Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Elon Musk salute controversy

Potential rename?

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]
@Dflovett has a consensus been reached about this? it seems most people are in agreement. Spinsterella (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spinsterella I'm not the one moderating the discussion. I'll tag Chicdat here. Dflovett (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflovett: Since I started the discussion, I can't close it. An uninvolved editor should close it any day now. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
should I? MrGumballs (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering you only created your account a week ago, probably not. The closer will most likely be an admin or other experienced editor. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat I still don't agree with the current name. it's very bias. Spinsterella (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to !vote in the discussion (just one thread down), then. As you can see, many editors have commented on the proposal, and your input would be appreciated. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 20:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat ugh, I'm sorry. there are so many threads in here. which is the one to vote under? Spinsterella (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you go up to the table of contents, it's the second section, the one called #Requested move 27 January 2025. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat I took care of it. Dflovett (talk) 05:36, 7 February 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]
If we say that it was the 2025 Inauguration Elon Musk gesture controversy, it could be more specific and we could still have a notable, commonly searched, and neutral title. MrGumballs (talk) 20:54, 6 February 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]
What other "salute incident[s]" are you referring to? MrGumballs (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. Dflovett (talk) 05:52, 7 February 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]
And then we'd take out the gesture and controversy part. The fact is is that this is an arguable topic and is being debated so it needs to be a controversy still. MrGumballs (talk) 21:05, 6 February 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]
@MrGumballs but it was a Nazi gesture, regardless of his intent. If someone gives a thumbs up sign sarcastically, they gave a thumbs up, despite not having a positive sentiment behind the reason for their gesture. Spinsterella (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely, the "gesture" wasn't intentional, but the argument for both whether it was a Nazi salute or not needs to stay neutral, and the closest thing to neutrality would be what I've afformentioned, unless another reasonable, neutral title exists. If you have any ideas? MrGumballs (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move to Elon Musk salute controversy. Looks like the proposed title was changed from the original Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy, which makes the discussion quite confusing. Some early supporters probably were supporting that title. However, Elon Musk salute controversy has a stronger support. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
    Well, you have the fact that the Nazi salute itself does not include putting your hand on your heart and then saluting. If he was trying to do the Nazi salute, wouldn't he just cut out the "hand on heart" thing? MrGumballs (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn’t intended to be a Nazi salute, he would have apologized and clarified that it wasn’t meant to be one.
    Regardless, Neo-Nazis and white supremacists have viewed the gesture as a sign of support, which hardly helps Musk’s case. Argkitsune (talk) 00:51, 7 February 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 Keeping:Elon Musk gesture controversy as it is. Though Elon Musk salute controversy is more appropriate than saying Nazi salute. 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:[[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] "Elon musk salute" is also searched more than "Elon Musk Nazi salute" according to Google trends. [[11]]
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]
Support. It is a salute. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: Gotta accept the truth. A salute is a salute EarthDude (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Suport: That Was A Nazi Salute. Period. End of the Story 181.203.113.163 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: I want to start with the fact many here are arguing that gesture is the common terminology. journalists for reputable WP:GREL sources tend to lean towards "gesture" with sporadic usage of "salute". This lean is deceiving, however. Across these articles there are many instances of "salute", a interspersed, and many journalists, such as AP's Bernard Condon, modify it in ways such as "straight-arm gesture" or other descriptive language. Even in headlines, few journalists are just calling it a gesture, but rather a gesture which resembles a Nazi salute or variations thereof. In other words, gesture is the common word for the incident, but it is not the common word for the controversy. Salute or variants are the common word for the controversy, and this page is about the controversy.
It's also worth mentioning that a reason most larger sources avoid using more decisive language may be because, as we type and debate, Trump, Musk's closest ally, has been attacking our GREL sources left and right since December, after being emboldened by the $16M ABC settlement. CBS and NPR have been threatened [12], he threatened to investigate Comcast for treason over negative coverage [13], and has threatened to jail Politico leakers [14]. Even right now, relating to this incident, people like CBS-affiliated Milwaukee forecaster Sam Kuffel are being fired for comparing it to a salute, because CBS at any point could be dismantled for opposing Musk or Trump. So yes, it makes sense! The fact that journalists are calling it a "straight-arm gesture" to begin with is a symptom of the fact that's the most legally safe term you can use right now without getting fired or sued into the ground!
Note: I've been typing and going through the GREL engine and changing my opinion every 30 minutes for hours now and now it's 3 AM and I didn't even realize it. I still have work tomorrow god help me Altorespite 🌿 11:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: It should read Elon Musk Nazi/fascist salute controversy, because that's blatantly what it was regardless of intent, but denying that it even was a salute goes to the level of Orwellian self-censorship. TKSnaevarr (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Because there is a large amount of controversy between political (and non-political) sides, there needs to be a middle neutrality. For the help of Wikipedia, it should stay as Elon Musk gesture controversy, or change to 2025 Inauguration Elon Musk gesture controversy. Another point is that Elon Musk gesture controversy is more searched than salute controversy. MrGumballs (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support: If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a nazi salute. A nazi salute is a nazi salute, which is a nazi salute. This is the fundamental truth to the matter.

Oppose: Most secondary sources refer to it as a gesture. Source include the BBC,[1] the AP[2] and NBC[3]. It's fine if you believe it is a Nazi salute, but Wikipedia's role is to be a tertiary source. It's not your personal blog. MrTaxes (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, including the use of the word Nazi if it is found to be consensus. I agree that our sources are not straightforward on this. Wikipedia has no choice but to accept some level of bias, as in this case our sources are also going to be biased. This is unavoidable. The proposed title is carefully worded and does a good job identifying the topic, and the controversy surrounding it. ASUKITE 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy or Elon Musk salute controversy as "Nazi salute" is widely used by the more reliable sources, especially those with expertise in the topic of fascism such as historians. Moreover, per MOS:EUPHEMISM, "gesture" in this context should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms; "salute" is more precise, "Nazi salute" is even more precise. Boud (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems that "gesture" and "salute" are both widely used and the latter is more WP:PRECISE, since a "heart goes out to you" is still saluting the crowd. Even if fair, "Nazi salute" is probably not justified per WP:BLP, as RSs have not widely called it that despite the obvious physical match, perhaps for understandable legal reasons as others in the thread have said. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sources appear to be afraid to call it a Sieg heil or a Nazi Salute, so we can't title it that. IMO 'gesture' whitewashes it too much by being so vague and cowardly (directed at the publishers of publications, not anyone here). 'Salute' seems like a half decent middle ground between the two; NPOV means we have to explain the wide interpretations in the body, which is trickier in titling things. SWinxy (talk) 02:29, 7 February 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.

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v1x4dv4o
  2. ^ https://apnews.com/article/musk-gesture-salute-antisemitism-0070dae53c7a73397b104ae645877535
  3. ^ https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/elon-musk-posts-nazi-related-puns-after-backlash-over-inauguration-gesture-230137413690

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

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]
I will chime in as another editor to agree that this gesture was in fact a Nazi salute. Anyone who believes otherwise is being naive. Elon has a history of posting or retweeting white supremacist or anti-semetic posts. The salute of placing the hand on the heart then in a quick manner making a diagonal move outward, with the fingers in that position cannot be mistaken for anything else. Summerfell1978 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the comment explains the "so" part. Foonix0 (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignored

This, which distorted the text, was ignored: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk_gesture_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1274022068. 185.255.178.218 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Changes to this wording really should have consensus. — Czello (music) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCENSORED

No Swan So Fine, I'm not sure whether this edit is correct. The source says Vivian stated, "I'm just gonna say let's call a spade a f***ing spade". But did she say or write it? If she wrote, she could have written already censored. I'm not on neither Instagram or Threads, so I cannot confirm it. Can you? Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I followed the link from the Independent article to her Threads. You can click through w/out an account.No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

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 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]
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]
ALT4a ... that an activist group projected an image of Elon Musk's straight-arm gesture 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]


Requested move 8 February 2025

Elon Musk salute controversy → Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy – Many editors in the earlier discussion likely supported the title "Elon Musk salute controversy" over "Elon Musk gesture controversy", and thus, the outcome of that discussion was broadly correct. However, there was confusion in the discussion regarding whether the proposal was for "Elon Musk salute controversy" or "Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy." As noted in the closing statement, it was not entirely clear what editors were voting for. "Nazi salute" was not a formal option in the debate, or at least not for much of it. Therefore, I believe we need a separate discussion to determine whether the final title should be "Elon Musk salute controversy" or "Elon Musk Nazi salute controversy." Note that this isn’t contesting the result of the earlier discussion, but rather proposing an amendment to the new title. Tataral (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Googling "elon musk salute" gives all kinds of interpretations --FMSky (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tataral: Nazi salute appears to be far more common in reliable sources. No, it doesn't. Not even close. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Most references tie "nazi" in some form of descriptor for his actions that day. Most that search for it may use that term as well as its the most common view whether you think it is or not. ContentEditman (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @ContentEditman: No, most reliable sources don't assert that it was a salute. Let alone a Nazi salute. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it isn't neutral to take sides on this controversy by labelling it a Nazi salute. The existing title is already problematic; the article should be moved back to "gesture". – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: renaming it to "salute controversy" was a mistake, adding "Nazi" would be compounding the mistake. Wikipedia should aim for neutrality in the debate over it, as opposed for trying to act as an advocate for one side. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I find it bizarre that people say including "Nazi" is non-neutral because a huge part of the controversy surrounds whether or not it was a "Nazi" salute. My god, that's so much of what we are arguing about here! There would be no controversy if (some) people didn't think he made a Nazi salute! The only reason this is "a thing" is because people think it sure did look like a Nazi salute. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that "X controversy" is inherently ambiguous, permitting two readings (a) "controversy over the thing that is X" or (b) "controversy over whether the thing is X". Even if you argue "Nazi salute controversy" only means (b) "controversy over whether the thing is a Nazi salute", some readers will interpret it as (a) "controversy over the Nazi salute". SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm arguing it works for both! --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If it was merely a salute, there would be no controversy. As page correctly say, "Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups celebrated the salute". A lot of people understood it this way. I would rather not comment on his political views and actions in general, but the allegations about this are common [15] My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: If everyone knew it was a salute, there would be no controversy over whether it was a salute. Which there is. As reflected in multiple sources. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but would agree with renaming the page to "Elon Musk gesture controversy". Most RS either question whether the gesture was a salute or state that it was just a random gesture and not a salute. Given that, we should not use Wikivoice to call it a salute, much less a Nazi salute. Joe (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are not debating salute vs. gesture. That was just decided by another discussion, where the result was that the title shall be salute and not gesture. There are other avenues to contest that. --Tataral (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm already aware. Maybe I wasn't clear? I'm saying that switching it from 'salute' to 'Nazi salute' would be going even further in the wrong direction, given the RS. Joe (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It seems as though we have to define our terms here. Firstly, a salute is a gesture, they aren't distinct things, a salute is a gesture signalling a 'salutation' or greeting, so Musk was 'saluting' the crowd by making the gesture he did. Secondly, the Roman salute, (which was probably never 'Roman') was first adopted by Italian Fascists and later employed by Nazis. That Musk's gesture looked uncomfortably like a Roman/Fascist/Nazi salute is precisely why there is controversy, and why there has been such a level of coverage. Taken along with some recent pretty ineptly far right pronouncements from Musk, the gesture offended many and most of the coverage has been around 'interpreting' it. Should we come down on one side and decide that it was intentionally 'Nazi' (if it was simply the behaviour of a socially inept person, then it wasn't meaningfully 'Nazi' AFAI can see)? No IMO, recording that it caused speculation/anger/distress is enough without deciding 'intent' in the title.Pincrete (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Proposed title suggests infers that he intended to perform a Nazi salute. Whilst I concede that it does somewhat resemble one he denies it and as such we should not rename in the affirmative as per WP:GOODFAITH. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The good faith policy applies to users, not BLP's. I believe it is more important what the sources say per a few policies (WP:V WP:NPOV, etc.). I do also weakly oppose the moving, but mostly because of neutrality, and the sources. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 21:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm certainly no fan of Musk, but this is a WP:BLP and to title the article this provocatively, the evidence provided ought to be considerably stronger. I'd be more neutral on Nazi salute allegation, a title which doesn't strongly imply the truth of the word that comes before it, but not this. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The originalinital move discussion was about changing it to this, so this has been discussed a lot before also with rejection. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 21:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Literally what else could it be if not a nazi salute? Musk is a person already a person heavily accosiated with the far right so it isn't a stretch to say that it was a nazi salute. Chelk (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of contributions here are of the "yes it is" "not it's not" variety, with limited source analysis. I think (unfortunately) this is complex - Musk has essentially remained silent on the issue and there's more than enough sources, albeit primarily right-leaning, seeking to minimise or discount the Nazi-fascist connection. Globally the overwhelming prepondrance of centrist, liberal and left-leaning sources (and some conservative) all draw the connection. So, to some extent, I have some small sympathy for the position that the proposed new title does not reflect the not insigificant sourcing which promotes a view of ambiguity regarding the gesture. I'm not wedded to the previous title which I would agree implicitly accords too much to the ambiguous view, but equally this seems to move over to a completely unambiguous view. Notwithstanding WP:UNDUE, which is a potential counter to my position not to embrace an unambiguous title, I think it would be good if there was something that moved closer to the unambiguous view, but did not use Wikipedia's voice to endorse it completely (eg Elon Musk and allegations of a Nazi salute in 2025?). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk_gesture_controversy