Talk:Views of Elon Musk

Inclusion of information about Musk's study published in Nature Communications.
Discussion about the inclusion of this scientific article. Talk:Elon_Musk --JShark (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Musk calling himself a "socialist"
I think mentioning Musk calling himself a socialist is WP:UNDUE, especially in the lead. He clearly isn't a socialist, and whether he mentioned that in jest or not it seems to have only happened on Twitter. I would remove it. BeŻet (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. ~ HAL  333  21:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a line referencing another tweet which suggested not taking the particular tweet serious Keikaku2871 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Weight
Wondering how this removal "improves" neutrality then? We want to paint him as transphobic but not actually state that he supports gender identity? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi CNMall41. Is that covered in reliable sources? I'd be happy to look for it, but it might be a little while. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith in that you checked the references you added back to the page. You can find it in the CNBC source and a quick Google search of the quote. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of weight, should the following content be included? It's longstanding content, and I'm a little surprised to see WP:ONUS applied, which we usually reference for new or new-ish disputed content. Either way, the sourcing is broad enough that I think the tweets and HRC response are due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Longstanding doesn't supersede BLP guidelines. The removal is something that is contentious so ONUS would apply in my opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to address this. A lot of people called him to apologize. Why add this one? (the same question asked in my edit comment). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Below is a summary of the page as it stood, my changes, and your revert. Let's talk balance.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. The section is written to lead the reader to believe Musk is transphobic. Maybe he is, but our job is to say what the sources say. "In a series of December 2020 tweets, Musk again mocked the use of pronouns" - Seriously? This tells me that he is transphobic. However, it doesn't say anything about the types of use which is huge context here. He isn't talking about using them personally, he is talking about the use of them in online profiles where the esthetics are difficult (his words - which were left out).
 * 2. Leaving out anything about his quote supporting transgender only amplifies what I say in (1) above.
 * 3. New York Post is not reliable for fact (I will agree with that). However, the revert to include the CNBC source is puzzling since it supports the same thing the New York Post reference says.

Prior to change: - In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck" to significant backlash on Twitter, including from Musk's former partner Grimes, who responded that she "cannot support hate" in a since-deleted tweet. The tweet has been perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities. In a series of December 2020 tweets, Musk again mocked the use of pronouns. The Human Rights Campaign, which had previously given Tesla the number one ranking on its Corporate Equality Index, criticized his tweets and called for him to apologize.

With edits: - Musk has stated he supports gender identity, but has drawn backlash for several Tweets related to use of pronouns. In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck", which was perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities. In December 2020, Musk called the use of preferred pronouns an "esthetic nightmare," referring to the use of pronouns in online profiles.

Revert: - In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck" to significant backlash on Twitter, including from Musk's former partner Grimes, who responded that she "cannot support hate" in a since-deleted tweet. The tweet has been perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities. In a series of December 2020 tweets, Musk again mocked the use of pronouns. The Human Rights Campaign, which had previously given Tesla the number one ranking on its Corporate Equality Index, criticized his tweets and called for him to apologize.
 * Could you un-interpolate your reply? I'd prefer to keep my comment whole. More thoughts later. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do so if you wish. The replies were to specific items that were stated. Whatever suits your eye is fine with me. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * How about I removed the weasel-wordy "The tweet has been perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities" which was cited to only one opinion piece. I also trimmed that Grimes tweet was later deleted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For reasons stated above and in the edit comments, this still doesn't do it. Why are you leaving out that he says he fully supports trans? Also, why include the quote from Grimes as I don't think the quote is necessary? I also don't think including the HRC is applicable. As stated, there were many who called for him to apologize so why pick this one?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the trans support, that got lost somewhere in my copy-paste juggling. How about something like "Musk affirmed his support for trans people"? I think the Grimes and HRC quotes are due, as they're near universally quoted by the RS. We should probably describe Grimes as either his "partner" or "then-partner". We could go into more detail about HRC's relevance, as his initial defense quoted their Tesla ranking, but I'd prefer to keep the subsection short. Not so short as to leave out views that are given heavy weight in the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , did you plant on self-reverting as I don't see any consensus? Looks like you introduced your preferred version but "feeback" isn't consensus. If you would like to propose more consistent wording that has not already been objected to I would be happy to discuss. If not, maybe an RfC would be the way to go. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . You and I disagree on the application of ONUS here. I don't intend to self-revert, but I also don't plan on edit warring to keep the content in. I restored the content after waiting a few days for a response and incorporating some of your suggested changes. On the content itself: do you still feel Grimes is unnecessary and HRC inapplicable? There's an abundance of RS to show relevance and applicability. PS: You can't fix failed pings by copyediting the username. See H:PINGFIX. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info on the ping. I was not aware. As far as the content, I have already provided you with my reasons for objection to your wording. You may disagree with my application of ONUS, but you haven't stated how so not sure why exactly. There was nothing for me to respond to either which is why a response was never given. So again, consensus is needed for this as its contentious material in a BLP. And yes, BLP would extend to an article about a person's views. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that BLP applies. The parts I'm hoping for you to respond to are "I think the Grimes and HRC quotes are due, as they're near universally quoted by the RS. We should probably describe Grimes as either his "partner" or "then-partner". We could go into more detail about HRC's relevance, as his initial defense quoted their Tesla ranking, but I'd prefer to keep the subsection short." I was responding to your questions about including the Grimes and HRC info. To put it another way, they're reliably sourced and covered widely enough to meet be due for a brief mention. Knowing on what grounds you support exclusion will be helpful in crafting an RfC or bringing this to a noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how my application of ONUS is erroneous. You have yet to do so. I don't think either quote is DUE. Its the same thing that user QRep liked to do when they edited these pages. It is WP:Editorializing, using a persuasive writing in order to lead the readers to what we want them to beleive. WP:BALANCE, WP:NPOV, every other BLP guidelines come into play here. So, yes, you need consensus (be it a noticeboard, or RfC). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, what was your issue with my first update to the original editorialized content? "Musk has stated he supports gender identity,[13] but has drawn backlash for several Tweets related to use of pronouns. In July 2020, Musk tweeted "Pronouns suck",[14] which was perceived by some as transphobic and an attack on non-binary identities.[15] In December 2020, Musk called the use of preferred pronouns an "esthetic nightmare," referring to the use of pronouns in online profiles.[13]"
 * I haven't elaborated on ONUS because this isn't the place for policy debate. The short version is: the status quo ante version had implicit consensus. I'd be happy to discuss further at my user talk page or yours (please ping me). I restored your version, thinking it's better than nothing, but I do think leaving out Grimes and HRC's view is leaving out significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources, and many at that. Would a source dump convince you? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Once thing all versions of this paragraph miss is MOS:LINKQUOTE. Musk only tweeted "Pronouns suck". So the only viable link, at least witin quotations, would be "Pronouns suck" not "Pronouns suck". Yes RS inferred from "Pronouns suck" he was referring Preferred gender pronouns but that has to be explained afterwards not within quotes per MOS:LINKQUOTE.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 04:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did try and work this into my amended version, which we both briefly worked on. I'm interested in your thoughts on overall inclusion/exclusion of this content, in the hopes of breaking a (hopefully temporary) deadlock between CNM41 and me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Firstly before I can give a more thorough response to the different versions what exactly do we mean here when we say "Musk has stated he supports gender identity". The cited source says he tweeted "I absolutely support trans..." (unless I have missed something else). Should we not change to say "Musk has stated he supports transgender people" since a) It seems to be closer to what he tweeted (even though gender identity is the core part of transgender concept) b) It seems a lot clearer in my view (support gender identity for me seem confusing and ambigious; does he support the idea the people may identify with what ever gender they choose; or the general concept. Especially as gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had suggested and then added "Musk affirmed his support for trans people" and am fine with either that or your version. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Musk has stated he supports transgender people" is fine by mean. We just don't need to word it in a way that loses its context. The issue I had with how it was included earlier is that it was buried in the editorialized version. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yesh "affirm" is fine with me too.
 * Reading over the sources I think it is okay to add mention HRC to the section, though I think for context it's probably worth noting in the sentence that it is an LGBT advocacy group (for those not famliar). I am indifferent in including mention of Grimes. The current wording should also match that on Elon Musk.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 10:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about "LGBT rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, which had ranked Tesla number one on its Corporate Equality Index, criticized his tweets and called for an apology"? I agree the wording at Elon Musk should match the wording here, though it should likely be a summarized version. The Views section over there is in a state of crisis. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that wording.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * are you all caught up on this thread? You could certainly pursue some further dispute resolution, but for now there's consensus to include. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Coming up on a week now since the last comment by someone besides me. Consensus is looking fairly stable for inclusion. I'm happy to wait out the weekend in case SC, CNM41, or any newcomers to the discussion have something to add. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding either is appropriate. If so, we need to add them all. There were a lot of opinions about it and it simply isn't something lasting enough to write about it for Wikipedia. It also editorializes. As far as matching what is on the main Elon Musk page, I think we need to do the opposite. The Views of Elon Musk page needs deleted if we are going to just include all his views on the personal page. What is the sense in having the same information in two different pages? If anything, the section on the Elon Musk main page needs to be a single paragraph saying he has views about X, Y, and Z. I won't grave dance, but will say it has to do with an effort by some editors to try to highlight as much negative information as possible about Musk. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the views on the main Musk page it is something I have brought up on the respective talk page (seen here) I think a lot of should be trimmed and summarised to his most important/noted views.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The opening line reads like an 11 year olds schoolwork
"Elon Musk has expressed many views on a wide variety of subjects, ranging from politics to science. " Hasn't everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.179.15.165 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative wording?  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 05:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the wording 78.150.129.45 (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

How about this wording "Elon has been vocal about his views on a variety of subjects, ranging from politics to science"? Victor obini (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Striving to portray Musk as politically neutral is not a Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
This article is written in a way that accepts as fact Musk's narrative about himself as "half Democrat, half Republican". The content overemphasizes liberal views to support the narrative in the lead that Musk is a political moderate. In the past, Musk has tried to deflect criticism for donating to Republicans by de-anonymizing previous donations to the Sierra Club, so this public image of political neutrality is something that Musk consciously cultivates through media manipulation. Tesla owners have environmentalist sympathies and would lean left, so it would be in Musk's best interests to appear politically neutral even if he actually leans right. More specifically, the article at times appears to be written by a Democrat who works to portray Musk's political views as aligned with their own. Musk's more extremist views are edited out or made to appear more moderate in a misguided attempt to make the article NPOV. TechnophilicHippie (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * you’re trying to quantify a shifting, qualitative thing. Tell me, what level of evidence is there for an objective index of political wingedness? How is it different than discussing what someone’s favorite color is? Elon could tell you his favorite color is indigo and you could say “well, I never see him wearing indigo, he just wants other people who like indigo to like him!” Maybe you’re right, but there’s no way to prove this one way or another. You very quickly get in to No true Scotsman territory. Scarpy (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I added this comment, the wording at the time was something like "Musk is not explicitly partisan, and donated..." Now the wording has been improved greatly to report on what Musk stated instead of simply describing him as non-partisan. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like certain political views are no longer being actively excluded from this article, so will remove the NPOV tag. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @TechnophilicHippie Much of his "extremist views" are not in fact extreme. Musk is a centrist, if a particularly loud centrist. There's a strong attempt to portray Elon Musk as extreme by selective quotations that miss the context in which he said something. This was notable with his views on COVID vaccines where there was an attempt to create a narrative that he was anti-vaccine when it was instead just a only slightly misguided position that the vaccine wasn't needed for himself and those younger than him because he was at lower risk of dying from COVID. This is actually correct and demonstrated in the scientific literature, but it misses the aspect that he could spread COVID and thus still needed the vaccine. It's important to get all that context across. If needed we could start dragging scientific studies into the article but this seemed rather ridiculous overkill. When a topic is highly divisive (poltics, covid vaccines, etc) then a lot of additional context is needed to not create an assumption bias in the reader from the lack of information. Ergzay (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Musk was anti-vaccine, but he thought the vaccine wasn't necessary because he believed "The coronavirus panic is dumb." He downplayed the pandemic and thought it wasn't widespread enough to possibly infect him. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Truth Social quotes
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC) This series of edits removed a reliable, secondary Reuters source and replaced it with an undue amount of quotation from Musk's conference speech. Would others support: Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would. The editor left a blatantly deceptive edit summary saying "fix typos" for a major change that removed the reliably sourced Reuters cite and replaced it with a YouTube video of an Elon Musk Interview that's 1:29:57 hrs long, as well as other major changes. Seems hypocritical to talk about the truth "quickly dying", and then to pull a stunt like that. Not good, and it doesn't speak well of the editor's modus operandi. The video is a primary source, but without an indication at what point in the video the attributed statement was made, it's worthless as a source. Carlstak (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Carlstak. FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately.
 * Okay, thanks, apologies to the editor for the confusion, but my other points still stand. Carlstak (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Heads up for you and QRep: Hal333 moved all the content to Views of Elon Musk. I'm waiting a little while to see if it seems like that'll stick; if so, we should probably move this conversation there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Carlstak Which edit did I introduce a bunch of changes with the comment "fix typos"? It's possible I may have just forgotten to update the edit summary. I have in the past done that where I fix some typos, write the edit summary, preview the changes, and then find something that needs fixing and make the change and forget to update the edit summary. If that's what happened then I'm sorry. Unfortunately you can't go back and edit edit summaries. Ergzay (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see above where Firefangledfeathers said "FYI, because I linked a series of edits, the edit summary displayed is just the last one. The "fixing typos" edit was described accurately." I meant to link to the relevant diff in my original comment, rather than to the page's edit history. I've just corrected the link in the text I wrote which says "deceptive edit summary" above. If you click it you will now see a mid-top notice that says "3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown". I was under the mistaken impression that you had made all these changes with an edit summary of "fix typos". I apologized for my error. Now, on the other hand, I do think you're going overboard with your changes. Carlstak (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Third. QRep2020 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers I corrected the record as it incorrectly stated that Elon Musk wanted Trump back on Twitter when several things that I quoted clearly conveyed that he had no such interest. Thank you for further confirming your bias against any of my editing. I will have to revert this one as well. Sigh. Ergzay (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I copied the conversation here as the Truth Social article content was removed from Elon Musk and moved to this article. I would still like to build consensus for a secondary-source-based description as opposed to a collection of quotes from a primary source. Pinging participants and involved editors . I think we have rough consensus already for the change, but it would be useful for everyone to re-evaluate based on the content's presence in a new article. For me, nothing has changed and my comments above reflect my view on this article as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers For what reason would we take a secondary source that selectively quotes from the original source to distort the truth to portray Elon Musk as supportive of Trump when he has established history of not being supportive of Trump? Blindly trusting poor sources that simply act as confirmation bias doesn't help establish accuracy in the wikipedia article. Ergzay (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources. I don't think your use of the primary material has been done "with care", I do think it's an undue amount of treatment of this subject, and parts of the content are indeed your own interpretation or analysis of the quoted material. It's an original research exercise, and not for a good reason. If you believe that the previously cited Reuters source is unreliable, you should explain why and seek consensus for that evaluation. Once again, your version of the content is only in the article because of your willingness to edit war it in over the objections of other editors. I urge you to restore the secondary-source-based version pending support for your position. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored a version of the secondary-source-based content, though I did keep some of Ergzay's improvements. The Reuters source did not support Musk having "praised" Truth Social, so I used Ergzay's "commented", and I preferred the "stating that" structure of the second clause of the first sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Article title: Change to "Views and opinions of Elon Musk"
Sometimes Musk's highly publicized controversial statements are deleted by editors on the basis of "not a long-standing view", but Musk is a controversial figure, and his controversial statements covered by mainstream media and criticized should be documented somewhere for WP:NPOV. If Musk's impulsive, one-off controversial statements which are covered by multiple secondary reliable sources do not belong in "Views of Elon Musk", it does not make sense to create a separate article for "Controversies surrounding Elon Musk" or exclude these controversial statements because the article title was created back when Musk said that he prefers to "stay out of politics". Can we just change the article title to include both views and opinions? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Per Article titles, article titles should be concise and consistent with those of similar articles. The current, status quo title is more concise. Adding "and opinions" is redundant and pointless. It could also be argued that your "opinions" slant violates WP:NPOVNAME. ~ HAL  333  00:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For similar article titles, see: Views of Richard Dawkins, Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, Religious views of Isaac Newton, Political views of J. K. Rowling, Political views of H. G. Wells, Political views of Adolf Hitler, Racial views of Winston Churchill, etc. Note the use of the neutral and non-editorial "views". ~ HAL  333  00:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need to include every trivial statement Musk makes. ~ HAL  333  00:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd oppose that name change. HAL 333's nailed the WP:CRITERIA analysis. I don't think it would help convince anyone who wants to exclude controversial statements. As far as I've seen, these have been based on NPOV or NOTNEWS and not on the difference between a view and an opinion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen that "not a view" reason for deletion from Elon Musk's Views section, and assumed in good faith that was the real reason and was based on a desire to force things neatly into existing buckets. However, the bad faith interpretation is that they deleted it because it was controversial and made up a spurious reason. If the latter was the real reason, like you said, it wouldn't convince them to exclude controversial statements. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Beyond the obvious repetition in that views and opinions are synonymous, outside of strict jargon like legal opinions, widening this article to include every rage inducing tweet or social media utterance would be unworkable. Wikipedia should stick to long term views, those that don't change every hour. --StellarNerd (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not that Musk's opinions change every hour, but he sometimes makes a one-off statement that causes controversy, because of its arguably negative impact on many people due to his social media influence and position as CEO. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But isn't that notnews and notgossip ? --StellarNerd (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "These are my views, and if they don't get enough free publicity, I have others." I agree that "and opinions" is redundant, but not that this implies some scope where it excludes things that aren't "long term".  If he subsequently (or indeed continuously) contradicts himself on something, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't still notable.  But clearly we shouldn't be twitch-editing the article every time he tweets something dumb:  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia's invasion of Ukraine
A section has been added, with no citations may I add, that claims Elon supported the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He has never said he supported the invasion, and the entire section serves to push a POV. I recommend removing it and replacing it with something more balanced and sourced. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's pretty embarrassing stuff.  I've given up trying to edit Wikipedia because it's dominated by let's say the sort of people who don't like Elon Musk: Musk has given internet access to the Ukrainian forces via his satellite Starlink technology, and the one thing, the only thing, on this Wiki page is the statement "In 2023 Musk's SpaceX took steps to limit Starlink usage in Ukraine, prompting a presidential adviser to comment that companies had to decide if they were "on the side of the right to freedom" or "on the Russian Federation's side and its 'right' to kill and seize territories"." Tjamesjones (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The section literally links to Starlink satellite services in Ukraine. Why would we cover aspects which aren't reported as related to the views of Musk? Why would that be due? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Insertion of tax break
insists on including a speculative mention of a tax break China gave Tesla. I've already reverted too many times, and they keep re-inserting. This is speculative original research and should be removed. Could someone else please take a look. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 16:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not vandalism -- as perhaps you implicitly concede in noting you've 'reverted too many times' -- so not helpful or WP:AGFing to characterise it as such. You might reconsider your use of the vandal template.  And it's even more clearly not OR:  it's sourced, and the source says "China gives Tesla tax break 3 days after Musk's Taiwan advice."  Is the source not a reliable one?  Are there other (especially more numerous or better ones) that put this sequence of events in a different context?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The argument made for its insertion is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH as it suggests there's a link between the tax break and the other items described.-- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ... what argument made for its insertion? It's an entirely accurate summary of the source, which is its own 'argument for insertion', as our policy is to say what the secondary sources say.  With the provisos above.  WP:RS/P doesn't mention Taiwan News either way.  You might want to check over the RSNB, and/or look for other sources without such an obvious dog in the fight.  Or with a different dog in it, indeed.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The source links to MIIT announcement, which links to a PDF (direct link) that has a list of applicable models, which includes many non-Tesla models.
 * Reuters doesn't mention Tesla when talking about these cuts.
 * CNBC notes that the tax cuts were introduced in 2014 and extend to "fully electric as well as plug-in hybrid cars."
 * Several other sources note the models were added to a list of existing exemptions. Some of those articles predate the Taiwan News article and Musk's statements.  An older Reuters article notes MIIT has provided exemptions for some Tesla models as early as 2019.
 * Looking for sources that actually support the supposed quid pro quo, the only major outlet I could find (that wasn't just quoting Taiwan News) was WP:NYPOST (Note: not a reliable source) article here.
 * Unless someone can find an RS that plausibly asserts a quid pro quo, WP:BLPRS may apply here.
 * Foonix0 (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Subsidies section
I'm getting distinct "gotcha" vibes from the Subsidies section as it is now. Two sentences that state Musk's view, followed by an essay of putting words in his mouth, armchair-psychologizing, and attempting to point out hypocrisy on Musk's part because he didn't place the companies he leads at a competitive disadvantage by rejecting subsidies they were eligible for. The wall of text is mostly just quotes from a biased source (see WP:MOTHERJONES) and the sources for the very last paragraph makes absolutely no mention of Musk's views on subsidies, so the claim about Musk's statements being "subject to further scrutiny" are just a fabrication.

I think this is "sus", as the kids say.

Unless strong justification is pointed out for keeping the section as it is, I'm just going to remove everything other than the first paragraph stating Musk's views. If there's anything worthwhile to add, it can be added afterwards while keeping WP:BLP firmly in mind. Same goes for the mention of subsidies in the lead. --Veikk0.ma 03:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The WP:BI reference is a listicle that conflates subsidies, contracts, loans, and tax credits to create a grab bag of whataboutisms. Quartz only touches on Musk's views on subsidies, where he analogizes the "negative externality" to "subsidy".  That's not quite the same as talking about an actual subsidy.  At the very least, this article needs better sources for this stuff.
 * It might be worthwhile to take a step back and redo this section as something like "Views on carbon and green energy policy." The views about BEV subsidies are tightly coupled with things like supporting carbon tax (as opposed to credits) and opposing oil industry subsidies.  Musk opposed government support for charging  stations, which this article omits.  He's also stated that the incentives are "helpful."
 * Foonix0 (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Suspect Foonix0 of WP:COI given dedication to "correcting" this page. Mother Jones has been greenlit as a "reliable source". Joshua the cat (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter blocked Ukrainian numbers
This paragraph has been removed and we need to come to a consensus. I don't see why The Odesa Journal isn't a legitimate source here: https://odessa-journal.com/musk-cut-off-ukrainians-from-twitter/ We can state that it is unclear why those numbers were removed from the list as we can argue that motivation is unclear. https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/12/30080063/did-elons-twitter-blacklist-ukrainians-key-feature-mysteriously-disabled-in-war-torn-region However, there were other suggestions that Ukrainians were having problems with the platform. I do not consider Eristavi someone prone to lying: https://twitter.com/maksymeristavi/status/1602793279015337988

Paragraph as it originally stood:

After Musk's acquisition of Twitter, he appeared to deplatform Ukrainians. The social network "closed the ability to verify an account from Ukraine and limited the creation of new ones – it is no longer possible to indicate the '+380' number when creating an account," noted local news sources. Searching for Ukrainian accounts also became more difficult, with prominent Ukrainians reporting Twitter search bans.

In the context of Musk being suspected of having a pro-Russia agenda, as documented by the Hill and Bremmer quotes, it feels like important information. 0lida0 (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you can't use twitter posts for information about living people other than the poster. I'd say that the Odesa Journal is borderline and benzinga is no good. Is there coverage of this story in more mainstream Ukrainian outlets or the international press? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Bezinga simply included here to show view that his motivation was unclear. Original simply had Eristavi tweet and Odessa Journal. Ukrainian presidential adviser Podolyak noticed it too. So, to him it appeared there was a "radical curtailment of tweets mentioning ru-aggression coverage. Users aren’t allowed to register or log into accounts with Ukrainian phone number".
 * https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1602712709061087235 0lida0 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again we can't use twitter posts for statements about a living person other than the author (Elon Musk in this context). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that it was supported in the first place? The context of that situation was for buying Twitter Blue, which was a new feature. Also weasel words "appeared", you have to specify to whom it appeared that Ukrainians were deplatformed. Ergzay (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * see above 0lida0 (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a view of Elon Musk. Suggesting that it belongs because of the "context of Musk being suspected of having a pro-Russia agenda" suggests that inclusion is intended to imply a claim that is not present in the cited sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the sources or material meet the standards of Wikipedia's WP:BLPRS policy, specifically that the material is "challenged or likely to be challenged" and "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion."
 * Even if taken at face value, the sources don't actually establish that the event has anything to do with a "view held by Elon Musk," let alone Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They don't, for example, establish evidence that Musk was personally responsible for the issue, explain which view (if any) such action would reflect, or explain why if Musk made that decisions based on some pro-Russian or anti-Ukrainian view that it would be reversed after 24 hours (as per @maksymeristavi's thread states) despite that view.  The text simply states a mere part of the puzzle and then invites the reader to "connect the dots" to assume that some anti-Ukraine bias exists.
 * As WP:ONUS explains, the material should not be included because it does not improve the article. Besides that, the theory its self is potentially WP:FRINGE.  Merely placing this information adjacent to Hill and Bremmer doesn't do anything to fix these problems, because they are not talking about the same events.  If the goal is to establish some kind of pattern between Hill and Bremmers' statements and the incident without a source that specifically says that, that would be breaking WP:NOR.
 * Foonix0 (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Technology
Is this section really needed, may I ask? The main point of the section stems around a joke Elon made on Twitter which had a controversial reaction, which is an incredibly common occurrence. Even so, the title is rather odd, implying that Musk explicitly has a "view" on Women in Technology. If the section was to remain, the main article for Musk may be better suited for it. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Halchal Yadav@ 178.152.11.86 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi sympathizer
Are we really going to ignore the fact that he is making excuses and practically defending the neo-nazi shooter in Allen, Texas? https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/09/musk-fuels-unfounded-texas-shooter-conspiracy-theories-doubting-shooters-far-right-connections/?sh=7267db332680 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.34.235.46 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Added to "conspiracy theories"  conman33  (. . .talk)  16:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

George Soros
This could also go in the 'conspiracy theories' section. Going by recent tweets, he seems to have aboard the right-wing George Soros criticism train. This seems to be a relatively recent thing, it seems to have started agreeing with these kinds of theories about the time Soros dumped his Tesla stock. https://www.barrons.com/articles/george-soros-fund-management-sells-tesla-stock-6a58d077 2601:84:8601:6AA0:283E:5B7E:68D7:58B5 (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No one needs to hear your opinion. 73.61.58.116 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I removed the opinion. 2601:84:8601:6AA0:283E:5B7E:68D7:58B5 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Fringe and far-right views
I've twice reverted to remove a line in the lead saying "However, he has expressed several fringe and far-right beliefs described below." I am not seeing body content that sufficiently supports a wiki-voice line like this in the lead. I'm opening up a discussion in case others feel differently, and I'd love to hear from, who recently re-added the line, and I'll drop a note at the talk page of the IP that originally added it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its true and we could call the beliefs fringe or far-right in the text, I'm just not sure we gain anything from the labels. It doesn't seem due for the lead, but by the same token noting the presidents he voted for in the lead or noting that he calls himself a moderate doesn't seem due either. Maybe we just drop the entire second paragraph and replace it with a line like "Musk has expressed a diversity of political opinions from across the traditional political spectrum" and leave the nuts and bolts for the body. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think that would be an improvement. I'm fine with some summary in the lead, especially if it's not as controversial as the labels. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hiya, it seems a bit obfuscatory to include him referring to himself as a moderate, without also including that several of his statements and actions are not moderate. Perhaps we should therefore exclude his description of himself as moderate too? I figured it needed some counterbalancing. 0lida0 (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It feels weird to put labels on some of the beliefs but not others. He also takes some positions that are more liberal than moderate. This seems to be the key in a lot of the coverage: Musk's views aren't politically coherent they cover a lot of ground and often contradict each other. I agree that his self-description of his political bent shouldn't be in the lead. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have changed accordingly! 0lida0 (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Disputed text
I noticed you removed a section with a rather confusing edit summary, can you explain your edit and what you feel makes the source unreliable? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The statistics do not reflect a "View of Elon Musk." The situation regarding removal requests is inherently complex, and boiling it down to a number is just cherrypicking data to make a point.  That should be enough to justify removal on its own as a matter of policy. WP:BLPRS "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" (emphasis added)  The text is presented WP:SYNTH.  Even the edit summary admits that the goal of the edit is specifically to cast doubt on Musk's statements.
 * To explain the rest of the comment: The secondary source here is obfuscating their own source for these numbers. They link to the org but not the specific primary article.  The original source got these numbers by counting "partial compliance" vs "full compliance."  The secondary source then Chinese whispers into calling them "Agreed to" and (by implication) not agreed to.  The text of the edit then Chinese whispers again to say "Twitter has increased its approval of censorship requests by authoritarian governments from 50 % to 83 %" which is false, because these statics include requests from countries like Germany. Is Germany an "authoritarian government?" I don't think so. Foonix0 (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The source is clearly presenting the general concerns about whether Elon Musk's stated views are in line with that of the companies he runs. On the specifics of the statistic I actually agree, cherrypicking the statistic isn't really relevant to Musk's views regardless of whether we agree with the methodology or not. Would "Despite making numerous statements about increasing free speech protections and claiming to be against censorship in all forms Twitter under Musk continued to accept political censorship requests from governments. This has included restricting and withdrawing content critical of ruling parties in Turkey and India, including during election campaigns." work for you? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's much better, but Musk's statements in the article contradict the premise of him "claiming to be against censorship in all forms." "The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country," and "If we have a choice of either our people going to prison or us complying with the laws, we will comply with the laws."  He has also drawn lines along legal lines, even before buying Twitter.  "By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people." Ars Technica The Atlantic.
 * So why not lead with that? Suggestion:
 * "Musk has advocated that corporate censorship of speech should not go significantly beyond minimum legal requirements, but lawful censorship requests should be upheld. Under Musk's leadership, Twitter has continued to accept censorship requests from various governments, including politically motivated requests by the ruling parties of Turkey and India during election campaigns, and despite an increasing number of requests." Foonix0 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That does seem like a good rewrite for that section. The "By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law." quote also seems like it could go on the end of the preceding paragraph, thats excellent context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Subsidies
Current coverage in the article is biased, to say the least, stating that Musk opposes subsidies. Meanwhile, the ref used and another WP:RS provide this: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12

I would strike the mention of opposing subsidies from the intro altogether and amend the Subsidies section to reflect his actual position on the matter. Any solid objections to this? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed above. Opposing issuance (to everyone) of a subsidy is not the same as accepting a subsidy (to ones self).  It is reliably sourced information and should stay. Foonix0 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the argument here is, because Musk tweeting that he opposes subsidies is, sure, a source, but it's countered by a history of his companies actively seeking out subsidies. It is, at the very least, not a clean stance that should be mentioned in the intro, as it creates a false impression without the full context being provided.
 * I also see no reason to remove my addition, as it merely notes a fact that is stated in the refs present in the article: subsidies were accepted/requested and that does contradict Musk's overall stance. Opposing subsidies to everyone but not himself is a case of "rules for thee but not for me" and does not hold up. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed your addition because it was very similar to the one discussed in the above talk.
 * Again, seeking subsidies is different from issuing subsidies. Musk is not a government.  Musk can not issue subsidies.  Musk can't, for example, block subsides from being issued to a competitor, without those being made unavailable to his own companies.  There is no reason for Musk to disadvantage his own companies by refusing subsides, and he might even have fiscal obligations to shareholders to accept them.  Musk has not "opposed subsides for everyone but himself."  Foonix0 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * > There is no reason for Musk to disadvantage his own companies by refusing subsides
 * But there is - because, according to the way this article currently states it, he "opposes subsidies". Which is, if you want to credit that much nuance to Musk's own opinion, not nearly nuanced enough with regards to his own words. The intro and the Subsidies section simply do not reflect reality. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Bush 2004 Obama 2008
@Owenyay why do you think this claim was false? In addition to the source not including it, the claim as a whole isn't that unlikely. Both won at fairly high margins in the 2004 United States presidential election and 2008 United States presidential election. For a swing voter that is unremarkable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

On pyramids built by aliens
Multiple sources say it's not clear if he was serious. BBC noted "the first tweet was possibly meant as a joke". Further, he "promoted" the idea that they were not built by aliens by following up with a BBC article that specifically says "no trace of any alien race" and describes them in no uncertain terms as being built by humans. If musk actually believed it was aliens, why would he promote an article that says otherwise? It's an amusing anecdote, but the premise that it represents an actual view is dubious and fails WP:EVENTCRIT for not having any lasting impact. I would prefer removal, but if there is objection to that then the at least possibility that he doesn't actually believe that should be reflected in the text. Foonix0 (talk) 08:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that this is an instance of a joke being misinterpreted. At the very least, some context needs to be added. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This should be deleted and redirected to the main Elon Musk article, with appropriate information trunctuated and integrated accordingly
Per topic. Elon Musk having an opinion on something isn't really noteable just because some gossip blog breathlessly reports on a tweet he made. Over half the references are either direct links to tweets or to articles that basically say "Elon Musk posted this thing on twitter! GASP!" Jtrainor (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Then propose deletion, no use whining about it like this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else you were expecting from this topic given the title; yes there many references of tweets he's made expressing his views. Checking the citations, it doesn't appear to be gossip blogs, but predominantly reliable sources. Do you have specific examples of unreliable sources being used and therefore content to be removed? I'm all in favour of removing content that isn't reliably sourced. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * According to WP:EVENTCRITERIA, even well sourced events can be non-notable. In particular:  "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."  See also WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
 * There is plenty on this page that fits that criteria, I think. For example the (one sentence) paragraph on Capital punishment is entirely based on a casual remark.  It's not like Musk is some kind of notable expert on capital punishment, and his casual support for capital punishment in this one tweet hasn't had any lasting impact on the world.
 * There is a paragraph that literally just says "In 2022 Musk met with Pope Francis." Who cares?  Forbes doesn't connect the event to anything, it just says that it happened.
 * Recently, there is the pizzagate meme tweet. I thought it was in poor taste, but that doesn't make it notable.  Who is impacted by this tweet?  Is there any plausible indication that in 2 years someone might say something like "But for the pizzagate meme post, would have been different"?
 * I'm not meaning to say that none of his remarks are significant. For example, I think the remarks on energy subsidies have significance because Musk runs a company that is involved in the energy industry.  The comment about not banning TikTok is possibly right on the edge due to the indirect connection with owning X/Twitter, but I'm not certain it would have any actual impact on the world.
 * Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. Foonix0 (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing notability and due weight. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As a further comment, sourcing anything directly to Elon's tweets is a direct violation of sourcing policy and all of that has to go. Jtrainor (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Where are there any examples of sourcing from tweets rather than reliable sources? Agreed, they should go if so as per WP:TWITTER, but haven't seen any. There are tweet sources used, but not as the primary reference. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)