Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk gesture controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Potential rename?

[edit]

I’m not particularly keen on the possessive apostrophe here, perhaps “Elon Musk arm gestures” works better? Or alternatively simply ‘gesture’, if we’re not considering the two as distinctively plural. It can’t be classified as an ‘incident’, but perhaps “Elon Musk arm gestures controversy” also works (given a majority of the article is oriented towards public backlash). Hauntbug (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In case the article is kept, I agree that the title should be changed, and think either "controversy" or "incident" would be most appropriate. Mystic Cornball (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy would fit appropriately. It was a nazi salute, he's smart enough to know what he was doing. Keyvine (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "incident" or "controversy" would both fit. I think "Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy" would make sense, as "Nazi salute" is the main characterization of the event that all the controversy (regardless of one's stance) centers on. Dflovett (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moved. Shankar Sivarajan (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
calling it the "2025 Inauguration Rally gesture controversy" is also appropriate and is being discussed on the main page. Zyxrq (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Though, "Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy" is also appropriate. to say ether Nazi, or Roman salute independent from each other is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in my opinion. Especially when reliable sources are generally referring to it as a gesture. Zyxrq (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which main page are you referencing? The main Elon Musk page? Dflovett (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was referring to the Elon musk page. I believe any conversations about what to call this event should be redirected to this talk page to avoid confusion. Zyxrq (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is the best place for it. I think "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute" makes the most sense. If it weren't for the perception of it being a Nazi salute, this would not be a conversation. "Alleged", meanwhile, allows for neutrality to be maintained. Dflovett (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be in favor of either "Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy" or "Elon Musk salute incident", but I think "alleged" is too non-comital as the event was caught clearly on video.
I use "controversy" paired with "Nazi" because it suggests there's disagreement as to the interpretation of the event (and, as a secondary, illustrates that there's more to the story than just the gesture), while "salute incident" is a more straightforward statement that encompasses all possible interpretations.
Though if the consensus is there I'd go for the more (most?) direct "Elon Musk Nazi salute incident".
("Salute" is also commonly used by RS and is much less word-salady than "straight-arm gesture", which prior to today I would have thought could refer to any number of things.) ClifV (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ClifV I agree with this. Spinsterella (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for "alleged" is due to the potential ambiguous interpretation of the intentions. Dflovett (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and agree with what you're saying, but don't see a way to communicate that without an unworkably long wording. ClifV (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zyxrq this seems the most safe. Spinsterella (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying "alleged" is perfectly reasonable in the title of the Wikipedia article. It implies that he could of done a fascist salute with out leaning in or giving credence to whether he actually did it or not. The entire controversy is whether he did or didn't do a salute after all. I would be most in favor of changing the title to "Elon Musk's alleged salute incident" as it covers most of what reliable sources are saying about the event. Zyxrq (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a question that he performed a salute of any variety though? Cursory search on WP returns examples like "Alleged extraterrestrial encounters" and "Alleged doubles of Vladimir Putin", which along with MOS:ALLEGED (more relevant than WP:OTHERSTUFF, if we're being fair) suggest a different level of uncertainty. ClifV (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is complicated, there's many ways the article could be named it may be difficult to form a consensus, maybe "Elon Musk gesture-salute controversy" or "Elon Musk gesture-salute incident" could work? Zyxrq (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If gesture vs. salute is a sticking point I could see "Elon Musk Inauguration Gesture Incident", which is vague but still somewhat ominously so. I don't think the "2025" or "Rally" are necessary (if there's another event that ends up overlapping with the title we can have that conversation then, but for now brevity is good), and I'm in favor of incident over controversy because controversy, absent the clarity of "Nazi salute", is really soft shoeing around the subject. ClifV (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with your sentiment, so I think "Elon Musk Inauguration Gesture Incident" may be the best way to describe this event. In other words I'm happy with this name. Zyxrq (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "gesture" is too one-sided. If this was only a gesture, there wouldn't be a conversation. Which is why I keep coming back to "alleged Nazi salute". "Alleged" because we don't know the intentions, but "Nazi salute" because of the widespread interpretation that, intentional or not, it was a Nazi salute.
We will not find an answer that makes everyone happy. But "gesture" is too vague because it does not address the core reason this is notable. Dflovett (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly how disinformation works. Have diehards create a fake controversy, to cause consensus seeking forums to compromise and water down what really happened. Instead, you should be seeking consensus of only subject matter experts like these:
Kurt Braddock, a professor of communication at American University who studies extremism, radicalization and terrorism, to The Associated Press: "I know what I saw, I know what the response to it was among elements of the extreme right including neo-Nazis."
And, the removal of Elon from the Deutsches Museum, in Munich
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-exhibit-germany-removed-nazi-salute-2019521
Lets see more opinions, of extremism historians and German institutions, and not Elon Zealots. 192.184.131.186 (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the page is not properly named after the controversy's raison d'être, then the title is not neutral. "Straight-arm gesture" is an euphemism and, thus, not appropriate. Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think "alleged Nazi salute" is the only clear way to refer to it. If it weren't interpreted as a Nazi salute, there would not be an article. It can maintain neutrality, as you've said, while making it clear. Dflovett (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an improvement to me. Kiwi Rex (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I think Musk's gesture and its meaning is so obvious that the title should be "Nazi salute controversy" without "alleged". Regardless of whether he meant it 100% or 80% or just did it to piss off the "woke", his gesture is what it is. And being blind towards it doesn't make this article any more objective. 79.166.36.186 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page should be renamed to something like 'Elon Musk salute controversy' or 'Elon Musk Nazi/Roman salute controversy'. The current name (Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy) sounds a bit silly and convoluted and reads as a euphemism. Whilst I'm not keen on either the previous pages names.. the previous one this page had was a lot better to the present one and I'm quite surprised that it was moved (and only a single day after a still-ongoing discussion regarding the title). Pax Brittanica (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy" is a good matter-of-fact descriptor. Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this anything *but* a Nazi salute in the title of the page is absolutely a euphemism and plays directly into what Musk himself is trying to pretend. Wikipedia is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia, which means that if it acquiesces to the propagandists, then it loses all credibility. At the very most, this page should be called "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute controversy". "Straight-arm gesture" is a wildly undescriptive euphemism and I for one am not here to read Nazi propaganda. HarryPotter546 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, he chose not to deny the accusation, meaning there's no existing alternative description actually defended by the relevant person. Kiwi Rex (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My general understanding is that reliable sources are describing this as a Gesture that resembles a salute. (AKA: resembles a Nazi/fascist salute.) Most reliable sources are not directly saying this is a Nazi or fascist salute. Often putting them in quotation marks when they say Nazi or fascist in direct connotation to Elon Musk actually doing a salute. This is especially prevalent when referring to the titles of the news articles of reliable sources. This is why I'm hesitant to add Nazi or fascist to the title of the article. Often then not when they exclude the quotes with Nazi or fascist from their titles, they say things like ""Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy"". which is why I'm in favor of renaming the article to Somthing like "Elon Musk Inauguration Gesture Incident", "Elon Musk salute incident" or keeping it as it is. If we do add the term fascist or Nazi its imperative to add quotation marks to the title. If we are unable to that It's most likely inappropriate to have Nazi or fascist in the title of the Wikipedia article. In other words I'm generally against having Nazi or fascist in the title. Examples:[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. Zyxrq (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Elon Musk salute incident" would be the clearest option at this point. You make valid points. Dflovett (talk) 08:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the strongest candidate. I would also add "inauguration" prior to salute. ClifV (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I oppose that is that it's not like there is more than one "Elon Musk salute incident" that we need to distinguish between. Dflovett (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what you're saying is it is universally agreed that the gesture looks like a Nazi salute and that's the only reason why this is a controversy in the first place. This only reinforces the necessity of including the term "Nazi salute" in the page's title. Politics and the English Language etc. etc. Kiwi Rex (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sourcing is not quite there for calling it a Nazi salute in wikivoice, in the title, but I'm open to be corrected. The thought emerges that an RFC might be called for given the sprawling nature of this conversation. ClifV (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His father was key figure in the the Apartheid movement, he knows full well that the Afrikaner Salute was modeled on the Nazi Salute:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/7575708/South-Africa-a-separate-homeland-for-Afrikaners.html
You can call it the Afrikaner/Nazi Salute 192.184.131.186 (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to re-iterate what I said in a discussion bellow: Calling it anything other than a Nazi/fascist salute is a form of bias by way of False balance. The gesture Musk made is demonstrably a Nazi salute because there is literally zero physical difference between his gesture and the salutes historically made by Nazis. The accompanying video showing the gesture is sufficient to prove that in objective terms. "Public consensus" should not be a requirement in order to make a statement about an observable, objective truth that is recorded on video for all to see.
The only thing that can remotely be in debate is Musk's intent. However, Musk's intent is, in this case, irrelevant, because his subjective view of the gesture cannot change its meaning. If Musk were ignorant about the historical meaning of the gesture he made, it wouldn't change the fact that this historical meaning exists. If, for example, Musk scribbled a swastika in plain view of the inauguration crowd, while somehow being unaware of its use as a Nazi symbol, it wouldn't change the fact that he just scribbled a Nazi symbol. It would just mean he did so by accident rather than on purpose.
In addition, the debates about Musk's political views, or whether or not he should be described as a Nazi sympathizer, are irrelevant. Musk could be the most anti-fascist person on Earth, and it wouldn't change the fact that the gesture he made is a fascist salute. His subjective views cannot change the objective reality of the salute he made, or its historical connotations.
Indeed, few of the sources defending Musk over the incident actually deny that the gesture looks like a Nazi salute. They are largely focused either on Musk's intent or on his broader political views -- neither of which can or should change anything about the gesture or its historically-understood meaning. TKSnaevarr (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TKSnaevarr 100 percent. Spinsterella (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s not sugar coat it; it was a Nazi salute. There was public backlash which makes it a controversy. Magnetic Chutney (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The name should be changed to reflect the actual controversy. "Elon Musk gesture controversy" is vague to the point of being misleading. A more accurate title might be something like "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute controversy" or just "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute" since that conveys what the controversy is actually about. Harimau777 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To respect both sides, it's reasonable to say "Elon Musk gesture" or "Elon Musk arm gesture". This would be most alligning with Wikipedia's Neutrality Policy. I see both sides of the problem, but also see that Wikipedia should always be kept strictly neutral. MrGumballs (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant dogwhistle

[edit]

Let's be real: That was a Nazi salute. You don't do that and say it's something else.

I propose this page be renamed to "Elon Musk's Sieg Hiel", because it is such. ManOfDirt (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from but I believe that's too strong of a stance for Wikipedia to take. Dflovett (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What else? A "Roman salute"? The sole reason this is a debate is due to the lamestream media's "reporting". ManOfDirt (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute controversy" or "Elon Musk alleged Nazi salute incident" would both make more sense than the current name, and would allow to the entire debate around this to be included. Dflovett (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Elon's opinion is listed, then so should the opinions of every extremism historian about the salute:
Kurt Braddock, a professor of communication at American University who studies extremism, radicalization and terrorism, to The Associated Press: "I know what I saw, I know what the response to it was among elements of the extreme right including neo-Nazis."
And, the removal of Elon from the Deutsches Museum, in Munich
https://www.newsweek.com/elon-musk-exhibit-germany-removed-nazi-salute-2019521
Lets see more opinions, of extremism historians and German institutions. 192.184.131.186 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this entire debate is the aestheticization of politics in practice, the idea of Elon being a Nazi as the epicenter as opposed to actually punching Nazis. ManOfDirt (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this argument is going to work. If you are going to split hairs into other directions and not call a spade a spade, you are obfuscating.
End of discussion. 2601:5CF:8580:A641:7DD9:5C54:C6F9:8CF (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling a spade a spade, I'm simply saying this debate obfuscates the obvious: Elon Musk is a Nazi sympathizer. ManOfDirt (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, we can still not 100% certifiably assert that it is a NAZI salute, even if it almost definitely was. Sushidude21! (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, your Red armband is showing. 2601:5CF:8580:A641:7DD9:5C54:C6F9:8CF (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Не зачем вообще его обсуждать. Маск должен исчезнуть как минимум из всех СМИ, как максимум сесть в тюрьму и надолго. Под этим жестом лежат 30 миллионов советских людей. 37.193.24.48 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:ENGLISHPLEASE A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged NAZI salute" could work but it would be biased as although it was probably (definitely) a sig heil, this wouldn't take other views in to account and be properly neutral, as is Wikipedia's purpose. Sushidude21! (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it something other than a Nazi salute is a blatant example of False balance. Trying to maintain balance between two opposing viewpoints when one of them is, objectively and demonstrably, false, is itself an example of bias, in this case in Musk's favour.
The gesture Musk made was blatantly a Nazi salute, and the photos and videos are sufficient proof. There is, no matter how you slice it, literally zero physical difference in the gesture he made and a salute made by historical Nazis. That makes it a Nazi salute.
The only thing that can theoretically be in question is Musk's intent. One can perhaps plausibly argue that he made the Nazi salute by accident, not realizing the ramifications of the gesture he made. But that doesn't make it not a Nazi salute. It just makes it an accidental one.
The current title of the article breaches neutrality by casting doubt on something that is demonstrably true in order to protect Musk's reputation. TKSnaevarr (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm calling on Wikipedia to call Elon Musk a Nazi sympathizer, because he is one. The proof is there, the tweets, the disputes, everything. ManOfDirt (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow reliable sources, of which almost none outright call it a Nazi salute. Besides that I don't see where you currently see false balance when the lede already reflects the sentiment that most observers interpret it as a Nazi salute.
If you want a different article title, there's a discussion still ongoing above. Mystic Cornball (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, simply state most - outside Trump's base and Musk's remaining fanbase - realized he was appealing to Nazis.
The man is a Nazi. Speak the speak, walk the walk. ManOfDirt (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And others, among them notably the Anti-Defamation League, which alone justifies mentioning that point of view. Mystic Cornball (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was overwhelmingly referred to as a Nazi salute in the media. It was not widely referred to as a "straight-arm gesture controversy," which is a kind of language that obfuscates its commonly acknowledged meaning. The article on the salute itself is also titled Nazi salute, its WP:COMMONNAME. It should be moved to Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy. --Tataral (talk) 23:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, If it was not the middle of the night I would look what the sources say, but I think everything is going to look a whole lot different once I wake up tomorrow. Nontheless, we should follow where the sources go, not make up our own wording, if somehow straight arm gesture is used most in RS's then that should be it.
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 23:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ManOfDirt@Dflovett@TKSnaevarr@Mystic Cornball@Tataral@Speederzzz I'm going to remind you all. Wikipedia is not a political online chat space to call on people to call someone a Nazi, especially when most reliable sources don't say that person in question is a Nazi. Please take this conversation to the first thread on this talk page, in which we are actually discussing what to name the page. Thank You. Zyxrq (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks for the correct thread, as I wrote, it was quite late when I wrote the previous comment and I was a bit confused on what conversation is which (I've had the same problem in another talk page where I had to try and direct people to the correct conversation).
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 11:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right in that it's not correct to characterize people while trying to be objective. But on the other hand, it is anything but objective to insist that his gesture may not have been a Nazi salute. 79.166.36.186 (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change title

[edit]
Already being discussed in a different thread. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I believe that the content of the article is more clearly communicated by explicitly mentioning the Fascist imagery. Although there is controversy around the gesture, there is only controversy on whether the gesture is Fascist. Therefore, a title like “Alleged Fascist salute by Elon Musk“ is appropriate. Anselm Schüler (talk) 13:59, 25 January 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.

Rename required for context

[edit]
Already being discussed in a different thread. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Naming the article "straight-arm gesture controversy" gives little context to someone who may see the title as to what was the controversy exactly.

Renaming it to "Nazi salute controversy" or "apparent Nazi salute controversy" is far more explanatory as to what the event was. Just because Musk's intentions with this gesture aren't 100% clear doesn't mean Wikipedia should sink into vagueness. 79.166.36.186 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 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.

International Reactions

[edit]

I think the Reactions section is a bit all over the place. We mix in reactions from politicians (going from heads of state to minor local politicians), to listing social media reactions as part of the "United States", to barely any focus on reactions from the US itself or the current administration despite the incident taking place at the inauguration, as well as picking reactions from the used references in a bit of a random way (e.g. this article which is used as a source has a reaction by Karl Lauterbach left out so far).

I have two proposals for restructuring the section (in case the article is kept):

1) structuring by topic, e.g. (Social) Media, then United States, Jewish and Anti-hate groups, International (with a focus on leading political parties and significant groups, and possibly with a focus on Germany as Musk's recent actions regarding Alternative für Deutschland recently also are brought up a few times in the sources), and lastly Musk's own response as well as reactions by the US government.

2) structuring by Initial Reactions, then Condemnment and Defenders, then the response Mystic Cornball (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initially the section was titled 'reactions'. Special:PermanentLink/1271764314. I think it should probably be something such as: Most notable domestic reactions, activist group reactions, social media, international political party reactions. I think each segment should provide the range of views rather than segmenting by the nature of the viewpoint. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made significant restructuring efforts 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 04:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the shortdesc

[edit]

hello, @CommunityNotesContributor! you reverted my shortdescription addition while only explaining in the summary "short descriptions aren't supposed to have spelling errors" which i feel is a bit meanspirited since its not actually addressing why you hold that the shortdescription is unnesscary. I believe a short description would be very useful because just taking the article title by itself, it unclear what exactly is the contraversy is about or what kind it is, personal, sexual, political, ect. for example, the shortdesc on the Jimmy Carter rabbit incident article clarifies that it was the rabbit who attacked Carter rather than carter attacking or or any other number of things which could be inferred about the incident from it's title.

To make this clear, im not against you reverting the short description at all, id just like an explaination, thank you! AssanEcho (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you felt it was mean spirited as that was not my intent, however I didn't suggest that a short description wasn't unnecessary either, that would be a assumption. I reverted purely because of the spelling error, because like the body WP should avoid them as much as possible, and you'll find others will do the same (regardless of whether they approve or not content/changes or not). Reading between the lines, it seems like you are wondering why I simply didn't correct the spelling? If so, it's because the page intentionally has no description, and that has been the status quo for sometime now (as is common with such long descriptive titles). Furthermore, to correct the spelling rather than revert would indirectly endorse that change, which I was reluctant to do. So while it's unlikely I would of reverted if it weren't for the spelling error, I imagine that another editor would based on WP:BRD, as I see no value in a shortdescrip either. CNC (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now, you explained your reasoning very well. I should have outright also asked why you didn't just fix the typo rather than not just mentioning it at all. I'm sorry about that, I was extremely tired when I posted this topic and I also mentally exhausted from writing a lengthy reply to someone who replied to a different topic i made (and it didnt help that i found it a rather bewildering reply too).
I'll be bold and readd it but to emphasis again, I think i took it wrong because i didnt understand you reasoning since I only joined as a proper member about 3 months ago. once again, you explanation was amazing! AssanEcho (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

subsequent AfD appearance

[edit]

I recommend this edit be restored:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk_straight-arm_gesture_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1272044454

Five days after the salute incident, Musk unexpectedly appeared by video to address an AfD election campaign event in Germany, telling the audience, "It's good to be proud of German culture, German values, and not to lose that in some sort of multiculturalism that dilutes everything ... There is too much focus on past guilt, and we need to move beyond that." Musk has praised AfD as "the best hope for Germany" as it advocated the "remigration" of those with migrant backgrounds and sought to win control of the federal government in February elections.

soibangla (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who removed it. To me, this part seems completely unrelated to the article. Musk already has shown support for Alternative für Deutschland since well over a month ago, and the gesture also was not brought up at all during the event. Mystic Cornball (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it relevant that five days after triggering a global uproar he chooses to address a German far-right party that many say has echoes of Nazism, asking them to forget their past as they campaign on mass deportations of migrants, suggestive of ethnic cleansing. soibangla (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: he has shown sympathies towards AfD already weeks before the Nazi salute incident, including openly embracing the party regarding the upcoming elections since at least late December, and a livestream with Alice Weidel a few weeks ago where Adolf Hitler was called a communist. This isn't something new since the Nazi salute situation, but the way this was included in the article implies just that.
I have not seen any source directly relating the two incidences, especially in German sources, or honestly even any reactions bringing up his AfD support explicitly in the context of the Nazi salute incident. Mystic Cornball (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you don't find it unusual that immediately after an action that led to him being widely characterized as a Nazi, that instead of backpedaling and laying low for a while because he doesn't want anyone to believe he's a Nazi, he doubles down to address a party that has been widely discussed as having Nazi characteristics? this tends to reinforce arguments that the salute was not just a misinterpretation, but rather deliberate.
do most readers of this article know AfD has been widely described as having Nazi characteristics, or for that matter that AfD even exists and is seeking control of the German government in a month? they should, in the context of this incident, as Musk continued to embrace AfD and there is no evidence they shunned him after the salute. if I ran a party running for a federal election in four weeks amidst allegations of being Nazis, I would tell Musk to stay away because he's internationally radioactive right now. but that's just me. soibangla (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he doubles down to address a party that has been widely discussed as having Nazi characteristics That's exactly not what's happening, and I have laid out for you two times now why that is. Musk did not unexpectedly show up at that AfD event with zero links whatsoever to them before his salute, he has openly embraced the party for at least a month now, and arguably even earlier than that. I would argue this has received significantly more coverage in Germany than his salute controversy as well. After some research, I have not seen many German articles or commentaries bringing up the salute on their commentary on Musk's comments at all, let alone linking them.
If you have any sources explicitly linking these two events, I do not see an issue of adding a short mention of it among media reactions, but as is this is WP:OR. Mystic Cornball (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters: "Elon Musk made a surprise appearance" = unexpectedly
the fact he's backed AfD in the past, which I have always known and never disputed, is not relevant to this discussion. what he did after the salute is relevant, and what he did was deepen his association with perceived Nazism rather than ease off from it to allay suggestions that he's a Nazi.
That's exactly not what's happening well we just really disagree so maybe you and I should not talk about this anymore. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla I feel like this has devolved into political/anecdotal arguments and the argument you’ve made about necessary context is just blatantly synthesising different sources. Even if you feel the context is necessary you need to find reliable sources that does this, not do it yourself. This would need to be more than just a passing reference in a news article like in the case of the Reuters article. Originalcola (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will endeavor to find additional sources soibangla (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, it seems the Reuters article cited[5] didn't mention the salute at all. Originalcola (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
paragraph 4: "Last week, the U.S. billionaire caused uproar after he made a gesture that drew online comparisons to a Nazi salute during U.S. President Donald Trump's inauguration festivities." soibangla (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say the BBC article, my bad. Originalcola (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Originalcola, the BBC source was not included to support the salute or AfD event description, it was included to support what AfD believes, which the edit also describes. I don't see the edit is synth, or that Reuters made just a passing reference, rather it reported significant Musk quotes. The edit describes the AfD event, then describes what AfD advocates. That's it. soibangla (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an implication that the 2 are linked that is not supported by either source(that Musks support is directly tied to/in spite of remigration policy), hence synthesis. Neither source makes the link and due to being a direct claim about Musk's political ideology that failed verification it shouldn't be included. Originalcola (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see synth in the edit. do others? soibangla (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do, as already stated above as well.
If you want to cover Musk's support of AfD, I invite you to help me out expanding the Germany section in Political activities of Elon Musk appropriately. But again, unless there are sources explicitly analyzing these two events in accordance, this is clearly OR. Mystic Cornball (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully, by "others," I did not mean you, as I previously suggested you and I really disagree and should not discuss it further, as I sensed a rising temperature in the discussion. I seek no conflict with you. I note the AfD was your first edit as a registered user. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Leaky.Solar who added the original paragraph and added back a rephrasing in an edit earlier yesterday. Mystic Cornball (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so honestly I figured that the original inclusion was needed following above listed arguments. It showed his continued alignment with the organization and it's far right values along with his comments that potentially alluded to Nazi era Germany actions, especially so close to Holocaust remembrance dance. I had it originally in an aftermath section that was deleted and information merged into other sections. I think the re-adding that's mentioned is when I pulled the "Elon Musk reactions' section up from being the last possible section, but pretty sure it was still included when I moved the section up.
I personally feel it shows his mindset/opinions/potential intent as even though he hasn't apologized (that I'm aware of) and has doubled down. It also appears to connect more to people linking it to Nazi era gestures instead of the idea that he was acting out due to Asperger syndrome/being excited/overwhelmed etc. His AfD comments were also wildly reported in connection with his gesture and German politicians and civilians I believe have also commented on the connection. Leaky.Solar (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant and appropriate side-by-side comparison of Musk Salute and Nazi Salute

[edit]

Example 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewsWithJingjing/comments/1i6geyb/elon_musks_nazi_salute_side_by_side_with_hitlers/

Example 2: https://x.com/i/status/1881716580876497257

Copyright can be a difficult subject when it comes to images circulating on social media. Why don't we make our own side-by-side video comparison, Wikipedia-style, to illuminate the truth of the matter to curious readers drawing only on existing copyright-compliant videos of Nazi salutes and Musk's salute, which are already on Wikipedia? I am willing to do so but I struggle to find an animated Nazi salute on Wikimedia. Why don't we have any such videos and where can I reliably find them?

Given the article revolves around the central theme of comparing the Musk salute and the Nazi salute, I wonder if it would be relevant or appropriate to include a clear side-by-side comparison, possibly drawing on historical sources such as footage of Nazis saluting or modern reporting comparing the Musk salute to the historical salute. However, it's a difficult call because, although likely very relevant and probably of great interest to readers, Wikipedia isn't a place for original research. Does anyone know of a high-resolution photograph or animated video comparing the Musk salute and Nazi salute, ideally of a well-known and instantly-recognizable Nazi such as Hitler, that is from a reliable source and NOT social media? And how does the policy on original research relate to side-by-side comparisons? Is it possible that a side-by-side comparison, if presented without any claim to the truth of the matter of the assertion implied by the comparison, would not be original research, but simply an original image drawing on preëxisting reliable sources? I guess my proposal is to find a well-established video of a Nazi salute already on Wikipedia and compliant with copyright and sourcing guidelines, and then to display that alongside an existing legitimate video of the Musk salute, allowing readers with a reasonable interest in the subject to make the comparison for themselves when it comes to this political controversy, which is of unambiguous relevance to readers. Until then, here is an example which I am NOT asking you to insert into the article because I believe that a higher-quality animated image or video from a more reliable source would better serve the purpose of illustrating the heart of the controversy. However, I am asking you to participate in the discussion of this idea to make sure I am being compliant with Wikipedia policy and consensus when making edits to this recent, possibly still developing, and highly contentious topic. 1101 (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no way to do what you're asking that isn't plainly original research. Everything included on Wikipedia has to be verifiable in a reliable published source as opposed to drawn from the conclusions of editors; you can't compare sources, draw conclusions from them yourself (or with the backing of other editors) and add that to the article. Even a side-by-side comparison with no other added commentary would just be trying to imply something.
This also isn't the right place to ask about finding sources(see here). Originalcola (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Originalcola. I can't see how you could do this without it being original research. You could personally create what you want to create and host it on your own website or reddit or try to get press of it in a separate way. But creating it for Wikipedia simply wouldn't work, if I understand your idea correctly. Dflovett (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary

[edit]

Really? Creating an article about something so superfluous? The whole page resembles a gossip article. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s currently a deletion discussion page for this article. I think the current state of this article is terrible but I don’t see a reason to delete it yet. Originalcola (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please weigh in on the deletion discussion. Dflovett (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2025

[edit]

Elon Musk gesture controversy → Elon Musk salute controversy – Call a spade a spade. Sources do it (The Guardian, Forbes Staff, The Independent), so we should too. In the first few hours, a few scattered sources used "gesture", but recent sources have all switched to Nazi salute to refer to the incident. Editors have made arguments that "gesture" is more neutral than Nazi salute. Yet neutrality is not one of the five WP:CRITERIA. Rather, the relevant criteria heavily favor Nazi salute. The title is natural, as readers will be more likely to search the proposed title than the euphemistic status quo, and recognizable, as most readers searching for this will know what a Nazi salute is, while they would not immediately recognize a gesture as what Elon Musk did (there are many different gestures). For these reasons, I request that we move this article to the more recognizable name, Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy.* 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Chicdat: Sources do it (The Guardian, Forbes Staff, The Independent), so we should too. You are misrepresenting sources. The Forbes article does not assert that it was a salute. It only uses the word "salute" in quotes and/or in reference to accusations of it being such. Same for the Independent article. So you've provided two sources that do not assert that it was a salute. Surely there are others, too, and those need to be taken into account for this discussion as well. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose with alternate option. I think Elon Musk salute controversy is the best option. Some sources "do it", as you say; some do not. I do think your suggestion would be better than the current name.
You make a good point about "natural" - but "Elon musk salute" is searched more than "Elon Musk Nazi salute" according to Google trends. Dflovett (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Will change the RM statement accordingly. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you: for the record, this means my Oppose has become a Strong Support but leaving it as is for posterity. Dflovett (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: You need to update the requested title in the template above and on the on article page as well. I see that is causing confusion among editors of what the proposed title actually is. Gotitbro (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, done. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. It should be moved to “Elon Musk salute controversy”. It really should be saying "Nazi salute", but at the very least “salute” should be included in the title since reliable sources have consistently described it as such. Wikipedia’s role is to reflect what the verifiable sources report and not to sanitize. Towamencin Township Supervisor Laura Smith was just forced to resign after doing the exact same gesture, and nearly every source reporting her gesture has called it a salute. Some may disagree and say that Musk was ‘sending his heart out.’ Ok, then he was ‘sending his heart out’ with a salute. Even if we consider intent, it’s obvious from the sequence of gestures in the clip that he performed the nazi salute. He performed two salutes before placing his hand on his heart and saying “My heart goes out to you.” Any ‘context’ of his words doesn’t negate the physical actions shown—the fact that he did the real ‘heart out’ gesture after the two salutes. Once again I will clarify the sequence: 1. He finishes the sentence with “thank you, 2. He makes a 1:1 nazi salute, 3. He turns around, 4. He does another 1:1 Nazi salute, 5. He turns back, gestures by placing his hand on his heart, and says “My heart goes out to you.” This is the sequence. Two salutes then the actual heart gesture. I don’t see many people pointing that sequence out. While I will put emphasis on the sources, Musk hasn't denied the nature of the two salutes, which shows we really need to call this what it is. Historetic (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support - It is the subject of the controversy and hence should be reflected in the title. Furthermore, Elon himself has not explicitly deny these claims and has made his support for far right Neo-Nazi groups obvious afterward. Not only should the title reflect the topic, it should reflect how the world itself is interpreting the salute . Hiding the words 'Nazi salute' is, ironically, more biased as it is obscuring what the controversy is. Being ambiguous with a title does not necessarily mean it's more neutral. To further add to this, Elon's 'gesture' is widely reported as a Nazi salute in pretty much the rest of the world. It's only certain English press that seems to outright omit it to play nice with right-wing groups that want to dismiss and downplay the controversy on behalf of Elon. As long as the article is NOT claiming that it is unambiguously a Nazi salute (which you can't prove unless Elon himself explicitly admits it), then there is nothing wrong with it. The title would just be reflecting the fact that it's widely interpreted as a 'Nazi salute' and had broad impact on the international community because of how it's interpreted (such as far right groups viewing it as a sign of support). Samhiuy (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, do we close this existing discussion and shift instead to discussing "Elon Musk salute incident". It seems as if, based on your comment above, you agree that pivoting in that direction (based on the "natural" considerations around Google trends) would make sense. I don't want us to be caught up discussing too many different things, and bringing in more "Oppose" responses to something that isn't being considered anymore. Dflovett (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Elon Musk salute controversy as more common and doesn’t raise concerns about neutrality. I think there’s a reasonable argument that "Nazi salute" overcomes the neutrality objections and but it’s less common, less concise so there’s no reason to go down that path.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if the article is kept and not merged/deleted which would make this irrelevant. Sushidude21! (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:CRITERIA, these do not represent the only considerations for naming policy. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOVTITLE in regard to neutrality in naming; it is something that should be considered alongside the 5 criteria with at least the same consideration. It doesn't really matter which is more commonly used on social media or searched since WP:COMMONNAME is based on usage in reliable sources and, at present, most refer to it as a gesture. The article itself refers to it as a gesture throughout. Most of the sources included use the phrase "gesture" to refer to the act and/or use it in the title. The distinction between gesture and salute seems trivial but labelling the gesture as a salute is less neutral whilst not really being more descriptive/recognisable. Originalcola (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy per @Mystic Cornball's argument. I still wholly disagree with the rationale proposed for the name change by the nominee of this name change but this title is actually descriptive of what the controversy is. Originalcola (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy - but not for the reasons stated. Most sources do not outright call it a Nazi salute, and the article has to reflect that. However, what is important to keep in mind is that the subject of this article is the controversy surrounding the assumption that Musk gave a Nazi salute, and not the fact that Musk gave an arm gesture. I don't see why a title reflecting this more clearly would be biased, as long as the lede clearly reflects that this has not been unambiguously interpreted as a Nazi salute. Mystic Cornball (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* Yes, I realize there is an AFD open. However, the AFD is very likely to be closed as keep before seven days pass, so it isn't really an issue here.
Do you suggest "controversy" over "incident" because it encompasses the dialogue around it, and not just the gesture/salute itself? If so, that makes a lot of sense to me. I still think "Elon Musk salute controversy" would make more sense than "Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy" Dflovett (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity: You seem to be trying to protect him... Tread carefully. Keep in mind WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:GOODFAITH. The opposite accusation could be levelled against you. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you are. 75.28.36.14 (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — 75.28.36.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Support The article was recently moved from "arm gesture" to "gesture", both awkward phrasings. It was clearly a salute (whether extremist or not), support move to Elon Musk salute controversy. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: If this must remain an article (It shouldn't) the suggested title would add even more bias. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There is only one thing that makes this a controversy, and it's the similarity to a Nazi salute. Calling it anything else obscures the topic. The denial we see here fails to even consider why this a topic in the first place. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, I support Elon Musk salute controversy or Keeping:Elon Musk gesture controversy as it is. We have no strong reason to add "Nazi" "fascist", or "Roman" salute into the title. Many people's reasoning for this is not because reliable sources are actually saying Elon Musk did a salute, but rather thru' original research with a mix of POV pushing whithout any reliable sources. see: Wikipedia:No original research. Reliable sources are wishy washy on the subject and use many variations of titles excluding and including the word Nazi and its variations. Exampls:[[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] "Elon musk salute" is also searched more than "Elon Musk Nazi salute" according to Google trends. [[12]]
What I mentioned in a thread above. "Reliable sources are describing this as a Gesture that resembles a salute. (AKA: resembles a Nazi/fascist salute.) Most reliable sources are not directly saying this is a Nazi or fascist salute. Often putting them in quotation marks when they say Nazi or fascist in direct connotation to Elon Musk actually doing a salute. This is especially prevalent when referring to the titles of the news articles of reliable sources. This is why I'm hesitant to add Nazi or fascist to the title of the article. Often then not when they exclude the quotes with Nazi or fascist from their titles, they say things like ""Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy"". which is why I'm in favor of renaming the article to Somthing like "Elon Musk Inauguration Gesture Incident", "Elon Musk salute incident" or keeping it as it is. If we do add the term fascist or Nazi its imperative to add quotation marks to the title. If we are unable to that It's most likely inappropriate to have Nazi or fascist in the title of the Wikipedia article." In other words I'm generally against having Nazi or fascist in the title in any way.Zyxrq (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am convinced (based on your arguments and others) that "Elon Musk salute incident" is the only answer. Dflovett (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also be happy with "Elon Musk salute incident." Though I'm heavily in favor of Keeping:Elon Musk gesture controversy as it is. Zyxrq (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For clarification I'm in favor of keeping it as "'Elon Musk gesture controversy" over changing it to "'Elon Musk salute controversy." Zyxrq (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ViridianPenguin: I think that... It doesn't matter what you think. Your personal opinion is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources assert. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why my original comment already said that despite a personal belief that this was a Nazi salute, it is premature to label it as such here when reliable sources are yet to converge on that label ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 02:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as bias. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Entitling the article Elon Musk Salute Controversy will be easier to find for those search for this article given that the controversy surrounds whether he gave a nazi salute. Gesture is not specific enough to be useful in an article title. Aerodynamic lobster (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk Salute Controversy is also an acceptable title for the same reasons. Aerodynamic lobster (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elon Musk Nazi Salute Controversy* Aerodynamic lobster (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can conclusively say it was a NAZI salute though, even if it probably was. This would also fail WP:COMMONNAME. Sushidude21! (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It being "easier to find" is kind of a moot point when we have redirects for that purpose. 148.252.128.230 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Gesture" is more neutral than "salute", because everyone agrees it was a gesture of some kind, but not everyone agrees it was a "salute". SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy, or at the very least Elon Musk Salute Controversy. WP:MANDY Rice-Davies applies.-Ich (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MANDY is just a non-binding essay. There is also WP:NOTMANDY which argues that WP:MANDY is wrong. Personally, I agree with WP:NOTMANDY regarding WP:MANDY. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I don't see how these MANDY and NOTMANDY arguments apply here. These essays are referring to content, specifically the inclusion and due weight or emphasis of denying allegations (or lack of), etc. I don't see it as being relevant to an article title, that is determined by policies such as COMMONNAME and NPOVTITLE. CNC (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: The whole point of this controversy is whether or not it was a salute, or a "throwing heart out to the crowd" or whatever. Either way, it's a gesture. A Nazi salute is, by definition, a gesture, just like putting one's hand to their heart and "throwing it out to the audience". By calling this article a salute controversy that would, in my opinion, go against NPOV. Keeping it at "gesture controversy" is a fair, neutral way of describing it. I'd also argue that most reputable sources have been careful to call it a mere gesture, rather than to explicitly call it a salute. 148.252.128.230 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes, comments by IPs tend to be disregarded because they are IPs – but I (as a logged-in user who already !voted Oppose above) endorse the arguments of this IP, because I find them convincing. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "incident" instead of "controversy" would adhere to NPOV Sushidude21! (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "incident" is less neutral than "controversy". "Incident" often has the connotation of implying something bad happens – e.g. a dangerous malfunction on an airplane is an "accident" if the plane crashes or there are injuries or deaths, but merely an "incident" if the crew manage to land without anyone getting hurt. I think "controversy" is more neutral because it leaves open both the possibility that the controversy is about something genuinely negative, but also the possibility that it is manufactured, a storm-in-a-teacup, much-ado-about-nothing. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable sources don't support the idea that this is a "manufactured storm in a teacup". 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Elon Musk salute controversy. It is very explicitly noted as a salute by several RS per the arguments above. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for Elon Musk Nazi Salute Controversy, Oppose any other move. A "salute controversy" is just patent nonsense. Say it out loud a few times and you'll see how it sounds like a crucial word has been struck out by censors, with no regard to the expression making sense. If the gesture was a salute it can only be one salute, and the controversy revolves around it being that one specific salute. And if it wasn't a nazi salute, then it wasn't any salute at all. We either call it a "gesture" or we call it a "nazi salute". Any other wording is unencyclopedic euphemisation, where we all know it's supposed to be understood as one thing, but aren't willing to actually say it. 46.97.170.199 (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Elon Musk salute controversy. I think the current title was accurate per WP:COMMONNAME when reporting initially described it broadly as a gesture or salute, based on the general confusion over what it actually was. However in the past week there has been an increasing number of reliable sources specifying primarily salute as opposed to gesture, the latter being quite vague and lacking WP:PRECISION. Granted these sources also refer to it as a gesture (or controversial gesture), but rather as a secondary description for linguistic reasons to avoid unnecessary repetition. I therefore believe the COMMONNAME is now "salute controversy" per RS.
HuffPost, New York Times, The Independent, NPR, Vox, Axois, Fortune, EuroNews, Evening Standard
I understand the theory that using the word salute in the title could imply it was a Nazi salute, but I completely disagree with this thereotical analysis. There is instead rough consensus that he saluted the crowd, as well as the flag, and I don't see much dispute about that either here or by RS. Ideally there would be be some source analysis added in a discussion section below in order for !voters to better assess the usage of salute vs gesture for purposes of identifying the most common name. I will also add that given a balance of the two terms in sources, then precision should prevail towards salute per policy. I am otherwise opposed to Elon Musk Nazi salute or Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy, as it would be an unnecessary breach of WP:NPOVTITLE. @Chicdat could you clarify in the proposal whether you changed the target? As I see !votes opposing the move but supporting the current target, which makes no sense, unless it was changed at some point? Maybe I'm missing something, but not seeing specific opposition to "salute controversy" in the title here, only "Nazi salute controversy". Hence I don't agree with the proposing rationale of this RM, but I do agree with the move target. CNC (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support to change to Elon Musk salute controversy. This title would be far more descriptive of what the event was than just saying he did a "gesture". 141.237.4.134 (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — 141.237.4.134 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong oppose to suggested change away from gesture - Trying to read someone's mind is quite difficult. Now, if Mu$k had clicked his heels and tucked in his chin at the time of giving the gestures, I might be inclined to attempt projecting an opinion of his motivation onto a WP article about his gesture :-). Without that, WP ought to try to reduce the verbage to the most fundamental choice of words in the title. The topic clearly is a gesture, the contoversy is the interpretations being debated by observers, pundits, and defenders against interpretations by others. There is one gesture, but there are numerous interpretations, selecting an appropriate title where there are multiple possibilities without reinforcing one of the interpretations should be the WP choice — publish the psychoanalysis, projections, and defenses fully — describe the controversy, do not assert one of varied interpretations when entitling our description. Keep our encyclopedic style by providing the best factual information available on the topic. Let our readers choose what seems more logical to them as an interpretation at the moment _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to return to the argument about "the more recognizable name" being the right option. "elon musk salute" is googled dramatically more than "elon musk gesture". You consider it to be a "gesture" but that is not a universal interpretation. Dflovett (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for engaging User:Dflovett — the definitions of the nouns is what is important to me — over time — and a gesture is precisely what our topic entails, by its definition. A salute may be a gesture, but by definition is not a gesture, which is only a possibility among many options. A similar gesture was used as a political and military salute in the twentieth century, but that is a rather short time compared to human history. I believe that using the most accurate word will be best for our encyclopedia in the long run... ultimately, it would assure the correct association as this event fades into history. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You consider it to be a "gesture" but that is not a universal interpretation: that doesn't make sense. A "salute" is a type of "gesture", so surely everyone who believes it was a salute (whether a Nazi salute, a fascist salute, or some other non-Nazi non-fascist kind of salute) has to also agree it was a gesture. English Wiktionary defines "salute" as "An utterance or gesture expressing greeting or honor towards someone, (now especially) a formal, non-verbal gesture made with the arms or hands in any of various specific positions". By that definition, obviously all salutes are gestures except purely verbal "salutes" (made only with words), and nobody is claiming Musk made a "purely verbal salute" SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    User:SomethingForDeletion - Thanks, but that is not a dictionary used outside WP, please refer to Miriam Webster as a good reference for definitions accepted professionally by editors for English in most style books. Several levels of meaning may be listed, in that case, the order indicates the most relevant meaning. Choosing the word wherein the first listed definition fits best, is always the most professional action of an editor and communicates most effectively to readers. Most importantly for us, however, in a controversy — adopting one interpretation is not our job. We need to describe the controversy, not join in by taking sides in it. Calling it a salute has connotations that imply interpretation — it is best to stick to being an encyclopedia. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but that is not a dictionary used outside WP, please refer to Miriam Webster as a good reference for definitions accepted professionally by editors for English in most style books. How about the Collins English Dictionary – which has the advantage over the Merriam-Webster that their website attempts to cover both American and British English, while Merriam-Webster focuses more just on American – for "salute", its British English verb sense (1) is "to address or welcome with friendly words or gestures of respect, such as bowing or lifting the hat; greet" (my emphasis), and its American English verb sense (1) is "to greet or welcome with friendly words or ceremonial gesture, such as bowing, tipping the hat, etc" – both of which support my contention that "salutes are gestures" (except for purely verbal salutes, which isn't the case here.) Calling it a salute has connotations that imply interpretation: which is the same thing I was saying. I'm not sure what your point is, because I'm left with the suspicion that you are disagreeing with me because you mistakenly think I'm disagreeing with you. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To say definitively that it is a salute is to be non-objective. Gesture maintains NPOV. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support. To call what was very blatantly a Nazi salute a "gesture" is blatant WP:WEASELWORDS. Virtually all coverage of this event is referring to it as a salute, even those who deny it was a Nazi salute. — Red XIV (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Red XIV (talk) — Thanks, but media seeking clicks for monetary gain will always feed a controversy with careful word choices, encyclopedias describe the controversy rather than joining in it (by adopting words that join an interpretation among the opposing sides of a controversy and especialy, one that is not indicated by the subject at the center of the controversy). If Mu$k had stated that this was his intent, an encyclopedia could justify using the controversial noun. In this case, quoting the WP choice you advise, would become newsworthy. If it were not controversial by interpretation, none of this would be ocurring. WP should describe, not join a controversy — best to stick to being an objective encyclopedia. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was objectively a Nazi salute. 75.28.36.14 (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — 75.28.36.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak oppose: the controversy is very much apropos of whether it was a salute or not, but it was clearly a gesture - ergo gesture better preserves NPOV CR (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree per WP:SPADE. (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It was a salute. RodRabelo7 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While what he saluted might be undetermined, underdetermined, or perhaps unknowable, there is no question he performed a salute. QRep2020 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of RS currently used on the page literally question whether the gesture was a salute or not. A large minority of RS unequivocally state that Musk did not perform a salute. Joe (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page should really just be called "Elon Musk First Nazi Salute" since it's a given he'll do it more and indisputable what it was (unless you're brainwashed). 75.28.36.14 (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC) — 75.28.36.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Support: this title can add clarity to the content of this article. It can also suggest that Musk’s so-called ‘gesture’ may/or may not have been a Roman Salute. GetitDunne (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article can't include every single reaction

[edit]

This article is ballooning outward. Just because someone said something on social media does not make it relevant to this article.

In terms of the flow of this, I think it makes sense to go:

1. Background 2. Incident (currently named "Musk's speech and gestures") 3. Aftermath

There are currently separate sections for "Aftermath" and "Reactions", which is confusing and resulting in both sections expanding. Within "aftermath", I think the organization by geography makes sense, but the U.S. section is probably going too into the weeds with some of the examples. Including Canada in the U.S. section also makes no sense, which I've tried to correct but it seems to keep slipping back. Dflovett (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a similar suggestion above as well and fully agree that this section still is in a sorry state. In fact, it arguably got worse now because someone split up the Reaction section further into Main Headings...
To exemplify the sorry state of the article right now, there are 83 citations in it, of which 12 are not reactions. If you include Musk's own response to the criticism, you still got 66 citations of reactions only. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not include every single reaction nor does it include everything ever said on social media about the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it also does not really have any filter on what is included. Why is the defunding comment by Musk relevant at all to the article (I know the context, but the article doesn't clarify it)? Do we really need to include Batya Ungar-Sargon, Rabbi Shmuel Reichman, Ingrid Jacques, and Dr. Aaron Astor by name in the Asperger's claim section? Who is "German-American" Katrin Bennhold and why do we care about her reaction? Do we need to mention three professors by name and their analysis of the salute, instead of just summarizing their thoughts in the section on political and activist organisations? Etc etc
Right now the whole section feels very unfocused, when it should probably at least attempt to focus on consequential reactions. I'll try to improve things a bit. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would cut all but Batya Ungar-Sargon (as written it appeats to by WP:SYNTH). Katrin Bennhold is a journalist for the NYT, why it is attributed in such a stilted way I don't know. Individual opinions from subject matter experts are generally due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of these now and cleared up a few other parts. The Asperger's section mostly used tweets as sources, which in itself justified a cleanup. I tend to agree about the academics part generally and will have a look again later whether this can be thinned out in a different way, but to be honest this seemed like one of the worst offenders of the "let's include everyone" problem pointed out above. I don't think it adds much to the article to have a full citation of each of them essentially saying the same thing. Mystic Cornball (talk) 03:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that it did. Dflovett (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Created by SolxrgashiUnited (talk), Maykiwi (talk), and Crelb (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 211 past nominations.

Surtsicna (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not wholesale opposed to this article running on DYK (subject to the deletion nomination), but I think the three hooks presented all have issues, mostly to do with neutrality/WP:DYKHOOKBLP. I don't think we should be running any hooks that are in the format "Living Person X is under criminal investigation", because that effectively amounts to an implication of wrongdoing and, unlike news outlets, we don't rerun a blurb if the person being investigated is absolved. ALT1 seems to be more about Musk's views on Wikipedia than the boldlinked article; the quote from Jimmy Wales is currently not even mentioned in the article, so we have an instance where the hook is actually more informative than the article it links to. I'm also biased against "meta" hooks that reference Wikipedia in general although there's no policy against it. With ALT2, I don't really see a circumstance in which someone tagging a public figure with a neurodevelopmental disorder can be presented neutrally as a hook. I T B F 📢 12:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Proposing new hooks as not a fan of ALT2 for above reasons, nor a the sort of self-promotion in ALT1. I think these are much more neutral as a statement of fact than a personal opinion. Edit: Also adding ALT4 as another fact over negative opinion, while tying a GA into the mix.
ALT3: ... many Reddit moderators banned links to X in protest of Elon Musk's straight-arm gesture? Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77r1p887e5o
ALT4: ... that the anti-Brexit activist group, Led By Donkeys, projected an image of Elon Musk's straight-arm gesture onto a Tesla Gigafactory in Berlin? Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/snl-elon-musk-michael-che-nazi-salute-b2686731.html
I disagree with you both regarding ALT1. Readers of the front page are almost certainly interested in the site and so hooks about Wikipedia inherently meet WP:DYKINT. I'd word the hook differently, however: ALT1a: ... that Elon Musk called for Wikipedia to be defunded over its coverage of a gesture he made at the second inauguration of Donald Trump?--Launchballer 01:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above claim that all hooks about Wikipedia are automatically interesting or should be preferred. In fact, personally I believe that such a viewpoint should be discouraged. See for example WP:NAVEL which shows that referring to Wikipedia or putting emphasis on Wikipedia in content is, at the very least, controversial. Ideally, we should be avoiding references to Wikipedia in hooks whenever possible, and I don't see why this should be an exception. ALT3 especially seems like a more appropriate option in this case since it's neutral, it's not unduly focusing on Wikipedia, and it sidesteps the concerns regarding criminality. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I appreciate the effort but I think it's far too soon for this. There is one debate about the deletion of the page and another about the name of it. Dflovett (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be too soon. The article must be nominated within seven days or it will not qualify. Of course, the DYK promotion will wait for the deletion discussion to run its course. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
aha, I did not know that, thank you Dflovett (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment Wikipedia is facing only demonstrates the importance of this page. This needs more attention in the deletion discussion. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwi Rex: "harassment" is really excessive. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. This wasn't the first time he attacked the website, and his summoning of keyboard warriors to defend him from the indefensible here has clearly worked. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...stating that Musk "is autistic" and was expressing his emotions rather than emulating fascism?". It could be, as it could be that his gesture was a Nazi salute (in my opinion very unlikely); the truth is that we don't know. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not claim to know. We are stating what his representative wrote. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very true that we don't know. Crucial to ensure that any statement like that is attributed to the original person (if relevant at all) and that editorializing and conclusion reaching is avoided. Dflovett (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope those replying here know that their comments here don't reflect on the DYK nom which is reviewed on a separate page (this is only a notice here), for which also note "Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it". Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally interpreted?

[edit]

To claim that Elon Musk's gesture was "interpreted" as a Nazi salute is to implicitly claim that it was generally interpreted as such, but this is absolutely not true, since it's completely wrong to claim that all people on the planet interpreted it as a Nazi salute. I've changed the sentence to "interpreted by critics of Musk" ([13]), but I accept further possible improvements. Thank you. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was wrong but you might have swung too far in the other direction. This entire thing is an exercise in restraint and compromise and I appreciate your efforts. I'm going to ponder and probably make an edit. Dflovett (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JacktheBrown: You have tried to remove any mentions of the Roman salute from the lead of the article, citing your own expertise about their differentiation and conflation. We follow sources not what editors think is apt; and sources vary as to the interpration and meaning of the gesture, many citing the Roman salute as well ([14], [15], [16] and more in the article body itself).
You were told to first bring it up on Talk ([17]) yet you continued to WP:EDITWAR.
The same goes for your repeated insertion of "critics of Musk", many a reactions/interpretations have been by people who have had nothing to do with Mr. Musk; a similar attempt was made earlier ([18]). I also note that the current wording of "some" was also instituted by another editor trying to tone down the criticism this has received by chalking it upto his critics ([19]); when multiple sources note that the interpretation is quite widespread ([20], [21]).
Please try to adhere WP:NPOV and WP:OR here. You have made clear on this Talk page multiple times what you think the gesture meant, that should not affect the article in any way unless you have sources that back your claims up (not a Roman slaute, interpretation limited to critics etc).
I have reinstituted the Roman part into the lead and you would need to gain WP:CONSENSUS here (per WP:BRD) for its removal; I object to the 'some' part as well but that is for another discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for your repeated insertion of "critics of Musk", many a reactions/interpretations have been by people who have had nothing to do with Mr. Musk – I think it is obvious the vast majority of people who interpreted it as a Nazi/Roman salute are "critics of Musk", in that they are critical of him. "critics of Musk" and "people who have had nothing to do with Mr. Musk" are not mutually exclusive categories; on the contrary the vast majority of critics of Musk indeed have never had anything to do with him. Can you find someone who is completely neutral about Musk, or who even actively likes him (a "fan"/"supporter"), who agrees it was a Roman/Nazi salute? I doubt there are very many at all. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an WP:OR and WP:SYNTH assertion that sources do not make, to assert that opposition to these actions comes from a set of pre-defined critics (a la opposers of Mr. Musk) in WP:WIKIVOICE is something editors should not be doing unless supported by sources. It does not matter what is "obvious" to us until it is to sources as well.
And by "people who have had nothing to do with Mr. Musk", I meant have no history of criticizing him (or commenting on him at all) in the past. I am in no position to categorize any reaction as that of a critic or by a neutral party or fan unless sources say the same. Gotitbro (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a set of pre-defined critics: "critics" doesn't mean "a set of pre-defined critics". It simply means people who are critical of him. Rather obviously, if you actually think he made a Nazi salute, you must either be critical of him for doing so, or a Nazi yourself. "Critics" doesn't just mean people who have a lengthy history of criticising him, it also means people who are doing so right now for the first time ever. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to say to this: WP:FOLLOWSOURCE. Not a single one of which ties the condemnation or interpretation to such a wording, boxing and framing the lead as such is ORIGINAL ANALYSIS and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. If we don't have the sources to back it up we don't say it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single reliable source covering this uses the term "critics"? Several do. See for example The Hill which says (my emphasis) "The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a nonprofit focused on combating antisemitism, defended tech billionaire Elon Musk’s “awkward” gesture during a Monday celebratory event which some critics panned as a fascist salute" – so The Hill for example is describing people who interpreted the gesture as a fascist salute as "critics". Or similarly, Politico wrote (my emphasis) "Elon Musk’s use of hand gestures that critics are comparing to a fascist salute is quickly taking on a life of its own on social media." So framing the criticism as coming from "critics" isn't "ORIGINAL ANALYSIS" or "ORIGINAL RESEARCH", it is following high quality reliable sources such as The Hill and Politico. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant sources present in the article. And while selective searching would bring about any preffered usage, the preponderance of the sources does not reflect this and inclusion as such in the lead would be clearly WP:UNDUE.
For e.g. let us take a look at The Hill links present in the article as of now: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. None of these use the terminology that is being proposed. Interestingly in your quote above the term 'critics panned' is linked to this article which describes the incident as "Nadler’s was one of many voices slamming the cross-body salute the SpaceX and Tesla CEO made with his arm during his D.C. speech." Gotitbro (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That same user has repeatedly argued that non-Italians are too ignorant to know what a Nazi salute looks like and undeserving of authority when it comes to describing Musk's gesture. Such an unreasonable position seems compatible with far-right trolling/vandalism and demands close attention from other users. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwi Rex:
1) Wrong and bad attack on your part, as I mean that some non-Italian users (SOME) are very excessive in associating the delicate word "fascist" with people; you completely misunderstood what I wrote.
2) Calling an experienced and very skilled user a "troll" is harmful to you, certainly not to me. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote it twice in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elon_Musk's_arm_gesture (comment above originally said "I didn't write that"). Specifically, that only someone who never "opened a history book or watched a documentary, preferably in Italian, on the topic of fascism" could possibly compare a man who has repeatedly supported far-right ideas and individuals to similar people. Another user has explained above how a certain edit can qualify as vandalism or something close enough. Your insistence in differentiating the 'Nazi salute' from the 'fascist salute' is merely a red herring; the distinction is not being used to improve the article, but rather as a nonsensical excuse to sabotage it. Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwi Rex: you're right that I was wrong to use "many" (I'll change it to "some"), but I'm right in writing that thinking that Donald Trump and Elon Musk are fascists means never having opened a history book or watched a documentary on the topic of fascism. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel so confident about your knowledge on this topic, please contribute to the article with your sources that supposedly describe Musk's gesture as incompatible with a Nazi salute (or any gesture with a similar purpose). Gaslighting "some" users is not contributing to the discussion in any way. Kiwi Rex (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can correctly be seen as a personal attack, edit content and justify changes to it but do not assume bad faith or incompetence based on personal attributes (nationality etc.) of the editors, read WP:PERSONALATTACK: "Comment on content, not on the contributor."
And repeatedly implying that fascism can only be understood by Italians or is unique to that country is another bad faith argurment (see fascism in the United States, and even if it were nothing prevents contribution by anyone to a topic). Gotitbro (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JacktheBrown: You have reordered the reactions multiple times to give precedence to Musk's defence of his actions (or those by his family) with no rationale but an edit summary simply stating "in order", despite being told twice ([27], [28]) that this chronologically does not make sense (not how the lead follows either). A defence logically follows the reaction/outrage.
This borders on WP:POVPUSH and unless you policy rationale to substantiate this, better self-revert. Gotitbro (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gotitbro:  Done: [29]. In my defense, I don't read the edit history because, considering that the page is excessively modified, it's not easy to find users who undo changes (why don't you tag me?). JacktheBrown (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Robinson

[edit]

The Anglican Catholic Church removed Robinson as a priest on January 29, 2025, three days after he made a gesture to an audience that some interpreted as a Nazi salute.

https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1884682862282027026 soibangla (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where/how do you see this as fitting into this article? Dflovett (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Already added under the United States section. Gotitbro (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me now. Dflovett (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word?

[edit]

"He also said that he plans on suing media outlets that called his gestures Nazi."

Was this supposed to be "Nazi salutes?" Haydenmyoung (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Both options work. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Direct and not direct quotes

[edit]

Haydenmyoung, I've noticed you're new to en.wiki.
Although this is a minor issue, punctuation is placed inside the quotation marks if the quote is direct. Instead, if the quote isn't direct (such as, for example, defended the ADL's stance on X, stating that it was "not a Nazi salute".), punctuation must be placed after the quotation marks. I bring this issue here because you've unfairly undone some of my edits. JacktheBrown (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I am very sorry for wasting your time. I did do research on Wikipedia's style regarding this before making the changes, but I found inaccurate information. Haydenmyoung (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The gesture is identical to a Nazi salute, here is my source

[edit]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/26/neo-nazis-trump-extremism

The introduction paragraph must be changed to reflect this fact. Haydenmyoung (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GUARDIAN "Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics"
The website its self currently displays a prominent banner (~%50 of my screen) that reads "This is what we're up against," and solicits donations to oppose (among others) Elon Musk specifically. The Guardian has thus has positioned themselves to have a financial interest in portraying Musk negatively. This qualifies them as biased on this subject per WP:BIASED. (That doesn't require exclusion, but material should be handled with care.)
What the article says is that a member of a neo-Nazi group performed what, in apparently The Guardian's and a neo-Nazi's opinion, is an "identical gesture."
If the material is to be included, consider attributing and treating as other reactions/opinions are as a matter WP:BLPRS and WP:BIASED, as discussed in various discussions on this talk page. Foonix0 (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You missed this summary right at the start of the RS summary: "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable." Regardless of opinions raised by editors in discussions about its political content, that is not a community or consensus view and Guardian is treated as an acceptable source.
Wikipedia has also included content in its fundraising banners attempting to tackle attacks by Musk, that does not mean it biases its content against him; the same applies to the Guardian unless shown otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not miss it. Reliability and bias are not the same thing. It's possible to be both reliable and biased at the same time by selective presenting and omitting facts.
And yes, wikipedia has a "moderate yet significant liberal bias" for exactly the reason we're discussing here, which is selecting biased sources. And yes, using musk in a banner to solicit donations puts wikipedia in a position for financial gain by portraying him negatively. Foonix0 (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately for us, while WP:BIASED requires us to follow WP:NPOV, the same does not apply to sources as long as they are RS (which the Guardian) is: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
I am not sure what enwiki's perceived bias has anything to do with the Guardian being a clearly acceptable source. Anyhow this conversation detracts from improving the article in any manner. If you have concerns with the Guardian raise them at the RS noticeboard but current consensus approves its usage. Gotitbro (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I originally wrote was:
"If the material is to be included, consider attributing and treating as other reactions/opinions are as a matter WP:BLPRS and WP:BIASED"
Attributing is exactly what WP:BIASED says to do in this situation.
"Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."."
I'm not sure what enwiki it has to do with it either, but you're the one that brought it up. Enwiki's behavior is not an excuse for the Guardian's behavior. Foonix0 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Some editors believe"
And? So? 75.28.36.14 (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So we should be cautious when and where we use them in a political context. — Czello (music) 07:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should be cautious about calling the guy with clearly apparent fascist tendencies and beliefs that have been repeatedly noted in the press a Nazi, and pretend that we don't know what he's doing when he makes a gesture that's completely unmistakeable and cannot have happened by accident. 75.28.36.14 (talk) 07:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the comment explains the "so" part. Foonix0 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative für Deutschland

[edit]

I've gone ahead and removed the mention of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the lede. The article itself mentions the association once, citing a single source making the connection, which is made by a commentator on the incident.

There's been a few attempts before on bringing in AfD more prominently into the article. As someone who's been working on expanding the support of Musk of the party in other articles (and personally agrees this is absolutely part of a pattern, no doubt) and looked at a large amount of sources on Musk and AfD both international as well as local German sources, almost no sources connect this incident and his AfD support, so I don't think this is due. I also don't think singling out AfD in particular due, considering he also voiced support for similar political parties in the UK within the same timeframe of his recent AfD support.

If anyone disagrees, it would be great if we can collect more sources first explicitly connecting or analyzing his AfD support and the incident. If there is a large number I missed, I wouldn't mind supporting working this in more prominently into the article. Mystic Cornball (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk_gesture_controversy&oldid=1273835986"