Talk:Kathaleen McCormick

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Delaware Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Women in Red

This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

United States courts and judges Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Concern About Context of Judge McCormick’s Comments

I’d like to address the following statement recently added to the article:

Even though the $56 billion pay package had been approved by shareholders, Judge McCormick cited the amount as being “incredible” and “an unfathomable sum.”

While Judge McCormick did describe the pay package as “incredible” and “an unfathomable sum” in her 201-page opinion issued around January 31, 2024, the current phrasing implies that these comments were made about the compensation package as it was approved in 2018. This is misleading.

In reality, when shareholders approved the package in 2018, it was valued at approximately $2.3 billion. The $56 billion figure reflects the maximum potential value of the package, achieved only after Tesla’s stock price surged and Musk successfully met all performance milestones. Judge McCormick’s comments were made in 2024, with the full context of the package’s later valuation.

By omitting this timeline, the statement could mislead readers into thinking Judge McCormick was commenting on the initial 2018 valuation, which was far lower. This not only risks confusion but also creates a bias by failing to clarify that the $56 billion was not the value at the time of approval.

Additionally, the article was locked shortly after this addition was made, which limits the opportunity to address this issue collaboratively. I propose rephrasing the statement to accurately reflect the timeline and provide proper context for Judge McCormick’s comments, or removing it entirely, as it seems unnecessary to the article’s focus.

Does anyone else agree this needs revision?

I am the person who added that content. I am willing to go with whatever the consensus is.

The amount was performance based. The fact that it increased from $2.3 billion to $56 billion is a result of the increase in the value of the stock.

This NPR article explains how the amount is performance based.

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5214484/elon-musk-tesla-compensation

I actually like the fact that you disagree with my edit. It means that someone is paying attention to what I wrote. I like to have my ideas challenged, because sometimes I am wrong, and I enjoy learning new things. I am happy to go along with whatever the consensus is.

Perhaps additional people would like to offer their comments on this.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Last Hungry Cat, for your thoughtful response and willingness to engage in discussion. I appreciate your openness to feedback and the additional NPR source you provided.

I completely agree that the increase in valuation from $2.3 billion to $56 billion is performance-based and a result of Tesla’s significant stock growth over time. This is an important aspect of the story, and I think we both share the goal of ensuring the article accurately reflects that.

My main concern is that the current phrasing could still mislead readers into thinking Judge McCormick’s comments referred to the $56 billion figure as it existed at the time of approval in 2018, rather than her 2024 ruling. To avoid this potential confusion, I’d suggest rephrasing the statement along these lines:

Although the $56 billion pay package had been approved by shareholders, Judge McCormick later described the package in her 2024 opinion as “incredible” and “an unfathomable sum,” reflecting its maximum potential value after Musk achieved all performance milestones.

This revision would retain the substance of your edit while ensuring the timeline and context are clear. Would you be open to this adjustment? I’d also love to hear from others in the community to see if this phrasing works for everyone.

Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:88F6:C900:FCC6:3D50:FA15:834C (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you create an account and use it to make at least 10 edits, then once your account is four days old, you will be able to edit the article. I don't plan to change what I wrote, but if someone else changes it, I won't change it back. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]