Talk:Elon Musk

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Former good articleElon Musk was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
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
July 23, 2025Good article reassessmentDelisted
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: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Elon Musk

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Strong consensus for expedited delisting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior issues were raised by editors at Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 22#Good Article Concerns, though no action was taken to follow up on them. The largest issues in this article relate to stability and citations. On stability, article content has changed significantly week after week and it can no longer be assumed that there is a consistent level of quality, in addition to the various disputes that have arisen in the last six months since Musk has become involved with the U.S. federal government. As far as citations, a non-negligible amount of work would have to go into improving them, namely in the "Politics" section. The CiteHighlighter script may be useful here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Please note WP:GAR: "Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting The article has undergone over 5,000 edits since its reassessment in November 2022. To say that the article has changed significantly since then would be an understatement. This article suffers from neutrality issues (namely UNDUE WEIGHT/BLPGOSSIP problems) and poor sourcing. Some1 (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting. This article has a few maintenance tags throughout, including for dated statements, Sfn no-target errors and page numbers. As Some1 mentioned, its neutrality is dubious and the tone is often gossipy. Many of the cited sources are news reports without any enduring notability. On stability, the article's content continues to significantly fluctuate from day to day, as the subject is often in the news; of the past 500 edits, 50 have been reverted. Bringing it back to meeting GA criteria will obviously require a huge amount of work, and will be subject to constant scrutiny, so long as the subject continues making headlines. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rollinginhisgrave, QRep2020, Kowal2701, Czarking0, JamieBrown2011, JacktheBrown, HAL333, CommunityNotesContributor, and Rosbif73: Courtesy ping to participants in the above mentioned talk page discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting I think going through all the criteria for this is not going to be a productive use of people's time. If this was to go to GAN today (or nearly any day of the past 6 months) it would require significant work to pass. I commend the effort of the many people who have put time and patience into this article. If some them have good arguments for why this should stay listed I am certainly open to changing my mind; however, at this time I think keeping this as a GA is not in the best interest of the GA brand, the readers, the project, or even the article itself.
Czarking0 (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delisting, despite getting this page down from 14.6K words to 5.8K, and it now being back at 7k words, there's still a lot I don't believe meets GA criteria, namely as suggested enough of the citations. I did my best trimming to summary style, but I still think there are likely undue weight issues. Fundamentally it's nothing like the original GA and would require full check to get it there. Probably the article itself should settle down before even considering nomination also, given the content disputes etc. CNC (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pay Package Announcement

[edit]

In the legal affairs section, it could make sense to include recent announcement that the Tesla board approved a $23.7 billion pay package unless a court rescues the $50 billion pay package.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/tesla-approves-ceo-musk-pay-package-7c75a7bf?mod=hp_lead_pos1 Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageously false Wikipedia Musk biography data, especially strikes his "EDUCATION", the only one I reviewed

[edit]

Hi, I'm writing this as you seem to be only one of the few who are interested / motivated to correct Musk's wikipedia biography data. I spent about 2 days reading court cases about Elon Musk, including his depositions, evidence, and complaints dating to 1990s and find his "Education" part article outrageously false, fabricated and up for removal. It's a shame for Wikipedia to have this on one of the most-read articles on the Wikipedia, that has 99% of the world populations, simply trusts.

  1. Elon Musk has no degree in Physics, only bs in economics. All sources cited rely on Vance's book, which is BASED on what MUSK said to him. I've searched all data on the internet, including court deposition, where Musk was caught lying on deposition in 2007, here are (just some, simplified for you) sources, – https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zPeWaaCZHqfq0tnkPwc61A6bGHySdj91
  2. The notion "wrote a business plan for an electronic book-scanning service similar to Google Books" cites article by the British Guardian, which is based on their interview with Musk himself (as Guardian replied to me in an recent email I can show).
  3. The notion that "Musk held two internships" relies on Vance's book, self-interviewed. No one from Pinnacle Research Institute specifically had ever stepped up and confirmed it in ANY form. The company had a big presence in 90s.
  4. The notion of "his acceptance to a graduate program in materials science at Stanford" is wrong, as there's no one who's ever confirmed Elon's acceptance, nor anyone who remembers him and there's no possible to verify it without Elon Musk's (confirmation). Information on it is substantially revealed in the lawsuits against him, where he was forced to reveal information (some of the lawsuits mentioned in the link above). Furthermore, there was no such department as "material science" at Stanford in 90s; at the time he claims acceptance, he didn't have graduation diploma from Wharton (which he, as confirmed in court depositions, had NOT received until 1997), Stanford would had never accepted ANY student against its own protocols (someone without a diploma). Stanford acceptance doesn't exist. Neither anyone from the faculty remembers reviewing his application.
  5. The notion "applying for a job at Netscape" is based on Musk's own self-given interviews to CNBC (which it was happy to provide him with due to the views and publicity).
  6. The rest two sentences are based on what "Musk has said". Everything is a blunt lie and it's heart-breaking to read it publicly.

I couldn't not proceed further because, apparently, everything is fabricated and I just wanted to start with a little note (this note with you), as you are the only who can do a change on Wikipedia and has power to do it.

Reading court cases and his depositions and the lies that he fed court is utterly painful (nevertheless it still recommended as all of his court cases against him must be read by anyone to see how much of a swindler he is).

Since I cannot edit, neither semi-edit, I reach out to you as the only remedy either to reach out to Wikipedia / or edit / lead discussion with Wikipedia yourself.

Thank you very much for reading it! Ruslanhonchar1997 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Vance is a man by the way. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say he’s been the world’s richest man since 2021?

[edit]

He was surpassed by Bernard Arnault for a non-trivial amount of time, no? Somarain (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]