Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 6

2nd Rogan podcast
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sethcohen/2020/05/16/dude-departure-what-elon-musk-and-joe-rogan-have-in-common/#1ed89b478fa9. 2601:602:9200:1310:41C:195F:9A55:B941 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Elons Newest Child
First it was never said the Grimes was the mother, she was believed to be though. And second they changed their child's name as of May, 25th, 2020 to X Æ Xii (pronounced X Aye Eye Xii, or X Ash Xii.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oifhr (talk • contribs) 10:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources say Grimes is the mother. There is no ambiguity there. BeŻet (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Height
Elon is from my estimation 6' 2" I came to this from Marques Brownlee's video of Elon touring the Tesla factory. If Marques Brownlee is 6' 3" Elon appears to be slightly shorter and is likely 6' 2" FloydHofmann (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't do original research on Wikipedia. His height needs to be supported by reliable sources. Please consult the guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Alt right?
Should Musk's Red Pill comment be mentioned here? He has been on my radar for years as a having views aligning with the alt right, considering how much attention he's been getting from alt right personalities. This seems to confirm what most people already suspected. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pwoole? Is that like a poodle with wool? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think it's significant, unless there has been a lot of press coverage around it. He often says silly stuff. BeŻet (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of coverage. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * people are this much down the political agendas if they think red pill means alt right. 2601:602:9200:1310:41C:195F:9A55:B941 (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for your inout. Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Lobbying
Regarding "Musk has directly contributed to Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, who has been accused of holding similar positions regarding climate change." the source listed does not mention anything about donating to Sen. Marco Rubio, so I have deleted this reference and added a citation needed tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesdinovaUK (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Poor quality sources
Today I started checking and verifying some of the sources used in the article, and there are a few common patterns that occur that need improvement. Firstly, there's a lot of YouTube sources being used, which should be discouraged in favour of news articles and other easily verifiable sources. Moreover, a lot of the YouTube videos are used for statements of facts, not opinions; e.g. there are interviews with Musk where he says something about what happened at Tesla etc. - Musk alone is not a reliable source of information. Another tendency is using Musk's tweets as sources - again, this is discouraged. We should be supporting things using quality secondary sources. A lot of the claims in the article are interpretations of his tweets. For instance, the claim that the Boring Company was inspired to sell flamethrowers because of the film Spaceballs is supported just by a tweet where Musk says The *real* money comes from merchandising. I learned it from this documentary and links to a YouTube video with a scene from the film. Clearly we can't make a claim like that since it's a farfetched interpretation of what is being said in the tweet. We have to be careful. BeŻet (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020
Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer and technology entrepreneur.

to

Elon Reeve Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an industrial designer and technology entrepreneur. 174.113.199.2 (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2020
X:Removed the emerald mine and lavish life style of elon musk

Y:bring it back Madmax9141999 (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Change it,bring it back Madmax9141999 (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit request is unclear. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Repitition of footnotes (note numbers 2 and 3)
Cosmetic change: The notes section has two notes - 2 and 3 with the same content. This, because the same reference has been repeated twice as separate notes in the infobox and the first paragraph of the article. Please choose one of them to stay and the other to be linked to the first reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuronalBurst (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Enlarge list of occupations with "Member of Scientific Advisory Board of the Future of Life Institute" or similar.

Source: https://futureoflife.org/team/ 158.181.76.95 (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ as comparatively insignificant. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2020 to edit Elon Musks name in the tile to ‘Magnet’ as he has requested on the Joe Rogan Podcast
80.233.45.22 (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See Talk:Elon Musk/FAQ "Musk calling himself a business magnet does not mean he is one. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources, and many credible newspapers and journals refer to Musk as a business magnate, not magnet." Eddie891 Talk Work 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Musk's false statement about child immunity
(Revert in question) What do you mean it is not in citation? It is directly the second part of the two part tweet. – the sources provided do not say that he has been "citing the CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report". Either find a good secondary source that mentions that, or remove this change. If you look closely at the tweets, you'll notice that when he was making that silly statement, he wasn't quoting the statistics you referenced at the time - he posted them post-factum, two weeks later, after people started pointing out how misinformed he was. He apparently based his initial misguided opinion on very early data from Italy, according to the screenshots he shared, but this nonetheless requires a secondary source to warrant an inclusion in the article. Additionally, your change involved an improper usage of primary sources and synthesis of published material, which counts as original research. Could you please remove that sentence? BeŻet (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the text to refer dircetly to the reference in his follow up tweet which is a fact and required for NPOV context. Citing the actual tweet referred to as statement of fact is of course not a violation of primary sources. Moreover even the title of this section and your characterization as "silly" demonstrates a lack of NPOV- considering it to be a false statement is your opinion and in the cited reports. In fact the dramatic age distribution of sars coronavirus 2 has been reproduced in all countries is not doubted by the scientific and medical community. In fact it is hypothesized that children under 5 may indeed have additional non-specific immunity that protects them (I could provided references but that is out of scope of this section.) Axiarchist (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my opinion that his tweets are silly, but I am not describing them as such in the article itself. I have reverted your changes, as they once again are not supported by secondary sources. Please provide a secondary source explaining that Musk's tweets were "supported" by anything. BeŻet (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree- you are cherry-picking quotes to fit your narrative and POV, and to support this you are citing "secondary sources" that are opinion pieces in tabloid press by staff writers with no medical or scientific background who themselves have cherry-picked parts of quotes to suit their narrative. These are not reliable secondary sources to quote. If you can find reputable secondary sources in the medical literature that disprove Musk's claims then you can add those. The aim of this section is to discuss Musk's views on covid-19 and it is outrageous that you are deleting citations to direct primary source tweets by Musk himself *and* the secondary sources that he gave to support his position. I will reinstate the additional context I gave, and if we can't reach agreement on the purpose of this section, which should be an unbiased representation of Musk's views on the topic, then I suggest we simply delete the entire section. Axiarchist (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're approaching this backwards. You are responsible to provide secondary sources supporting your claim. WP:BRD is recommended for BLP articles. You make a bold change, it gets reverted, and then it gets discussed. It's not the other way round. As I've explained countless times to you already, you need a source showing explicitly that this is the data he used to support his claim. Read Wikipedia guidelines. In the meantime, please self-revert. BeŻet (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Axiarchist - the supporting tweets are entirely necessary to ensure WP:NPOV, and are entirely admissible per the criteria set out in WP:BLPSELFPUB. Of course, a secondary source mentioning the supporting tweets would be even better, if anyone can find one. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing against using the tweets. I'm pointing out that we are performing an interpretation of what Musk said, what he used to support his statement and what the referenced reports actually say. This is why we need a secondary source to confirm that. This is clearly outlined in WP:PRIMARY. BeŻet (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The text they support says Musk "promoted a widely discredited paper on the benefits of chloroquine" (as quoted from the cited source). However, Musk's tweet about this paper was already on March 16, while the paper was described as "widely discredited" only on April 29. The whole sentence from the source is in fact "He promoted a widely discredited paper on the benefits of chloroquine, which was debunked so quickly that both Twitter and Google Docs refused to host it". So the paper was discredited (and pulled) only after Musk tweeted about it, and as such the partial quote is misleading, since it communicates that the paper had already been (widely) discredited when Musk tweeted about it. To get a correct and NPOV, I have changed this to Musk "promoted a paper on the benefits of chloroquine that was widely discredited and pulled down by Google". Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What bold change and what claim? I didn't change any existing text- I simply added additional details needed to understand the tweet fragment in context. What else do you suggest as "a source showing explicitly that this is the data he used to support his claim"- the tweet I cited is literally the second tweet of a two part tweet that Musk himself gave to support his claim!! The Italian data he quoted was posted 9:28 AM Mar 20, 2020 compared with the original tweet at 8:55 AM Mar 20, 2020- it is clearly a two part tweet. The CDC data was posted later as further support. Nothing I have added is interpretation or a claim- it is only statements of facts with direct citations supporting them. This section should simply state the facts- cherry picking to fit a narrative is not encyclopedic and not NPOV. Additional information with supporting citations should not be reverted, for the reasons discussed here. Axiarchist (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is incorrect. We need a secondary source to confirm what we are saying. As it stands, we are making a false statement, because this tweet wasn't accompanied by US reports - those were only added a couple of weeks later. This is why we need a secondary source, because we are not just saying what he tweeted, we are adding a deeper explanation and interpretation. BeŻet (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now added a secondary source because that took less time than trying to explain the rules and guidelines. BeŻet (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok good- the BBC reference is certainly better than the previous tabloid website selective quote, and to their credit BBC gave the full quote and both parts of the two part tweet. To be clear, I of course agree that disallowing original research is a key policy of wikipedia, and that quoting a sequence of primary sources to push a narrative can in some cases be synthesis of published material. However, I think that expanding a quote fragment to the full quote (and in the case of twitter to give both parts of a two-part tweet) can only provide unbiased context and is not synthesis and is an allowed use of primary sources, even if the full quote is not give in secondary sources. It would be interesting to get the "official" wikipedian view on that, but in any case thanks for the discussion and your efforts to remove original research. Axiarchist (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's outlined pretty clearly in WP:PRIMARY – you cannot interpret primary sources yourself. Sure, it seems pretty logical that the images of the diagrams Musk posted were an attempt to back up his claim; and you can take another logical step and assume that he was indeed pointing at no deaths in Italy to support his claim. But first of all, that doesn't even support his claim (the diagram doesn't talk about non-lethal infections), but most importantly, this is our interpretation of what he's done there. If things like that are worth including in an article, it should be easy to find a secondary source confirming our interpretation. As I've shown above, using our own interpretations is a slippery slope, as it's easy to make a false claim. BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find your argument convincing. No original research and no synthesis of published material is the key rule that keeps wikipedia working in a distributed fashion and so needs to be scrupulously honoured- even seemingly innocuous examples like giving the extra context of surrounding tweets would violate it.Axiarchist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

At least 1 important paragraph out of date
The one I saw was ~paragraph 6 which talked about how a manned mission to ISS was planned for 2020, but not achieved. This should probably be updated. Carpentoid (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

That is, paragraph 6 of the SpaceX section. Bottom part should probably be completely removed, as I now see that the up to date info is just added later in the section. Carpentoid (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Rosbif73 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove engineer and industrial designer from first sentence/occupation
Change first sentence from "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist." to "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a technology entrepreneur and philanthropist." "The foundational qualifications of an engineer typically include a four-year bachelor's degree in an engineering discipline, or in some jurisdictions, a master's degree in an engineering discipline plus four to six years of peer-reviewed professional practice (culminating in a project report or thesis) and passage of engineering board examinations." As can be read on engineer. Musk does not hold the right qualification(s) to be labeled an engineer. He neither has a bachelor's nor master's degree in an engineering discipline. The source that is linked states that Musk has said himself he is an engineer. So at most he is a self-proclaimed engineer. Musk is not an industrial designer either. Albeit is it less well defined, Industrial design typically entails obtaining the right qualifications. Again, Musk does not hold qualifications to be an industrial designer. Moreover, there are no known credible sources of Musk having actually designed anything that could classify as industrial design. Therefore, please remove both 'engineer' and 'industrial designer' from the first sentence of his page.

Davey K (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 15:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree. The following can be read about using the template: "For any change that might be controversial, obtain consensus before placing the template." What exactly is controversial about this change to you?

Davey K (talk) 08:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like this matter of whether Musk is to be considered an engineer or not keeps coming up. Perhaps a DRN is in order? QRep2020 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
It is disingenuous to state Elon Musk is an engineer. He has no engineering experience and no education to that effect. The title of engineer is not an honorific and should not be treated as one just because he owns a company where engineers work. ZimbuMonkey (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020
Change first sentence from "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist." to "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist with honorary degrees in engineering."

The source | "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. Then there is a | Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has | never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a | handful of patents that he has co-authored and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated. Change the sentence to convey that | he considers himself to be one or that | he has been awarded honorary degrees in it and call it a day. QRep2020 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I know I can but I also know if I do it some editors are going to immediately revert the changes and levy accusations. But fine, let's try it and see. QRep2020 (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Reverted: This is a hot topic, particularly with those in jurisdictions that restrict the practice of engineering to people with particular qualifications. Please seek clear consensus here before making any such changes. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I suspected. Okay, let us go through the motions. QRep2020 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2020
2601:58B:8409:67E0:B8FD:4131:A044:3D70 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC) CEO Dogecoin
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

"Pravduh.com" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pravduh.com. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 06:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk as African-American
Born and raised in South Africa, it is racist to not apply the term “African-American” to Musk simply because he is light-skinned. This is an example of temporal bias, recentism, chronocentrism, etc. Language evolves, and to reserve the term for a meaning not in its title is not logical or impartial (black descendants of slaves). Not all African-Americans are descendants of slaves. Some migrated from Africa later. Skin color not relevant in a description of continental heritage. Joey.J (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are the reliable sources calling him African-American? Without them, calling him African-American is original research.  Calidum   17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeezy peets wikipedia is not the place to WP:Right great wrongs. We should probably remove this whole section per WP:forum, the argument here appears to be extremely fringe and only to involve the subject of this page peripherally. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Musk is already referred to as a "South African American" on South African Americans. We should be consistent and use that description. QRep2020 (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Where are the sources verifying his citizenship in Canada, US, and South Africa? No references attached to this statement. Some facts can simply be assumed logically? So be it with anyone born in Africa who also lives in America. Singling out persons away from this category based on skin color is racist against African Americans of every skin tone. Do we also need a source to verify he has male sex organs? Joey.J (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be source to verify his citizenship, yes. Feel free to propose one. As for whether 'African-American' and 'South African American' are "racist", that is not a matter for the Talk:Elon Musk page. Since the terms are used throughout Wikipedia I think we can give their usage the benefit of the doubt until otherwise noted. QRep2020 (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Since you admit there should be source to verify citizenship yet the info remains in his bio intro, why can’t his status as an African-American also so remain? Joey.J (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary's definition of African-American is "American and black" and specifically says "This term is not used (except jocularly) for ... white South Africans. It is specifically used to refer to the group of people who have descended from the trans-Atlantic slave trade and have resided in the United States for centuries". This term refers to black Americans and does not apply to Elon. -- Yarnalgo talk 02:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Joey, I honestly care very little about this entry beyond correcting the record in a few specific matters so do not take my "admission" for meaning much. Feel free to add a source you can find confirming his citizenship, or remove the statement entirely. Its current existence, however, does not help you case for why his "status as an African-American" should remain. One is likely true but unverified and the other is mired in semantics at the moment. QRep2020 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. This is not an appropriate place for such jokes. Rileeeey (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of hometown in infobox
The infobox currently lists Hillsborough as the hometown of Musk. I think this is misleading. According to Oxford, a hometown is "the town of one's birth or early life or of one's present fixed residence." Google goes with the first definition as it lists Musk's hometown as Pretoria, South Africa, the place of his birth. The infobox's claim that Hillsborough doesn’t seem solid. Musk has multiple homes, many which are not in Hillsborough. The one which pops up the most is one in Bel Air. The word "hometown" implies that Musk lives entirely in that city and has made major contributions to the community, but this is not an apt description. An example of an actual hometown would be Elvis and Memphis, or LBJ and Johnson City. The validity of Hillsborough as his hometown is further weakened by the fact that Musk is selling all of his homes. The infobox is already bloated and I support its removal. Hopefully you agree. Thanks! ~ HAL  333  01:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You make decent points. He lives in California, but I agree with you that his hometown is ambiguous due to his multiple primary residences in California since 1994. Will vote to remove it from the IB. Thanks. --Jaysmith5 (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Musk is Tesla's retroactive co-founder 🤦‍♂️
Elon Musk is not a co-founder of Tesla. The word co-founder has a concrete meaning. It is not a fluid title like CEO that can be reassigned. A settlement or a company decision does not change who is a co-founder. A claim from Musk or Tesla does not change who is co-founder. Beyond that, per WP:BLPSELFPUB we do not accept primary sources that make self-serving and reasonably disputed claims. As evidence that there is dispute, numerous secondary sources report that Elon Musk is not the co-founder of Tesla, instead naming Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning Tesla's co-founders.

I'm aware there are conflicting sources, so here is a tertiary source, Encyclopedia Britannica: Tesla, Inc., formerly (2003–17) Tesla Motors, American electric-automobile manufacturer. It was founded in 2003 by American entrepreneurs Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning and was named after Serbian American inventor Nikola Tesla. Nowhere does it state that Musk co-founded Tesla.

Quote from Wikipedia policy WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

But you know what I find interesting, is that in 2010 Tesla publicly states that Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning are the founders: Tesla Motors was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to create efficient electric cars for people who love to drive. Later in the article Tesla names Musk a chairman, but not a co-founder.

Let's be serious. Wikipedia is not a marketing launch point or a place for rewriting history.

Musk is a major influence on Tesla, but not a co-founder. Maybe we should say that Tesla claims Musk is a co-founder, but not without the WP:BALANCE of conflicting reports, not in the WP:VOICE of Wikipedia, and not without WP:INTEXT attribution. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. This article comes across very biased, and this serious omission is misleading. Rileeeey (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article is just filled with fiction, non-truths, and half-truths. This is not an "encyclopedia" article "about" Elon Musk, this is an "fictional" tale of Musk that Musk wants people to falsely believe.  SMH. I'd expect this type of article on a blog, but not an "encyclopedia." It's very sad that this article fails the reader in so many ways. BetsyRMadison (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
Change first sentence from "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is an engineer, industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist." to "Elon Musk FRS (/ˈiːlɒn/; born June 28, 1971) is a industrial designer, technology entrepreneur and philanthropist."

It is disingenuous to state Elon Musk is an engineer. He has no engineering experience and no education to that effect. The title of engineer is not an honorific and should not be treated as one just because he owns a company where engineers work. A source for showing that he is not an engineer is not needed. The current source, [5], states that he does not hold an engineering degree. This source only offers a quote of Elon Musk stating he is an engineer. This does not show the proper qualifications to list him as an engineer. ZimbuMonkey (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  15:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The source | "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. Then there is a | Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has | never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a | handful of patents with his name on them and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated. Change the sentence to convey that | he considers himself to be one or that | he has been awarded honorary degrees in it and call it a day.QRep2020 (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "comment" Here is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website  he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon  leads  all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not is).  If this were a blog about Elon Musk, I would not care if he were falsely called an "engineer."  But because this is an encyclopedia, facts matter. I feel, that if this encyclopedia wants to use the word "engineer" with Elon Musk, then we should at least word with some morsel of truth and use the same wording Elon Musk uses to describe himself on his website: "Elon Musk leads a team of engineers but has no formal education in engineering and is not licensed to practice engineering."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hello, the sources are convincing but since this is a BLP article. We must establish consensus, then it will be decided whether it should be removed or retained. Thanks Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - yes, I understand that, but here's my confusion. Since we all know Musk is not an engineer, why mention it all in the article? I mean, as it is, the 1st sentence reads to be "as a matter of fact" he "is" an engineer -- but we know it is not a matter of fact because we know he is not an engineer. And if we have to mention "engineer" why make it sound so matter of fact, when it's not even a true thing? So, since we know he is not engineer, why mention "engineer" at all? Wouldn't be easier, and more truthful to just leave "engineer" out?  Or, if we have to include it, could we at least put some truth behind it and say something like, "Xmedia say Musk is an engineer ...." or something truthful like that?  It just confuses the heck out of me why an encyclopedia would include something that they know is false. Am I making sense to you? I sure hope I am.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I get you, but since this has turned out to be controversy, we need to wait for the discussion to be closed after a consensus. As far as am seeing many editors want his engineer status retained because of his involvement in an engineering firm. Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  17:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Ok. Well, it we have to say he "is" and engineer, because he owns a company who hires engineers where he "leads" the team of engineers, can it at least be written with some kind of truth, like the example I gave above? Or with an asterisk? Or, is it a WP rule on 'consensus' that no changes what-so-ever can be made so it has to stay as is? I'm not asking that last question to be snarky, I genuinely do not know the answer. No matter what the answer is, I am truly saddened to learn that an encyclopedia may be compelled to put something in an article that they know to be completely false. It's a deflating realization. BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Biographies of living persons are among the most sensitive areas of Wikipedia, the only way we can make controversial changes to a BLP article is through consensus.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  18:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - I know you know much, much more than I do about BLP, and I hope you know I'm working in good faith & not trying to be a pain when I say I thought that the whole idea behind BLP is to not allow fictional information about a living person be on wikipedia and instead, "We must get the article right." In other words, I thought putting up fiction violates BLP. I will follow any rule WP has, and not being an Admin or knowing the ins-outs of BLP, I truly thought using fiction to describe a living person violates BLP.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Nth Richest Person in the World
's edit changes 22nd-richest person in the world to 31st-richest person in the world. When I check the source given, it says #22 with $46.3B as of 7/1/20. Whereas, www.forbes.com/billionaires/ puts him at #31 with $24.6 B. If we are going to update the net worth more often than once per year, then I believe the ranking should be updated at the same time. I think it will be confusing to any one who clicks on the link to keep it the way it is now. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2020
Change “As of July 2020 his net worth was estimated at $46.3 billion and he is listed by Forbes as the 31st-richest person in the world.“

To: “As of July 7th, 2020 his net worth was estimated at $54.5 billion and he is listed by Forbes as the 19th-richest person in the world.”

Source: https://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/?list=rtb/#274cc9447999 UsaforPennies (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ The edit request is no longer valid because the source has been updated and its no longer $54.5 billon. Trains2050 (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Include Chomsky Tweet?
Does anyone else think that it would be appropriate to include his recent tweet about Noam Chomsky in the section about his political views? I think that it provides insight into the nature of his political viewpoints. DiscoStu42 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed it until someone can find substantial coverage of his tweet in independent reliable sources to support the relevance for this article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find any coverage of the tweet in any independent sources at the moment. I'll check periodically to see if anything new gets published, but it seems unlikely since it's been nearly two days since the tweet was made. I suppose it's possible that it will get featured in a source that is not entirely about just the tweet. DiscoStu42 (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with HaeB, if its not covered by WP:RS its almost certainly not important. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If this article had every Musk tweet, there would be no end to it. Free1Soul (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit request: philanthropy
Philanthropy should include his efforts to donate ventilators, particularly to third world countries. For instance, he worked with the Bolivian Ambassador of Science and Technology, Mohammed Mostajo-Radji, to deliver many ventilators and equipment to Bolivia through Tesla. Could also go in COVID19 section which is tilted against Musk. Dankmusk (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It might be controversial to call this philanthropy given that apparently a bunch of countries asked Elon for ventilators and supplies and yet only Bolivia says they received them? Plus his recent tweet about the Bolivia coup? Gonna get the Lithium truthers going. Losojosdojos (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Education
There is more detail in the lead than in the article. Maybe someone could fix this. All the best: Rich Farmbrough  23:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC).

The education section states that his Bachelor's degree in economics is a "Bachelor of Arts", but the cited sources say that it is a "Bachelor of Science". Lancelarock (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Musk's Tweets
I would recommend to wait a while before adding a content based on his Twitter posts. This is a biography of a person that already produced ~12k tweets - often vague, provocative, sarcastic or meant as a joke. Lot of posts receive some reaction in the media, but not all of the information is worth including. Last additions on "pronouns suck" and "coup whoever we want" are both prime examples. Would this be valuable content after a year? Msm (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree as those two examples are especially important since this article is far from balanced about its topic. Musk is a divisive character and regardless of his intentions sometimes his tweets cause backlash. Why would we feature his religious "musings" - which currently lack verification or citations by the way - and not material that actually causes widespread reaction albeit online? QRep2020 (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Including all relevant criticism is definitely important. For example I can't see anything mentioning Musk's well known tendency to promise more that he/his companies are able to fulfill. On the other way making a paragraph in his bio out of an every other silly tweet is not encyclopaedic. We could have included that he believes that pyramids were made by aliens also. Msm (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep WP:BLP in mind. The source you added here is not up to BLP standards. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude this is a biography of musk🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️ and write about those cringe tweets Madmax9141999 (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Rfc: Musk as an engineer
The issue at hand is whether Elon Musk is to be described as an engineer in Elon Musk. The issue of whether Musk should be described as such has been broached at least five times before on Talk: Elon Musk and none of those discussions actually Ended in anything like a consensus, likely because the issue is so “contentious” and there are strong arguments on both sides. QRep2020 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * I am on the remove side and my reasoning is (reiterated) as follows: The source "verifying" that he is an engineer admits how he lacks an engineering degree. There is a | Popular Mechanics article that dances around this fact by describing him as "an engineer at heart, a tinkerer, a problem-solver." A user in an earlier discussion about this very point on this very page describes a single instance of Musk engaging in engineering pursuits, but a single act does not make one anything of note (unless we are talking about heinous or brilliant acts). He has | never been hired by anyone for an engineering position. He has a | handful of patents that he has co-authored and I urge someone to admit that any of them are terribly sophisticated.

And if you want actual policy, let's look at WP:OR: ""any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article"." In other words, I would contend, if lots of people think he's an engineer and there are reliable sources that say he is you cannot argue that he isn't or shouldn't be, you must prove that he isn't or cannot be by reference to reliable sources. This, by the way, is the basis on which I will take this discussion to arbitration if that proves necessary. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead, I propose including a statement about his honorary degrees and providing proper citations. Finally, I would also like to unearth a moving argument from a previous discussion on this matter made by : “On a different note, since the lede is supposed to reflect the body, I think there would have to be content in the body that describes Musk's role as an engineer in order to make it WP:DUE to describe him as an engineer in the first sentence. Given that the article doesn't cover any of Musk's engineering activities, I don't think it would be a good idea to put that label in the first sentence, even if multiple sources label him an engineer. There needs to be in-depth discussion of exactly what he has done as an engineer, rather than just passing labels. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)” QRep2020 (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC) With all of the back and forth, no one has yet to explain why would we refer to a page that no longer exists on its original website especially since the website remains active? And as for discussion in general, there is clearly no consensus here and I have yet to see an argument against my simple recommendation of removing 'engineer' from the lede and instead adding a reference to Musk possessing honorary degrees in engineering, a proposition which no one appears to call into question. QRep2020 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s an unreasonable interpretation. You have definitely seen arguments against your “simple recommendation” - they are in this section labelled “Keep”. Absent a consensus the status quo prevails, that’s how it works here in WP. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." I meant consensus qua agreement, apologies if that was not clear. There are plenty voices here taking issue with calling Musk an engineer in the lede without any qualification. There are no arguments below as to why cribbing his engineer status in terms of honorary degrees are "unreasonable," perhaps because it is pretty reasonable. QRep2020 (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * His having honorary degrees is irrelevant to his “engineer status” - he’s referred to as an engineer because that’s what the world calls him, it’s what the engineering community in particular calls him, reliable sources refer to him as an engineer and NO reliable sources deny that he’s an engineer. He calls himself an engineer too - which he’s allowed to - but that’s irrelevant.
 * I don’t see why the use of the word engineer in the lede needs any qualification other than what’s in the body of the article. If he was referred to as a licensed engineer then sure, but he isn’t and it isn’t misleading. No reader will leap to the false conclusion that he operates an engineering business open to the public, still less act on that, nor that he has made a false claim of possessing engineering qualifications, and that’s what it’s about. If we change the lede then we should do the same for other false engineers such as Henry Ford and Leonardo da Vinci.
 * I don’t see how there will be consensus in this discussion any more than there was in several previous similar discussions. Keepers say he simply is an engineer and the article should reflect that, and Removers say he isn’t a licensed engineer and therefore the article shouldn’t call him an engineer at all. It strikes me that there’s an unhealthy absolutism and perhaps a moralism in some of the Remove arguments and that’s another reason why there will never be agreement now or in the future. Time this discussion came to an end. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think saying he is not a licensed engineer in there could work perfectly well, come to think of it. The Keep/ Remove labels are more to quickly assess the Rfc's "temperature" as I understand it. QRep2020 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Especially in the lead, saying what he is not just isn't going to work,IMO. At best, I suppose that a footnote following the word "engineer" might be a possible compromise. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "[Musk is] an engineer by some standards but not a licensed one" or some such? QRep2020 (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys don't give up, do you? Since he doesn't have to be licensed as an engineer because he's working for himself and not the public (industrial exception in the US and nobody else cares) and he doesn't claim to be licensed and nobody thinks he is licensed, why qualify the word "engineer" by pointing out that it doesn't mean something that nobody apart from a few WP editors thinks it does? Has anyone found a single RS where his being called an engineer is challenged, or where it is said to be misleading?
 * Let's have a look at what WP:JDL says: ""editors are expected to base their arguments as to content upon what can be verified — without introducing their own arguments, analyses, hypotheses, and conclusions—from reliable and independent sources""
 * "You guys" - charming. First of all, how do you know no one "thinks" he is licensed? I have learned a lot about how complex the issue of engineer-dom from participating in this very discussion and it strikes me as a fair distinction to address especially with how much traffic this article receives. Secondly, how does it not behoove us to clarify what "flavor" of engineer he is when the article already goes into such levels of detail regarding Musk's religious views, the nature of his founder status at Tesla, exactly how wealthy he is a given moment, etc.? What is wrong with providing context and qualification especially of an educating variety in a Wikipedia article, exactly? That is a case I will happily make in arbitration, which it looks like this matter is clearly headed. QRep2020 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I apologise for the colloquialism. However neither you nor anyone else have addressed the main point - given that there are reliable sources saying that he IS an engineer are there any reliable sources saying that he is NOT? Because without sources any arguments in favour of removal are just personal opinion, not supported by evidence. And without sources that qualify his status as an engineer WP:PSTS makes it clear that there are no grounds for introducing such qualifications into the article. So... where are your sources? Andyjsmith (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia policy states that arguments in an Rfc need sources that present the exact cases or claims made? I and others have included sources, i.e. evidence, that provide foundations to our arguments. For instance, in my Remove statement, I brought up the Popular Mechanics article that describes Musk as an "engineer at heart", which implies that he is not technically one under some criterion. We can build a case for why a claim should not appear in an article without an independent, explicit renunciation.
 * That said, I concede that it may be difficult to source my above suggestion as I myself cannot find any articles stating Musk is not a licensed engineer, though it is often difficult to find someone talking about something did not happen. With that said, what is wrong with instead stating that "Musk is an engineer by some standards but does not possess a degree in engineering besides honorary doctorates" and cite something like https://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-says-you-dont-need-a-high-school-diploma-to-work-at-tesla/ ? Again, my specific issue with the lede (and the article as a whole really) is that it provides no qualification regarding his engineering status which differs from that of, say, Steve Wozniak's. QRep2020 (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * He’s referred to in the lede as an engineer because that’s what reliable sources call him, sources of such notability (serious engineers) that it’s worth including. Those sources don’t qualify the use of the term nor do any others - it’s only your opinion that it should be qualified. He’s not an engineer by some standards, he’s an engineer by any standards as far as the sources go. This argument is going nowhere. You are trying to qualify the unqualified statements that are made by reliable sources and that’s never going to get you anywhere. Why not find just ONE source that either qualifies or rejects his being an engineer? A single engineering society, state regulatory body, senior aerospace engineer etc. If you’re right someone is bound to have said it and if they haven’t then by WP policies you are not right. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep For the reasons already stated. Lklundin (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Such as? Can you point to any statements or WP:RS that says this?  Without it, I will be voting remove. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For anyone wondering what reasons for 'keep' there are, please note this discussion page's use of the template round in circles, which states: 'Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives and review the FAQ before commenting' Lklundin (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There are countless discussions--I found Talk:Elon_Musk, and I know there are more. Most of them have no reliable sources.  The statement can only be justified if there are strong sources that say it, so those discussions that lack sources demonstrate he should not be called an engineer. Since you seem to have knowledge of these discussions, why not provide the best source if you believe they exist?  Without good WP:RS the statement has to be removed --David Tornheim (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the round in circles-template is the other way around: If anyone wants to bring up again an already discussed topic, then they first have to go through the archived arguments and read up on these. This makes sense, since otherwise recurring requests for discussing any given topic would require users who had already argued the matter to go through the whole thing again. So you get to do that now.
 * But I will bring a possibly new argument to the table. CEO of SpaceX Elon Musk has on at least two occasions described himself as 'chief engineer' of SpaceX - in one case even stating that he has been 'chief engineer/designer from day 1'. Clearly, if the CEO of company says that he is an engineer of that company, then we (like everyone else) will surely have to take his word for it. And he didn't say it to just anybody, on the first occasion he was responding to criticism of SpaceX from Dmitry Rogozin (administrator of the Russian Space Agency, Roscosmos), on the other occasion he was in a talk/interview with NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine. Lklundin (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * One tiny, additional detail: While we talk so much about mechanical engineering with all its moving parts like those found in rockets and cars, it completely escaped (until now) my attention that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers saw fit already 5 years ago to make Elon Musk an honorary, lifetime member. So at this time we have both ASME and IEEE that consider Elon Musk to be an engineer. Consequently, from now on, I will consider any claim that Elon Musk is not an engineer to merely be a case of I just don't like it. Lklundin (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. So you know full well that Elon Musk is not an engineer so instead of removing that blatant fictional claim in this encyclopedia article, you turn yourself into a pretzel, redefine the word "member" to incorrectly mean "is an engineer." For the record: being a member is not equal to being an engineer. ASME & IEEE have members who are not engineers (like Musk), as well as members who are engineers (unlike Musk). I'm stunned that even though you know he's not an engineer, in your comment you tell other encyclopedia editors on here that because Musk 'says he is one' we should keep the fiction alive in this article for Musk.
 * Oh & speaking of SpaceX, there is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon  leads  all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not "is"). I have no idea why any editor of an encyclopedia would turn themselves into pretzels to keep a fictional biography on it's website. BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to have ask you to:
 * follow the guideline on the top of this page, per the Round in circles-template and read up on previous discussions. Then you will learn that a person (like Elon Musk) can full well be an engineer without having a degree.
 * take down your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude a notch - and not accuse me of arguing against better knowledge.
 * Your logic is clearly flawed, since the absence of statement 'X' does not make 'X' false, basically an argument from silence. In fact and contrary to your (flawed) argument, Elon Musk has - in his capacity as CEO of SpaceX - stated that he is (and always has been) an engineer with SpaceX. Clearly, when the CEO of a company makes such a statement, then it must be accepted - not only by a person directly overhearing it (e.g. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine), but also by the rest of the World, including Wikipedia.
 * So with this truly overwhelming body of material that clearly establishes Elon Musk as an engineer, this whole discussion really is quite superfluous. Lklundin (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Elon Musk is not an engineer. That is a fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog, so truth and facts matter here. Above you attempted to redefine the word "member" erroneously to mean "engineer" and now you're attempting to redefine the word "CEO" to erroneously mean "engineer." Your above assertion of: sure Musk is not really engineer but because he says he is an engineer on Twitter, we're gonna force this encyclopedia to tell world he is one  - that's a completely flawed, erroneous assertion. The truth is, just because a CEO says something does not make it true -- especially when that same CEO (Elon Musk's) SpaceX website does  not  claim Elon Musk as an engineer. And notice, Elon Musk's company website debunks the claim by former GOP Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) who Trump appointed to be administrator of NASA. So far, you've posted 33 comments on here using flawed, erroneous assertions, attempted to redefined words, just to push for this encyclopedia to "keep," what you know in advance is, a fictional biography of Elon Musk. I question why any encyclopedia editor would go to such lengths to keep up a fictional biography of Elon Musk. The fact is Elon Musk is not an engineer and, as it is currently written, this is article is a fictional biography of Elon Musk, and by your comments you seem to be ok with keeping this a fictional biography. SMH BetsyRMadison (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saying That is a fact does not make it so. The whole reason for the existence of this RFC is that it is a disputed assertion. You've made your point of view clear, but others continue to disagree with you. I suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON before replying again to this discussion. Rosbif73 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, simply saying "that is a fact" does not make it true. Similarly, since we all know it is a fact that Elon Musk is not an engineer, (at least not in the real world where real state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer) simply saying he is an engineer, does not make it so either. As written this is a fictional biography & everyone here knows it's fictional -- and that's what most stunning and alarming regarding the veracity of so-called biographies on this website.
 * As for WP:BLUDGEON -I'm sure you agree that the Lklundin's 14 comments in this section, your 11 comments in this section are not "bludgeoning" -- just as my 11 comments in this section are also not "bludgeoning." But I will say, it's pretty sad state of affairs when an encyclopedia editor has to make 11 comments to debunk flawed statements, erroneous statements for those who, for some unknown reason, want to force wiki to have a fictional biography of Elon Muskb. I'd expect that type flagrant disregard for truth on a blog, not an encyclopedia.  SMH.  BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it’s obviously not true that “we all know it is a fact that Elon Musk is not an engineer”. Nor is it true that “state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer” unless you tack on the words “in America”, which gives the game away - you’ve forgotten that there’s a very big world outside the USA where these things really do not matter very much. Anyway even in America it’s just not true - see my comment about the law in Florida, where it is quite explicitly and undeniably legal for unlicensed people to be “real” engineers provided they don’t offer their services to the general public. Wishing it was so doesn’t make it so. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The legal fact is that under every part of Florida state law: Elon Musk is not an engineer. You must have misunderstood the section of the Florida law that you cited (above). I'll explain.
 * 1) Florida state law statute 471 - "Definition of engineer": (5) “Engineer” includes the terms “professional engineer” and “licensed engineer” and means a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of engineering under this chapter.. So, under FL state law Elon Musk is not an engineer.
 * 2) Florida state law statute 471 - "Qualifications- subsection 1" (1) No person other than a duly licensed engineer shall practice engineering or use the name or title of “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state.. Under this subsection of FL state law: Elon Musk is  not  an engineer.
 * 3) Florida state law statute 471 - "Qualifications subsection 2" (that you misunderstood) "(2) The following persons are not required to be licensed under the provisions of this chapter as a licensed engineer: (a) Any person practicing engineering for the improvement of, or otherwise affecting, property legally owned by her or him ..." Under this subsection of FL state law: Elon Musk is  not  an engineer.
 * This subsection 2 of the FL state law only allows a person, John Doe, who owns his company's building, to make "improvements" (within limits) on his own building without requiring John Doe to hire a real engineer to sign off on the "improvements" that John Doe wants to make on his own building. That Florida statute's subsection says "John Doe is  not  an engineer" but if John Doe owns a building that needs new floor joists, then John Doe (or his employee) can design and draw up the blueprints for the new floor joists without having to hire a real engineer to sign off on the design/blueprint. This subsection is a common subsection in most state's laws to allow business owners who own their own buildings make cost-saving building repairs (within limits) to their own building. So, to reiterate, under every part of Florida state law: Elon Musk is  not  an engineer.
 * So, as I said, in the real world where real state laws govern the requirements to be a real engineer, Elon Musk is  not  an engineer - and everyone - including you, knows that. Which explains why in your comment (above) even you admit that Elon Musk would only be able to claim to be an engineer in the very, very, very few countries where anyone can claim to be an engineer because the country leaders do not give one dang if their so-called engineers cause buildings, bridges, and skyways, to fall down or cause planes, cars & trains to explode." BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove I would be very leery of labeling anyone an engineer who didnt have an engineering degree, as far as I can tell Musk does not. If evidence of a degree were presented I would be willing to change my vote to include. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. To quote from, "One who practices engineering is called an engineer, and those licensed to do so may have more formal designations such as Professional Engineer, Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer [...]". We are claiming only that he is an engineer in the general sense of somebody who undertakes engineering tasks, not that he is licensed in any way. Objections seem to be primarily from those who mentally equate "engineer" with one of the more formal designations, but remember that requirements for engineers to be licensed and to hold particular qualifications are by no means universal around the world. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And why should we believe he is "One who practices engineering"? Isn't he just the CEO and/or owner of a tech company who is very good at getting in the lime light and making a fool of himself in the eyes of real engineers like me?  :)  Honestly he seems more like a huckster or salesman who believes in Perpetual motion machines.  It seems no coincidence his company is named Tesla, attaching himself to the over-hyped and re-invented Nikola Tesla, who did not ever make a machine that created "free energy". When people try to tell me about Tesla, I tell them I am electrical engineer that does not believe in ghosts, perpetual motion machines, or walking on water. Apparently, I'm a cynic. ;) --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I take no stand as to your cynicism, but your stated opinion of Musk is hardly WP:NPOV... Rosbif73 (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For completeness, I note here that Musk describes himself as "chief engineer/designer" of SpaceX, as per the extra references added to the article recently – though of course his statements are to be used with caution per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have looked into this more.  is unsourced, (I tagged it) and Wikipedia is not WP:RS.  Your statement requirements for engineers to be licensed and to hold particular qualifications are by no means universal is unsourced and irrelevant.  The evidence from reliable sources supports the definition that engineers are professionals certified into their professional the same way doctors, dentists, attorneys and other professionals are. I explain some of that below . --David Tornheim (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See my point below about selective use of reliable sources from countries where that claim is true. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove per . revised !vote below based on WP:RS No WP:RS has been provided by those saying keep that he is an engineer. If you can find some, I, like Horse Eye Jack, will re-consider. Has he been mentioned by at IMAC or by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC) [revised 07:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)]
 * Funny you should mention ASME, because one source given in the article is from ASME. Relevant quotes: An example of such a practical engineer is Elon Musk and While Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree per say [sic] [...] few dispute his assertion [...] "I'm an engineer, so what I do is engineering. That's what I'm good at.". If ASME are prepared to call him an engineer, why shouldn't we? Rosbif73 (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's way better than the Popular Mechanics quote. Why didn't you provide that WP:RS above?  I'll likely change my vote based on that--keeping in mind it may be more like OpEd and others might know the author better than I.  I did read the entirety of the very interesting Wired article Dr. Elon & Mr. Musk: Life Inside Tesla's Production Hell and was more inclined to think of him as an engineer / mad hatter.  With a degree in Physics, he would know better than to attempt a Perpetual motion machine.  And it did sound like he could parlay with the engineers, even though I had the sense he would have benefited by either getting a degree in engineering, or taking some classes in how to listen.  :)   So I will probably change my vote based on the two articles...
 * Don't you have to admit though, that most engineers would have made good & sure this would never happen at a press conference. We would test a big enough sample, under every kind of temperature, humidity, stress test, etc. before doing that in public! It seems to me he takes short cuts...like that ridiculous stock thing he tweeted and got sued for.  I'm so glad I never worked there.
 * Note: His main identity is Billionaire.   --David Tornheim (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I will also point out the obvious: ASME no longer hosts this content and it makes me wonder if the perspective has at all changed. I am remiss for how to verify or deny that kind of an organizational attitude shift though. QRep2020 (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please respect the Not a forum-template: 'This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.' Lklundin (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "practical engineer” =/= engineer, if we want to say practical engineer with a footnote explaining the lack of degree based on this description we can. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We are going in circles here with this having been discussed and rejected already (basically because being an engineer is a _practical_ profession, there is no theoretical engineer). Please read the old arguments. Lklundin (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats not accurate... I also don’t see an argument going in circles, it seems to be rather straightforward and moving briskly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that the ASME reference above uses exactly that term... "practical engineer." If the ASME calling him an engineer carries any weight, it bears referencing that they qualified their reference to him in that way. Retswerb (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove from WP:LEDE per  and  Restate in WP:BODY as "self-described engineer" (per  's sources  ), "practical engineer" (per ), and/or "honorary engineer". <-- This is my revised !Vote --David Tornheim (talk) 07:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC) [revised 09:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)][revised again 12:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)]
 * The WP:BODY should back it up with something like this:
 * Although Musk has no formal degree in engineering... "Musk received an honorary lifetime membership in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers in 2015.ref  Paul Glanville, PE, Senior Engineer, writing for the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) described him a practical engineer. ref.  Musk assigned himself titles such as "chief engineer".  ref.
 * The poll on Facebook is not WP:RS.
 * Arguments like "walks like a duck" hold no weight, as this is WP:SYN. The statement "he is an engineer" can only be stated to the extent the WP:RS does.  The WP:RS clearly focused on the fact he has no formal degree, so if he is described as an engineer, that he has no degree should be in the WP:LEDE.
 * I have explained elsewhere that people like James Watt, Henry Ford, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, and the Wright Brothers may be considered by contemporary historians or people in their time to be engineers, but that was before engineering became a profession with degrees, qualifications, certifications, exams, etc. Fields like dentistry and medicine made similar changes in a previous period:
 * Our article on Profession based on WP:RS provided here explains it:
 * A profession is an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, the purpose of which is to supply disinterested objective counsel and service to others...
 * It has been said that a profession is not a trade.
 * Applying these milestones to the historical sequence of development in the United States shows surveying achieving professional status first... followed by medicine, actuarial science, law, dentistry, civil engineering, logistics, architecture and accounting.
 * With the rise of technology and occupational specialization in the 19th century, other bodies began to claim professional status: mechanical engineering, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, psychology, nursing, teaching, librarianship, optometry and social work, each of which could claim, using these milestones, to have become professions by 1900.


 * The novel McTeague written in 1899 gives an excellent example of the transition to professional degree requirements. McTeague holds himself out in the community as "Dr. McTeague" dentist, but he is mostly self-taught with some experience helping a "traveling charltan practicing out of a wagon."  .  After 12 years holding himself out as a dentist, he finds himself  "barred from practicing dentistry by authorities requiring that he be a graduate of a dental college."   The blow is devastating.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't mischaracterise my contributions. While I did indeed note that Musk describes himself as an engineer, I do not advocate using the wording "self-described engineer" in the article; I'm of the opinion that we have sufficient RS to leave "engineer" as is in the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this meets your needs. I would have provided your sources instead, but I didn't have them when I wrote the comment. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Musk may have described himself as an engineer, but which engineer hasn't said that of themselves? All engineers are self described. Do you mean "falsely self described"? Engineers describe him as an engineer, newspapers describe him as an engineer (the London Times, Washington Post and a whole bunch of others), engineering websites describe him as an engineer. But a couple of WP editors say he is not. So what should the article say - "so-called engineer" or maybe "unqualified engineer" or even "popularly but incorrectly said to be an engineer"? This is a truly fatuous discussion which cannot result in any worthwhile outcome. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still do not see the problem with instead describing Musk as having honorary degrees in engineering. That point does not appear to be in contention and is true regardless of where someone is. QRep2020 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Walks like a duck, etc. Wiktionary says “A person who is qualified or professionally engaged in any branch of engineering”. Musk has overall technical control of two massive engineering companies. He makes design decisions. OK, he doesn’t have an engineering degree but on that basis the Wright brothers weren’t engineers either, and I see that WP categorises William Boeing as an aircraft engineer whereas everyone knows he was actually a timber merchant. I don’t like Musk but he’s an engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary is not a reliable source per (this discussion) any more than Engineer. Engineer includes an extensive quote from a reliable source that defines it.  From that definition and the rest of the sources in Engineer, it becomes clear than an engineer today is much like a doctor or dentist--someone who has received either a degree or some self-taught who is certified by exams into the profession.  It's true that the Wright Brothers are argued by a historian to be engineers in their time and that seems appropriate to me, engineering was a nascent field at the time:  Schools like MIT and Harvard did not yet have engineering schools in 1903, and there was no way to get certification .  Also, the Wright Brothers did all their own study, work, testing, etc. unlike Musk who relied on credentialed engineers per this Wired article.  Today an engineer is someone who has the credentials, which Musk lacks.--David Tornheim (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The need for credentials applies in some places around the world, but not in others - and wikipedia is supposed to take a neutral, global point of view to avoid systemic bias. It's easy to back a claim that engineers are required to be licenced if you cite sources only from jurisdictions where the claim is true! Rosbif73 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * True. Some contributors to this debate seem to think that "engineer" must be the same as "Engineer". Here's a fun counter-argument courtesy of the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering. Felicia is a painter from Oklahoma. Also a product designer at Facebook who refers to herself as an engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly (to the point that it resembles WP:BLUDGEON) argued against Elon Musk as an engineer - including your assertion (without a source) that a person needs an engineering degree to be an engineer. This is simply not true. I went over to The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, they really know what it means to be an engineer. To be a member of ASME you do _not_ need a degree, you can also have eight years of experience in the profession. So can we maybe stop this nonsense about degrees? Lklundin (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * you are mistaken and is correct, in order to be an engineer the person needs a degree in engineering sciences (aka an engineering degree) and you can't practice engineering unless you are licensed in engineering. Of course, you can't take the engineering licencing test unless you have a degree in engineering. For example in California, the requirements to take the engineering licensing test[] are, "With respect to applicants for licensure as professional engineers, the board ... Shall give credit as qualifying experience of four years, for graduation with an engineering degree from a college or university." Each state has their own laws that govern engineers.  The example I gave is from California "Professional Engineering Act"  which also says, "“Professional engineer,” within the meaning and intent of this act, refers to a person engaged in the professional practice of rendering service or creative work requiring education, training and experience in engineering sciences ... no person shall practice civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering unless appropriately licensed ..." I don't want put up the laws that govern engineers for all 50 states, but they all say pretty much the same thing.
 * As for being a member of ASME or any other engineering society whose mission is to advance the study of engineering in education, is quit different than being an engineer. As you said, you don't have to be an engineer to be a member of their society - you can be student engineer etc. So while being a member of a society does not require you to be a practicing engineer, in order to be a practice engineering you have to have a engineering degree and licence in engineering. Musk is a smart guy who hires engineers to do engineering work for him. But he is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove He does not have a degree in engineering. Musk also does not engineer any Teslas or Falcon rockets - he has hundreds of actual engineers to do that. ~ HAL  333  23:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is incredibly US-centric. Read WP's own article on engineering: "In the United States, engineering is a regulated profession" whereas "the practice of engineering in the UK is not a regulated profession". In fact the Musk article doesn't claim that he has engineering qualifications but it does note that "In 2006, Musk served as a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board" - so he fooled those guys, huh? And there's a link to an article on the website of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers titled "Engineer in Focus: Elon Musk" - fooled them as well!
 * Reading on, the ASME article says "While Mr. Musk does not have an engineering degree per say [sic], he holds degrees in Physics and Economics from the University of Pennsylvania, few dispute his assertion, in response to his focus on technical details as CEO of Tesla and Space X, "I'm an engineer, so what I do is engineering. That's what I'm good at." Even as a CEO, his close involvement with design, engineering, and critical technical decisions is unique amongst his peers". Well if leading engineers think he's an engineer that's good enough for me. I'm not an engineer so I defer to those who know. Andyjsmith (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The more I go back to that ASME article the more it looks to be a blog post that does not reflect the quality of content found elsewhere on the site. I think I might reach out to the ASME web team for comment. As for the US-centric focus, Musk operates primarily in the US and all of his companies are headquartered in the US and therefore we should hold him to the US standards. QRep2020 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pesky ASME really don’t have a clue about what makes an engineer, do they? I mean, here for example they make the same mistake again, and as Lklundin points out above, they’ll allow anyone to join provided they’ve just done some engineering! Andyjsmith (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, ASME lets in members who: have never done any engineering, and members who are not engineers, and members who plan to never be engineers. For example: ASME Honor Members only to 1) have "distinctive accomplishment in engineering  or  science or industry or research..." Keywords:  or  - meaning some ASME Honorary Members have never done any engineering at all BetsyRMadison (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm doesn’t help any coldly reasoned case. That aside, I also find the Efest article interesting because it admitted fictional characters could be submitted to a “Facebook contest” that appears to be more for fun than anything else. What serious literature on ASME discusses Elon Musk’s contributions to engineering? QRep2020 (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging up this link, where ASME's social media manager writes the engineer who came in second in our Facebook poll, Elon Musk, i.e. expressly confirming on behalf of ASME that Elon Musk is indeed an engineer. With that we have two ASME sources stating that Musk is an engineer and to top it off, one IEEE source that honors Elon Musk as a role model of an engineer. That Musk is an engineer doesn't really get any clearer than that. Lklundin (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Engineer is quite a broad term, like scientist, and seems reasonably appropriate for someone with such a record of achievement. A formal qualification is not required for this, as we see in other cases like Brunel and Dyson.  Note also that both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs dropped out of college. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And, regarding practice in the USA, note that our article explains that "Since regulation of the practice of engineering is performed by the individual states in the United States, areas of engineering involved in interstate commerce are essentially unregulated. These areas include much of mechanical, aerospace and chemical engineering and may be specifically exempted from regulation under an "industrial exemption". An industrial exemption covers engineers who design products such as automobiles that are sold (or have the potential to be sold) outside the state where they are produced..." As Musk works in both the automotive and aerospace fields, the industrial exemption applies.  Q.E.D. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that the article is lacking sources for many of its statements all over and including those on that specific topic. The only source for that part applies to architects. QRep2020 (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's a source which confirms that "an overwhelming majority of engineers—somewhere around eighty percent—do not pursue licensing". Musk's situation is the norm. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The "industrial exemption" is a big deal as far as this strange discussion goes. Here's what the Florida Board of Professional Engineers says:
 * While Florida Statute 471 states that Florida’s Legislature deems it necessary in the interest of public health and safety to regulate the practice of engineering in Florida, there exist licensure exemptions for those whose practices fit within certain categories:
 * “In-house” engineers employed by a manufacturing or other business firm not providing a service directly to the public
 * Engineers employed by defense, space, or aerospace companies
 * [the] safety of the public is protected by way of licensure regulation of the engineer when that engineer offers services to the public
 * The law is very clear - it's about preventing people from calling themselves " “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state." It makes a clear distinction between "licensed engineer" and plain old "engineer". I have neither the interest nor the patience to sift through statues from 49 other states but it's explicit in Florida law at least that when Musk is at the Cape he's a space engineer. Just not a licensed space engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [the] safety of the public is protected by way of licensure regulation of the engineer when that engineer offers services to the public
 * The law is very clear - it's about preventing people from calling themselves " “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state." It makes a clear distinction between "licensed engineer" and plain old "engineer". I have neither the interest nor the patience to sift through statues from 49 other states but it's explicit in Florida law at least that when Musk is at the Cape he's a space engineer. Just not a licensed space engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The law is very clear - it's about preventing people from calling themselves " “licensed engineer,” “professional engineer,” or any other title, designation, words, letters, abbreviations, or device tending to indicate that such person holds an active license as an engineer in this state." It makes a clear distinction between "licensed engineer" and plain old "engineer". I have neither the interest nor the patience to sift through statues from 49 other states but it's explicit in Florida law at least that when Musk is at the Cape he's a space engineer. Just not a licensed space engineer. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep—Musk is an engineer because he does exactly that, makes tradeoffs and design decisions about applying physics of materials, energy, etc. to applied technology development, and he has clearly done this in both Tesla and SpaceX (I'll skip the others; but more examples are possible) since the earliest days of both companies, and still does so today. One does not need credentials (university degree in engineering, or passing an exam, or holding a state certification) to be a practicing engineer.  Of course he works at the higher levels of abstraction and the higher levels of design more than the specific design of particular parts that make as assembly.  However, sources demonstrate that he is frequently involved in the review, oversight, and redirection of myriad lower-level engineering decisions, from material selection, to details of design for some particular part to making calls when to accept this or that design risk to forego or add a part.  His title also reflects this fact:  "Chief Engineer".  (and FWIW, although it doesn't matter in a Wikipedia editor sense, I am an engineer, from uni degree to state certification as a "Professional Engineer", to having been involved in product development (hardware and software, electrical and mechanical) for decades now, down at the level of parts and subassemblies to overall product architecture.)  It is not the credential that would confirm that one of Musk's major roles is that of an engineer.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, in all 50 states, in order to be a practicing engineer you have to have a licence to practice engineering and in order to get the license, you have to have a degree in engineering. Every state has laws that govern practicing engineering. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Does Musk have an engineering degree? No. But neither did James Watt, Henry Ford, or Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Musk does have a degree in physics which is not so far away, particularly Applied physics. Engineering is a matter of vocation, not formal education. Some graduates of engineering schools do nothing in engineering, the formality of what is written on a diploma matters little. Musk is engaged in multiple engineering ventures. He is noted for his engineering. He is an engineer. Free1Soul (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * observationyou say you realize Musk is not really an engineer but yet you say to "keep" the fictional false claim that he is one in this article. Isn't it better for an encyclopedia to not say anything about engineering with respect to Musk rather than say he is one in this encyclopedia article? BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, you are very mistaken. A degree in engineering is much, much, much different than a degree in physics. Engineering is, absolutely, a formal education. Musk hires engineers; Musk is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Remove - per WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD - engineer is the first descriptor of Musk that reader's see in the lead sentence, so he must be notable for that, right? At least part of his notability must derive from being an engineer, for that descriptor to be featured first, and so prominently in the lead sentence. But yet the description of Musk as an engineer is not a significant viewpoint found anywhere in the body of the article that is supported by multiple reliable sources that describe him in that capacity. The source in the lead supporting that descriptor is an opinion piece, and WP:NPOV advises against stating opinions as facts. Is the author of the source qualified to proffer that opinion, sure he is, but he's certainly not qualified to state it as a fact, without other multiple reliable sources (independent of the subject) being used in the body of the article that share that opinion, in order to make it a significant viewpoint. We shouldn't be misleading the reader by stating in wiki-voice in the lead sentence that it's an established fact and significant viewpoint shared by multiple reliable sources that he's an engineer. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove - as far as I know, Elon Musk is not licensed to practice engineering in any state of the Union. And, as far as I know, he holds no engineering degree, no Engineer-In-Training license, and no professional engineering license. So, that means, Elon Musk cannot legally sign off on any engineering project.  He's a smart guy, no doubt about that, and he may be an engineer at heart, but he's not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as has been pointed out previously, that’s a US-centric point of view. He’s not advertising himself as an engineer for hire - which would require a qualification in your country but not in mine. He’s just a guy who’s doing engineering and he’s admired for that by some serious engineer dudes. And actually he can sign off an engineering project and does so with considerable frequency.
 * To call someone an “engineer” does not necessarily mean that they have a formal qualification. Start practicing as a brain surgeon without a qualification and you’re in trouble, but building rockets doesn’t require a vocational qualification. Andyjsmith (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You Andyjsmith are mistaken. In all 50 states, it is illegal for a non-licensed engineer to sign off on any engineering project. Elon Musk does not sign off on any engineering project because that would be illegal and the state agency who reviews the sign off would flag it and the project would be prohibited from moving forward. To be clear: in all 50 states, you must be a licensed engineer in order to sign off on any engineering project and in order to take the licensing test for engineering the applicant must have an engineering degree from a 4 year college or university. And, by law in all 50 states, the engineering license must be renewed every year, annually. Foreign engineers are not allowed to sign off on any engineering project without the proper engineering degree, engineer license, and permission from the Board of Licensing from whatever US state they are trying to sign the project off in. Meaning, Elon Musk is not an engineer, he does not sign off on any engineering projects; but he does hire engineers to do work he helps design. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The lede right now says Elon Musk “is an engineer” and that is provided without qualification. The fact that engineering is a regulated profession in the US but not in some other countries does not make the statement true but rather shows how it is incomplete. If I say “Johnny picked up bread from the store” but what Johnny did was pick up a loaf and then leave the store without paying, what I said is true in some way if you go back and reinterpret it knowing I meant it as a description of what his physical action. But my statement is still not true if you go with the usual interpretation.
 * Leaving the description about Musk as it is and without qualification is analogous; it conceals information about how he is not an engineer at least according to the laws of the US and likely other countries. This information is especially important since he operates his businesses in the US and lives in the US. If we want to say he is an engineer according to what it is to be an engineer in some specific country then that proposed change can be debated too, although I will do my best to argue against that change too but for different reasons. QRep2020 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To QRep2020 - I like your style! You give fantastic analogies. And you are spot on! If we want to make the engineering claim for him, the sentence should be something like, "Elon Musk is not an engineer, does not have an engineering degree, and no license to practice engineering in America. But! BUT!! He is an engineer in countries where they don't give one dang if their so-called engineers cause buildings, bridges, and skyways, to fall down or cause planes, cars & trains to explode."  In all seriousness, the lead should say nothing about engineering at all because Elon Musk is not an engineer. BetsyRMadison (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of reliable sources (including US sources, to pander to your US-centric view that Wikipedia is supposed to avoid) that label Musk as an engineer. No claim is made that he is licensed as such (he isn't), but the sources are extremely clear that he performs engineering tasks. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn’t there also a point that if the removers prevail and the word “engineer” is either removed or heavily qualified the article will simply be wrong? Reliable sources say that he’s an engineer and I’ve been unable to find any sources that say he isn’t, or that qualify it, so it seems to me that (on both sides of the argument) WP editors are setting themselves up in judgement on the reliability of sources in respect of this one point - sources that would otherwise have been accepted without question. Andyjsmith (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To Andyjsmith - Elon Musk is not an engineer so this article is already wrong - in fact, this article is so wrong, it is fiction and whould come with a warning label "Reader beware, this is a fictional biography, not to be taken as truth." Oh, and here is a RS confirming that Elon Musk is not an engineer, and that RS is Elon Musk's company website. On his company's website he does not say he "is" an engineer; Musk says "Elon  leads  all product design, engineering and global manufacturing of the company's electric vehicles, battery products and solar energy products." Keyword: "leads" (not is).  If this were a blog about Elon Musk, I would not care if he were falsely called an "engineer."  But because this is an encyclopedia, facts matter. I feel, that if this encyclopedia wants to use the word "engineer" with Elon Musk, then we should at least word with some morsel of truth and use the same wording Elon Musk uses to describe himself on his website: "Elon Musk leads a team of engineers but has no formal education in engineering and is not licensed to practice engineering."  BetsyRMadison (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: in Florida at least (see above) Musk can legally call himself an engineer so long as he doesn't offer to fix your boiler. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a moot point. Unless we can arrive at a consensus (or at the very least a rough consensus) to modify the article, then the article will not be modified. That aside, the comments so far have strengthened the case for not modifying the article. Lklundin (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the comments here have "strengthened" the Keep position as the vast majority of them are retreads of previously made ones with one or two contributing a little bit more nuance. I do see a few Remove commenters arguing passionately and convincely in succession. In any case, it is neither here nor there to comment on the status of a Rfc that is still in progress as parties were quick to remind me previously. QRep2020 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove As a professor of engineering, it is clear that none of Elon Musk's degrees are engineering. After scanning the above comments, is there any jurisdiction in the world that would condone one's self-appellation as an engineer without training? Would we allow a description of someone as a physician without a medical degree (let alone license) or of an attorney without a law degree (or where applicable, someone who "read" law where that is an appropriate route? User:Professor water 19:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC) "The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety or safeguarding of life, health or property to be licensed, while engineers working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education and government need not be licensed."
 * "is there any jurisdiction in the world that would condone one's self-appellation as an engineer without training?". Well yes there is - the United Kingdom at least. But more importantly I think you've missed the fact that he has not hung out his shingle as an engineer. He's not selling his services to the public. He's not claiming to have engineering qualifications. He's working as an engineer in his own factories which is permitted many states in the USA under the "industrial exemption", and major engineering societies are happy with that. See WP's comprehensive article on Regulation and licensure in engineering which states:


 * IMHO that's pretty clear! Andyjsmith (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: I've added a wikilink to the US engineering license requirements into the article per my comment above. However this discussion resolves itself, if it ever does, it seems reasonable that when Musk describes himself as an engineer the article should explain what that means. Andyjsmith (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted that edit: It is not given that the meaning of engineer in Musk's statement matches this interpretation - and engineer is already linked to. Lklundin (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a reminder: any editor on here who is somehow connected to Elon Musk should disclose that.
 * To Andyjsmith - The quote you gave in green above confirms, Elon Musk is  not  an engineer. I will highlight the words in your green quote that confirm Elon Musk is not an engineer.
 * The US model has generally been only to require the practicing engineers  offering engineering services that impact the public welfare, safety or safeguarding of life, health or property  to be licensed,  while engineers  working in private industry without a direct offering of engineering services to the public or other businesses, education and government need  not be licensed.
 * keywords: "practicing engineer" and "while engineers" -- the former, "practicing engineer" refers to licensed professional engineer; and the latter "while engineers" refers to men/women who have graduated with a 4-year engineering degree and who work for a licensed engineer as is required to become a licensed engineer. Engineers get licensed through the National Society of Professional Engineers. In order to take the license test, the  engineers  engineer applicant must have:
 * To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree, work under a Professional Engineer for at least four years, pass two intensive competency exams and earn a license from their state's licensure board. Then, to retain their licenses, PEs must continually maintain and improve their skills throughout their careers.
 * Elon Musk lies when he falsely calls himself an "engineer." The sad part is, everyone on here knows it's a lie and Andyjsmith just admitted Musk is not an engineer, and even though he/she admit he's not an engineer, he/she wants this online encyclopedia to write/keep a fictional biography for Elon Musk so that essentially, wikipedia will be knowingly lying to readers. This topic, deciding on whether to keep a known lie whereby the person perpetrating the self-promoting lie is the subject of the article -- is truly depressing and appalling on many levels.
 * There are no RS that supports Musk being an engineer, because Musk is not an engineer.
 * Keeping Musk's "I am an engineer" lie  violates  WP:BLPSELFPUB, violates WP:BLPSOURCES, violates WP:SELFPUB violates WP:BLP, violates WP:V, violates WP:REDFLAG, and is WP:ABOUTSELF -- heck, at this rate, we may as well just have Musk write his one wiki page & then we'll publish for him -- because that is what we are doing right now.
 * The encyclopedia Britanica does not list Musk as an engineer, because Musk is not an engineer. Oh & BTW, as for Musk being an "inventor" -- well, it's pretty clear that Musk has invented this fictional biography of himself right here on this wiki cite. BetsyRMadison (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to say anything but I read this again and have to comment. You're taking this very personally, as if you have some skin in the game. Sure, Musk is not at all a nice person and sure, he's a liar. Happy to agree with that and I wouldn't weep if he fell under a Cybertruck, but that's no reason for ad hom attacks. Despite what you say there simply are reliable sources that refer to him as an engineer. Lots of them. I've not seen a single one that says he's a licensed engineer because he obviously isn't - but no-one, not even the man himself, has claimed that he is. But you can't simply dismiss these sources - for example the one mentioned below where the Royal Society, the world's oldest and most prestigious learned organisation, honoured him as an engineer. And Wikipedia itself says that not all engineers are licensed. So please support your arguments with facts - for example are there some reliable sources that throw the other sources into doubt? Andyjsmith (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per Royal Society, which calls him a scientist and Elon Musk FRS, Engineer, inventor and entrepreneur. Arguments above are that he isn't an engineer. It's not for us to determine who fits into the dictionary definition. Do RS' call him that? Apparently, they do. And the Royal Society does too. So the label seems appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * remove I'm really struggling to understand the keeps here. Isn't this obvious that he isn't?? I don't wanna get into a whole weird profession elitism thing here, it just... I... what? A person who makes medical equipment isn't a doctor. A doctor can't fix an MRI machine. A genius mathematician isn't necessarily a teacher. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 05:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a curios (and spurious) !vote. This whole argument is about the “whole weird profession elitism thing” with little suggestion that he doesn’t actually do engineering. Have you actually checked any references? Or WP’s article on engineering? Or noted the fact that serious engineers think that he does engineering? Andyjsmith (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Remove from the lead sentence, but keep the fascinating discussion about the hair-splitting that can be done to call him an engineer in the body of the article. A couple of quotes from Musk himself and him serving on a board of engineers does not make "Engineer" a defining character trait deserving on being mentioned in the opening sentence. The reliable sources simply aren't strong enough for that. However, the discussion of whether or not he technically meets that definition, or is a practical engineer, can certainly be discussed with more nuance later in the article. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * It's not a matter of hair splitting or tweaking the article to weaken the assertion that he's an engineer. The use of the word is either justified by the sources and should be kept or it isn't and should be removed - there's no in-between position. The hair splitting that's going on in this discussion has no place in the article unless there's also a genuine difference of opinion between knowledgeable people out there in the world and attested by reliable sources. Since nobody else on the planet is talking about it, there's no place for this discussion in the article, whatever your personal point of view. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Could you please provide links to the previous discussion at the top so we don't have to look for them? I can't really answer the question unless I see all the purported WP:RS that proponents of calling him an engineer have provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've archived some of the discussions to reduce talk page clutter; I think the principal one QR might have been referring to is Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5 RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Other past ones: QRep2020 (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_4#Elon_Musk_is_not_an_engineer
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_3#Inventor?_Engineer?
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_2#%22Engineer%22
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Engineer?
 * Some of the links above are no working. I'm making a new section below with links that work in a simpler form.  --David Tornheim (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Past Discussions
I had no idea there were so many places this was discussed! This RfC is definitely warranted. I didn't get them all. If you find another, please feel free to add it. I suggest we ping everyone who has been in the past discussions. I am going to start by simply leaving a notice on their talk pages, starting with the oldest discussions first. If you want to help with the notifications, please feel free to add your work to the information above in the same format I have. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC) I notified 11 more editors who have been in the oldest discussions. I know many have not edited in years. It's just easier to systematically notify everyone who has discussed this rather taking extra time to consider their edit history. That's enough notification for tonight. Again, anyone feel free to help out with the rest. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk -- 3 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk -- 3 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk -- 2 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk -- 2 participants as of 12:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk -- 3 participants as of 12:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5 -- 1 brief mention by 1 editor
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_5 -- 2 participants
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_4 -- 5 participants
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_3 -- approx. 10 participants (notified as of 02:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_2 -- 2 participants (notified as of 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1 -- 4 participants (notified as of 12:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_1 -- 3 participants (notified as of 12:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC))
 * Are you notifying users by leaving a note on their user pages? I could probably help. QRep2020 (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please see my contribs and you can see the format I was using--like this.  I just go to each discussion, and to each talk page of each person who commented and just copy and paste that same text to their talk page.
 * Thanks for offer to help.--David Tornheim (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories acceptable in a biography?
Some people are accusing Tesla and its CEO of being involved in a coup in Bolivia to secure their lithium in a crazy new conspiracy theory. However, Tesla gets most of its lithium in Australia. --JShark (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories acceptable in a biography? --JShark (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don’t get what you’re saying, is the tweet fake? It also seems like your change did exactly what you’re complaining about now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What I did was clarify that it is a conspiracy theory. It also seems that everyone takes seriously what Musk says in a tweet. --JShark (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Today people are offended by any comment. We live in a society very sensitive to comments. --JShark (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The way the sentence was originally worded did not speak to any such conspiracy theory so I do not know understand what is in contention. In addition, Electrek is not a source that should be cited regarding Tesla content - which reasonable extends to and includes Elon Musk - according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#Electrek,_one_more_time. QRep2020 (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, per WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:NOTRUMOUR, conspiracy theories have no place on wikipedia. BLPs are about facts. And, as an aside, calling it a "crazy new" conspiracy theory in wikivoice was in any case totally contrary to WP:NPOV. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Grimes tweet
https://twitter.com/Grimezsz/status/1283186365601988608?s=20

Grimes deleted a large number of recent tweets and then stated "@4AD_Official plz stop tweeting from my account. Changing passwords.  Super messed up."

I think it should be mentioned in the political section regarding the pronoun tweet where grimes' response is mentioned. It should be stated that she deleted it and said that someone else has been tweeting from her account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 21:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article does state that the tweet was deleted. The suggestion that Grimes did not write the particular tweet is circumstantial and I cannot find any reliable third-party sources that discuss such a claim. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would there be any third party sources? I don't think it's appropriate to outright state she wasn't the one that tweeted it but it is worth a mention that after it was deleted she said someone was tweeting from her account. Although she didn't comment on the tweet in question.Thanks, (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought this was the page for the article of Elon Musk, not Grimes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Her tweet was in response to his tweet. QRep2020 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

My god, very sorry.
Did I do something wrong? Tell me. Visual editor lagged and I can't see the changes that I made. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are good looking at the diff. Seddon talk 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Phew, thanks. I always shake when I edit an article with millions of views.Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I do something wrong again? This is the last edit I'll make to this page, I promise I won't come here again. Thank you. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with your editing, you should be bold. FozzieHey (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm lying about my last edit to this page...Please don't ban me for removing quotation marks in ....I'm very sorry... Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently my edit is reverted...I'm sorry guys. I'll face the consequences. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's only a Wikipedia article, friend. QRep2020 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry again...I forgot to tag my last edit as minor.... Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020
The article states that Elon Musk is an early investor of Tesla, while a legal document point out that he has all the right to be called a "founder". Since this all played out in the 'founding year' I would argue that "founder" is appropriate, since he was, and has been, more than simply a "investor" as he played a mayor role in the success of Tesla. Filipvh (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Some previous discussions relating to this: Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 6, Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 1 – Thjarkur (talk) 11:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible vandalism warning
Note, Elon just tweeted this a few minutes ago: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1294922167310663681 (content of tweet: "Please trash me on Wikipedia, I’m begging you") - look out for incoming vandalism. -- Chuq (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What's the definition of "persistent" vandalism required for full protection? User:FozzieHey has done a good job reverting quickly but it's a bit of a waste of time for many of us to sitting here doing this. -- Chuq (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has just been given Extended Protection which should be enough at this stage, it's rare for Talk pages to be given protection but in this case I think it should be given semi for a short period of time (hence the request on RPP). FozzieHey (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Seddon! -- Chuq (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Is their a extended protection on this page yet? Jerry Steinfield (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes Jerry Steinfield (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how many EC users will both see that Tweet and be willing to do vandalism. If both conditions are met, I would support a temporary gold lock. -- Sleyece (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye on things. If anyone considers it and reads this, please be aware I will block without hesitation. Seddon talk 09:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we arrange to have the article blasted into space for a while? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * already done Seddon talk 10:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! I bet it's on the dark side. But seems you may need to change your reading glasses. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To prevent "gawking" on social media given the content and that this is BLP, I've revdel'ed the edit by Ethereen. Seddon talk 10:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The Times of India has written about the tweet – Elon Musk wants you to 'trash' him on Wikipedia – which may prolong unwelcome activity. Oronsay (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline for return to autoconfirmed protection
Hey all, after bumping the page up to extended confirmed. My thinking is to bring things back down in around 48 hours. Let me know your thoughts. Seddon talk 12:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please extend the period to 7 days. People will still remember the tweet. Jeromi Mikhael (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery
Has Elon had cosmetic surgery? British newspaper 'The Sun' gives that impression - https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9708122/robbie-williams-daniel-craig-plastic-surgery-tweaks/amp/

Should cosmetic surgery be mentioned on his wikipage and the link above used as the source? HardeeHar (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, "The Sun" is not reliable source: WP:THESUN. Msm (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Sun is a bad source. Free1Soul (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Early investor of Tesla.
He is listed as Co-Founder & CEO of Tesla Motors in official public documents and he has stated that the early investor part is wrong. https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me?redirect=no https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1295223414064664577 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLPSELFPUB. Acalycine (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the given source never says "investor." that's been added as WP:OR. I say leave the semantic details to the section on his involvement in Tesla. And WP:WLPSELFPUB does not apply here.
 * Here you go :) – btw, type ~ to sign your messages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What about this ruling, which was before any agreement was signed?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/judge-strikes-claim-who-can-be-declared-founder-tesla-motors?redirect=no

https://www.cnet.com/news/teslas-musk-gloats-over-eberhard-ruling/

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/court-martin-eberhard-not-one-of-two-tesla-motors-founders-9336.html

World's Most Powerful People
His Wikipedia page mentions "In 2018, he was ranked 25th on the Forbes list of The World's Most Powerful People".

Just because Forbes believes that to be the case doesn't mean it's true.

If he really was that powerful he would have been able to use his power to have his wikipage changed to refer to him as a business magnate.

If he really were that powerful he would have been able to use his power to get newsmedia that are considered trusted sources by Wikipedia, he would have been able to get one or more of such newsmedia to refer/always refer to him as a business magnate so as Wikipedia could use those sources as citations to change his wikipage to say that he is a business magnate.

Maybe his wikipage should point this out, should mention that he clearly isn't as powerful as Forbes believes.

HardeeHar (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does your opinion count more than Forbes? Free1Soul (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Forbes is not a trusted source. As for your comments, the talk pages are for people to ask questions, make suggestions, voice their opinions on the wikipage in question, but it seems you have an issue with someone having an opinion.

I don't believe your question was genuine, I believe your intent was to antagonise me, that you are trolling me, and that you are being disruptive.

PS, Wikipedia does not tolerate disruptive users.

Wikipedia to HardeeHar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks or incivility, so please avoid posts like, even when you subsequently sanitise them. And FWIW, Forbes is considered a reliable source.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 August 2020
There is a self-published book cited for information that is available elsewhere and a citation needed tag that can be addressed. Specifically, I suggest changing this paragraph


 * Musk was severely bullied throughout his childhood and was once hospitalized after a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs.  He attended Waterkloof House Preparatory School and Bryanston High School before graduating from Pretoria Boys High School.

to this


 * Musk was severely bullied throughout his childhood and was once hospitalized after a group of boys threw him down a flight of stairs.  He attended Waterkloof House Preparatory School and Bryanston High School before graduating from Pretoria Boys High School.

The unnamed Slate citation later in the article could be replaced with

Thank you. Jmill1806 (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

✅ ~ HAL  333  19:31, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible split?
Thanks to Musk's lack of hesitancy in expressing his opinions, his views make up a decent chunk of this article. I think that they are given undue weight, considering that this is his biography. Some of them seem rather trivial - such as his views on aliens, which I already removed. It should either be whittled down, or split (maybe even a partial split) to a new article: Views of Elon Musk. Here we could more adequately express his views and go deeper into discussion. There is precedent for a move like this: just see Political views of Adolf Hitler, Views of Lyndon LaRouche, Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein, Political views of Albert Einstein, Political views of H. G. Wells, etc. Then we could be add a prominent "See Also" or "Main Article" link in this article. What do you think? ~ HAL  333  19:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He is neither a political leader nor a philosopher though, and we have yet to see if he will have the same historical effect that Einstein had. I think removing the content that plainly state his views that have little to no baring to his enterprises, e.g. "Destiny and religion" subsection, is the way to go while allowing for representation of his more controversial views alongside the wide reactions to them. The inconsistent stuff predicated on random remarks he has made, e.g. his republicanism versus his purported socialism, should go ASAP. QRep2020 (talk) 20:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to complain and ask people to discuss changes before they make them, you might want to consider actually looking at existing discussions... ~ HAL  333  14:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this out of place or a case of mistaken identity? QRep2020 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if that wasn't clear. I was responding to one of Logan's edit summaries. You're all good QRep2020. ~ HAL  333  00:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)