Talk:Elon Musk

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bmxchuckie (article contribs). Template:Vital article

Canadian?

So he was born in South Africa, moved to Canada when he was 17, then moved to the US when he was 19. And we are calling him a Canadian? I don't think so. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We should not call a Canadian citizen of Canadian descent a Canadian? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not. The "Canadian citizen" comes from his two-years in Canada - the rest of his life has been in South Africa or the US. And many people have dual US-Canadian citizenship; it is slightly more inconvenient to go to school and impossible to accept certain job offers without applying for citizenship.

The "Canadian descent" claim, while technically correct, is also dubious. His father, Errol Graham Musk, was South African-born and has English, Dutch Afrikaner, and French Huguenot, ancestry. His mother, Maye (Maiden name Haldeman) Musk, was born in Canada but moved to South Africa when she was two years old. She has English, German and Swiss, ancestry, and her father and mother were both born in the US. If ancestry is the way to determine nationality, you might as well call Elon Musk a Frenchman. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A bit of interesting trivia: according to[1], Elon Musk figured out that it would be easier to become an American citizen as a Canadian than a South African. According to [2], "Elon made his move after he graduated high school. Though he already felt like an American, he'd done research and concluded that it would be easier to obtain American citizenship as a Canadian immigrant rather than as a South African one."

Marginally related: [3][4] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a source: It is a buzzfeed-style website that does not generate original content and instead copies text with a link to the source. For the statement about Elon Musk becoming Canadian, there is no functioning link to any source. Furthermore, the very same text appears in the 2nd source posted (the snopes source) which is effectively calling into the question the validity of that very text. There is no cited reliable information that Elon Musk considered himself American and only sought Canadian citizenship because it was easier. For that reason, I still reference my earlier comment, that there is not yet any reliable source in this discussion to indicate that having Canadian citizenship and living in Canada for a pivotal period of life makes one not Canadian. Sundin14 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This is factually inaccurate - how would it be difficult to go to school in Canada without citizenship? The vast majority of international students in Canada do not require applying for citizenship to study there, nor do they seek to obtain it. There needs to be an established reason why having Canadian citizenship is not in and of itself grounds to apply the demonym "Canadian" to that person. So far in this discussion, the argument I am criticizing here is the only argument that seeks to argue against Canadian citizenship being grounds to use the demonym. With that argument nullified, I see no argument in here right now against the reverting back to it saying "Canadian American". One would need to establish why both citizenship and having lived there would not be grounds for the demonym, with precedents from other Wikipedia articles, which I have not yet seen posted here. For that reason, I feel it should be reverted back to its original form until that argument and precedent can be established. (5/18/2018) Sundin14 (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I want to challenge to the comment that his ancestry is not Canadian, argued by listing prior European ancestries of his Canadian mother. Elon Musk has explicitly stated that he is Half Canadian [5] Sundin14 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

He has different citizenships which makes it hard to tell, but since he is currently living and working in the US it's for now probably best to call him American. B-Movie Fan (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Tri-country citizenship

The article currently states:

Citizenship

South Africa (1971–present)
Canada (1989–present)

United States (2002–present)

Do each of these countries allow simultaneous citizenship in two other countries? Do we have a source that Musk is currently a citizen of all three, at the same time, in 2018? N2e (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The South African nationality law page states that "a South African citizen who by a formal and voluntary act acquires the citizenship of another country, automatically loses his or her South African citizenship unless they apply for, and receive permission to retain their South African citizenship before acquiring the citizenship of another country". The Canadian nationality law page states that "on 15 February 1977, the restrictions on multiple citizenship disappeared overnight". And the United States nationality law page tells us that the U.S. government "recognizes the existence of dual citizenship and completely tolerates the maintenance of multiple citizenship by U.S. citizens". So (assuming all those to be true – only the SA one is properly sourced) there's no reason Elon couldn't holding all three nationalities provided he applied for and received the requisite permissions from South Africa. But I entirely agree that a recent source would be good. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found a piece in The Sunday Times from 2005 that says "Still a South African citizen, Musk has lived in Canada and California for 17 years", see here. Presumably if he was a citizen in 2005, he would still be a citizen now, as it would have been revoked at the acquisition of the Canadian or US citizenship, especially the time of the Canadian citizenship as he refused conscription. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's more than good enough as a source for him currently having triple citizenship.

On a related note, a misguided editor changed the 1989 to 1971 with the edit comment "Musk was a Canadian at birth. His mother is Canadian and he inherited his Canadian citizenship automatically."[6] That's wrong. Musk qualified for Canadian citizenship automatically at birth, successfully applied for it in 1989. If you were born outside Canada and at least one of your parents was born in Canada you are eligible for Canadian citizenship. Canada does not force citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship. To actually become a Canadian citizen, the person born abroad must use Canadian form CIT 0001: Application for a citizenship certificate. Musk applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17 as a stepping stone to obtaining US citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

South African-born

Using "South African-born" in the very beginning of the article appears unwarranted. The only thing of note he did there was being born. We don't call Steve Nash a South African-born Canadian basketball player, or Ted Cruz a Canadian-born American politician, because just like Musk, all they did of significance was having been born there. It is different for articles like Jim Carrey where the person acquires another citizenship much later in life and had already been noteworthy in their country of origin, but for people like Musk, Nash, and Cruz, this is unnecessary. DrJenkins365 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Musk left South Africa at age of 17, compared to Nash who left at age one, and Cruz who left Canada at age three. Also note that Britannica describes him as "South African-born American", see here. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Per MOS:BLPLEAD, this should be deleted (and I will do so forthwith). Musk's place of birth is not relevant to his notability. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

His place of birth IS notable. Without his place of birth there would be no discussion. There is nothing in your statement "Musk's place of birth is not relevant to his notability" that can contradict this. It is where he was born, it is where he went to school, it is where his personality initially developed. It is part of who he is, psychologically, and socially.--Terry Patterson (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

As of today, all mention of his nationalities and place of birth has been removed from the opening sentence, but mentioned in the second paragraph. IMO this is the right decision - I entirely agree with you that his place of birth and his current and past citizenship are significant notable facts about Musk, but they are not the primary factors that make him notable and thus do not belong in the opening sentence. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Terry Patterson (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018

Elon Musk is a triple citizen so the first line should say he's a "...South African-born, Canadian-American..." Wizkoo (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: We've been through this before. MOS:BLPLEAD#Context isn't particularly explicit regarding how to deal with multiple citizenship, but consensus seems to be that "Canadian" doesn't belong in the lead as it isn't relevant to his notability. If anything I'd venture to say that his place of birth doesn't really belong in the lead either, for the same reason. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Second the suggestion to remove place of birth from the lead. It is well covered in the body. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it being well covered in the body not an argument for inclusion rather than exclusion in the lead? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

No. Otherwise we wouldn't have a body and a lead. WP:LEAD and WP:BLPLEAD tell us what to include. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

All the information in the lead is covered in the body. If being covered in the body is a reason to leave something out of the lead, the lead would not have a purpose. The born in South Africa detail establishes context. It would disorientate the reader to say Musk moved to Canada at 17 without mentioning where he originated from. We could remove the moved to Canada detail too and give the impression that Musk was born in America and for some reason attended a Canadian university for a couple years, but this would run contrary to WP:LEAD as the reader would have to read the whole article to have an overview of the topic. Hrodvarsson (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"South African-born" and "Canadian" have been removed from the opening paragraph per MOS:BLPLEAD. I don't think anyone is suggesting also removing the information from from the second paragraph of the lead. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks fine the way it is now. I am always amazed at the amount of effort some people put into trying to label famous people as being from their favorite country. Don't they have anything better to do with their time? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Casting aspersions and making insults on Wikipedia, while criticizing someone else for the use of their time? Alright, have a nice day fella. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am fine with removing "South African-born" from the opening paragraph if there is strong opposition. I was responding to the suggestion of removing the born in South Africa detail from the "lead" entirely. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Rei Would you like to comment here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is so typically Wikipedia - Musk is South African, not just South African born and yet that information isn't in the lead. He isn't "American" by any normal persons interpretation of what that means. That he holds multiple citizenships is information that should be in the article not the lead. The lead, as present, is not just misleading - it is incorrect.

79.69.114.153 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no clear direction on this issue, unfortunately. The convention across all high-quality articles is something like this: "[Name] (birth-death) is/was a [nationality] [type of person] who...." With people like Musk, there's no specific instruction on how to handle the nationality part. WP:BLPLEAD only talks about including birthplaces in the lead, like saying "[So-and-so] was born in New York City and...", or like in certain European-language encyclopedic conventions in which they include birthplaces and death places in the person's date range (check the German Wikipedia article for any famous person to see examples of this). Here, I think "is a South African-American" or "South African-born American" is best. Musk grew up entirely in South Africa and still has a pronounced South African accent, and this seems most appropriate to him personally.  White Whirlwind  咨  01:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

kid-sized submarine

Elon musk has started working with kid-sized submarine for thailand teams that has been trapped. [7] [8]

 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. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Musk was a Canadian citizen at birth

If his mother is Canadian. He is a Canadian at birth.

That's how the laws work--162.216.46.182 (talk) 05:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is not how the laws in Canada work. Ignoring the fact that you have confused "Canadian" with "Canadian citizen", if you were born outside Canada and at least one of your parents was born in Canada you are eligible for Canadian citizenship. Canada does not force citizenship on people who may not want to have Canadian citizenship. To actually become a Canadian citizen, the person born abroad must use form CIT 0001: Application for a citizenship certificate (Proof of citizenship) - adults and minors. Musk applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17 as a stepping stone to obtaining US citizenship.

And no we are not going to call Musk a Canadian. He was a South African at birth and is currently an American. This has been discussed extensively on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

It's my understanding that citizenship is automatic. Kind of like how Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth (he later had to renounce this). I don't care about identifying Musk as a Canadian, but his infobox said he became a Canadian in 1989 (before I changed it to 1971)

"There are many laws and rules that affect if your children are Canadian. Most children born to Canadian parents before April 17, 2009, were citizens at birth. "

Check out this link: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=365&top=5

--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you believe that Canada forces Canadian citizenship on citizens of other nations without the person in question applying for Canadian citizenship, you are mistaken. The following countries do not allow dual citizenship and may consider being a Canadian citizen as valid grounds for revoking an existing citizenship in that country: Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Burma, Bahrain, Botswana, Japan, China, Czech Republic, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Ecuador, Estonia, Iran, Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Japan, Peru, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Chile, Kiribati, Korea, Kuwait, Latvia, Singapore, Slovakia, Ecuador, Lithuania, Solomon Islands, Spain, Fiji, Malaysia, Mauritius, Netherlands, United Arab Emirates, Romania, Mexico, Nepal, Venezuela, Norway, Zimbabwe, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you not familiar with the Ted Cruz situation. He was born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban father. He was a natural born American. However, being born in Canada he was also automatically a Canadian at birth. He had to renounce his citizenship a few years ago even though he never formally made an application. Admittedly this is a different situation as he was born in Canada. But the point is you can be granted citizenship automatically. Also, South Africa in absent from you list --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course South Africa isn't on the list. South Africa, like the US and Canada, allows dual and triple citizenship. But the government of Canada did not make its laws just for Elon Musk. They made them for everyone, including those who were born in countries that do not allow dual citizenship and who have at least one Canadian parent. If Canada just made them citizens at birth, they could be denied citizenship and deported by the country that doesn't allow dual citizenship. It is very likely that the Supreme Court of Canada would void any such law if it existed, which it doesn't.

The reason why the Canadian laws say you are automatically a citizen if, like Ted Cruz, you are born in Canada is because this is unlikely to cause any problems with citizenship in any other country. I know of no county that does not allow dual citizenship that also automatically makes a person born in another country a citizen. As far as I can tell every such country either has a rule saying that in such cases you have to apply for citizenship and renounce your citizenship in the other country or a rule saying that in such cases you are not eligible to be a citizen. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Right now the infobox says Citizenship: South Africa (1971–present). Canada (1971–present), United States (2002–present)., but this source [9] says that he applied for Canadian citizenship at the age of 17. So the 1971 date appears to be incorrect.

Do we know that the Canadian citizenship was granted -- not just applied for -- at age 17? According to [10] If it was granted at age 18 he may have lost his South African citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Missed something. The ref I cited above says "once they have reached the age of 18 years and they then wish to acquire a further foreign citizenship, they will then have to apply for prior permission to retain their South African citizenship. Failing to do so, they will automatically lose their South African citizenship." So the 2002 US citizenship appears to have taken away may have taken away his South African citizenship. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Why "appears to have taken away"? The ref clearly says that it is possible to retain SA citizenship, and there's no reason to assume Musk didn't apply for permission to do so. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Good catch! I have replaced "appears to have taken away" with "may have taken away" above. This is one of the things I love about Wikipedia; sharp eyed editors catching mistakes. BTW here is another source for the 1989 and 2002 dates:[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources [12] and [13] appear to be contradictory: one says he applied for Canadian citizenship at age 17, the other (citing Elon's own words) merely says he filled out a form and got a Canadian passport. One explanation of this apparent contradiction is that he was 'entitled' to Canadian citizenship from birth but did not take up this entitlement and actually 'hold' the citizenship until he applied for (or more correctly, until he was granted) the passport. If this explanation is correct then the dates ought to be changed back to "1989-present" - but a source confirming the distinction between entitlement and actual citizenship would be nice... Rosbif73 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thai Cave Rescue

We should have a dedicated section for his amazing and quick contributions to the Thai Cave rescue. Without him and his efforts, nobody would have even cared about the Thai rescue. I sure wouldn't have cared, but he used Rocket parts from the SpaceX, that should be highlighted given the advanced technology that his engineers designed so quickly. Thai cave rescues even thanked him for his practicality and innovative forward contributions at a time of intense peril. It would be useful in future cave rescues if need be. Rwat128 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Got a source for any of those contributions? All I see are some really interesting ideas (a small, child-sized submarine, a one meter diameter nylon tube (or shorter set of tubes) through the cave network inflated with air) but I hanen't seen any evidence that the Thais accepted any actual help from Musk. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

While it is great to see people from around the world join the effot to rescue the children+coach from the cave, Elon did not have any major direct contribution to this rescue operation. "Without him and his efforts, nobody would have even cared about the Thai rescue" is idiotic and not true. // sikander { talk } 20:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There could be something in the article about his intervention in the cave rescue, which was rebuffed by all the experts and everyone in charge of the operation. It's an interesting aspect of his character that he believes that he and he alone has the correct solution to major issues, in the teeth of all the evidence. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you have even a tiny shred of evidence that he believes that? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"Controversy" section?

Elon has been involved in a lot of Twitter drama lately, is it worth it to mention those conflicts? XYZt (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:CRITS for details, but putting a grab bag or garbage dump section at the bottom of any article us usually a bad idea, for many of the same reasons as WP:MISCELLANY/Trivia sections, or WP:POPCULTURE sections. It is a kind of POV fork, and it arbitrarily takes content out of chronological order, or whatever other system the rest of the article is using. Most bios describe the person's life in chronological order, so at whatever point in time they were criticized or involved in a controversy is where that content belongs. Or if you have one section where all the SpaceX stuff is, then all the SpaceX controversy goes there, not off somewhere else. If another section is all Tesla, then the Tesla controversy belongs there.

Because of the special reluctance that Wikipedia has to include negative content about living persons, I'd wait a few days to a few weeks, or even more, before adding this stuff, and only if citing the best quality sources. It is not urgent that a Wikipedia article be up to the minute current with the latest headlines.

All that being said, yes. The twitter drama and cave rescue drama does belong in the article, in a appropriate section, and after the dust has settled. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's already notable. The Musk tweet just made the Financial Times, one more RS and it's definitely noteworthy enough to pass BLP as is. Two if you want to be super-sure - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, shoulda checked: Guardian, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, CNet, Fortune, Buzzfeed News, Sydney Morning Herald ... it's international news at that. There's no reasonable cause to delay this a few weeks - David Gerard (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that's technically true. There are good enough sources to include this stuff. But that doesn't necessitate that you have to add it today. Any negative fact about a living person can turn out to be something else tomorrow: mistaken identity, hacked account, ulterior motives. It's very rare and unlikely, especially when a professional publication has fact checked it. But it does happen. And there is run of the mill nuance, mitigating facts that come to light once there is time for detailed investigation.

On the other hand, what reasons do we have to feel like we have to add this content immediately? None. If the article fails to mention this controversy for a few days, even for a few weeks, so what? In some sense, it helps remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is always helpful.

The fact that it is covered in every major news outlet around the globe ensures that nobody has missed out on this news. It isn't as if leaving it out of this article will mean someone is unaware of it. It only underscores that WP is not a newspaper and should never feel the slightest pressure to keep up with the very latest developments.

So whatever we write today might be minimally adequate, but what we write in two days or ten days will be significantly better. I would say the same on any BLP. Be a sloth. Take your sweet time. Wikinews is a great outlet for those itching to write something right now this second. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What isn't new is his use of Twitter to enter into extended insult trading, which seems pretty important to the article in terms of fleshing out what kind of character he is. The latest development is that he calls <a diver>, one of the leading British cave experts on the site and a key planner in the rescue, a "pedo" by Twitter to his 22m followers without a shred of evidence, because <the diver> had the temerity to denigrate Musk's proposals. [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs)

We will wait and see what comes out of this. If he has exposed someone who is a "pedo" then we should be thanking him instead of saying an insult trader. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It's outrageous that Musk can label someone like this and that is taken as a fact waiting to be disproven here in Wikipedia. Did I miss the takeover by the Cult of Musk? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to find the Cult of Musk on Wikipedia then you have come to the right page, but even still such people must follow the sources and not their own research. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

"If he has exposed someone who is a "pedo" then we should be thanking him instead of saying an insult trader." How can you say that? He provided absolutely no substantiation for the assertion, and he HAS removed the offending tweets. He made the comment, and unlike what the article says, <diver> is as of the date of this post still considering legal action. "... <diver> considered legal action against Musk over the tweet." is extremely premature, and clearly NOT substantiated by the link. It needs to be sorted out. Part of the problem is the US Speech Act, which prevents libel judgments in the UK and elsewhere being enforced in the US on the grounds that they undermine American standards of free speech.--Terry Patterson (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a rule of thumb, for hot news: why not hold off until enough time has passed for monthly publications to cover the events? Daily news reporters don't have time for much deliberation, but after the monthlies weigh in, we've probably heard it all. It's not mandatory; I'm only saying it's a wise practice. By that standard, there is no reason not to add details about Musk's history of insults and ill-considered tweets. The sourcing is there: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. (I'm not saying these are the sources you should cite; just giving examples)

Considering again what the role of an encyclopedia is, nobody should come to this article to catch up on the latest news about the cave rescue controversy, but someone who is reading about that in the news is very likely to turn to an encyclopedia for history and context about Musk's outbursts in years past. It's practicality the definition of encyclopedic (keeping a close eye on the rules of BLP). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

This is coming across as special pleading - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

What pleading is necessary? You aren't forbidden from going ahead and adding this content now. I've observed that such an impatient approach to BLPs creates unnecessary drama that wouldn't happen if editors took their time, but if you don't agree, you're allowed to go ahead with it now. You might want to consider that writing full coverage of unforced verbal errors by Musk over the years would plant you on firmer ground against anyone who would criticize it. If the article contains full context, adding coverage of the cave rescue kerfuffle makes all the more sense.

Controversy garbage dump sections are still dumb though. Put it up in the main body of the article, not tacked on to the end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Can someone correct the dates error in the Education section?

He can't have moved on to California to embark upon a Ph.D. degree two years before he completed his undergrad qualifications at the University of Pennsylvania in (as the text currently stands) "May 1997". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.170.175 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He left in 1995 but didn't technically graduate until 1997. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make that clearer in the article? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Pedo Accusations

@Suffusion of Yellow:, never included it in the edit summary cause I clicked publish before I submitted it, but considering the media's response of the issue, the "pedo comment" section is necessary. Also, I wouldn't remove his name and call him "irrelevant", since that's the very person who Elon directed his comments towards (added the fact that many sources+the Thai govt called him a key player in the rescue). ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 02:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(ping not received) Well, the media fuss was just exploding when I last edited the page, and I'm not convinced that the section should be removed anymore. We'll see. As to including his name, I didn't call him "irrelevant" but rather "obscure" by which I meant "about 1/10000 as recognizable a name as Elon Musk". The unconscious mind is a dangerous thing, and we must be extra careful about including the names of such people anywhere in proximity to words like "pedophile" that they'd rather not be associated with. I'm not saying never, just slow down. Looking at this today, I'd say the horse is now a very long way out of the barn, and this guy is going to be associated with this forever regardless of what we do here, so I'm not going revert your change. But I always favor caution in WP:BLP matters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Remove the section. It is far WP:UNDUE for the article on Elon Musk. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 16:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: How so? ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 17:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• An encyclopedic article on Musk should record what secondary sources have shown to have long term significance. I don't think it is possible to explain that associating someone's name with pedophilia due to an angry outburst is not a good idea—the beholder needs a certain amount of worldly experience and will either find it obvious or not. At this stage (intense media excitement and delight) the current text is probably all that can be achieved but in due course it needs to be heavily pruned. Musk was attacked and responded very unwisely—that's the encyclopedic information (when a secondary source says that). Naming the other party when they are totally non-notable is gratuitous nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Remove the section. Celebrities getting into twitter fights with other celebrities is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder, but celebrities getting into twitter fights with non-celebrities is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder that has a very real potential to ruin lives. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Elon Musk apologizes for calling Thai cave rescue diver 'pedo guy' --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused; are you saying that it would somehow reflect badly on the diver for it to be known that Musk made this baseless accusation (and doubled down on it in subsequent tweets/comments)? Because I don't see how that would be the case, so long as we relate the full story as presented by reliable sources: that is, that Musk had a meltdown and repeatedly asserted that another person was a sexual predator not based upon even one shred of evidence to suggest as much, but just because he was angry and could not control himself. If anything, since some small fraction of readers may come to this article looking for information on this incident, we wouldn't be mitigating the damage done to the diver's reputation if we refuse to cover this noteworthy episode and provide the full context--rather it would be just the opposite, since partial or absent coverage could lead the reader with the impression that Musk actually had a reason for suspecting this of the diver.

Regardless, the diver is considering suing for defamation and Tesla shares are down over the affair, so I don't think we can presume the story is going away immediately. If the article were structured a little differently, I would suggest this affair needn't have its own subsection, but there is no section for general discussion of Musk's generally combative history with critics, so placing a subsection after the Pravda subsection seems the only viable option. And not for nothing, but both of the sources which I've read in the last couple of days regarding this affair explicitly connected the event to a pattern on Musk's part for a short fuse when it comes to criticism, and particularly for leveraging social media to strike back. None of which is to suggest we should be following suit at present (there's WP:WEIGHT issues there), but at the same time, I do think it's perfectly fair to present these outbursts (or rather just the ones that meet a certain threshold of coverage) as RS relate them, and let the reader come to their own conclusions. Looking at the section on this latest event, it's hard for me to see any one statement that we could "prune" as you put it, without removing potentially vital context. Could you be more specific about what you imagine being pulled out, other than the diver's name? (I'm 50/50 on that one, but you may very well be right that it's more trouble than it's worth. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I do believe that associating an otherwise non notable individual with pedophilia, no matter how carefully you specify that the accusations are without merit, can be incredibly harmful. And I don't think that simply omitting the name does enough to protect him, given the ease of searching on "musk pedo diver"

And I still maintain that celebrities getting into twitter fights is non-encyclopedic tabloid fodder. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact the situation is astonishingly obvious. Musk, like many other onlookers, was moved by the plight of the team, but Musk, unlike almost all onlookers, did what he could to help. To have that written off with the pathetic language used would be intensely irritating and it is easy to see why Musk exploded with an unwise rejoinder. We will know in six months whether the issue has any encyclopedic significance because if it has, secondary sources will have recorded ways in which Musk's reputation or business have been affected. Further, if notable person A says non-notable person B is a pedophile (later withdrawn), repeating the slur throws mud at B, some of which would stick. It could be argued that the effect of this article would be negligible but that is no reason for us to do something bad. Also, this article will exist for many years when the name of B would be totally irrelevant and the current news reports will have been forgotten. If the wording is kept, this article would still cause some readers to think there just might be something behind the attack. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could always RfC the issue if you both feel that strongly about it, but I suspect we are on the same page that the result will be a keep, not withstanding your good faith reasoning of trying to protect the diver. And honestly, that's because said reasoning here is out of step with policy, no matter the altruistic motive. We can't actually shield this "non-notable" person in the way you suggest; this story is out there and we aren't some EU media regulatory authority who can try to enforce the right to be forgotten--which in any event only ever invites the Streisand Effect; I know you think you're doing this man a favour by trying but, A) it just doesn't work that way in the internet era, and the best thing we can do is provide accurate information about the exact sequence of events so there is no question that Musk's comment was unfounded in any factual reality, and B) the person in question isn't even seeking to remain anonymous or to have Musk's words forgotten; he is engaging in a very public war of words, and has specifically challenged Musk on those comments (again, remember there were multiple comments and that Tesla, a company of global significance, lost 4% of its stock value over them), and has made a public statement that he is considering legal action. I very much doubt he would want our help in protecting his name (as he seems to want Musk to answer for the behaviour), and, in any event, it's not our appropriate place as Wikipedia editors to insert ourselves into the matter in this way. Especially when it would mean omitting significant details about the fortunes of the company Musk is best known for helming and his relationship with its shareholders.

Additionally, your argument on how WP:WEIGHT is established misstates the requirements of the policy: there is no "we have to wait and see how 'lasting' the coverage is" requirement; once an event has hit a certain threshold of coverage, it is simply WP:DUE and there is no "sustained coverage" requirement. In fact, as regards notability, we have policies which explicitly say the opposite, and the reasoning behind those guidelines applies just as well as to the present editorial question. Anyway, I'm not going to push the matter, as I actually just arrived here via an RfC below and commenteded here incidentally. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts that other editors here are going to oppose removing this content and that, if it thereafter went to RfC, you'd have slim chances. At the same time, I understand your motivation, and that you may feel bound to give it a shot anyway. Snow ^{let's rap} 11:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Snow Rise, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees publishe the following resolution in April 2009:[21]

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, accurate information, by: ... 2. Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

I agree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've removed it as a blatant BLP violation. The BLP is written precisely to protect living individuals against this sort of smear. If someone wants to re-write it without including the diver's name, that would be at least compliant with the policy. However its tabloid gossip. WP:NOTNEWS. (Also no WWGB, I am under no obligation to re-write it myself to remove the offending material. It would need to be substantially re-written and I am not interested in enabling gossip. The onus is on those who wish to include the information to do the legwork to make it compliant with out policies.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP guidelines are not meant to protect living individual from negative press. The tweets and the fallout were covered by the press, and there is nothing wrong with the article mentioning that. It is absurd to suggest that any notable person should be immune to bad press and having it mentioned in an article. Mrathel (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Mrathel, please note that the cave diver fellow is not (yet?) notable. MPS1992 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

And is unlikely to be either unless they do something more significant in the future, since BLP1E would come into play. No one is going to have an article about a living person that centers about this twitter crap. And Mrathel, its to protect the non-notable diver, *not* Musk. There needs to be consensus to include it, not exclude it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I went back and removed his name from the section; but a notable person can commit a notable act to a non-notable person. Just because the diver was not notable doesn't mean that Musk's actions were not newsworthy. Mrathel (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

And I have removed it again. You need to gain consensus to include the material. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

We can remove the other party's name from the section if necessary, but you are wrong in that the standard is always for inclusion over exclusion of sourced content.Mrathel (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to go suggest changes to WP:BLP. Until that happens, no. For biographies of living people the standard is to include, not exclude. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP considerations can be taken into account without removing the entire section. The name of the diver has been removed from every reference in the article. While this is silly given the amount of media coverage with his name, there is no reasonable objection to the rest of the section remaining; BLP objections do not apply, therefore sourced content cannot be be reverted citing the BLP rule. Mrathel (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I can do this all fucking day. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Or you can spend a little bit reading about civility. I have removed identifying mention of the diver. Your insistence that BLP still applies, without bothering to mention here, is not justified. Use your words.Mrathel (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've restored just the non-controversial first paragraph of the Tham Luang cave rescue section - leaving it for someone else to attempt to devise a BLP-compliant (and more generally policy-compliant) version of the public insults part.Rosbif73 (talk) 10:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've hatted the below bullshit. Talkpage's are for discussing improvement to the article, *not* OR soapboxing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not relevant Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Musk heard others calling him pedo-guy and just decided to go with that nickname. It doesn't mean anything. He could have refer to him as depo-guy, or pepo-guy, or fake-pr-guy. you can interpret nicknames as you wish, in many possible ways.45.58.200.63 (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC) I hope everyone realizes Musk was the one who was viciously attacked with violently perverse humour in front of the whole world on cameras. He is the victim here. He didn't cause the confrontation.45.58.200.63 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Now pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC) "...made an unsubstantiated claim that the diver was a paedophile". This text is what is 'unsubstantiated'. How can you have this written on the page, this is obviosly against wikipedia policy. Musk never made any "claims", he just put some silly nickname that was passing around, in his response to a recent celebrity that viciously attacked him publicly, and deleted it shortly after realizing it is not a good nickname. Although it can be even interpreted as a friendly gesture to refer back with a silly nickname to someone who attacks you. He didn't respond back to aggressive profanity that includes hurting and being hurt with aggressive profanity.45.58.200.63 (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Got a source for your claim that Musk heard others calling him pedo-guy? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC) There might be a source in some format, but it is irrelevant for wikipedia. Relevant is that Musk never claimed that the diver was paedophile as it says now on the page, and that should be changed. Calling with joke-nickname pedo-guy someone who challenged you attacking with a much worse joke about you, is NOT a claim (accusation) of paedophilia. It is just a joke-response. Even a retard can understand that.45.58.200.63 (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC) ok, i see the pedo word issue is removed from the main article. as long as it stays like that, there is no need for me to explain the logic behind the nickname. thanks.45.58.195.45 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I restored all of the content that was there before. I agree that it is a little long, but none of the information is inaccurate and the sources (NYT, Fortune, etc) more than establish that the content is notable. Considering virtually all media coverage of Musk in relation to the Thai cavers is based upon the Pedo tweet, it makes no sense to mention the episode at all without bringing up the tweet and the falloutMrathel (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Nationality

Should the opening sentence describe Musk as:

1. a South African-born...
2. an American...
3. a South African-American...
4. a South African-born American
5. (other) or
6. nationality omitted?

THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• D. MOS:BLPLEAD gives very few guidelines on how to describe a multi-citizen, but it seems that Musk is obviously notable for his works in the United States as well as his being from South Africa (vocality on South African issues and speaking with a heavy accent). He's notable for being from South Africa, and also for being a U.S. citizen. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 23:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• D. Second choice B or F. In particular, I reject any attempt to call him Canadian based upon the two years he spent in Canada with the express purpose of making it easier to become an American citizen or based upon his US-born English/German/Swiss mother. BTW, "African-American" has an existing meaning which makes "South African-American" confusing to many readers. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Modified 17:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• F. (i.e. as today, with no mention of his nationalities and place of birth in the the opening sentence, but details given in the second paragraph). Musk's place of birth and his citizenships are not the primary factors that make him notable and thus do not belong in the opening sentence. They are, however, sufficiently notable facts about him to be worthy of inclusion in the second paragraph of the lead. MOS:BLPLEAD and more specifically MOS:OPENPARABIO mentions birth place, though not nationality: Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and should appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates [my emphasis]. Also note MOS:LEADSENTENCE: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• B. MOS:OPENPARABIO recommends including "the country of which the person is a citizen" for context. D is justifiable, but I'd argue that Musk is far more notable for being an entrepreneur than for being South African-born, and the second paragraph already starts with his place of birth. The article itself does not mention Musk's views on South Africa or his accent. C0617470r (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• F. It reads perfectly well as it is, and doesn't try to cram massive amounts of information into the first few sentences. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• D or B, per guideline 3 of MOS:OPENPARABIO. I argued for "South African-born American" above and I personally prefer that option, but just "American" is fine. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• B as per C0617470r. ⠀^TOMÁSTOMÁS_TOMÁS⠀TALK⠀ 01:01, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• C or D. His dual citizenship must be respected and acknowledged. WWGB (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Whatever option (listed or otherwise) most accurately reflects the WP:WEIGHT of descriptors used in sources, obviously. This inquiry is long on proposals but short (that is to say, complete devoid of) any objective, policy and source-based explanation of the value of those options. Respondents are therefore responding with completely subjective assessments based on idiosyncratic criteria, with predictably scatter-shot results. But policy is abundantly clear on how this determination is meant to be made; not on our best independent rational of which option makes sense, but rather how WP:reliable sources describe the subject in general.

If respondents can be provided with some degree of understanding of the sources here (which should have been a part of the previous discussion of this matter before; incidentally, some degree of talk page effort to iron the issue out should have preceded as well) then they will be able to make an objective policy-based determination of that issue. If things proceed as they have been, on the other hand, this discussion is doomed to a no-consensus outcome (and even if it doesn't end that way, its result will be very flimsy against future challenges as not based in policy but rather just the random outcome of idiosyncratic voting). Snow ^{let's rap} 06:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• C it is the most informative and accuarte of the possible options Zubin12 (talk) 9:52 pm, Today (UTC−7)
• F per Rosbif(Summoned by bot) Else you have to include Canada through his mother, but South African Born Canadian American is ridiculous. Ditch from lead altogether if we have to. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Would that be his US-born English/German/Swiss mother? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same person? Maye Musk, Canadian born? I agree with your above comment which is why I wrote but South African Born Canadian American is ridiculous. The lead as is is just fine. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I misremembered what I wrote on this page earlier: "His mother, Maye (Maiden name Haldeman) Musk, was born in Canada but moved to South Africa when she was two years old. She has English, German and Swiss, ancestry, and her father and mother were both born in the US. If ancestry is the way to determine nationality, you might as well call Elon Musk a Frenchman.".

Note to self: Next time, smoke crack AFTER editing Wikipedia... --Guy Macon (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• D. Musk is obviously notable for being born and schooled in South Africa and now a US citizen. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• C - Since it is the most concise and accurate of the options. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• Accurate? It sounds like an African-American who lives in the south of the United States. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

• NOTA He is an American citizen who, apparently, also has South African and Canadian citizenship. Handling tri-nationality in a short sentence is nigh impossible. One might be able to say Musk was born in South Africa and now also has Canadian and American citizenship. Which is as close to being accurate as anything. Collect (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The main problem with including one or more nationalities is the endless edit wars that we have seen, with American, Canadian and South-African all being added and removed repeatedly from the opening sentence. By relegating this information to the second paragraph, where it can be explained properly, it becomes less contentious. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

That suggestion makes a lot of sense to me, but as someone who has responded to dozens of random RfC notices to these BLP nationality debates over the years, I can tell you that getting editors to forgo any mention of nationality in the lead is probably a WP:SNOW no-go, more's the pity. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Were those RfCs for historical figures of disputed nationalities, or cases like this where someone is clearly at least a dual national? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Most edit wars about nationality are caused by someone

[A] insisting` that someone belongs to their favorite nationality (they tend to do this on multiple BLPs),

[B] Insisting that the information b`e in the infobox, lead, or both, and

[C] `edit warring and treating the article like a WP:BATTLEFIELD.

In this case, pretty much nobody has a problem with American or South African, and I doubt that anyone would suggest removing either if not for the nationality-pushers trying to label him as Canadian based upon his two-years in Canada.

"Elon made his move [to Canada] after he graduated high school. Though he already felt like an American, he'd done research and concluded that it would be easier to obtain American citizenship as a Canadian immigrant rather than as a South African one."[22]`--Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly though, Guy, you're only strengthening the case for why it may be smartest to either avoid the nationality label in the lead entirely or replace common nouns with a concise description of where he has been a resident. Because your line of analysis, while perfectly rational and reasonable to my ear, is nevertheless nothing short of pure WP:Original research: "Look, we have a source saying that he only viewed Canada as a means to an end. Ergo, he was never a "true" Canadian." Ok, fair enough, but another person may have a definition of citizenship, residency, or other aspect of nationality which views intent to stay as irrelevant. And in order to litigate that point, you each have to fall back on increasingly convoluted and subjective arguments pulling more and more facts and more and more personal analysis. That's just not how content decisions are meant to be made on this project.

And yet, that's all that's happening here, outside of Rosbif's suggestion; pretty much every single !vote selection above is just each editor selecting the flavour of WP:OR theory that makes the most idiosyncratic sense to them, without a single reference to WP:RS or WP:WEIGHT, which is how policy actually directs these questions be established. The choices here, if people were following policy, are either go with what the sources converge on by way of convenience or just eschew simple descriptors and opt for detailed coverage, either in the lead or omitted until later. But nationality is clearly something that blindsides editors via sympathetic reactions (even those that insist they are not of the class usually subject to it) at a high rate, because fully one-in-three times that I arrive at one of these nationality-in-the-lead RfCs by notice, the discussion is proceeding much as it is here. And the consequence is what you are seeing here: the !votes are all over the place precisely because the objective WP:WEIGHT test, that usually converges experienced editors on a common shared methodology for analysis, is completely absent, and everyone is instead employing their favourite "common sense" WP:OR metrics. And when you have a number of choices in an area of plurality of perspectives like this, it pretty much guarantees a "no consensus" deadlock.

In a couple of weeks, when a closer does in fact cap the discussion as no consensus, local editors here should instead try re-approaching this matter through the standard WP:WEIGHT process. If that can't succeed because the sources are too vague or too inconsistent, I would suggest the only option left will be to cobble the descriptions together into a summary of Musk's immigration history. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You make some very good points. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been known to get my foot on the ball every once in a while. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the above, and the fact that this isn't the first time nationality has been an issue in BLP opening sentences, might it be worth revisiting the MOS:BLPLEAD and MOS:OPENPARABIO guidelines to achieve consensus on a better solution, or at least clarify the existing guidance? Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ancestry

According to ethnicelebs.com (which cites geni.com, genealogy.com and wikitree.com):[23]

Elon Musk was born in Pretoria, Transvaal, South Africa. He now lives in the U.S.

His father, Errol Graham Musk, is South African-born, and has English, Dutch Afrikaner, and French Huguenot, ancestry.

His mother, Maye (Haldeman), a model and dietician, is Canadian-born, from Regina, Saskatchewan, and has English, and some German and Swiss-German, ancestry.

His first name, Elon, is likely after the middle name of his own maternal great-grandfather, John Elon Haldeman.

Elon is the brother of Kimbal Musk, a businessperson, and Tosca Musk, a producer and director.

Elon has six children with his former wife, Canadian author Justine Musk.

Elon’s paternal grandfather was Walter Henry James Musk (the son of Harry Musk and Lucy Frances Champion). Walter was born in Pretoria, South Africa.

Harry Musk was born in Exning, Suffolk, England, and was the son of Eliza.

Lucy Frances Champion was born in Caledon, South Africa, the daughter of John Irish Champion and Jacoba Louisa Theron.

Elon’s paternal grandmother was Cora Amelia Robinson (the daughter of John Robinson and Breghie Elizabeth Theron).

John Robinson was born in Liverpool, England, the son of Levi Robinson and Matilda Marsh.

Breghie Elizabeth Theron was born in Beaufort West, South Africa, the daughter of Johannes Nicolaas Theron and Amelia Elenora van Vuuren.

Elon’s maternal grandfather was Joshua Norman Haldeman (the son of John Elon Haldeman and Almeda Jane Norman). Joshua was born in Minnesota.

John Elon Haldeman was born in Illinois, the son of John O. Haldeman and Evaline [?]

Almeda Jane Norman was born in Minnesota, the daughter of Joshua Norman and Almeda [?]..

Elon’s maternal grandmother was Winnifred “Wyn” Josephine Fletcher, the daughter of Harold Fletcher.

Way too much detail for a Wikipedia BLP, but I wanted to document the claim here in case the website goes down. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I iterate my belief that "extended genealogies" are poor material for biographies of living persons. Ancestry.com now has given me on the order of four hundred+ notable likely relatives (i.e. with Wiki articles, at least) and I find such lists to be fun, but not encyclopedic. Where the relatives are not even notable, not even fun. Collect (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Totally useless for inclusion in the article. Useful as a quick reference for use during the endless debates on this talk page of the form "His paternal grandfather was from Freedonia and his mother spent 3 years in Elbonia, so that makes him a South African-Elbonian-Freedonian-American". --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)