Talk:Elon Musk

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

Elon Musk

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.

Better source for autism self diagnosis?

The statement "although he has never been formally diagnosed." (with Asperger's) is currently cited to a Washington Post story that doesn't state anything of the sort, and the Isaacson bio, which has his mom saying he was never diagnosed as a child, but that he now says he has autism and she believes him. Can we find better sources supporting self-diagnosis or tweak the wording to better line up with the sources? There's also an event of WP:DATED to consider with such absolute statements. Whonting (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well are there any sources that dispute the claim it was self-diagnosis? Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so, but my question is if there are any making the claim it was a self-diagnosis. Whonting (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any making the claim it was a self-diagnosis? I don't know. Do we currently claim it was a self-diagnosis? Yes, see the quote above: "he has never been formally diagnosed". Whonting (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we do not have a soruce saying he was formally diagnosed, then how was he diagnosed? Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are quite circumspect, I would infer from their silence and Elon's that it is a self-diagnosis, but I am not bound by verifiability's requirement that sources Wikipedia:Directly supports it being a self-diagnosis. If we can't locate a source, best to remove the claim and say that he identifies as having Asperger's, that he says he came to the conclusion later in life, and that he was not diagnosed as a kid which can all be directly supported. Whonting (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or we totally remove it as it has never been formally diagnosed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be removing on the basis of it not being formally diagnosed if we don't have a source saying he has not been formally diagnosed. As a sample of how the sources are treating it, the WaPo piece currently cited is headlined "Elon Musk reveals he has Asperger's syndrome during SNL monologue". Whonting (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then its undiagnosed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We may be going in circles. I'll see if someone else weighs in, else I may drop a line at 3O if it's alright with you. Whonting (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Becasue you have not convinced me this is a problem, and wp:bludgeon may be now coming into it, so it's time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


lens RESPONSE TO THIRD OPINION REQUEST

Anything further to add, @Slatersteven or @Whonting?  — MWFwiki (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, @Slatersteven and @Whonting, upon review, barring something exceptional, I think I can render an opinion. Wikipedia isn't a medical journal nor Musk's doctor nor are we an arbiter of diagnoses. We report what the secondary sources say. If there is a secondary source which states "he is self-diagnosed", then we can use that. Otherwise, we go with what we have. As a compromise, might I suggest simply directly-attributing the claim? "In 2021, after appearing on Saturday Night Live, Musk claimed to have Asperger's." Or something along those lines. Does anyone know what Isaacson in Elon Musk had to say? They're cited, as well. So, long story short, WP:VNT; and I mostly agree with Whonting's contentions. Also, just as an outsider; I'd hardly consider their responses to you, @Slatersteven, to be "bludgeoning". AGF. Asking if you agree to start the 3O process is, again, hardly bludgeoning and I suspect you know this.  — MWFwiki (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MWFwiki. You can see my summary of the Isaacson source at the opening of this section: "which has his mom saying he was never diagnosed as a child, but that he now says he has autism and she believes him." I was at the library when I read this, and can head back if we need an exact quote. I don't mind the attribution, although I would tweak it to "In 2021, while appearing on Saturday Night Live, Musk stated he had Asperger's." to clarify the timing and align with MOS:CLAIM. Whonting (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that wording is great. No, I don't need an exact quote, if it roughly says that then it's essentially just confirming the article, though we could use that separately. "[...];[Washington Post source] Musk's mother has stated that while he was not 'diagnosed as a child,' she 'believes' Musk's assertion that he has Asperger's.[Isaacson source]" But otherwise, the proposed wording is fine.  — MWFwiki (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed the claim that he is self-diagnosed. I didn't include the content on his mother believing his identification, which I'm not too fussed about, anyone should feel free to include or exclude. Whonting (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk and South Africa. ~ A412 talk! 20:28, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The text "Biden White House" should link to Presidency of Joe Biden, not White House. Soy Division (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX acquired X

The section "X Corp." ought to be updated to note that it was acquired by and is now a division of SpaceX.

https://www.reuters.com/business/musks-spacex-merge-with-xai-combined-valuation-125-trillion-bloomberg-news-2026-02-02/ EngineeringIsFun (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Press mention

For Template:Press:

--Another Believer (Talk) 23:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move birth place and nationality up back up to the opening lead?

When I clicked on this article, I noticed Musk's nationality wasn't in the opening paragraph, when I figured this was common practice on Wikipedia per MOS:BIRTHPLACE? I want to reach a consensus first from other editors before making a change, after the invisible comment in the space where it should be placed says the original consensus was to move it below. I don't know what makes Musk's exempt from this unlike other BLP's like Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates. ConeKota (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have more than one? Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.