Talk:Elon Musk

Some of the sources in this article are ridiculously bad

I don't get how this article seriously can have something like that as a source: https://newrepublic.com/article/177695/elon-musk-scoundrel-year-2023-new-republic

It's literally a straight up hater article on the level of an angry reddit user, where they claim he is the ultimate evil and make statements that almost hurt from it's stupidity like this one "The rockets from his rocket company, SpaceX, keep exploding".

It apparently does not matter what quality a source has, as long as it supports the point of view of the (generally left leaning) Wikipedia editors. Lrzw (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Amen! I was just reading the Wiki about Elon. Same hate on him in Wiki. Accusing him of misinformation about Covid (untrue). All of these writeups are incorrectly done on Elon. They list his accomplishments and then bash him for his opinions, which we all have and can change as one gets wiser to the world and the people in it. These lefties have not grown up yet and refuse to, because they act as though they already know it all. They dont seem to understand that people grow and change over time. Its called WISDOM. 2603:6010:1105:E395:8C1F:67A9:3A0F:D22D (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

He is good 204.111.243.146 (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I think some people need to read wp:soapbox. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Random editor passing by, I looked over that New Republic article and its use in this wiki article; it's only cited to support the claim that The New Repuublic labeled Musk as "Scoundrel of the Year", which they did. Now I personally disagree with the content of The New Republic's opinion piece, but in this case there's no need for this source to be removed, as the New Republic on the wiki has been described as opinionated but "generally reliable" (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_New_Republic, and no one here has opposed including the New Republic's ""award"" for Elon Musk into the article. I'd say keeping it in actually helps the section its in (Public perception) keep towards WP:NPOV. Were there any other "ridiculously bad" sources you had in mind @User:Lrzw? SpacePod9 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Just because a source is WP:GREL does not warrant inclusion. "Scoundrel of the Year" is a non-notable anti-award (no wiki page), so one can claim that it fails WP:DUE considering other listed awards/honors in that section have their own article. That is also probably why other "Scoundrel of the Year" winners (e.g. Zuckerberg, DeSantis) don't have it mentioned on their pages. Ptrnext (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. WP:NOTNEWS says information in Wikipedia should be enduring in nature and not content appropriate for a gossip magazine. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it given there appears to be consensus. Ergzay (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this edit. BoldGnome (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me? No. I disagree, Slatersteven does, and clearly SpacePod9. Please change it back. QRep2020 (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you articulate why you disagree, based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? Simply saying you disagree is not sufficient. And why you haven't previously responded to the above arguments if you feel strongly about the inclusion of the content? I'm noticing a concerning pattern on this article. BoldGnome (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Because I added it originally. And agree with SpacePod's argument. QRep2020 (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 Please be mindful of WP:OWN. You do not own this page. It's irrelevant who added it originally. Ergzay (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll just say your interpretation of what I attempted to convey is completely wrong and politely leave it at that. QRep2020 (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You stated that you disagree with removing it after it had already been removed. When asked why you disagree with removing it, you stated that it was because you added it originally, which isn't a valid reason. If I am misinterpreting what you said then you'll need to clarify what you actually meant by that statement.

As to who agreed/disagreed. You had not offered any opinion. Slatersteven had not offerered any opinion just an unrelated comment. SpacePod9 was the only one who gave any statement against it and Ptrnext and JamieBrown2011 both disagreed with SpacePod9's argument and gave reasonable reasons to back their opinion up. Ergo, there was, and continues to be consensus as I am also in agreement with all the statements and reasonings given. Ergzay (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The New Republic is a reliable source per WP:RSP, though its opinions should be attributed, which they are/were in the Musk article. The publication references its award elsewhere in its publication history, so it isn't some one-off hokey attempt, and it specifically mentions the 2023 award again at https://newrepublic.com/article/179867/ceo-pay-tax-dodging-corporations.

The 2023 award is referenced by a secondary source, the Hindustan Times, at https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/elon-musk-dubbed-2023-scoundrel-of-the-year-by-us-website-evil-unserious-101703842084560.html. WP:NEWSORGINDIA contains a warning about using articles from the Brand section of the Hindustan Times, but that doesn't apply here. The Reliable Source Noticeboards offer discussions of the general respectability of HT, especially in its primary regions of readership.

Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article, doesn't mean it isn't worthy of mention - for example, the FAI Gold Space Medal doesn't have one (only the FAI Gold Air Medal gets that treatment). Its inclusion balances a paragraph otherwise devoted to how often the Times talks about his importance, which, if you think about it for a second, is probably one of the reasons TNR issued him this title.

As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source. QRep2020 (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you need to better read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It states "Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian news media. Coverage related to the above-mentioned entities requires extra vigilance given the diverse systemic approaches to paid news and the lack of clear disclosure practices in Indian media." If it's pervasive and deeply integrated you can't separate them. I would discard that as not really helping your point.

> As a reminder, there are plenty of statements in Elon Musk with a single source.

Sure and we should not make the problem worse.

My biggest issue with that statement is that it's so severe to fall to the level of violating WP:Libel. Putting in some other negative source to balance it I think would be fine, as long as it's an accurate criticism. Ergzay (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you suggesting TNR paid Hindustan Times? I think that would require some evidence. Again, the only reference to Hindustan Times' involvement with advertorial content points to its Brand section - the article isn't in the Brand section.

This is the first time you've brought up libel. How is it libel to state that a major publication called him a "scoundrel" and making it clear that it is a title by saying it was awarded, worded with capital letters, etc.? Its attributive in definitive form. He himself hasn't even accused them of libel, and its a pretty tame epithet with little legal actionability at that. QRep2020 (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times is not a reliable source. BoldGnome (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

"Traditionally, the Times of India, Hindustan Times and the Hindu have a large readership base and are generally respected."

It should be noted that this source is not just "quoted" in other RSes as claimed by the above editor, but used as a source of information. Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information ("According to..." etc.), not just mention it. So actually there is an evidence, and the evidence is more than clear.

QRep2020 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you link this one? tsk tsk BoldGnome (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

That section is supposed to summarize contents in Elon Musk filmography and List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk. There are many other notable awards (with their own article) in the main awards page that are not included in this section, so adding this obscure anti-award certainly appears to be undue. If you wish, you can add this obscure anti-award in the awards page. Also, note that all the awards and honors listed in the section have been awarded for decades and generally have a lasting impact. This anti-award has been around for what? 5 years, with no known impact? Ptrnext (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

"PhD" not supported by citations & "dropout" refuted by citations

With regard to:

"In 1995, he was accepted to a PhD program in materials science at Stanford University.[47][51][55] However, Musk decided to join the Internet boom, dropping out two days after being accepted and applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

The citations establish that Musk was accepted into a "graduate" program in Materials Science Engineering. That could be either a Master's program or a PhD program. It is not specified. The citations also establish that Musk did not enroll, which means "dropping out" was impossible.

I suggest the passage above be rewritten as:

"In 1995, he was accepted into a graduate program in Materials Science Engineering at Stanford University, but did not enroll.[47][51] Musk decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.[56][38]"

Note that I omitted the Bloomberg [55] citation as it merely repeats the "dropout" claim without providing information contradicting the letter from Stanford that says he did not enroll [51]. StanfordMSME (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done thank you for the clarification! Feoffer (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The statement at the top of the article (that he "dropped out after two days") should probably also be amended. According to the letter from the admissions officer, he did not enroll.

He failed to graduate from Penn after being admitted to Stanford, so it is possible that he was admitted but had his admission rescinded. 2603:8080:1301:16DC:618C:D41C:D0DC:6B3 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no room in the article for things that are possible but not established, nor for things that are impossible, such as "dropping out" of a school one hasn't attended. Suggested: "but instead co-founded Zip2, an online city guide software company, with his brother Kimbal." 2601:642:4600:D3B0:80D3:EA:68F8:1E43 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

He finished his coursework in 1995 and graduated from Penn in 1997,[1] but only one of his bachelor's degrees is from Penn.[2]

We may be able to find a source that says he didn't enroll because his degree was still pending until 1997 due to paperwork clearance. 173.230.86.127 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He received a BA from Penn in 1997 because he was missing a required writing seminar in 1995 and his BS in economics from Penn in 1995. The only reason it's two degrees is because he didn't qualify for the Bachelor of Arts and Sciences in econ in 1995. 140.228.133.253 (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative ghost rider. BA in physics and BS in econ, both awarded in 1997.[3]

In 2019, Aaron Greenspan, owner of the legal website Plainsite, as well as a frequent critic of, and litigant against, Elon Musk, asked Penn for a statement on Musk's degrees. In response, the university's public affairs office stated that: Elon Musk earned a B.A. in physics and a B.S. in economics (concentrations: finance and entrepreneurial management) from the University of Pennsylvania. The degrees were awarded on May 19, 1997.

This source says the delay was due to a paperwork issue.[4]

It would be safe to assume that he decided not to do the PhD program and did in fact "drop out" because he took two years to sort out the issue preventing him from being award the degrees. 71.120.188.59 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"safe to assume"? That's not how Wikipedia works. I did grad school at Stanford. I was accepted at 5 other schools. Would you say I "dropped out" from all of them? 166.205.190.144 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No, but could see why Musk would characterize it that way. He chose not to continue his education and you did. 2601:603:1200:15B0:30E4:422E:3C9:19B5 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nuance in the wording in the lede on the term "early investor in Tesla"

Yes Elon Musk was an "early investor" in Tesla, however I think some additional clarification or wording is needed to avoid the default assumption that is made when people read that statement. As written it basically implies that Musk had no involvement in the company after investing and "early investment" brings an image of a company that already exists and is growing at the time of investment. Neither of which is true. Simply saying he helped found the company isn't accurate either but wording that represents the position somewhere in the middle is needed. Does anyone have any suggestions? Can we simply add "very" to "early"? What about "invested in and became involved with"? I'll make an edit and then we can discuss further changes. Ergzay (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The original wording in no way implies universal acceptance of Musk as making antisemitic statements, so the addition is superfluous. Additionally, the edit is paradigmatically weasel wording, so I recommend all invested editors (re)read the appropriate MoS section closely. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@QRep2020 It's the opposite of weasel wording. Weasel wording is when you use words to prop up a statement. What I'm doing is properly contextualizing wikivoice into closer to what the rest of the article states.

Quoting: "The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution." Ergzay (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

What part of "In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO." has weasel words? Ergzay (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

You are proposing or making so many changes so quickly to this article that I ended up referring to changed text in the wrong place. As you could obviously tell, what with me discussing antisemitic matters instead of what he was doing in 2004. Take a breather. QRep2020 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The following text was reverted by QRep2020 claiming above that it contains weasel words:

In 2004 he contributed most of the initial investment in and became heavily involved with electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, and in 2008 assumed the position of CEO.

back to:

In 2004, Musk was an early investor in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.). He became the company's chairman and product architect, assuming the position of CEO in 2008.

Pinging some people to see if there is consensus for this change. If you have issues with it, be constructive. @Slatersteven @Feoffer @BoldGnome @ReferenceMan @Tikaboo. Ergzay (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no view on this matter other than that it's abundantly obvious to anyone with any sense or understanding of weasel words that neither text includes weasel words. BoldGnome (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the change, it's a little less vague with more detail. Tikaboo (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a toughie cause I do see what we're trying to do by improving on "early investor". He wasn't just an early investor, he was (my OR words) early and pivotal. That said, the first text feels REALLY forced, like we're going out of our way to remind the reader how important he was.

My instinct is to try to find a RS quote calling him something more than an mere "early investor"? How much is "most", what is "heavily involved" -- we can pin that down more. Feoffer (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Something like "He was an early investor who provided most of the initial financing in electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (later Tesla, Inc.)." Describing him becoming the chairman, etc. in the following sentence already implies his heavy involvement. QRep2020 (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. Feoffer (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

How about "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

Citation: Isaacson, p. 128. "Eberhard faced a problem. He had an idea and a name, but he had no funding...After a follow-up meeting that included Tarpenning, they agreed that Musk would lead the initial financing round with a $6.4 million investment and become chair of the board...The pieces thus came together for what would become the world’s most valuable and transformative automobile company: Eberhard as CEO, Tarpenning as president, Straubel as chief technology officer, Wright as chief operating officer, and Musk as the chair of the board and primary funder. Years later, after many bitter disputes and a lawsuit, they agreed that all five of them would be called cofounders." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice -- I think my favorite wording for the first sentence is yours: "In 2004, Musk led the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the company's chairman. " I think I would like to see the $6.4M figure included and "chairman" specified as 'of the board' for people readers who aren't familiar with corporate structure; see what others think. Feoffer (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we should say he bought a majority stake rather than 'led the initial funding', which doesn't have clear meaning to most readers I think. Tikaboo (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

OK. How about: "In 2004, Musk provided most of the initial funding for electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc (later Tesla, Inc.), and became the chairman of the board. He later became the product architect, and in 2008 the CEO."

ReferenceMan (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Tikaboo, "majority stake" sort of suggests maybe they had lots of funding already but Musk bought those funders out; I don't think that's the case.

I'm good with your first sentence if others are. Product architect is its own thing, I don't [yet] know what it means or when it happened. Feoffer (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Product architect is a good question. The earliest reliable source I've found is from 2009:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/24/plugged-in

"Musk, thirty-eight, is the chairman, C.E.O., and product architect of Tesla Motors"

which is corroborated by a tesla.com blog post from 2010:

https://www.tesla.com/blog/stanford-business-school-taps-tesla-motors-global-executive-program-customer-in

"said Tesla CEO and Product Architect Elon Musk."

ReferenceMan (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Feoffer It was more than "majority stake". Majority stake just implies over 50%, whereas Musk was at 90%. I think it's important to clarify, in effect, the company was almost fully owned by him from the day the company really got going. Ergzay (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

More than the numeric value I think it's important that the percentage value be important, which was according to available sources, 90%. Ergzay (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure why not. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why add words? Slatersteven (talk)

SEC suit in the lead and the body

Should mention in the lead and in the body that Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle. - https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-us-sec-bastards-forced-settlement-over-tesla-tweets-2022-04-14/

Maybe something like this? In 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sued Musk, alleging that he had falsely announced that he had secured funding for a private takeover of Tesla. To settle the case, Musk stepped down as the chairman of Tesla and paid a $20 million fine. Musk maintains that funding was secured but was forced to settle as banks would not provide capital to Tesla with the suit ongoing. Tikaboo (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

IN the lede no, in the body yes. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Errol Musk

Errol Musk redirects to Elon Musk. The link should be removed. --Achim Adotz (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Why, is he notable in his own right? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:CIRCULAR. CNC (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

FAQ question removed

I removed the following FAQ question and answer:

What is the deal with Musk's father supposedly having partly owned an emerald mine? Both Elon and Errol have said as much in the past but recently changed their stories, leaving the facts murky. In terms of prior confirmation, journalists with access to them have reported it as part of Elon's background. Specifically, a 2014 report originally printed in the San Jose Mercury News (and cited in the article) stated that Errol Musk had "a stake in" a mine. Elon affirmed his father's mine involvement in an interview with Jim Clash, a career interviewer of public figures, that was published by Forbes and withdrawn without explanation a few months later. Elon biographer Ashlee Vance likewise confirmed Errol's mining interest, with Elon's objections but not denials, in a 2020 interview report with Elon. While today Elon disputes almost everything about the story, Errol has stated that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of emeralds from his dealings.

The rest of the questions and answers pertain to this article and the editorial decisions that have gone into its writing. This question has nothing to do with the article, and instead may be taken as a frequently-asked question about Musk, which it is not Wikipedia’s place or job to provide answers to. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Lede currently claims that Elon Musk endorsed (as in agreed with) antisemitic conspiracy theories

This is not backed up by the content of the article. He several times said that he was sorry for what he said and that he was sorry for giving a "loaded gun to those who ... are antisemitic". Pushing in the lede that he endorsed antisemetic conspiracy theories misconstrues the rest of the article's content. @QRep2020 please don't revert it again. Ergzay (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

He apologized for what exactly then?

Also are you familiar with BRD? You made the change, I changed it back, we're discussing it now. Why change it again? QRep2020 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:BRB? I agree, we're discussing now. He apologized for making the tweet that implied he was pushing support for antisemitism. As written the lede implies that Elon Musk himself is an antisemite. Ergzay (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

According to Wikidictionary, 'endorse' means "To express support or approval, especially officially or publicly". He publicly expressed approval of an antisemitic theory and then later claimed that it was a mistake. All we know for a fact is the utterance as we have no window into the man's mind. "Mistakenly endorsed" assumes too much.

Besides, reliable sources use that very language:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-actual-truth-antisemitic-post-backlash-advertisers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/technology/elon-musk-endorses-antisemitic-post-ibm.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/22/elon-musk-visits-auschwitz-antisemitism-twitter-x

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/elon-musk-begins-wartime-visit-israel-aviation-tracker-says-2023-11-27/

QRep2020 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, you can't put into wikipedia voice text that implies things through the writing that different things are happening. This is the point of the prohibition of weasel words, because they can misconstrue what happened. If you don't like "mistakenly endorse" then a different word can be chosen than "endorse" because he did not express support for antisemite conspiracy theories. Ergzay (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

But he did - he made a public expression of approval. And reliable sources covering the act described it as such. That isn't weasel wording - "appearing to endorse" is.

Can you provide the updated language you're recommending on the Talk page instead of making changes each time on the live article? It's more conducive to a discussion that way. Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I personally prefer to make edits to the page to propose changes rather than for them to get lost in discussions. It makes things more concrete. If you don't like a word choice, feel free to make an edit and comment why you chose it on the talk page. And I can do the same and we can continue to discuss and edit. As long as we're not putting the same thing back in the article there is no edit warring happening. Ergzay (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

As to "But he did - he made a public expression of approval.". He made a vague statement that was easily open to various interpretations. As he said, "I gave a loaded gun to those who hate me and to antisemites". Ergzay (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The tweet he responded to ended with "You want the truth said to your face, there it is". Musk said "You have said the actual truth". It isn't vague in the slightest. QRep2020 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Appearing to endorse" would be weasel wording if he hadn't afterwards clearly apologized and explained that what happened wasn't his intention, but considering he did, I don't see how it is. Ergzay (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten it again removing "mistakenly". Ergzay (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll also add even the words "support" and "approval" implies that the person actually likes what is being proposed. As you said, we cannot read the mind of Elon Musk so we should not imply that he thinks a certain way. That's why the article takes careful care to just use the quotations of the tweets almost in full. Ergzay (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hence the usage of 'endorsing', which denotes a public expression. His thinking doesn't factor in. QRep2020 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

For someone to endorse something they need to agree with it. It's not a purely externally observable action. Ergzay (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It's possible we're talking different definitions of endorse. You appear to be reading it in the sense that some person endorses a political candidate with a public statement. I'm taking it in the sense that someone is endorsing a viewpoint they agree with. This is why endorse is a poor choice of word. Ergzay (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm using the primary definition from Wikitionary: 1. To express support or approval, especially officially or publicly. The only other definition from there that applies to this circumstance would be: 3. To give an endorsement. You can't express or give something that isn't somehow available to others.

Here's Merriam-Webster's: 2. a. to approve openly, especially: to express support or approval of publicly and definitely. Again, you can't approve openly in the privacy of subjectivity.

Endorsement at its core is verifiable. Hence the other lexicography for the word: endorsing a check, endorsing a product, etc.

The attempt to use the notions I introduced against my own arguments is crafty, but keeps falling short. We're covering the same ground over and over. QRep2020 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You added the wording "that latter of", which I agree is a good change, but if we were to go back to your preferred wording without the "appearing to" it would read

He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation and endorsing antisemitic conspiracy theories, the latter of which he later apologized for.

If you endorse something and then you apologize for endorsing it, that's a confusion in terms as it presents an image of someone who's only sarcastically apologizing. Keeping "appearing to" is now vital to maintain clarity and match the rest of the article. Ergzay (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Right now it's "theories" as in multiple, but I thought it was just that one Tweet he agreed with. Also I'm curious if detailing that in the lead is the most appropriate. I feel like that was big news for a while but other right-wing (sometimes conspiracy) stuff has had more staying power and attention. Instead of specifying COVID-19 and that specific Tweet about Jews, how about something like this: Musk has expressed views that have made him a polarizing figure. He has been criticized for promoting right-wing and far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation. His ownership of Twitter has been similarly controversial, with studies alleging an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation posts on the website Tikaboo (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The "He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation" part came from a somewhat recent and lengthy Talk page discussion. We need keep that part. QRep2020 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

As for the "theories" part, the tweet he affirmed as the actual truth bundles together multiple antisemitic arguments. QRep2020 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I just think he's engaged in such a varied array of right-wing/far-right/conspiracy stuff that we're kind of out of date by honing in on covid which is old news, and the antisemitism Tweet which is a singular moment without as much staying power. I think we can come up with better wording that encompasses it all. I'll leave the discussion here if others don't agree though. Tikaboo (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead: "an increase in hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the website"

Should probably note in the lead that this allegation relies on just the number of hate speech Tweets, whereas Twitter says that the actual views these hate speech Tweets get has been reduced. Tikaboo (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean Twitter's response that there's been a decrease in views of hate speech should be included. Tikaboo (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning Twitter's suppression of impressions of hateful posts can go in the article but I don't think it belongs in the lead. It might work in the lead for Twitter under Elon Musk as it's part of the content moderation policy adopted after the acquisition. QRep2020 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

change:

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 degree 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. He reportedly hosted large, ticketed house parties to help pay for tuition, and wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books.

In 1994, Musk held two internships in Silicon Valley: one at energy storage startup Pinnacle Research Institute, which investigated electrolytic ultracapacitors for energy storage, and another at Palo Alto–based startup Rocket Science Games. In 1995, he was accepted to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford University, but did not enroll. Musk decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.

to:

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 degree in economics from the university's Wharton School. Musk has said that he earned the degrees in 1995; the same year he was accepted to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford University. The University of Pennsylvania did not award his degrees until 1997 due to a paperwork issue and he never enrolled at Stanford. Musk describes this as dropping out, and said he decided to join the Internet boom, applying for a job at Netscape, to which he reportedly never received a response.

While in undergraduate school, he reportedly hosted large, ticketed house parties to help pay for tuition, and wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books. In 1994, Musk held two internships in Silicon Valley: one at energy storage startup Pinnacle Research Institute, which investigated electrolytic ultracapacitors for energy storage, and another at Palo Alto–based startup Rocket Science Games.

paperwork issue 2600:1700:27C1:2AF0:6849:9128:8000:E145 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)