Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk salute controversy

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sohom Datta talk 17:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
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]
ITBF, no hook is saying that Musk is under criminal investigation. It is not he who projected the image of his gesture. I do not see neutrality issues with ALT2 because it comes from his supporter. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 6 February 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 salute? 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 salute 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 salute 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]
ALT3 is boring. Concerns regarding whose criminality, Narutolovehinata5? ALT0 does not say that Musk is being investigated. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how ALT3 is boring (unless your preference is one of the political hooks), and the criminality concerns weren't mine but ITBF's. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are righ, "boring" is a bit strong. I find it less interesting than the others, but if it is concise and safe. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5: ... that an activist group projected an image of Elon Musk's salute onto a Tesla Gigafactory with the phrase "Heil Tesla"? Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/snl-elon-musk-michael-che-nazi-salute-b2686731.html TarnishedPathtalk 13:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that spicy enough without causing any of the concerns raised above? TarnishedPathtalk 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I was just about to review this, however WP:DYKCOMPLETE demands that articles be free from "unresolved edit-warring" and this very clearly isn't. When this stabilises, ping me and I will review this.--Launchballer 09:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer the edit warring has now stopped due to EX protection being placed on the page after I requested it. TarnishedPathtalk 10:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This is long enough and new enough and the QPQ is complete. As the title of this article uses the word "salute" instead of "gesture" this should probably be replaced in all hooks; I remain in favour of ALT1a, however ALT5 checks out and I would be willing to approve it. That said, there are a few claims cited to Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and The Times of India - what makes them reliable? Also, I think the "hung upside down" sentence could take a rewording per WP:CLOP.--Launchballer 11:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, all wikilinks and hooks have been updated to account for the article page move. I'm not going to comment on the reliability of Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Newsweek, or The Times of India. TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had a chance to look at The Times of India source, but I wanted to comment that I found something very odd going on with India-related sources several weeks ago while writing about the Proposed Danish acquisition of California, to the point that I decided to completely abandon the topic and refuse to nominate it for DYK. I discovered India-related sources injecting various forms of right-wing disinformation into this topic coverage, and it freaked me out to such an extent that I took the entire article off of my watchlist. I would recommend someone look carefully at The Times of India coverage and fact check it just to be sure. There's some very strange funny business going on. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not good. I'd take that up with WP:RSN.--Launchballer 23:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note, there's a followup to the TOI source from The Economic Times, also from India, that goes beyond the original TOI reporting. It also cites the opinion of historian Claire E. Aubin (University of California, Davis?) who says it was a Nazi salute.[1] Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer and @Viriditas, TOI has been the subject of two RFC's at WP:RS/N, with issues that Viriditas raised forming part of those discussions. See WP:TIMESOFINDIA for more details. I'm going to remove it if the content has another citation. TarnishedPathtalk 07:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer. I removed Times of India the other day. I've just gone through and removed Daily Beast, business Insider and two of the instances of Newsweek. I've left one instance of Newsweek as it is only used for attributing to a history professor. I've also edited "hung upside down" -> "hung in the same manner". Please let me know if this is sufficient. TarnishedPathtalk 13:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 11:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer Alt5? TarnishedPathtalk 11:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.--Launchballer 11:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Reversion of edit verifying information

[edit]

I would like to discuss an edit I made that was reverted by User:Dflovett, who said that my edit summary did not explain all of my changes. My edit summary said, "Using sources that aren't about the event constitutes original research, so verified information in sources that are relevant; also removed statements from primary sources used without indication of notability; removed unreliable sources (Straight Arrow News seems unreliable about Trumpism per an RSN discussion)", which I believe summarized every edit I made (except for a minor tweak to a reference). I removed four statements from the article; I believe these statements were all sourced to unreliable sources or sources that do not indicate relevance to the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that you made a lot of edits at once. Most of them made sense, but I think the removal of the Lemkin Institute sentence was questionable, as was the spot where you substituted The Independent in as the name of a reference but didn't update the URL. It was easier to do a bulk reversion than to go through and fix these independently.
This article should be used, instead of the Yahoo link, for the Independent reference: https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/friends-david-schwimmer-kanye-west-x-musk-b2694854.html Dflovett (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I will be restoring clearly unreasonable/unexplained removals. Gotitbro (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the edit has already been reverted. Will try and address legitimate concerns raised.
While we needn't cite that the WP:SKYISBLUE, it becomes necessary to cite that the 'Roman' salute isn't actually Roman especially when that is used in an explanatory note; this is simply not OR.
Citing dicts does seem OR as is used in text. Existing news RS already satisfy what we say.
Citing that Musk's self diagnosis is unverifiable is not OR or SYNTH, especially in context of the defence used to justify the gesture and the criticism that follows in the para.
Added a secondary source for the clearly relevant Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention alert.
Agree with the removal of Straight Arrow News and YouTube vid link. Gotitbro (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Dflovett's point that I made a lot of edits at once; I'm happy to have this WP:BRD about my edit.
Thanks for adding a secondary source about the Lemkin Institute statement. My concern was that, without a secondary source, there was a risk of cherrypicking, compromising NPOV. But, as you say, it's clearly relevant, and this secondary source verifies it.
As for the definition of the Roman salute, this statement is verified in a source already cited in the article (Katrin Bennhold in NYT), so I replaced the reference with this one. I personally prefer using sources that are directly relevant; however, I agree that it's acceptable to use a source that is indirectly relevant, in this case.
However, I think there is an OR issue with regards to Musk's self-diagnosis. This article mentions the fact that Musk is self-diagnosed in the context of his defense of his gesture. To readers, this implies that his self-diagnosis is an argument against his defense, or at least that there is some relevance between the two statements. I believe that this is original synthesis; if no RSes make this connection, neither should we. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a good point. I haven't found an original RS that makes that connection, so I think you are right to remove the insertion of the self-diagnosis. Dflovett (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the lead

[edit]

@jackthebrown

you may explain here regarding your reversion of the lead's edit and the curious exclusion of "dogwhistle" in the "see also" in name of italising. Till then let the lead remain as i find it to be more focused and inclusive LostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The version "...by some as a..." exists since the creation of the article, so I recommend you to involve other users, because in my opinion the lead of the page is better with this version. Thank you and have a good day. JacktheBrown (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how about we skip "by some", i find it (and in general the entire lead) of downplaying the controversy. I move to replace the phrase "starting with a quenelle gesture, twice made a salute interpreted by some as a Nazi or a fascist Roman salute" with "made a gesture that resembled nazi salute" because it did look like a nazi salute. It has lesser verbatum and is more focussed and explains exactly why the controversy. And could you also explain exclusion of dogwhistle in your edits. Have a good day!LostCitrationHunter (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By some" is WP:WEASEL. Lose it. But "salute interpreted as" is too absolute. Instead, "salute that has been interpreted" makes it clear that the interpretation was not universal without using the weasel words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WEASEL "[...] not automatically weasel words. They may legitimately be used in the lead section of an article [...]"; see also: [2]. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling: My original phrase was "in a gesture that resembled a Nazi salute or a fascist Roman Salute". what are your suggestions? I mean it resembled a Nazi salute after all, the resemblence was what caused the controversy. In addition i also felt the lead focused too much on defense of the allegation and lesser on the allegation itself. Theres only 2 lines about the allegation itself with much of words spent on the action of motion and Elons defense with little emphasis on the backlash to Tesla and X (and to an extent the electoral prospects of European parties supported by Elon). I feel the lead can be balanced better

@LostCitrationHunter: do not add your material back in without discussion. This is not an article where you can try to get away with edit-warring. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae:: Things I'd like to add and discuss about
  1. lesser emphasis on the action, theres too much verbatim and amateurish to begin with
  2. reference to backlash to the salute, such as reference to statements of condemnation from politicians and organisations
  3. reference to boycotts aimed at tesla and X (multiple notable accounts left X)
  4. links to wikipedia's page on dogwhistle in the "see also" section, it was removed after my edits. And maybe rest of the section as well needs a close look.
  5. mentions of copy cat salutes around the world. (Elon sure made it trendy to do make heart reach out after a quenelle gesture)
I am adding my lead for further discussions.

On January 20, 2025, while speaking at a rally celebrating U.S. president Donald Trump's second inauguration, businessman and political figure Elon Musk, made a salute closely resembling a Nazi or a fascist Roman salute and followed it by saying "My heart goes out to you".[a] Politicians across United States and Europe accused Elon Musk of Nazi sympathies and anti-semitism joining Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Jewish organizations in condemning the gesture[3]. On his own social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), Musk dismissed the accusations of Nazi sympathies, derided them as being politicized[4][5][6]. The Anti-Defamation League defended Musk and argued that the gesture carried no significant meaning, with Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, also coming to Elon Musk's defense on X. In the aftermath, multiple politicians exited from the X platform and Tesla suffered from calls for boycotts, stocks slumps and vandalism while Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups such as Proud Boys celebrated the gesture.[6] Multiple copycat incidents sprung across the world, most notably by Steve Bannon, a senior advisor to Trump in 2017 and British political commentator and priest Calvin Robinson.

kindly comment if any suggestions. thanks and regards LostCitrationHunter (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have relatively little interest in making edits to the page, because I feel that it has been gone over with great care and much discussion, and represents a current consensus version in balance and content. I will however rain on the parade of anyone who tries to hurriedly get changes into the article without regard to WP:BRD. That just won't fly in an article on a highly controversial topic that is receiving several thousand views a day. - Regarding your proposed lede, two things stand out for me though: one, the current phrase interpreted by some has been the subject of much back-and-forth on this talk page, and it has a different import than stating, in Wiki voice, closely resembling. This is not a trivial change and will require wider consensus. Second, we have no basis for linking to Dog whistle (politics) as long as the article features no sources that use that very term, because that again would be an implied interpretation on our part. (And if such sources were presented and summarized and contained that term, it would already be linked in the article, and would thus not be suitable for the See Also section either.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your insight. If theres no issue with the other points, is it fine to add them or do i need to wait further discussion, say 3-4 days? regarding your first point, I could find one section titled "Generally interpreted?" in the first archive but that discussion died before any consensus was arrived. Notably i couldnt find much support for JacktheBrown proposition to change "interpreted as a Nazi salute" to "interpreted by critics". I also could not find anything when i searched for "by some" in ctrl+f, I cant see the consensus that seemed to have been established without me. For me "interpreted as a Nazi salute" seems fine because it has been intrepreted as such although i would prefer "resembling a nazi salute" because the resemblance is unmistakable. the only controversy is over what Elon has been trying to signal. Regarding dogwhistle you are right.LostCitrationHunter (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jack has been warned about his use of OR to castigate the controversy as that from a motivated fringe ("critics"). The latest one being the absolutely OR insertion of quenelle. Though I agree that its interpretation as a Nazi/fascist salute is not universal. But many a sources do think that is exactly the case. But we should mention in the lead why exactly that is the case (past antisemitic controversies and promotion of white nationalistic far-right politics), we did but it was removed without discussion in the initial back and forth when this article was still hot.
The lead should also be in consonance with the body, defence of accusations obviously follow them not precede them. I will be fixing this.
Coming to your lead suggestion: :::*"My heart goes out to you" is irrelevant pablum which should have no place in the lead (isn't relevant to controversy).
  • Netanyahu is not really relevant enough to the controversy to deserve a special mention in the lead.
  • "In the aftermath, multiple politicians exited from the X platform and Tesla suffered from calls for boycotts" and "Multiple copycat incidents sprung across the world" can be included in the latter part of the lead (I don't think we need special name mentions)
The rest I disagree should be included/altered into the lead at all. Gotitbro (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Musk's defence of accusations should obviously follow the accusation/controversy itself and not precede them. This is basic syntax and structure (don't put the cart before the horse), not a single article in good standing on enwiki does this. I am not sure how these ended up being placed as such but that wasn't through any consensus, a similar attempt was made for the body (Musk's defence section before the controversy) but that has obviously not stood (discussed on this Talk page). Gotitbro (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) In my opinion, Netanyahu is probably as relevant as ADL is if not more. His and other's defense of the salut deserves a stake in the lead.
2) Description of the salute: I dont agree with the use of "some interpreted as a Nazi salute" because its a weasel word as you mentioned. If it were upto me it would be "widely interpreted" but i believe a reasonable neutral POV is "resembled a nazi salute" with no reference to its interpretation. I think we unequivocally agree it resembled a nazi salute. this is a major source of contention on my behalf, what are your suggestions?
3) I think as it stands the backlash to the salute is incredibly weak, so weak even a double dunked biscuit is able to stand better on its own. All that has so far being mentioned is that "european parties have called for ban for travelling into europe". I find this unrepresentative of the rest of the article and probably a plagiarism job by someone to diminish that aspect of the article LostCitrationHunter (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. 2 would require an RfC at this point, too contentious to be resolved in a limited discussion.
ADL is clearly more notable for discussing a potential American antisemitic dogwhistle than Netanyahu who isn't privy to this incident or US politics/Musk at all.
Agree with 3, but not really comfotable with name dropping deliberate agitators like Proud Boys, Bannon and Robinson. Gotitbro (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we come to a consensus with regards to 1. and 3 and also i understand why naming the mentioned is discouraged. I dont understand about 2 though. is it like those coloured boxes they have for discussion? any solution you recommend for the weasel in the lead? LostCitrationHunter (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excursion into WP:FORUM territory
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, dogwhistles cannot be heard except by dogs, and Dog whistle (politics) talks about coded or suggestive language. A Nazi salute is not a dogwhistle but a normal whistle that everybody can hear and identify. (Although not everybody wants to, in this case.) There is nothing coded or suggestive about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The way I see it is that Elon whistled and then pretended not to whistle at all and that the sound he made was a very natural sound due to his motory autism or whatever. Regardless, I dont think I can add it in the lead the way the article is written so far because I dont think the nature of the whistle has been discussed well in the page yet. As it stands, I cant call it a whistle or a dogwhistle yet.
I also wish there was some article or watchdogs reporting on the "propaganda narrative". For every controversy, there is automatically a counter narrative online perfectly justify the controversy despite the position being hypocritical of previous standing. And people do subconsciously believe in these targeted campaigns as they come up in the feed all the time. But these are not reported by any reputable which makes them harder to be cited or discussed officially. The latest message from propaganda machinery that got downstream to all the pleb (and i know i am going off track here) is that harvard deserves to lose funding access to billions of dollars and tax free status because they have 50 Billion dollars in endowment. You know who else has 100s of billions of dollars AND funding AND pays low/no taxes. Its a contradictory claim but there are people who genuinely believe so and influence decision making based on these contradictory opinions. LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather lazy to disregard Autism in such a manner.
It's a very complex disorder. It doesn't make it excusable, but those behaviors or oustings that are deemed inappropriate are often not the way intended as they are perceived by others, such is the challenges autistic people face every day.
This is just a very public and very high-profile example.
In his mind he might have done the gesture and even midway during the gesture realized what he was doing, and try to turn it into a parody of some sorts.
In the end it's just all pure speculation, but nothing in his history points to anti-semitism in any way. Unfortunately, Occam's razor can be claimed in two scenarios: 1. It's simple: It's a Nazi salute. 2. It's simple: He did something without fully realizing what he was doing. 87.209.255.233 (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is drifting further away from this page's purpose of improving the article using reliable sources. Please remember WP:NOTFORUM. I am sorry I contributed to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He self-diagnosed asperger's according to his mother and biography. He does not have any formal diagnosis, so thats as relevent as self-research to wikipedia LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "self-research to wikipedia". Everything in the articles needs to be sourced to reliable sources. Read WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in line with the Wikipedia article, which proposes that there is a narrative about Autism, while countering this argument about 'self-diagnosis' and that according to one source, it doesn't fit autism.
I agree with the part that I should actually propose some sources that counter these arguments, instead of just claiming 'disregarding autism' is "lazy", but my objections still stand that these arguments of 'self-diagnosis' and one source claiming it doesn't fit autism is indeed lazy, as there are easily many credible sources that could be found that would counter the argument that misunderstood behaviors that are deemed inappropriate are not a sign of autism.
I think it's a signal of shopping for facts that fit the narrative of the editor, and then pandora's box is opened to this discussion by said editor. 87.209.255.233 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For No. 2, see WP:RFC on how to pose a question that can then be broadly discussed. Gotitbro (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musk's family

[edit]

Why were Musk's family defenses removed? JacktheBrown (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the changes or edits, but I see two family members in the Others section. Dflovett (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflovett: the section dealing with the Musk family's defence has been removed, making the article currently overly accusatory; without further answers on this topic, according to WP:BOLD I'm authorised to restore the content. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in the edit that folded this section in, the material is too small to warrant a section of its own (MOS:OVERSECTION). It isn't particularly notable either. Any more would be undue weight. Fedjmike (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Heil elon" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Heil elon has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 24 § Heil elon until a consensus is reached. O.N.R. (talk) 06:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk_salute_controversy&oldid=1287692678"