Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

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

RfC: Infobox image

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Survey

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

Discussion

[edit]

Nationality

[edit]

Every other person on Wiki begins with the statement of the individual’s nationality. Why is this not mentioned in the first line? 2604:3D09:CF75:3E00:B80E:E499:A920:B114 (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Elon Musk/FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every immigrant who takes the Oath of Citizenship renounces any allegiance to their former countries. Therefore they cannot claim dual citizenship. The only way to be a dual citizen is by being a U.S citizen FIRST. Therefore Musk cannot be a dual citizen. 76.8.147.120 (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to the question but the answer should be somewhere on this page: United_States_nationality_law 173.222.1.184 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can renounce allegiance to other countries all you like, but you retain your citizenship in those countries unless and until you meet their requirements for being relieved of it. If they provide for your citizenship to end automatically upon your assumption of citizenship elsewhere, then you're done, but otherwise, no. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page sorely needs to be updated. Fear of irritating Musk, and the MAGA cult, shouldn't play a role here

[edit]

With Musk now a full-throated supporter of Trump and his many lies and conspiracy theories, this page should reflect as much in the lead. The lead should now include "rightwing activist" and "conspiracist". He's not much different than Tucker Carlson or even Dinesh D'Souza. And it is well documented and supported by the consensus of reputable sources in the press about Elon's "conspiracist" and "rightwing activism". He isn't hiding it, and is proud of his full-throated support of Trumpism. He even updated his own Twitter page brazenly with a MAGA hat, and says as much. If wikipedia is truly about its mission, then we are failing our readers by not honestly reflecting what is well documented in the news here. If not now, then when? EmmaRoydes (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some examples of the independent notable sources that describe Musk as such? That would help justify the inclusion. QRep2020 (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a helpful comment, and is polemical. I recommend striking it out. Ca talk to me! 11:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His involvement in the current campaign should be a separate section, now that he is in total support mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C601:6010:99B0:F55C:4E2D:A503 (talk) 05:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024

[edit]

I want to make minor update to the article. I basically want to replace "Twitter" with "X(formerly Twitter)" to reflect the platform's current status. Legend.jester (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It's unclear where you want to make this change. Twitter and X are used depending on what it was called at the time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2024 (2)

[edit]

Can I include his nationalities 2A02:A442:79BA:0:D50C:71A1:9213:D0B4 (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of WP:SYNTH

[edit]

@Horse Eye's Back Why are you reverting the content? It is not WP:SYNTH. Be precise on what is synthesized and not stated in the sources? Ergzay (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't combine multiple sources to say something which none of them actually say... You can't shoehorn[1] the earlier stories into the recent one like that to make them say something in combination that you think they should say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not combining multiple sources to say something which none of them actually say. It's directly in the sources. What _specifically_ are you claiming is not in the sources? Ergzay (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about the WSJ and Putin in the earlier sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is statements about Taiwan and Starlink however. Ergo, by WP:Balance we need to include both points of view. WSJ implies that Starlink is not available in Taiwan because of Putin's request. Bloomberg states Taiwan is not available in Taiwan because of disagreements over ownership percentage. Ergzay (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article, WSJ does not imply that. Bloomberg doesn't actually say that, they say something close but which doesn't actually directly contradict in any way... They don't confirm that SpaceX's concerns were what they said they were. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to make an edit to the page that has different wording. Let's see if that's more to your appetite. Ergzay (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please propose it here instead rather than edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not adding identical content. So there's no edit warring. Proposing content directly in the article is a perfectly fine way to edit and does not and has never constituted edit warring. Edit warring is adding basically identical content repeatedly. Ergzay (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the content has been challenged per BRD, please do not edit war by restoring the content soibangla (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla You cannot be engaged in edit warring if you are not performing repeated reverts. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR. Ergzay (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the edit, what do you think? The Synthesis issue is gone as the WSJ article was I guess updated. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit seems to have inserted SYNTH again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? The Journal says "Starlink has never secured permission to offer internet service in Taiwan, whose government places restrictions on non-Taiwanese satellite operators. " I'm really getting tired of you just saying "it's SYNTH" and not explaining yourself. What "conclusion" am I making that is not "verifiable from the sources". That's the requirement for WP:SYNTH. Ergzay (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal doesn't talk about the earlier coverage, and note that the quote you just provided doesn't support "however the Journal also reported that Starlink has never secured permission to offer internet service in Taiwan because of Taiwanese government restrictions on non-Taiwanese owners" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> The Journal doesn't talk about the earlier coverage
But they DO! That's what that quote is! That is the previous coverage!
And what is wrong with the because? That's how english works, it's called a "clarifying statement". It's not separated by a full stop. It's a comma. Ergzay (talk) 02:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"however the Journal also reported that "Starlink has never secured permission to offer internet service in Taiwan" because of Taiwanese government "restrictions on non-Taiwanese satellite owners""[2] has the same issue... Because doesn't appear to be supported, thats also your fourth or fifth revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously explained, reverts are adding back identical content, unedited. No reverts have been taking place.
And I edited my comment but you responded before it went through, so I'll repeat myself. The comma in the original is called a "clarifying statement". It's part of how English works. Ergzay (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what WP:EDITWAR says. In context I don't think the source is saying "because" in any shape or form, I think your interpretation is wrong. Please don't pander about the english language, its insulting to most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EDITWAR says "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts." Bolding mine. We are not doing a series of back and forth reverts. You are repeatedly reverting and I am repeatedly making new and original and different changes. See also: WP:BRD#Bold,_revert,_bold_again Ergzay (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a previous statement you made you said that WSJ source does not imply that Starlink was blocked because of Putin's request. Now you are saying you think including a quote from the article that says the opposite is also wrong. So what precisely do you think the article says?
And yes I will talk about how the English language works. We are writing in English and a clarifying statement is precisely what is in the article. What purpose do you think that comma means? I honestly want to know. Use as much "grammar pandering" as you like to explain it to me. My major at university was computer engineering, even if I'm a native American English speaker, not English. Ergzay (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're just flat wrong... "The three-revert rule states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The WaPo article isn't making that explanatory inference. If anything, it's stating SpaceX would need to seek permission from Taiwan to do so and implying that SpaceX hasn't yet perhaps because of this favor. QRep2020 (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following what you mean. What do you mean? Let's try to establish common ground here. Yes SpaceX needs to seek permission from Taiwan to operate in Taiwan. But where are you getting any kind of implication that SpaceX has refrained from doing so because of this? THAT would be WP:SYNTH. We already know from previous reporting by Bloomberg that Starlink tried to get permission. Or are you claiming that this new reporting erases that previous reporting? Ergzay (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Horse Eye's Back put it, "I don't think the source is saying 'because' in any shape or form". I agree - WaPo is not establishing that Starlink "has never secured permission to offer internet service in Taiwan" on account of the government's "restrictions on non-Taiwanese satellite owners". Getting permission is something they would need to do, yes, but it isn't something preclusionary.
If anything, the article suggests Starlink, despite listing it as coming soon, has not secured permission to offer internet service access in Taiwan because of the favor Putin asked. It does so in its presentation of a selection of facts placed in succession, separated into paragraphs to add emphasis. Saying Starlink hasn't gotten the permission is supposed to be telling in the context of the favor and them still listing the access as coming soon.
Regardless if anyone else agrees with my interpretation, the article doesn't explicitly state the permissions are the cause or reason for Starlink never securing the access. That's what in question. QRep2020 (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly we're talking about WSJ, not WaPo right? As to "but it isn't something preclusionary", but Taiwan has said previously that it is preclusionary... Namely they have said directly that they won't give SpaceX an exception to the 51% local ownership, ergo they cannot bring service to the country. Have you read the Bloomberg article that is being talked about?
> "If anything, the article suggests Starlink, despite listing it as coming soon, has not secured permission to offer internet service access in Taiwan because of the favor Putin asked."
Again, HOW is this being read into that. That's not what is being said _at all_. Please fully explain. And even if it WAS, it's in direct conflict with previous sources so both sources need to be used to maintain balance otherwise its NPOV.
I'm trying not to read a lack of good faith into this, but it's getting hard. This appears to be someone trying to jump through hoops to justify their own bias that there cannot be mistakes in a news article. We have direct quotes from many sources saying exactly how SpaceX tried and failed to acquire access to put Starlink in the country. Are you trying to magically make these disappear? I don't understand. Ergzay (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg article doesn't actually appear to say that... Again you appear to be going a step beyond what the source actually says to make it fit your argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. QRep2020 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I living in an alternate reality here? The Bloomberg article says exactly that... I feel like I'm being gaslight right now. Seriously. I can only assume bad faith now. Not only are you denying what the WSJ article says, you're denying the even more clear Bloomberg article. All secondary sources from that time period that re-report Bloomberg's article also say similar things. Seriously you need to set away your biases here. Any attempt to push this reality defying original research interpretation and we're going to notice board. Ergzay (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am clearly the one with a bias in regards to Elon Musk and related companies... I am clearly obsessed with this topic, just look at my edit history[3]. As you can see the top ten edited pages are all Musk related and seven out of ten of the top talk pages are Musk related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't even like Elon Musk. (Though I once did in the past.) Ergzay (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg article very clearly states that SpaceX attempted to negotiate with Taiwan, and the dispute over the %51 ownership requirement was the dealbreaker for both sides.

The Taiwanese and SpaceX began exploratory talks about the satellite supply chain in 2019, but in early 2022, the cordial tenor of those talks changed. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., as SpaceX is formally known, and its representatives in Taiwan began urging government officials to change a law that requires any telecommunications joint venture to have local majority ownership of at least 51%, according to two officials who took part in the meetings. That insistence made Taiwan wary, they said.

SpaceX, which owns and operates Starlink, pushed for 100%, arguing Musk wanted to own the company outright because that’s how he does business around the world, the people said, asking not to be identified because the discussions were private. Indeed in China, Tesla Inc.’s most important market outside of the US, the electric carmaker wholly owns its factory in Shanghai, an anomaly in a country where other foreign automakers must have local partners.

The lobbying also came with an ultimatum: Unless Taiwan agreed to change its ownership rules, the island would get no deal at all.

SpaceX didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment over a period of weeks. Wu Tsung-tsong, minister of the island’s National Science and Technology Council, which leads Taiwan’s science, technology and space development, said Taiwan so far doesn’t “plan to amend the rules,” although he added SpaceX would be welcome if there were a mutual compromise."

Bloomber's report and WP:SECONDARY analysis about SpaceX's request is consistent with other sources reporting Tesla's negotiation with China for %100 ownership of Tesla factories built there. Foonix0 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Yes exactly! Ergzay (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with other editors that this is inappropriate SYNTH. The statement "however the Journal also reported that Starlink has never secured permission to offer internet service in Taiwan because of Taiwanese government restrictions on non-Taiwanese owners" misrepresents the claims in the cited source. Stonkaments (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it misrepresent the claims of the article when it's directly quoting them and simply abbreviating? If people really have such a problem with the word "because" cutting out a few words, I'll add the comma back in. The reading just gets awkward however. Ergzay (talk) 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ergzay: Three different editors have now reverted your proposed change. Please refrain from further edits until reaching consensus here on the talk page.
You claim in your edit summary that you’re “directly quoting from the article without changing the meaning of the article contents”, but this is untrue; your wording changes the meaning in several key ways. Starting your proposed changes with “however” implies a rebuttal to the previous sentence, a novel interpretation that isn’t present in the original source. And the word “because” implies causation that also isn’t present in the original source.
Furthermore, the fact that the Taiwan government “places restrictions on non-Taiwanese satellite owners” is vague and as written it’s quite unclear as to how it’s relevant to this story. Proper context would probably need to mention the specific local majority ownership restriction in question, Musk’s ultimatum to attempt to get this restriction lifted, etc. But I suspect such details are likely undue weight for this article, and belong in the Starlink article instead. Stonkaments (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stonkaments Did you look at the change you reverted? There was no "because" in it. I'll come back in a few weeks and add it back in when people have calmed down. That's always what happens with these new stories, people go nuts over them and then some weeks later the proper details get added to the wiki page. It's happened numerous previous times, like for example with the claim being pushed all over the media that Elon Musk had "shut down" Starlink in Crimea. And the "because" was a simplification for readability of what was written in the article. It's called an explanatory statement in English. You put it after a comma. We already have sources that state exactly what I was referring to, like in that Bloomberg story. The only people who want to push alternative explanations are letting their emotions take hold because they don't want to believe that there's inconsistencies in the story. As to the WSJ "non-Taiwanese satellite owners" that's just WSJ author not understanding the difference between a satellite and an ISP. It's very obvious what happened. Ergzay (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Did you look at the change you reverted? There was no ‘because’ in it.” Huh? Your first edit had “because” in it (as well as a misleading edit summary claiming no change in meaning from the original source),[4], and your second edit had a misleading edit summary about a comma meaning the same thing as “because”[5], which isn’t true (and also contained an uncivil insult toward other editors not understanding English). I reverted both of them.
  • “I'll come back in a few weeks and add it back in when people have calmed down.” That’s not how reaching consensus works. See WP:BRD.
  • “The only people who want to push alternative explanations are letting their emotions take hold because they don't want to believe that there's inconsistencies in the story.” I recommend you review WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. It appears you’re trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and insert your own interpretation of events, which isn’t appropriate for Wikipedia. We need to carefully follow what the sources say, without adding our own interpretation to “state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources” (WP:SYNTH).
Stonkaments (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting an article on Building America's Future

[edit]

Draft:Building America's Future - anyone with the time or interest, your help would be appreciated! Doug Weller talk 12:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post reference contradicts Stanford drop out claim

[edit]

The Wikipedia bio for Elon Musk currently says:

"The Washington Post reported that Musk lacked legal authorization to remain and work in the United States after dropping out of Stanford.[57]"

That is not actually what the Washington Post reference [57] says:

"Musk arrived in Palo Alto in 1995 for a graduate degree program at Stanford University but never enrolled in courses, working instead on his start-up."

Not enrolling is not the same as dropping out. The term "dropping out" should be removed from his Wikipedia bio. StanfordMSME (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of reliable sources support the plainly factual statement that Musk dropped out of Stanford, including The Guardian,[6], CNBC[7], The LA Times[8], CNN[9], Fortune[10]. Stonkaments (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These "reliable sources" should be, but are not reliable. In these instances, they do not meet Wikipedia standards.
The Guardian[4]
The Guardian makes the same mistake currently in the Wikipedia bio. Like Wikipedia, The Guardian cites the Washington Post[57], but the Post only reports this:
"Musk arrived in Palo Alto in 1995 for a graduate degree program at Stanford University but never enrolled in courses, working instead on his start-up."
The Washington Post [57] does not say Musk "dropped out". They clearly state he "never enrolled".
A formal correction is in order.
CNBC[5]
Paul Maidment at CNBC repeats Elon Musk's claims without independent verification, which does not meet Wikipedia standards. Maidment writes:
"Musk then headed for Stanford to start a Ph.D. in applied physics but dropped out after two days..."
There has never been any documentation presented to back up this claim. The only available documentation [51], from Stanford's Director of Graduate Admissions, states:
"As per special request from my colleagues in the School of Engineering, I have searched Stanford's admission data base and acknowledge that you applied and were admitted to the graduate program in Material Science Engineering in 1995. Since you did not enroll, Stanford is not able to issue you an official certification document."
Note, the statement [51] says nothing about "PhD" or "applied physics".
A formal correction is in order.
The LA Times[6]
Justin Ray in the LA Times[6] writes:
"While introducing him for a 2016 discussion, former Stanford University President John Hennessy explained that Musk dropped out of Stanford after two days to start a business called Zip2"
In the YouTube video linked to by the LA Times, Hennessy actually says:
"...he arrived at Stanford to pursue a PhD in physics but left after two days"
Hennessy said Musk "left". He did not say Musk "dropped out ".
Ray put words in Hennessy's mouth that were never said, but since Ray didn't actually quote Hennessy, a formal correction isn't technically necessary.
CNN[7]
Catherine E. Shoichet at CNN[7] simply repeats Musk's claim, writing:
"He has said in the past that after leaving Penn he had planned to pursue graduate studies at Stanford, but dropped out to work on founding his first company."
Shoichet even includes a hyperlink to Musk's own tweet claiming he "Dropped out of Stanford Eng/Phys grad school".
Repeating Musk's claims without verification does not meet Wikipedia standards. Also, there is no such thing as Eng/Phys at Stanford.
Again, The only available documentation [51], states that he was admitted to the graduate program in Material Science Engineering, but did not enroll.
Since Shoichet admitted she was just repeating Musk's statements, a formal correction isn't technically necessary.
Fortune[8]
Mahnoor Khan at Fortune[8] writes:
"Among his many outlandish career moves is one that dates back to 1995 when he dropped out of Stanford after only two days at the prestigious institution. After earning two bachelor’s degrees, one of which was from the University of Pennsylvania, Musk entered a Stanford Ph.D. program in physics at the age of 24. Two days later, however, he changed his mind and called it quits."
Like others, Khan repeats Musk's claims without independent verification. This does not meet Wikipedia standards. There is no record of Musk entering a Stanford PhD program in physics.
Again, The only available documentation [51], states that he was admitted to the graduate program in Material Science Engineering, but did not enroll.
Furthermore, Khan's timeline is off, as Musk didn't earn his Bachelor's degrees from Penn until 1997, two years after Musk was admitted to the graduate program in MSE at Stanford.
A formal correction is definitely in order. StanfordMSME (talk) 05:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm missing something but what is the difference between dropping out and not enrolling in classes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you went to college, you probably applied and were accepted to more than one school, but you didn't drop out from the schools you never attended.
Likewise, if you got a job offer from Company A, but declined in favor of Company B, you could not say you quit from company A, because you were never an employee there.
Elon Musk was never a student in a graduate engineering program at Stanford. Their admissions director acknowledged in writing that he never enrolled. StanfordMSME (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were accepted... Admitted... And then did not enroll in classes you dropped out. Your anecdote would work if not for the actual admission part, if he was admitted then he was a student whether or not he enrolled in classes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States if you're accepted into a degree program and then simply don't show up for classes you have dropped out. You don't need to file paperwork that you've dropped out from the school. That's what "dropping out" means. Ergzay (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what dropping out means. I was accepted into four graduate engineering programs. I chose to enroll at Stanford. That does not mean that I dropped out of the other three. StanfordMSME (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping out refers to no longer going for the degree in question. Just going to another school is not dropping out. If you chose to go to none of them, then you'd be dropping out. Ergzay (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I went to Stanford, I had planned, and had the option, to continue for a PhD, but I decided not to. That does not make me a Stanford PhD dropout.
Likewise, if a high school student applies for and is accepted into a college, but decides the join the Army instead, that person is not a college dropout. StanfordMSME (talk) 03:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted =/= admitted... If they were admitted then they are technically a college drop out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping out = quitting
You can't quit something you don't start. 68.186.20.131 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if you signed the admissions paperwork you started, its the equivalent of signing an employment contract. Think about it this way... Do you need to be enrolled in classes to get a student discount or can you get that after admission? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are quibbling here about the precise definition of an imprecise idiom, which looks to me like a waste of time. Personally, I do not think "dropped out" applies because I think that you need to actually begin a course of study in order to drop out of it. Other editors seem to disagree about what the idiom means, so why not rewrite the content more precisely without using the imprecise idiom? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a proper suggestion, but for the lead at least I think the imprecise idiom is widely used enough to be due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously agree with your interpretation of dropping out. That said, I googled "college acceptance vs admittance" and here is the AI Overview:
In the college admissions process, "admitted" and "accepted" are generally used interchangeably to describe when a college offers a student a place in their incoming class. Both terms indicate that the college reviewed the student's application and decided to grant them admission.
While the terms are often used interchangeably, there are some slight differences in usage:
Admitted
This term is sometimes used to refer to the action taken by the college, such as "The college admitted 2,000 students this year".
Accepted
This term is sometimes used more frequently from the applicant's perspective, such as "I was accepted to three colleges".
Once a student is admitted or accepted, they can decide to enroll or wait to hear back from other colleges. It's important to keep track of each college's enrollment deadlines, as failing to accept an offer by the deadline may result in losing the spot in the class. StanfordMSME (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not enrolling after being admitted/accepted constitutes dropping out, I dropped out of 9 colleges that I never attended, including several that I never even visited. StanfordMSME (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think analogies are useful here. Consider:
Can someone be a corporate dropout if they've only worked for nonprofits?
I say no. Quitting or dropping out requires actually doing the thing first (intentions don't count). StanfordMSME (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may possibly be the only time in the history of modern English language usage when the idiom "dropped out" in this specific context has been deployed to make somebody look better. I am easily old enough to remember the silly Turn on, tune in, drop out slogan of the mid-1960s deployed by the Harvard psychologist Timothy Leary. But this meaning we are debating is different and far more closely aligned with mainstream idiomatic English language usage regarding high schools and colleges. Tens of millions of people and maybe far more have said "he dropped out of college" intending a meaning different from "he never even started college". Why not simply avoid the problem by substituting more precise language for the imprecise idiom? The neutral point of view does not require us to parrot the vague idioms that deadline driven journalistic sources sometimes use in a rush. We are perfectly free to, and should, use more precise language as long as we do not misrepresent the core of what the cited sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not smart enough to understand idioms and stuff, but what I see is "dropped out after two days" in the lead is not supported anywhere, whereas he never enrolled and instead worked as an illegal immigrant is reliably sourced, including according to his brother. I imagine some might prefer to look the other way from that, and that's kinda how hagiography can happen, especially about legends of really rich guys. I hope we don't go that way. soibangla (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The debate over the meaning of dropping out is a distraction from the real issue, which is Wikipedia attributing language to the Washington Post[57] that was not actually used by the Washington Post[57]. The Washington Post reporters do not say Musk dropped out. The only use of that term in [57] is in a quote from a former government lawyer. Wikipedia should make sure that is clearly stated. As a house keeping measure, [55] and [57] are duplicates. StanfordMSME (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musk's undergraduate degrees

[edit]

The article currently reads: "Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League university in Philadelphia, where he earned two degrees: a Bachelor of Arts in physics, and a Bachelor of Science in economics from the university's Wharton School. Although Musk has said that he earned the degrees in 1995, the University of Pennsylvania did not award them until 1997."

The first sentence is misleading, as it doesn't give any indication that Musk left the university in 1995 without completing his degree. We should also include the fact that Musk has misrepresented his physics degree as a Bachelor of Science.[11] Stonkaments (talk) 10:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this updated version sound?
"Two years later, he transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, but left in 1995 without finishing his degree. Two years later, in 1997, Musk was awarded a Bachelor of Arts in physics, and a Bachelor of Science in economics from the university's Wharton School. Musk has misrepresented his studies, claiming he earned the degrees two years earlier (in 1995), and that the physics degree was a Bachelor of Science." Stonkaments (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that he got the degrees in 1997? Need a direct citation for that to give a go-ahead. BarntToust 13:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He stated it in a SEC filing in 2002: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/musk-physics-degree/. QRep2020 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also this CNN article: "University of Pennsylvania spokesman Ron Ozio confirmed to CNN that Musk officially graduated in 1997 with degrees in economics and physics. In Vance’s biography, Musk is quoted stating he didn’t graduate in 1995 due to English and History coursework requirements he hadn’t completed. His degrees, he told Vance, were ultimately granted in 1997 because the requirements had changed." Stonkaments (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, that's a non-controversial change to make. You should use the CNN article, go ahead. That one. My suggestion is to write "Musk attended courses for a ...something something... degree until 1995 when he dropped out; his completed courses were recognized in 1997 as qualifying for degrees in economics and physics under the provisions of a changed set of course requirements." BarntToust 23:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, but I'd swap out the "dropped out" terminology as there's no indication of that in the sources. Ergzay (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely misleading rewrite, so absolutely not. It implies his degrees were received without merit. Ergzay (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=1254720514"