Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by QRep2020 (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 10 October 2024 (→Page sorely needs to be updated. Fear of irritating Musk, and the MAGA cult, shouldn't play a role here: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]

Survey

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]

Discussion

Vivian Musk

Vivian is now a public figure. I think it's problematic, from a historian's perspective, to not include her dead name. I think there is a way to respectfully refer to her as previously being known as (redacted). It's an important fact in the life of someone that may one day become far more notable than they are now.

Currently, you have to go back as far as 2012 news sources to even find this information. We shouldn't decide to erase history like this just because it offends someone. It can be tastefully done as a footnote, or something.

Because this is a controversial issue, I am not making any changes to this page. But I think someone should make it happen if consensus is reached that it should. Luxdsg (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxdsg, your proposal is contrary to long established practice. Please read WP:DEADNAME and read it carefully. Cullen328 (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This habit we have got into of erasing the past is unfortunate but is becoming all pervasive. However, here at least, the MOS rules and this is how it is - until it changes. The City of Londonderry is legally so called but the MOS says that it must be referred to as Derry etc.etc. so as suggested by Cullen328 read the MOS and if you disagree AND have the time and energy see if you can get a consensus for change. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

In the Politics sections under Personal views and Twitter Usage change "Musk and Trump spoke for 2 h" to "Musk and Trump spoke for two hours" SomeoneOK (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MV

@Ergzay In retrospect, it was my fault for putting such a stupid edit summary, but I meant that the MV was genuinely useful as an example of Musk’s public persona and that Britannica would be too snobby to link to anything like it. I didn’t put the music video there for fun. Could we discuss the inclusion of content? Bremps... 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of the music video. Is the video mentioned in any source? Ergzay (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t have an article on the song or the music group Bremps... 17:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I was asking what notability it has as referenced by external sources. If it isn't referenced by anything then it definitely does not deserve inclusion in the article. Ergzay (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case no, no external sources have commented on it. Bremps... 18:25, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then the situation seems clear. Ergzay (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe explain what you think this adds to the article? Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it better conveys his public persona as IRL Tony Stark (not that I necessarily agree with this characterization of him) than the Obama photo. Bremps... 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have more than enough about his being the inspiration for Tony Stark. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still not sure that we should go with the Obama photo, though. It’s arguably detrimental to understanding given his rightward turn in recent years. Bremps... 18:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seperate debate. Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't appear to have that at all... We have him being part of the inspiration for the Marvel depiction of Tony Stark, but nothing about Elon Musk being the inspiration for Tony Stark a comic book character which originated in the 1960s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starlink is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SpaceX, yet both have full subsections of detail in this BLP article on Musk. Starlink is important, but since it is not a separate Musk company, should probably be handled in the SpaceX section. A full section of coverage in the Musk BLP article seems WP:UNDUE. What do others think on this, as a matter of wiki policy and making a good article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e I completely agree that the Starlink section should be pared down to a paragraph or so and included in the SpaceX section. His views on the Ukraine war should go elsewhere and how Starlink interacted with it should have a single line mention along with a link to the relevant article. That's my opinion anyway. Ergzay (talk) 11:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

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]

Elon Musk X (fka Twitter) Ownership "Controversial"

"His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of the layoffs of large numbers of employees, an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation posts on the website, and changes to Twitter Blue verification."

This opinion reads as if written by a former Twitter employee who lost their role with said employer. Some would hold there is no controversy in reducing workforce in a bloated company.

To claim "an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation" demands a citation, otherwise it is mere speculation.

In contrast to the thought of the individual who wrote these initial remarks, one could argue Mr. Musk's ownership of X (fka Twitter) has been welcomed by those who support free speech. d5f61b1c@opayq.com (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations not required per MOS:LEADCITE as it's a broad WP:DUE summary of the child article Twitter under Elon Musk that is summarised in this article. Being welcomed by those who support free speech is not due by comparison. CNC (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were true, that would still mean some didn't agree with it, thus there was a controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=1250405248"