I think you are conflating the "right" of responding (a First amendment issue) with WP regurgitating the press release/memo. Those are not the same issues. Musks's companies, and those employees, have an inherent conflict of interest in responding, and WP should be balanced in its coverage and sourcing. Kbabej (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- To say that the president of SpaceX has a conflict of interest without hard evidence is far-fetched. Gwynne Shotwell as the president of the company and a representative authorized to speak on behalf of the company has the right to speak about these allegations. I'm also saying that the part where she talks about Musk be included. I'm not talking about all the content of the email. --JShark (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you cannot understand why their relationship as his employee wouldn't be an inherent conflict of interest, we likely will not agree on this issue. Again, if you get consensus for your proposals, great, but adding a statement from one of Musk's employees will almost certainly be reverted by other editors. The helpful suggestion I'm trying to make: gain consensus for the info you want added, then expand from there. This is a level 5 vital article, with over 2,000 page watchers and over 100,000 views a day. A string of tweets and his employee's opinions are not likely to be accepted to a BLP. And, as always - those are my thoughts and I'm not the arbiter this article. Kbabej (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I do not agree with that of the conflict of interest since Gwynne Shotwell is the legal representative of the company to speak about these accusations and therefore her email should be taken into account only because she is her authorized representative to speak about the matter and the only executive of the company that has dealt with the matter. If the testimonies of a person's friend without a name are taken into account, why do we not take into account the statements of the president of SpaceX?. --JShark (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you want to include the statement of a person who says the words little rocket in reference to Musk's private parts and not the statements of the SpaceX legal representative? --JShark (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/union-blasts-musk-misconduct-allegation-flight-attendants-are-not-just-rcna29863 "Musk's little rocket"". That sentence doesn't sound like a serious statement. Instead it sounds like a joke about the size of Musk's penis. --JShark (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- When someone uses the words "Musk" and "rocket" in the same sentence, I think that very few people will be thinking about his penis. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Flight attendants are not just another accessory on Musk’s little rocket," Nelson said. She talks about the little rocket and she doesn't say the word plane. --JShark (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Flight attendants are also used on SpaceX rocket flights? --JShark (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- When someone uses the words "Musk" and "rocket" in the same sentence, I think that very few people will be thinking about his penis. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Second the thoughts expressed above. QRep2020 (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- QRep2020 I also remember that you were blocked from editing this article and I really don't trust you. I look forward to input from editors who have never been blocked from editing the article about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with @JShark on this matter. Shotwell's quote adds actual insight into the credibility of the allegations. In contrast, Sara Nelson's statement is simply a regurgitation of the Business Insider article, and frankly a waste of space. Nelson has never met Musk nor the flight attendant involved, and she has no additional insight on this matter other than what is publicly available to us all. If you want to include both Nelson's & Shotwell's statements, fine. But, choosing to include Nelson's statement without Shotwell's statement is clearly an unbalanced and unfair decision. Specifically, this is the concise Gwynne Shotwell quote that should be included:
- “Personally, I believe the allegations to be false; not because I work for Elon, but because I have worked closely with him for 20 years and never seen nor heard anything resembling these allegations,” Shotwell wrote. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you cannot understand why their relationship as his employee wouldn't be an inherent conflict of interest, we likely will not agree on this issue. Again, if you get consensus for your proposals, great, but adding a statement from one of Musk's employees will almost certainly be reverted by other editors. The helpful suggestion I'm trying to make: gain consensus for the info you want added, then expand from there. This is a level 5 vital article, with over 2,000 page watchers and over 100,000 views a day. A string of tweets and his employee's opinions are not likely to be accepted to a BLP. And, as always - those are my thoughts and I'm not the arbiter this article. Kbabej (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- To say that the president of SpaceX has a conflict of interest without hard evidence is far-fetched. Gwynne Shotwell as the president of the company and a representative authorized to speak on behalf of the company has the right to speak about these allegations. I'm also saying that the part where she talks about Musk be included. I'm not talking about all the content of the email. --JShark (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Of course SpaceX has the "right" to respond to the allegations, which they have. No one is stopping that, or saying that they shouldn't. I think you are conflating the "right" of responding (a First amendment issue) with WP regurgitating the press release/memo. Those are not the same issues. Musks's companies, and those employees, have an inherent conflict of interest in responding, and WP should be balanced in its coverage and sourcing. Kbabej (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Spacex was also accused and the most senior executive has a right to answer about these accusations. She is a woman and president of the accused company and therefore also has the right to speak about these accusations. Why can the friend of the alleged flight attendant make accusations and the president of the accused company cannot speak about what happened? --JShark (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, because it is formulaic HR spam that almost sounds like it is from a generic HR email template that is brought out whoever employees complain about any workplace issue; it doesn't add any information. The president of SpaceX has a conflict of interest, because Musk is her boss and pays her salary and controls her livelihood. It doesn't matter that she's a woman. HR people are mostly women and often send out these type of emails against employee complaints. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you saying that SpaceX employees cannot speak or think for themselves? I do not see in that email any kind of conflict of interest. She speaks not only as an employee but as a person who has known him for a long time. Apparently only those who have never met or talked to him can talk about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- One can make the argument that Sara Nelson, who was named co-chair of the Economy Task Force formed by Joe Biden to create a unity platform for the Democratic Party, also has a conflict of interest as Musk has recently publicly voiced concerns about the the Biden administration. It seems to me that Nelson is supporting these sexual misconduct allegations not based on any factual evidence, but because she has a political axe to grind.
- If you say Shotwell's statement doesn't add any information, I strongly argue the same for Nelson's statement. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do not include Shotwell's comments in the article but include Nelson's comments on Musk's penis and that shows many readers little impartiality. Just like taking the so-called TITS university too seriously. As soon as one reads such nonsense as that in this article you stop believing in the impartiality of the article. --JShark (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't necessarily agree with you on the penis euphemism. However, we seem to agree on the points that Sara Nelson a) has a conflict of interest b) does not have anything insightful to add, as she has never met Musk nor the flight attendant involved.
- Authors should either add Shotwell's statement for balance, or remove Nelson's statement entirely. 71.247.65.88 (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also the university with the acronym TITS is terrible but the small penis is not terrible or rather Musk's little rocket. The culture of cancellation is reaching an extreme for some and not for others. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I want to say is the following: This article could stop looking like a nest of nonsense (university TITS in a person's bio) and could be a cohesive, unbiased article that doesn't look like an edit war all the time. Reading this article about Elon Musk makes me want to throw up because of how terribly bad the article is. The reading is without logic and without meaning. --JShark (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also the university with the acronym TITS is terrible but the small penis is not terrible or rather Musk's little rocket. The culture of cancellation is reaching an extreme for some and not for others. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you. --JShark (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Do not include Shotwell's comments in the article but include Nelson's comments on Musk's penis and that shows many readers little impartiality. Just like taking the so-called TITS university too seriously. As soon as one reads such nonsense as that in this article you stop believing in the impartiality of the article. --JShark (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Add all of Musk's tweets to better understand his response to the accusations. Elon Musk says he doesn't use flight attendants. Virtual interview posted to YouTube on May 16 (voting intentions).
1. In a response to a tweet about the email, Musk said he doesn't use a flight attendant.
"Astute observers of my plane (and there many) will note that I don’t use a flight attendant," he wrote. "Moreover, only fruit & nuts are stocked on the plane. I use flights as an opportunity to fast." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1528872338866860032
2. "I have a challenge to this liar who claims their friend saw me 'exposed' -- describe just one thing, anything at all (scars, tattoos, ...) that isn't known by the public. She won't be able to do so, because it never happened," the Tesla and SpaceX CEO tweeted early Friday morning. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527505449905528846
3. "Did you actually respond to the reporters from BI?" one user tweeted at Musk. "No," Musk responded, "it was clear that their only goal was a hit price (sic) to interfere with the Twitter acquisition. The story was written before they even talked to me." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527519328245059592?s=20&t=4xf39uzpstCd5OuoGNaT_g
4. "They began brewing attacks of all kinds as soon as the Twitter acquisition was announced," Musk added in a separate tweet. "In my 30 year career, including the entire MeToo era, there's nothing to report, but, as soon as I say I intend to restore free speech to Twitter & vote Republican, suddenly there is." https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527629698267615232?s=20&t=4xf39uzpstCd5OuoGNaT_g
5. Musk's tweet declaring his voting intentions was posted at 2:44 pm ET on Wednesday (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1526997132858822658?s=20&t=T1He7N1hzTOU0oCG7Hsluw), though he also made comments to that effect in a virtual interview posted to YouTube on May 16 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=CnxzrX9tNoc). --JShark (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @JShark. WP would not use Musk's tweets about such a controversial issue. Please review WP:RSPTWITTER on WP:RSP, which states tweets can be used from a verified source for "uncontroversial self-description" (ie: birthdays or whatnot). These tweets fall well outside uncontroversial self description IMO. Kbabej (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Has no sense. Since in these tweets he defends himself from the accusations including this other tweet widely cited by many publications (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527496917579612161 And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue). In fact all these tweets were quoted by the press.--JShark (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- On wikipedia in fact the editors quoted the part that says wild. --JShark (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- His denial of the accusations has already been included. Are you actually asking for a blow-by-blow quote of every tweet to be listed on WP? That isn't what WP is. The allegation (which also doesn't have details of the allegation included) is covered, as is Musk's denial, as well as how it has affected Musk's businesses and personal fortune. A WP article is not an indiscriminate collection of every piece of information having to do with an event. I'm also confused that you can unequivocally say "those wild accusations are utterly untrue". It sounds like you have an agenda to push having to do with this subject instead of looking at what RS are saying on the subject. Kbabej (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're accusing me without proof of having an agenda. I am only talking about what Mr. Musk wrote about those accusations and there are tweets with important information that are not taken into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.). --JShark (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize. I thought your bolded quote ("And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue") was your summary of the situation, not a quote from Musk. I should have not read it as quickly. I stand by not including every tweet Musk fires off. Of course, I am only one editor, so if others come to a consensus it should be included then it should be added. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the consensus of the editors. I think there is important information in those tweets that has not been covered in the article. --JShark (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no consensus at the moment. You raised the issue, and the only editor to respond (me) does not agree with their addition. So you actually do not have a consensus by any measure at this point. Kbabej (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the consensus of the editors. I think there is important information in those tweets that has not been covered in the article. --JShark (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I apologize. I thought your bolded quote ("And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue") was your summary of the situation, not a quote from Musk. I should have not read it as quickly. I stand by not including every tweet Musk fires off. Of course, I am only one editor, so if others come to a consensus it should be included then it should be added. Kbabej (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're accusing me without proof of having an agenda. I am only talking about what Mr. Musk wrote about those accusations and there are tweets with important information that are not taken into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith (Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.). --JShark (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- His denial of the accusations has already been included. Are you actually asking for a blow-by-blow quote of every tweet to be listed on WP? That isn't what WP is. The allegation (which also doesn't have details of the allegation included) is covered, as is Musk's denial, as well as how it has affected Musk's businesses and personal fortune. A WP article is not an indiscriminate collection of every piece of information having to do with an event. I'm also confused that you can unequivocally say "those wild accusations are utterly untrue". It sounds like you have an agenda to push having to do with this subject instead of looking at what RS are saying on the subject. Kbabej (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- These are all self-published sources, by the subject themselves, and are therefore not independent and should not be used directly. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Has no sense. Since in these tweets he defends himself from the accusations including this other tweet widely cited by many publications (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1527496917579612161 And, for the record, those wild accusations are utterly untrue). In fact all these tweets were quoted by the press.
- On wikipedia in fact the editors quoted the part that says wild. --JShark (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/elon-musk-sexual-harassment-denies-allegations/index.html Those tweets are quoted in the following journalistic publication. --JShark (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/20/musk-denies-wild-accusations-against-him-in-apparent-reference-to-harassment-report.html Those tweets are quoted in the following journalistic publication. --JShark (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Stock shares of all companies have fallen. We are in bear market. Associating the fall in shares to that (accusations against Musk) without convincing evidence is not credible. --JShark (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Tesla Stock Losses Top $575 Billion As 'Investor Patience Wears Thin' With Elon Musk's Twitter ‘Circus Show’. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanponciano/2022/05/24/tesla-stock-losses-top-575-billion-as-investor-patience-wears-thin-with-elon-musks-twitter-circus-show/?sh=53b4d3a77170 There are many other factors such as the company's production in China and the closure of its factory. The accusations against Musk have no credible relevance unlike car production in China. Prompting the steep decline, Daiwa analyst Jairam Nathan lowered his price target for Tesla shares to $800 from $1,150—telling clients Covid lockdowns in Shanghai, where the electric-vehicle maker operates its so-called Gigafactory, as well as supply issues impacting its Austin and Berlin plants, will cut deeper into earnings than previously expected. --JShark (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- We have been over this. The article is relating information as it has been presented notably in reliable independent third-party sources. It is not a depository for talking points from Tesla influencers. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- QRep2020 The source is Forbes. I also remember that you were blocked from editing this article and I really don't trust you. I look forward to input from editors who have never been blocked from editing the article about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Forbes article is not about the relation between the allegations of Musk's misconduct and the fall of Tesla's share price. Besides, the original text - which you removed before opening this discussion despite the usual practice of BRD - does not state that the fall of share price was exclusively because of the allegations.
- Here, let me take a page from your book: Firstly, that no longer matters as I have been unblocked. Secondly, you do not control the discussion here so whether or not you "trust" me is irrelevant. QRep2020 (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- JShark, you plagiarized content from a Tesla press release. Take your moral grandstanding elsewhere. Schierbecker (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- QRep2020 The source is Forbes. I also remember that you were blocked from editing this article and I really don't trust you. I look forward to input from editors who have never been blocked from editing the article about Elon Musk. --JShark (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The harassment allegation was made public by Business Insider on May 19. According to the cited MarketWatch report, Tesla stock was already dropping the day before that and continued to fall for two more days, with several other things going on around Musk. In the absence of any other information, any association between the two events is speculation and innuendo. I would favor removal of the stock decline from the harassment allegation section, as irrelevant to the topic. Neither the MarketWatch source nor the Barron's source presents "information" on this point other than coincidence. (The quote from the Barron's article is substantiated there only with an analyst remark from April, and another analyst remark referring to Twitter-related "distraction risks.") 67.180.143.89 (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
#MeToo allegation
MeTooAllegation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.2.54 (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- See Elon Musk#Sexual misconduct settlement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Political Beliefs
Should we add his political beliefs—or, narrowly speaking, his political party membership?[1] Conservative Alabamian (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Conservative Alabamian, there's an entire article on Views of Elon Musk with a very large political subsection. Hope that helps! --Kbabej (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
References
Mental health section blanked
I've reverted the inexplicable blanking of the mental health section, which discusses Musk's own self-disclosed Aspergers diagnosis and anxiety. Please discuss here before making such destructive edits. Schierbecker (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Commentary about father
I've removed Musk's comment about his father being a "terrible human being", as it caused another bit to be added about his parenting style as reported by Errol Musk as an attempt to neutralize the quote. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If someone is going to make a contentious comment about an alive parent that ends up in their biography, that parent has every right to state their own side of the story. That's what neutrality is. Trillfendi (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why the solution was to simply remove the contentious comment, rather than add something undue. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Caption on Tham Luang cave rescue image
This was updated and then reverted, and then reverted back to HAL333's preferred version. This image is from Tham Luang cave rescue and is described as an image from a newscast. There is no indication that any equipment pictured is Musk's device in the photo's description, nor in the newscast. If it is pictured, it is impossible to discern which orange part of the photo might be Musk's submarine in the thumbnail. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Tham Luang cave rescue is pictured.... The minisubmarine is not pictured, hence the fact that "(pictured)" is not placed after minisubmarine. ~ HAL333 01:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I suppose most people will probably understand your clarifier. Thanks for explaining. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries :) ~ HAL333 01:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333: How do you feel about the overall neutrality of the article? There has been much discussion regarding that. Welcome back by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- This article will always have an anti-Musk bent, because that's how most reliable sources approach him. There's nothing wrong with that—that's how Wikipedia works. Yet, there is a little bit too much of "Musk did X. Person Y says this is bad." But that's more of an undue weight problem. Thousands and thousands of people have published works or issued statements against Musk and we shouldn't indiscriminately mention random ones. On the other side, some of the recent pushes for neutrality seem to have created false balance. There are places where we have "Person X says this is bad, but person Y says it is good", even when most RS and credible figures have the same view as X. ~ HAL333 19:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @HAL333: How do you feel about the overall neutrality of the article? There has been much discussion regarding that. Welcome back by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- No worries :) ~ HAL333 01:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, I suppose most people will probably understand your clarifier. Thanks for explaining. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Issue of undue weight with views section
Musk has made about 5000 tweets and a good portion of those have been covered RS. We can't feasibly cover every single Elon Musk shitpost. It's undue weight to include entire sections on relatively minor tweets—like the two regarding the Canada convoy—when we don't include similar tweets from Musk. ~ HAL333 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there are too many Musk shitpost tweets, but in the modern age, Musk's tweets are greatly influential, changing stock and cryptocurrency values, and spreading science misinformation. Musk giving an interview to the Babylon Bee probably has less influence than his tweets, despite interviews being more of a traditional platform for famous people. Controversies at least should be included, not random shitposts like wanting to be called a "business magnet". TechnophilicHippie (talk) TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Controversies at least should be included
With Musk, there's a minor controversy nearly every day. We can't have a subsection for each one, and to give a relatively trivial Musk view an entire subsection is ridiculous and clearly undue weight. What makes two off-hand tweets from Musk about a trucker protest in Canada as notable as his views on climate change or COVID-19 or politics as a whole (all of which have received exponentially more coverage over a much more extended period of time and appropriately have their own section? ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- It was not a "trucker protest" in Canada. The Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Ontario Trucking Association (OTA) both came out against the convoy, saying 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The protest was endorsed by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. If it was a trucker protest, it wouldn't be notable. It's notable because it was a far-right extremist movement associated with QAnon, and there were elements trying to overthrow the democratically elected Canadian government. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Anyway, it doesn't make sense to create a new section to discuss the same thing when Talk:Elon Musk#Canada convoy protest already exists with a rough consensus to keep. It's like rebooting to get a different outcome from what previous editors already decided. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 09:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I do not oppose mentioning Musk's Hitler comment (as it is especially egregious), hence the fact that I did not remove its mention in the Twitter section. There is no need to have it duplicated. ~ HAL333 02:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Views section: What to include and exclude
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to educate the reader on the topic, including controversies. Controversial views are more notable than uncontroversial views, because it indicates that people are discussing the topic. Thus, to achieve WP:NPOV balance, controversial views should be included in the Elon Musk "Views" section.
One of the main reasons I came back to edit Elon Musk was because I found that people on the internet are very divided on Musk. One group of people who follow Musk's tweets or (critical) reports of his tweets have one impression of Musk, while another group who think of Musk as only the one who makes electric cars and rockets don't understand why Musk is a controversial figure. Clearly, different groups of people follow different news sources, and Musk's Wikipedia article should give an overview that takes into account what other people outside of your circle/silo/echo chamber are talking about, so that a person who is unfamiliar with Musk can read his Wikipedia article and not make ignorant statements, such as suggesting that those who oppose him must be jealous of his wealth, because Musk has done nothing but good things.
This means that "I have never heard of this topic or tweet, so it's undue weight" is a subjective, and we should use more objective criteria, such as whether it is discussed in multiple secondary sources. Even if you are someone who wants to defend Musk, you should at least be aware of the criticisms and controversies surrounding Musk, so that you are prepared when debating someone whose position is that Musk is an a-hole, who follows mainstream news sources that tend to be critical of Musk. Even if it's a one-off tweet, it's notable because it's controversial and covered in multiple news sources. I'm assuming some editors disagree with including Musk's "Hitler" tweet and "TITS" tweet, because Musk likely spent no more than 10 seconds thinking about the former and no more than 10 minutes thinking about the latter (to come up with the "clever" acronym), and the objection is whether or not this is Musk's persistent "view" or a controversy covered by the media. If this is what the issue is, then the objection is more about the section being called "Views" instead of a different name. However, to achieve NPOV balance on Elon Musk, these should still be included, because they are controversies covered by the media. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- NPOV requires that we present material proportionately in regards to its coverage in reliable sources. Subsections should cover Musk's views that have receieved significant coverage over an extended period of time. Like his tweets about aliens building the pyramids or Bill Gates being an erection-killer, Musk's support of Canadian truckers has not received longlasting coverage. It is not on the scale of his COVID or climate change stances. ~ HAL333 02:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Musk wasn't supporting "Canadian truckers", but rather a far-right movement also supported by Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan. 90 per cent of cross-border truckers are vaccinated, and trucking organizations were against the protest. The protest was founded by far-right activists (including white supremacists flying Swastika and Confederate flags) and associated with QAnon. The perception that this was about supporting Canadian truckers was intentional misinformation from the convoy protest organizers, and the majority of actual truckers were against it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. Controversy material should only be included if it raised a big response or had a long-reaching influence, like how his comments about us living in base reality being one in a billion was retorted by an scientist in a noteworthy discussion organized in response. QRep2020 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I do think the Public Transportation subsection deserves to be reintroduced. QRep2020 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- HAL333 removed all of the views with critical responses/backlash from Views, so a lot more than that should be restored for NPOV. However, I was informed that I would be blocked for edit warring if I continued reverting. I was unable to read your sources regarding his simulation view because of a nag pop up, but I didn't think I was stopping you from adding criticism if there are reliable sources. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am on a self-prescribed break from editing the Elon Musk article until mid-July. If nothing about that particular part has changed by then, I will probably take another crack at it. QRep2020 (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a fair characterization. HAL333 moved them to Views of Elon Musk, which is not the same as removal. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Each article by itself should be balanced and not require another article to be balanced between them. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not true. There is still plenty of criticism of Musk in the COVID, Technology, Finance, etc. sections. Stop spouting crap. ~ HAL333 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- All right. You removed statements from specific people or groups demanding an apology. I thought the COVID section was just a description of what he said and did, but there is the one specific criticism from Politico. In the Finance section, there is the specific criticism from Nouriel Roubini. I subconsciously ignored Zuckerberg's criticism because I don't care about what he says, but it is there. I thought there was only the Finance criticism left, but there were actually two others. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- And now the public transportation content has been removed. Can we please give it back its own sub-subsection? QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- HAL333 removed all of the views with critical responses/backlash from Views, so a lot more than that should be restored for NPOV. However, I was informed that I would be blocked for edit warring if I continued reverting. I was unable to read your sources regarding his simulation view because of a nag pop up, but I didn't think I was stopping you from adding criticism if there are reliable sources. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That said, I do think the Public Transportation subsection deserves to be reintroduced. QRep2020 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Imo these should be mostly summarized and moved to Views of Elon Musk. The section feels overlong and undue weight as it is. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- The Views section is not that long, but the "feels long" is probably because of subsections instead of Views being one big wall of text, which only makes the table of contents longer. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it feels overlong because it is a disproportionally large part of this article to the point where splitting it off into its own makes sense. It makes sense to then summarize these views, mentioning the most egregious, and encourage readers to read more detail in the split article. I do not understand why this is contentious. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, we have to cover his views in a concise and condense manner or else we'll run into undue weight issues. ~ HAL333 03:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, it feels overlong because it is a disproportionally large part of this article to the point where splitting it off into its own makes sense. It makes sense to then summarize these views, mentioning the most egregious, and encourage readers to read more detail in the split article. I do not understand why this is contentious. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Bullying claims
"Musk was bullied throughout his childhood and was once hospitalized after a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs after Elon made hurtful comments about a schoolmate's father's suicide."
This contradictory sentence is cited to Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, the Rolling Stone and an AFP article in Yahoo from just this Wednesday. Assuming the AFP article isn't talking about a different incident, Musk's father makes it sound like Musk was the primary aggressor. (The Rolling Stone article does not mention the stairs incident.) Needs to be reworded. Schierbecker (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's possible that Musk was bullied at school (unfortunately, plenty of children get bullied). It seems that the stairs incident either wasn't part of the bullying, or Musk made some offensive comments in response to bullying, which concluded in him getting pushed down the stairs. I doubt that he got pushed twice. BeŻet (talk) 10:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The second possibility you mentioned crossed my mind as well. Schierbecker (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet I removed your edit given that first of all it is at least second hand (and maybe third hand) information from Errol that he heard from someone else (who may have heard from someone else again), not something he heard from Elon directly and secondly Errol and Elon are estranged so anything Errol says must be put in that context rather than trusted outright. If you want to add it back in, please put it in that context. Ergzay (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources and neutrality
There is a user that has been heavily editing this page inserting information from dubious sources with an explicit biased intention to modify the page to discredit Elon Musk. This user is heavily biased. Quoting from their user page "Recently, my edits have been focused on countering misinformation that Elon Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject." I think something should be done about this as otherwise the page will become full of meaningless andecodes and character assassination on minor issues inflated into large issues. Ergzay (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- then report at wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Users are allowed to have focused editing goals. The fact that TehnophiliicHippie has 100+ edits on COVID-19 and N95 masks before editing the Elon Musk article kind of flies in the face of an SPA. Regardless, Slatersteven is right that this is not the proper forum for such discussion, a matter some editors easily forget about. QRep2020 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by dubious sources? I am using "green" reliable sources. Please point to something specific. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Saying that Musk is political isn't discrediting Musk. It is true. Musk is political, because he makes political statements. Saying that Musk is isn't objective and isn't "a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject" isn't discrediting him, unless you think Musk is god-like and smarter than everyone else in the world. I would argue that the idea that Musk should overrule scientists who specialize in the field itself is "heavily biased". Do you think Musk is apolitical, objective, and a reliable source of science information whose position should overrule scientists who specialize in the subject, and anyone who denies this is heavily biased? Is my statement even controversial to anyone who doesn't think Musk is God? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Whether people's views on Elon Musk belong on this page
This page is about Elon Musk, not what everyone else thinks of Elon Musk. In sections where his viewpoints are given, a brief summary of criticism is valid but opinions of the form "I don't like Elon Musk" or "Elon Musk is dumb" (but said in more words) are not relevant for the page (or frankly anywhere on Wikipedia). Ergzay (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've said this before but take a look at Jeff Bezos and then compare it to Musks. The anti Musk edits is getting out of hand. Warbayx (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most CEOs keep quiet and don't give their opinions on all kinds of topics unrelated to their company, so they are less likely to say wrong things about topics they don't understand. In general, people who are very vocal are going to be criticized for what they say by experts a lot more than people who keep quiet and rarely say anything publicly. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- True but that does not mean all that criticisms of what Musks says belong on wikipedia. You will always have people criticizing you when you're a popular figure. Warbayx (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but when Musk is spreading misinformation or encouraging discriminatory behavior among humans, it is worth noting and becomes notable. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- True but that does not mean all that criticisms of what Musks says belong on wikipedia. You will always have people criticizing you when you're a popular figure. Warbayx (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Most CEOs keep quiet and don't give their opinions on all kinds of topics unrelated to their company, so they are less likely to say wrong things about topics they don't understand. In general, people who are very vocal are going to be criticized for what they say by experts a lot more than people who keep quiet and rarely say anything publicly. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why? almost (all?) of our biographical articles contain sections about image and reputation, why not Musk's? Here is Bezos [[2]]. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Seconding position. QRep2020 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Bezos frost page is not dedicated to criticisms though. How long do you need to scroll down to see any criticisms? pretty far. Warbayx (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because almost the entire article seems dedicated to adding criticism to every single section of anything he's ever done. Ergzay (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- People aren't saying "Elon Musk is dumb". AI experts are basically saying, "Elon Musk is dumb when he's talking about AI, because he doesn't know what he's talking about." This is important information, especially for some members of the general public who might mistakenly think that Musk is a reliable source of information on the capabilities of AI. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Problem is you can always find an expert who disagree with another expert. The sources provided only mentions two experts from Facebook a company Musk often criticize. Rest of the sources provided is not reliable. Warbayx (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- What sources specifically are not reliable? The sources summarize the AI community's poor opinion of Musk, and Wikipedia is just supposed to say what the sources say. You might be able to find an expert that disagrees with another expert in general, but Musk evidently doesn't even have a basic understanding of the topic that all AI experts would share as a common ground, if he is worried about AI as an upcoming existential threat. For some reason, you are convinced that Musk must have some AI expertise without evidence. If a guy knows about both electric cars and rockets, it does not follow that he knows about the entirety of human knowledge. The fact that he is a billionaire also does not imply that he more knowledgeable than everyone else. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a critique of his opinions on AI. It's just a statement that they don't like Elon Musk. They made no statement of WHY Elon's thoughts on the matter are incorrect. If they did we can include that. What they did write that you quoted was very clearly of the form "Elon Musk is dumb". Ergzay (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Problem is you can always find an expert who disagree with another expert. The sources provided only mentions two experts from Facebook a company Musk often criticize. Rest of the sources provided is not reliable. Warbayx (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding @Ergzay:'s edit →Technology: Revert direct quotes. Summarizing opinions of others is all that's needed, directly quoting is NPOV. Direct quotes of their views on Elon Musk should go on their own pages—which I take be claiming that directly quoting AI experts' criticisms reduces the neutrality of the Elon Musk article—I would argue that it is the opposite. Criticisms need to be included to achieve a neutral point of view. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, Ergzay was not removing the criticism: just making it concise. Beyond the undue weight issues, it's awkward and lazy to have quotes every 2 lines. ~ HAL333 04:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the reason they provided in their edit, and you know it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie I made that edit because their opinions amounted to "I don't like Musk". To be frank they shouldn't even be in the section. They were not responses to Elon's critique of AI, they were just ridicule. Also I can't include it in the article because it's a personal anecdote but my own father was a researcher in AI in the in the 80s and became disillusioned with it because of the horrendous ways it can be (and was being) used to harm people and I grew up hearing a lot of attacks on it and then Elon comes along and says the exact same things. His statements are not wild and out of the norm. They are common and we should factor in the bias of scientists employed in leadership positions at large corporations who's future careers depend on critque not being allowed. None of this is wikipedia level but it's something I consider when curating how people are quoted. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, AI can be used to harm people, such as AI used to kill in war and AI bias (learning based on a biased data set causing discriminatory outcomes), but Musk wasn't talking about those legitimate threats, but rather an existential threat to humankind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie The negatives of AI also include over-profiling where private information is predicted from public information. Sci-fi likes to call that concept "pre-crime". Those existential threats are those same local effects translated into the future as more and more aspects of the control of such negative effects are handed over to automated systems. Ergzay (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Cue the Schubert. ~ HAL333 03:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie The negatives of AI also include over-profiling where private information is predicted from public information. Sci-fi likes to call that concept "pre-crime". Those existential threats are those same local effects translated into the future as more and more aspects of the control of such negative effects are handed over to automated systems. Ergzay (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, AI can be used to harm people, such as AI used to kill in war and AI bias (learning based on a biased data set causing discriminatory outcomes), but Musk wasn't talking about those legitimate threats, but rather an existential threat to humankind. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TechnophilicHippie I made that edit because their opinions amounted to "I don't like Musk". To be frank they shouldn't even be in the section. They were not responses to Elon's critique of AI, they were just ridicule. Also I can't include it in the article because it's a personal anecdote but my own father was a researcher in AI in the in the 80s and became disillusioned with it because of the horrendous ways it can be (and was being) used to harm people and I grew up hearing a lot of attacks on it and then Elon comes along and says the exact same things. His statements are not wild and out of the norm. They are common and we should factor in the bias of scientists employed in leadership positions at large corporations who's future careers depend on critque not being allowed. None of this is wikipedia level but it's something I consider when curating how people are quoted. Ergzay (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- That was not the reason they provided in their edit, and you know it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Sources needed offering praise for Musk to counteract the criticism
This article has basically two types of content. 1. Basic dry facts about what Musk has done and what he's said. and 2. Personal criticism anecdotes added from numerous outside people with histories of attacking Musk publicly. People need to be adding more "personal praise anecdotes" to counteract such criticism and maintain a balanced article. For example there's a section on criticism of his management style, but I've read numerous articles years ago that I remember praising his management style, but none of those are in this article. We need more of such things. Were they lost over time as people removed them but people missed reverting them? Ergzay (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- We don't need to artificially balance an article out. If most sources criticise Musk's managerial style, then we include that. If you have a source with examples of praising his managerial style, by all means please include them. BeŻet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet There is a selection bias going on because of current recent events that is causing oversubmission of historical details. The article shouldn't be a random collection of every single person's opinions on Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The vast majority of the sources for the managerial style subsection are not even from this year. QRep2020 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Second. QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @BeŻet There is a selection bias going on because of current recent events that is causing oversubmission of historical details. The article shouldn't be a random collection of every single person's opinions on Elon Musk. Ergzay (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Issues with the Views -> Politics section of the article
The section of the article has become completely dedicated to recent events and doesn't contain any of the historical information on what his views in general are and have been. For example I picked a random old version of the article and this politics section covers a much wider breadth of topics than the very narrow breadth of the current article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&oldid=1025661986#Politics
I propose wholesale bringing back this version of the section with a slight modification to include most of the current section reduced down to a couple sentences. Ergzay (talk) 09:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just overhauled it. Hopefully that's a little better. ~ HAL333 15:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Out of context quoting
I've noticed a lot of sources seem to quote Elon Musk out of context and even though they are direct quotes they miss the context in which he said things causing the source themselves to misunderstand the topic. What's the best way to handle these types of information in the article? People just revert the change when I try to clarify the quote with context. It's made worse by what seems to have been a mass replacement of direct links to his comments to said incorrect re-interpretations of what he said so it leaves the user having to click through several sources when verifying to find out the original source was quoted incorrectly. (This is common for example in almost every business insider/engaget/gawker/etc article included in this page.) Ergzay (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Such as? QRep2020 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the recent change log with back and forth reverting by Firefangledfeathers for one example. Ergzay (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the cited secondary sources have it wrong, or are missing context, we should find better secondary sources. If the article's summary of the secondary source is misleading, we should change the article to better match. But we should definitely not be pulling out secondary sources and replacing them with our own analysis of primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm using primary sources, directly from the interview. There is no better source of truth than the words of the man himself. You don't need secondary sources for this kind of thing. It's not "my own analysis" it's the analysis of anyone who isn't interested in clickbait money making from spreading incorrect information that spreads a narrative. Elon Musk has never been "anti-vaccine" for the general populace. In fact he later got it himself. He (very correctly given information at that time) that younger adults and children with no pre-existing health concerns were at low risk for fatality. This was the opinion of almost half of the US population, including myself. Ergzay (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your beliefs on primary sources are unaligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline. See, just as a limited starting point, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Someone's own words are definitely not the best source of truth. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers You're misconstruing that page. Someone's own words are most certainly the best source of truth of the opinion of that person. A secondary source re-interpreting someone's words and then stating what their opinion is, is a distortion of the truth. The truth is rather best achieved by directly quoting or neutrally summarizing the words of the person at hand. The previous source piecemeal took only parts of sentences and then wrote an article around those few words and it wasn't even directly citing the interview, it was citing it's own summary of the interview so it wasn't even a secondary source anymore. Do note the primary thing about WP:BLP and that is "Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" which this article is unfortunately full of, including what I just edited.
- Secondly WP:BLPPRIMARY does not say to not use primary sources like you claim, it's entirely about the privacy of the individual and that is why care should be taken on primary sources. Ergzay (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and your edits have not been taking care with the primary sources. You've amalgamated parts of a primary source to present a narrative that is not in the original or in any cited secondary source. Insider is not a tabloid. I'm also adding a CNN and CBS source to bolster the secondary source coverage in the article. You have only been able to maintain your version of the article due to edit warring. Please self-revert and take the time to build consensus for your changes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your beliefs on primary sources are unaligned with Wikipedia policy and guideline. See, just as a limited starting point, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Someone's own words are definitely not the best source of truth. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm using primary sources, directly from the interview. There is no better source of truth than the words of the man himself. You don't need secondary sources for this kind of thing. It's not "my own analysis" it's the analysis of anyone who isn't interested in clickbait money making from spreading incorrect information that spreads a narrative. Elon Musk has never been "anti-vaccine" for the general populace. In fact he later got it himself. He (very correctly given information at that time) that younger adults and children with no pre-existing health concerns were at low risk for fatality. This was the opinion of almost half of the US population, including myself. Ergzay (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you think the cited secondary sources have it wrong, or are missing context, we should find better secondary sources. If the article's summary of the secondary source is misleading, we should change the article to better match. But we should definitely not be pulling out secondary sources and replacing them with our own analysis of primary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- See the recent change log with back and forth reverting by Firefangledfeathers for one example. Ergzay (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The general theme of Musk criticism commonly cited in this article and the job of Wikipedians
The general theme of the criticism that has started flooding this article is of the form 'if you shout it loud enough it becomes true' by using sources that selectively recast good things as bad things it conveys additional meaning that is not actually written in the words, namely that Musk is a bad person and everyone should join in on the dogpile of anti-Musk criticism. It is the job of wikipedia editors to curate sources to portray things accurately rather than join in as one more source of the mob attacks on this individual. The truth is quickly dying.
As an example Elon Musk created a $100M carbon capture fund, something hailed everywhere as a very good thing. However the source we use for this event is from NBC news website and is titled "Elon Musk to donate sliver of net worth for carbon capture". This is just one example of things that are common throughout this article. The general sourcing used on this page goes to great length to portray good things as bad things, and bad things as inhuman/devious/horrendous things. This page is in need of a massive cleanup. I have started on a few things but I am having to fight against reverts because of the hive mind not wanting to allow these types of changes in. Ergzay (talk) 11:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)