Talk:Tesla Takedown

Hinsliff (2025) commentary

Just logging Hinsliff writing in The Guardian today. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Tesla stunt in Germany

Police in Germany are investigating the optical projection of Musk's straight‑arm gesture onto a Tesla factory near Berlin under laws that ban the "use of symbols linked to illegal organizations". In short, the German authorities will, albeit indirectly, need to adjudicate whether Musk's gesture was indeed a Nazi salute. The image from that report is worth reviewing. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Photos from an event today

Came across one of these protests in Brooklyn today and snapped some photos. Sharing here in case any of the editors on this page think they're worth including:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Incorporated one of the photos. Thank you! QRep2020 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian - good example of how, when you upload photos to Commons, they often wind up used outside of Wikimedia even when they aren't the one selected for the article. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Lots of vandalism and arson in many cities, getting labelled as "domestic terrorism"

I found these sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/conormurray/2025/03/19/surge-in-tesla-protests-musk-blames-mental-illness-and-baselessly-claims-larger-forces-funding-vandals/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teslas-las-vegas-fire-guns/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teslas-set-fire-molotov-cocktails-shot-las-vegas-attack-rcna196942

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tesla-vehicles-vandalized-us-musk-began-white-house/story?id=119910817

Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A website mapped Tesla owners and their personal information amid a wave of attacks

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/tesla-dogequest-website-owner-list-dox-site-link-rcna197112

Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The terrorism article defines it as "the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims". Many Tesla owners bought their car before Musk started DOGE - many of them attempting to be green to help the planet. Some people are trying to hurt Musk by hurting his company. They hurt his company by hurting his customers. This is just like the Mafia hurting customers of a store that didn't pay the protection money. It's not the customer's fault but they are being hurt anyway. Even worse if they are being hurt after using the store but with no prior warning.  Stepho  talk  09:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Since the vandalism isn't part of Tesla Takedown, all vandalism against Tesla cars and property is currently being recorded in Protests against Elon Musk. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Says who? The Forbes source posted above directly links the vandalism to tesla takedown. Ratgomery (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Where does it make that link? It's an article that mentions both protests and vandalism, but the only mention of Tesla Takedown is to say Some peaceful protests against Tesla dealerships in cities across the United States have been linked to “Tesla Takedown” Belbury (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact they're in the same reliable source means they're linked AKA not WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. The sources made the connection. I think the way it was worded in the article previously before removal adequately represented sources describing them as peaceful while describing the vandalism. Ratgomery (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

We have to remember that this article is about the movement and its actions, if we included all the protests listed in the article, this would be a list of protests against Tesla (which is basically the same as Protests against Elon Musk). Mikeycdiamond (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps the two article could be merged. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

No, although the topics are close to each other the Protests against Elon Musk article goes further into the subject than we could justify under the name Tesla Takedown. On the other hand Tesla Takedown goes deeper than would be justified without its own article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Its the same people doing both. They should be merged 98.217.161.235 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

They may share the same political ideology, but there aren't any news sources saying they are the same people. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

We wouldn't be including "all" the protestst against Musk, this would be including vandalism at teslas on the article of a specific movement about protesting teslas where reliable sources mention them both together and don't require WP:SYNTH Ratgomery (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It seems to me that the two articles cover at least some common territory. Perhaps they could be merged, if there is consensus for it. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not officially, because the organisers aren't fools, but the vandalism does commonly occur at the Tesla Takedown organised protests, and so the connection is clear and does belong on this page also. Even if the group doesn't explicitly call for the vandalism, it's events do often result in vandalism. Liger404 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

If vandalism occurs at the protests, we should talk about what happened at the protests. I am opposing including what isn't happening at the associated protests. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism does occur at the protests, that is my point. "Most "Tesla Takedown" protests have been peaceful, but a few have been destructive with fires intentionally set at Tesla showrooms and charging stations in Colorado and Massachusetts last week.". https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cnvze9dzq8vo Liger404 (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There are many more articles from notable third-party reliable sources that, when discussing Tesla Takedown specifically, distinguish the non-destructive nature of the protests from the contemporaneous but unrelated acts of vandalism.

• https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/over-100-people-protest-tesla-dealership-lisle-illinois/
• https://www.nhpr.org/2025-03-17/nationwide-protest-over-tesla-and-elon-musk-held-in-stamford
• https://www.metrotimes.com/news/detroit-area-tesla-takedown-aims-to-peacefully-protest-robber-baron-elon-musk-38891635
• https://fortune.com/2025/03/21/tesla-takedown-protests-organizers-elon-musk-donald-trump/
• https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/tesla-protest-arson-charges-doj-elon-musk

And perhaps most emphatically: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/elon-musk/tesla-vandalism-not-coordinated-trump-musk-claims-rcna197369

As the Wikipedia article states, nine people have been arrested in conjunction with a Tesla Takedown protest, and those amounted to cases of civil disobedience: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nine-arrested-new-york-tesla-dealership-anti-musk-protests-break-out-2025-03-02/ .

The BBC article is an outlier and I suspect they would issue a correction if pressed. QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

They organise the protest, the protest happens, things get vandalised. Separating the two events as unrelated is disingenuous. Liger404 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems like an extremely dishonest tactic on your part. You're trying to separate the vandalism and arson from the peaceful part of the protests, despite them being part of the same thing.

Why is it that wikipedia allows this whitewashing to occur on topics about left-leaning causes, but they'd never allow this on right-leaning causes.

For instance, can we refer to January 6th as a "peaceful protest" since most people there did not turn to violence and enter the capitol? 73.160.121.176 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

For J6, the protesters were under the same banner and were trying to overthrow the US government. Telsa Takedown is completely separate from the vandals and not coordinating with them. We address the vandalism at 2025 Tesla vandalism, alongside addressing it with the peaceful protests at Protests against Elon Musk. Tesla Takedown is separately notable from the vandalism. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they realize that every time they burn a Tesla, the insurance companies give Musk money for a new one. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot they dont realize. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion of possible merge of Tesla Takedown with Protests against Elon Musk

Tesla Takedown and Protests against Elon Musk have significant overlap. I propose that we have a discussion to talk about the possibility of merging the two. I think it's a good idea, and I'd like to hear what others think of it. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Protests against Elon Musk go beyond his action at DOGE (or other recent controversies). The article also allows us to expand beyond protests associated with Tesla Takedown without seeming like the article is a generalization of all the recent protests against him. That being said, I think merging Tesla Takedown into Protests against Elon Musk could make sense. But, I think we should keep them separate. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Support merger if editors insist we can't include vandalism on this page even when sources link it tesla takedown. Don't support merger if we include supported vandalism on the page. Currently the split between the two pages is being used to whitewash this page. Ratgomery (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Considering how notable the vandalism is and that it isn't part of the movement, should the vandelism get its own page? The vandalism isn't part of this movement and the Protest article can only have examples in the vandalism, I think it would work. My opinion is we should only have vandalism at the protests in this article. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Keeping the discussion of vandalism in the Protests article makes sense to me since protesting can encapsulate a wide range of reactions. This article only focuses on the activities under this one movement's banner. QRep2020 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing my vote to just support Ratgomery (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. There are plenty of sources discussing protest activities against Musk and DOGE with no affiliation at all with Tesla Takedown. We shouldn't give up on the existing article to shoehorn unrelated actions in here. QRep2020 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You can keep asserting that they're unrelated but that's for secondary sources to decide, not editors. If they're continually reported together by RS then they're due. Ratgomery (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Can you please link some of them? I have only found one article that has both and it distincts between the vandalism and Tesla Takedown. This article seems to be becoming a generalization for all protests, rather than its intended purpose of talking about Tesla Takedown. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The forbes article posted in the section above on this talkpage explicitly mentions tesla takedown, as does this article an IP editor tried to put in but was immediately reverted. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5333315/tesla-attacks-ag-bondi-domestic-terrorism-trump-musk Ratgomery (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The Forbes article was the one I was talking about, and the NPR article doesn't mention Tesla Takedown. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I just found where it mentioned Tesla Takedown. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

See my comment in the above discussion for secondary sources that distinguish the destructive acts from TeslaTakedown events. Since the destructive acts have no purpose being in this article but are still notable, etc., in their own right, they should go on a different article. We already have that article. QRep2020 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Again you assert that it has no business in this article but that's simply your opinion. There's been at least 2 sources so far that directly mention tesla takedown in the same articles as vandalism. Ratgomery (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to be adding this NPR source back into article as it explicitly mentions the tesla takedown movement leading to vandalism and violence in some cases. I made a topic below to discuss it there rather than here

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5333315/tesla-attacks-ag-bondi-domestic-terrorism-trump-musk Ratgomery (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. The distinction feels arbitrary at this point. Academic. It stands in the way of a reader's understanding of the subject matter. Snokalok (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

NBC makes the distinction early here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/protesters-gather-tesla-showrooms-dealerships-denounce-elon-musk-doge-rcna197595. QRep2020 (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Tesla Takedown has been given significant coverage by sources. I have an open mind about the inclusion of vandalism in this article. Jumplike23 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

See WP:MERGE for the way to formally propose a merge if that's what this is. If it's not, then we don't need support/oppose votes. My own $0.02 is the Tesla Takedown is clearly notable. The question isn't whether to merge it into a larger article but whether the larger protest article is notable without the coverage of the Tesla protests. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's obvious what's going on here: An editor thinks the vandalism subsection on Protests against Elon Musk belong on this article and is attempting a circuitous route to fulfillment because they met opposition to the original idea. A merger isn't going to guarantee vandalism gets on this article, for the record. QRep2020 (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It is, there is a whole section of the larger article dedicated to protests before he was aligned with Trump. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Support. I was finding it difficult as a reader locating the content I was looking for, which was effectively a mixture and overall of both subject topics. It would have been a lot easier if the content were in the same place. CNC (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for taking the time to comment on this. Smooth Emerson lasagna (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

NPR source linking Tesla Takedown to violence and vandalism.

This NPR source explicitly links the protest movement to violence and vandalism.

In response, a grassroots protest has emerged in the form of the #TeslaTakedown movement... But in some cases — including one of the people included in Bondi's announcement Thursday — the protests have taken a more violent turn. Two people have been arrested and are now facing state and federal charges tied to two separate attacks on a Tesla dealership in Loveland, Colo.

As you can see, the NPR source mentions Tesla Takedown by name as the protests, and then 2 sentences later in the same paragraph explicitly state "but in some cases the protests have taken a more violent turn". This is directly linking Tesla takedown and the violence/vandalism. Please consolidate all objections/discussions here. Ratgomery (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

References

This is a misreading of the NPR article. The first sentence says "a grassroots protest", as in one, and then the later sentence says "the protests", as in all the protests against Musk/DOGE/etc. Besides, the source article links to two other articles about the vandalism incidents currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article and those news articles explain the circumstances of the vandalism without invoking the TeslaTakedown protests. We also have articles from equally valid sources stating "the protests have been peaceful", so clearly this subject needs to be addressed with nuance.

If editors are convinced vandalism needs to be mentioned here as well as on Protests against Elon Musk, I would suggest putting a mention under Responses to the effect of "connections between the Tesla Takedown protests and acts of vandalism against Tesla property have been alleged" and then linking a portion of the text to 2025 Tesla vandalism. QRep2020 (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The sources youre claiming contradict this are from earlier and before these charges are reported to have been laid. An earlier source claiming protests were mostly peaceful and this more recent source claiming "in some cases protests have taken a violent turn" is not a contradiction, especially when the recent article is reporting new charges. I'm not making any vague claims that "vandalism needs to be mentioned" I'm making the claim the specific addition should be added as it directly mentions tesla takedown by name. I do not believe you've given a policy based reason to not include this. Ratgomery (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The suggestion that some Tesla Takedown protests have erupted into violence and criminal damage would definitely be one of the "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources" of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. An exceptional claim requires strong and clear sourcing. Belbury (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The suggestion is "in some cases the protests have taken a violent turn" exactly as the source says, nothing more. Not exceptional at all it's directly quoting a source. Ratgomery (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea that Tesla Takedown protests have sometimes turned violent is a surprising and important one, so it requires "multiple high-quality sources" to confirm it. All we have here is a single NPR overview which, at best, could be read either way. Belbury (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I am certain this is not an exceptional claim, it's just a standard addition of a standard source. There's nothing surprising or exceptional here. I'm just reporting exactly what a standard reliable source is saying. These "the idea that..." statements that try to paint it as more absurd than it is aren't helpful, I'm just adding what a RS said. Is the way forward the edit waring noticeboard or how can we resolve this disagreement? I've never been involved in a dispute like this before and am unsure where to take this. Ratgomery (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Simple talk page discussion is often the best way to resolve a disagreement. If you feel this has reached a stalemate, there are some options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

What statement are you intending to make when you add a paragraph saying that In some cases the protests have taken a more violent turn? That some Tesla Takedown protests have turned violent, or that the Tesla Takedown protests exist within a wider array of protests, some of which are violent? Belbury (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I intend to add the exact paragraph you linked. I'm not making any statement I'm reporting what NPR said and there's nothing exceptional in it. Violence and vanadalism at tesla dealerships are widely reported and not contenious or exceptional. This is a protest movement that protests at tesla dealerships. We have a source directly naming Tesla Takedown by name and linking the two. It's not exceptional for a top tier reliable source to directly by name link protests to vandalism happening in the same location during the same time frame. The level of nitpicking here to claim the multitude of sources that were removed from the article can't be used because they don't mention Tesla Takedown directly, and then to claim this one that directly links Tesla Takedown by name also can't be used because you're claiming it's exceptional is not a consistent standard being applied to any of the sources you like in the article. "In response, a grassroots protest has emerged in the form of the #TeslaTakedown movement" followed by "the protests..." in the following sentence is clearly refering to tesla takedown as "the protests" during the paragraph. No other protests are mentioned in the paragraph. Ratgomery (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

But if we are to clarify what you've written, should we write In some cases Tesla Takedown protests have taken a more violent turn or In some cases other anti-Tesla protests have taken a more violent turn? It sounds like you intend the former.

I wouldn't agree that NPR is "clearly refering" to Tesla Takedown protests in that second sentence, it can also be read as saying that other, more violent protests exist. When one possible reading of a single source would be surprising and important if correct, we should per WP:EXCEPTIONAL look for additional sources to confirm it. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

The source does not say "In some cases other anti-Tesla protests have taken a more violent turn" that is your original research.

Violence and vandalism have occured at protests at tesla dealerships. This is widly reported, including on wikipedia in the Protests Against Elon Musk article. This is not an exceptional claim.

Tesla Takedown protest at tesla dealerships. This is not an exceptional claim, this is what his article is about.

So if it's not exceptional to claim violence has occured at protests at tesla dealerships, and it's not exceptional to say that Tesla Takedown are protest at tesla dealerships, then how could it be exceptional for a perennial source to name Tesla Takedown as one of protests violence occured in at tesla dealerships? The suggestion is that the violence happening at protests at tesla dealerships includes a specific movement of protests happening at tesla dealerships. It is also not an outlier as no other sources dispute this one, this is recent information on new charges that were announced so sources from weeks ago not mentioning does not suggest it's an exceptional claim, it's just new information. Ratgomery (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't name it as one of the violent protests though, that's the point. QRep2020 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

it is literally the only protest named in the paragraph. Ratgomery (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Sjö restored the paragraph a few hours ago with the edit summary not at all a fringe theory or exceptional claim that damage has happened and that people are charged. Which is correct, the damage and charges have been widely covered. But by adding a paragraph about "the protests" in this section of this article, it's making the exceptional claim that the damage is part of the "mobilization" of the Tesla Takedown campaign, and that "the [Tesla Takedown] protests have taken a violent turn". This is so far only backed up by one editor's interpretation of a single outlier source.

I've rewritten this into a separate section to avoid making that exceptional claim which Sjö hasn't directly commented on, although the question of whether to mention the attacks and other protests and how they relate to Telsa Takedown seems to be playing out in the previous talk page section, so it may not belong here even in that version. (I have no view on that.) Belbury (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm adding it back. The source does not say "other protests" the sources names Tesla Takedown by name, you haven't. You are the one interpreting words in the article that aren't there and you've already had your edit reverted, no one has supported you on these changes yet. Ratgomery (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Just to be more clear what my objection is here, since my edit summary was hasty and poorly written. It's fair to suggest you interpret the source different than me. You are however adding words which are not found in the source to support your interpretation. The source does not say "other protests" that is your original research not from the source. The word "other" is not there in the source. It's fine to suggest you interpret the source different from me but if your interpretation involves needing to add new words which are not found in the source then I think your interpretation is the stretch. Ratgomery (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Your overall objection has been noted already. It still strikes me as a misreading of the NPR article. Again, TeslaTakedown is described in the article as "a grassroots protest" - one "collective" protest - and then the article discusses "the protests" that turned violent. Having your argument depend on an article that names TeslaTakedown in one place and then talks about violence at "the protests", with both descriptions belonging to a wider report about varied reactions to Musk, pushes it into circumstantial.

The Forbes article you brought up provides even less for your argument. It identifies a connection between peaceful protests and TeslaTakedown and only attributes their supposed illegality to a claim made by the President. Here is the sole section that mentions TeslaTakedown in full:

"What Is “tesla Takedown?”

Some peaceful protests against Tesla dealerships in cities across the United States have been linked to “Tesla Takedown,” an organization that urges people to “sell your Teslas, dump your stock, join the picket lines,” according to its website. Actor Alex Winter is a key figure behind the protests, which he began organizing in February. He posted on BlueSky on Tuesday that Tesla Takedown is a “peaceful, grassroots protest movement formed by many thousands of concerned citizens,” hitting back at Trump’s claim the Tesla protests are “illegal.”

More importantly, as I laid out elsewhere in the Talk page, there are several more articles that clearly characterize the TeslaTakedown protests in either neutral, non-destructive terms or straight-up identify them as peaceful. Along these lines, I invite you to read Wikipedia:RSBREAKING and Wikipedia:DIVERSE and then apply them to our disagreement. Which argument shines by the lights of these policies?

QRep2020 (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

We can argue about the degree the Tesla Takedown is included in the following sentences that use "the protests" in them, but it is certainly not explicitly excluded. Nothing in the following sentence beginning with "some of the protests..." excludes Tesla Takedown from being some of said protests after it was the only protest invoked by name as the form the protest has taken in the opening of the paragraph. The addition of the word "other" to make it "some of the other protests" changes the sentence to explicitly exclude Tesla Takedown, something the source does not do. Whatever degree you think Tesla Takedown is included in that sentence it is certainly up for debate, but it is definitely not explicitly excluded which an editor's unsourced addition of the word "other" changed the sentence to mean. It is not an exceptional claim, this been affirmed by someone else . A perennial source reporting that protests sometimes turned violent is not a fringe theory. Sources claiming the protests are neutral and general non destructive does not contradict with a more recent source saying sometimes they've taken a violent turn. Those can all be true, protests can be majority peaceful and sometimes take a violent turn, that does not contradict. Ratgomery (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The revert from Sjö that you're citing as affirmation was made on the grounds that it was not at all a fringe theory or exceptional claim that damage has happened and that people are charged. They haven't expressed a view on whether the article should describe that damage as being a part of the Tesla Takedown protests.

Context is as important as how many words we might add to a paragraph when clarifying it. You're dropping NPR's text into the "mobilization" section of the article. If that section describes a timeline of various peaceful protests and ends by saying that "the protests" have taken a violent turn with dealerships being firebombed, the reader will probably assume that Wikipedia is saying that the Tesla Takedown protests are now, in late March, firebombing dealerships.

I can't tell whether you want the article to say that Tesla Takedown are behind the firebombings, or that they may or may not be behind it, but we'd need to be able to cite a clear source before alleging either. Every other source characterises the Takedown protests as peaceful ones, with no speculation about them also using violent means. A single NPR source writing ambiguously and very briefly about "the protests" is not enough by itself. It certainly isn't breaking news that changes the narrative of Tesla Takedown, as you seem to be suggesting: police explicitly describe the Colorado attacks as unconnected to each other, and some of them took place in January and early February prior to the formation of Tesla Takedown. Belbury (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This approach works for me. QRep2020 (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to bludgeon the points I already made but I'm once again going to note that the word "Other" is not in the source and that's blatant Wikipedia:No original research . Regardless of what else happens there has to be a compromise that doesn't involve you adding a new word that isn't in the source. Ratgomery (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The idea that it is "other" protestors who have been firebombing dealerships since January is drawn from the sheer weight of the many other sources that have written about these events, none of which have described the attackers as being part of Tesla Takedown. It's not based on my personal reading of the NPR article.

Even if an NPR piece was saying explicitly that Tesla Takedown had definitely started firebombing dealerships this week, if they were the only source to be reporting on this, we should still apply WP:EXCEPTIONAL and wait for other coverage to appear: Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Belbury (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps arbitration is needed; it seems this debate has become heated. Both sides are constantly reiterating the same points and we are getting nowhere. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the discussion is covering some new points. I'm open to the "Other anti-Tesla protests" section being removed or retitled if there are concerns. Belbury (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes I'm raising Wikipedia:No original research concerns of you adding the word "other" to change what the source says. Ratgomery (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a better section heading? Do you think we should remove the section? Belbury (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is the addition I tried to add to the article that you reverted 4 times within 24 hours. I think it was fine where it was since the old vanadalism heading was removed. I'd be open to put it under a new heading that's not "other protests" since the source did not say "other" and that's original research. I do not think we should remove it as the information is due and relevant as Tesla Takedown as named specifically. Ratgomery (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Peaceful?????

Literally you have "peaceful" in the opening line. Arson and terrorism are NOT peaceful. 2601:201:8C01:E2F0:6C04:74FF:F49B:870E (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

There's the article 2025 Tesla vandalism for this topic. I don't know if the non-peaceful protests are related to Tesla Takedown or not but there you go. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

This page is EXACTLY why Democrats keep losing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Look, I get it: Wikipedia has its precious little “neutral point of view” rule, but this "Tesla Takedown" page is a joke. You’ve got a whole article gushing about this so-called "grassroots, peaceful protest movement” like it’s some noble crusade against Elon Musk’s evil empire. Peaceful? Are you kidding me? There are DOZENS—hell, probably HUNDREDS by now—of confirmed reports of these unhinged lunatics torching Tesla charging stations, smashing dealership windows, and turning Cybertrucks into graffiti canvases with swastikas and Molotov cocktails. And yet, this page doesn’t breathe a single word about it. Why the fuck not?

Is it because admitting the truth—that this “Tesla Takedown” has a violent, destructive underbelly—would ruin the narrative? Are you scared of upsetting the keyboard warriors who think firebombing a Cybertruck is “activism”? Or is it just that you’re too busy curating this page to sound like a press release for Valerie Costa and her merry band of Musk-haters? The movement’s own website might claim they “oppose violence,” but the body count of burned Teslas and bullet-riddled showrooms says otherwise. And don’t give me that “it’s just lone wolves” excuse when it’s this widespread. It’s a pattern, not a coincidence.

This isn’t about “balance” anymore; it’s about burying inconvenient facts. If you’re going to write a page about “Tesla Takedown,” then grow a spine and include the ugly reality: these people aren’t just chanting slogans—they’re breaking shit, torching shit, and shooting shit up. The sources are out there—CNN, ABC, NBC, Forbes, the freaking JUSTICE DEPARTMENT—yet this page reads like a propaganda pamphlet. So, moderators, explain yourselves: why are you whitewashing a movement that’s left a trail of destruction from coast to coast? Or are facts only welcome here when they fit your sanctimonious little worldview? Moreseter (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You're referring to 2025 Tesla vandalism. I think we might have to merge these two articles because there being two separate articles is causing a lot of confusion. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If we are to merge articles, I think 2025 Tesla vandalism and Protests against Elon Musk are better candidates. Also, we should take the comments of anons and editor accounts started just today as not terribly indicative of anything. QRep2020 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Facts do not care about join date. The very first sentence in the lead calls the Takedown a “peaceful protest movement” with a shiny little citation footnote—like that’s supposed to settle it. That label is a lie by omission. Address the vandalism or admit this is a curated puff piece. Moreseter (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically, it does right now, though the paragraph remains in dispute. Also, it's traditionally a good idea to propose exact changes to a Wikipedia article versus complaining on its Talk page about supposed underlying political motives. Spend some more time lurking and hopefully you'll notice. QRep2020 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a "curated puff piece," we address the vandals (see Protests against Elon Musk or 2025 Tesla vandalism). It is just most of it isn't associated with Tesla Takedown or at any of its associated protests. Therfore it would be untruthful to falsely connect the dots between the two. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually I wwas confused about this myself as well. I had no idea why this article did not mention the vandalism for a few days, and this was before the 2025 Tesla vandalism article came about. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The article previously mentioned the vandalism, but it was mass removed as it did not name "Tesla Takedown" specifically by name. There's since been an NPR source added to the article that mentions Tesla Takedown specifically by name but it's also being disputed now. Ratgomery (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

There's a whole article about it. It's just not part of the "Tesla Takedown". Like if a particular church organizes an anti-abortion rally and meanwhile, someone somewhere else torches an abortion clinic. Yes, they're both worth talking about, but the latter isn't necessarily part of the former. That doesn't mean it'll stop folks from trying to lump them together -- characterizing any protest movement with traction as violent vandals is kind of Counter-Protesting 101 (or Authoritarianism 101, if you're feeling grim). Practically speaking, it's still not clear how we should organize these. Merge all the Tesla-related protests (this and the vandalism article) into a more generic heading like "Tesla protests"? Keep this one separate and merge the other two (this one could probably use a better summary of the other two in that case)? I guess I'd be inclined to the first solution -- merge the Tesla protests together, rather than have them separate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding: FWIW I agree insofar as "peaceful" is really awkward in the first sentence. It's not a primary defining feature of the subject (it is not a protest "for peace" or somesuch) and is fine being covered in subsequent sentences. Reads kind of like it's meant to preempt criticism, which is mostly valid but not a good use of the first sentence. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I moved the descriptor to the end of the lead. QRep2020 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not neutral lol. Look at the studies done. It is highly left leaning. Oh not to mention George Soros is a huge financial donor here 98.217.161.235 (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

While I disagree with you, if you think Wikipedia is biased you are welcome to become an editor. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Why? You people will just delete anything that goes against your leftist views. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bjoh249 Exactly. This is the biggest tease they throw at you. "Become an editor so you can join the marketplace of ideas," only to scrub and vilify anything you write, cite, or reference that goes against their fringe narrative. Sure, they can sling inflammatory language on any non-progressive article as they please and selectively edit lead summaries to align with their one-sided view, but God forbid you call AOC a “left-wing” politician in her lead (check her talk page for that circus). Try pushing back on their sacred cows, and you’re gaslit, vilified, or just banned outright.

Grooming in schools? Wikipedia brands it a “far-right conspiracy theory” in the first eight words of this article's lead, despite piles of evidence—school board minutes, furious parents, local news reports—screaming otherwise. They either bury the issue or slap it with that outrageous label to shut it down.

Elon Musk? The guy delivering affordable EVs, global internet, a reborn U.S. space program, and Neuralink chips giving paralyzed kids a shot at walking again, oh and yes, the guy rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse (i.e., the Democrats' fun money piggy bank)? THAT GUY? Yeah, Wikipedia calls him as a “far-right" "Nazi,” hammering that word into his article eight damn times to make sure you get the memo.

These people do not play by the rules. Of course, they will never when it's convenient for them not to. If you press them on this issue, they will simply deflect or make up some lousy excuse for how the rules do not apply. Unfortunately, with the current 'trifecta' of the federal government, the courts and apparently online forums like here and Reddit are Democrats' last and only line of defense to project their radical views onto others. So it's no surprise it's become weaponized.

Attention Democrats (and mods who will invariably read this): keep this up, and you’ll keep hemorrhaging support. Look in the mirror and stop embarrassing yourselves. Moreseter (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia hasn’t had a neutral point of view in political matters in a long time. Wiki has become a playground for left wing activists. 107.204.246.18 (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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.

2 incidents of vehicles driven into protesters and 1 incident of a vehicle driven into a counter-protestor

So far, the only acts of violence connected to the Tesla Takedown protests that I've heard of this weekend and last have been vehicular. First, last weekend a man drove into a crowd of (largely) elderly Tesla protesters in Palm Beach County, FL. No one was injured.https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/03/27/driver-accused-of-targeting-protesters-near-tesla-dealership-to-have-screening/ Second, a man driving a pickup truck hit two protesters in Watertown, MA. Injuries were minor. https://www.bostonherald.com/2025/03/29/massachusetts-tesla-takedown-truck-driver-strikes-injures-two-protesters-in-watertown/ Finally, a 70-year-old man was arrested for allegedly hitting a counter-protestor with his car, causing a non-life-threatening injury. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-arrested-striking-tesla-counter-protester-rcna198768. Are there other incidents from this weekend? AndyBloch (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Grassroots??

This is not a grassroots movement. These are professional idiots and protestors. They were the same people protesting suvs and gas guzzling vehicles years ago wanting people to buy teslas and save the planet. Now the save the planet protests got boring so they needed to find something else. 98.217.161.235 (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

A fine theory, but you would need some proof of the funding trail or organising body for that to belong in the wiki. Liger404 (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed merging this article with 2025 Tesla vandalism. See Talk:2025 Tesla vandalism#Merge proposal. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

"Mostly peaceful" demonstrations?

Who gets to determine whether protests are labeled "mostly peaceful" or "sometimes violent"?

Whenever you turn on the news and this topic is covered, you see spray painted Teslas, cars on fire, vandalized dealerships, etc. But then you log onto Wikipedia to read more about the topic, and you see that the protests are "peaceful".

I feel that activists are dishonestly distorting the article on here, by distancing themselves from the anger and vandalism that they themselves are creating.

Some may argue that since the majority of the protestors are peaceful, then it qualifies as being a "mostly peaceful" protest. But wouldn't other high profile protests that disagree with your political views also qualify for such a label? If you look at nearly any protest that turns violent, you'd see that violent rioters are outnumbered by the peaceful protesters.

It sure seems that the label that is given depends on the political leaning of the event, and the political leaning of the majority of the editors on Wikipedia. 73.160.121.176 (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The balance of reliable sources determine this, not editors views. CNC (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Many different sources (including left-leaning sources such as NPR, The New York Times, Washington Post) have noted the vandalism at the anti-Tesla protests.

You are actively choosing to ignore what's going on in order to maintain a biased point of view. This is little more than activist infiltrating Wikipedia. They are destroying the "Neutral point of view" spirit that Wikipedia is supposed to have. 73.160.121.176 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

This article isn't a grouping off all the recent Tesla protests. It is for a specific subsect of protesters who call themselves "Tesla Takedown". If you wanted to read about the vandals, go to 2025 Tesla vandalism. If you wanted to read about both, go to Protests against Elon Musk. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There's an article at 2025 Tesla vandalism that covers the acts of vandalism in general, this article is specifically about the group of protests that describe themselves as being part of "Tesla Takedown".

If any of the Tesla Takedown protests have turned violent, or if any significant commentator has blamed the Tesla Takedown protests by name for inspiring wider violence against the Tesla company, that should certainly be recorded in the article, but AFAIK neither of these things has happened yet. Belbury (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Article Title is the biggest NPOV fail on Wikipedia

Surely we can find a better title, or reopen the debate of a merger with Elon protests? Tallard (talk) 05:01, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Since the movement is actually called "Tesla Takedown" (see https://www.teslatakedown.com/ ), I can't think of a more appropriate title for this article.

But I have no opinion either way of merging. Stepho  talk  05:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Stepho, the movement's name is Tesla Takedown. I would be against merging, but if you actually want to talk about it, you should open a proposal. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

See earlier proposals and discussions. QRep2020 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

"Ongoing" in the infobox

Seeing as Tesla's stock has healed (ironically enough) like a rocket and immediate news surrounding Tesla Takedown has stopped, I propose either adding a main phase template to the infobox or just marking it as over by late September 2025. 2605:4A80:7400:8500:A485:7A0:5BA6:C171 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's pretty safe to say that Tesla Takedown ended before 2026. ~2025-33494-05 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Here's a January 2026 protest that uses the name. Belbury (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm referring to what the movement once was when compared to the less then 30 men protests that are currently ongoing. Basically I just think that this article's infobox does warrant a main phase template. ~2026-10257-68 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)