Talk:2025 Tesla vandalism

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Could you try combining the short sentences into longer, more comprehensive paragraphs?

🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:While I'd usually agree, I'm inclined to change the class to list, then this format would be preferred. I can see how this is likely to develop with further individual/isolated incidents within the scope, rather than much else. Thoughts? CNC (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Converting to list class makes a lot of sense here. QRep2020 (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Have changed to list class, will see if anyone objects to that. CNC (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::::(article creator) That works with me. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Also pinging SK2242 who made the initial assessment. CNC (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the ping. I haven't got much to say other than that I left it for someone else to review as I wasn't sure about lasting notability as this is a recent event. SK2242 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@SK2242 Fair enough, I otherwise think the original C class rating was accurate per limited content at the time, so don't want to discourage you from making accurate assessments here. As for notability it looks like enough SIGCOV now. It can always be merged elsewhere if fails to develop further to justify standalone article. CNC (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of this article is a list of individual fringe incidents scrounged up from the internet. Since the FBI has confirmed that the incidents are not coordinated, wouldn't it make more sense to just delete the article and instead mention it in a couple of short paragraphs on Tesla Takedown instead, with the added remark that Trump and Elon have been spreading misinformation, falsely blaming the movement for these incidents. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 11:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think if we tweak the title, then that might suffice. "List of reported Tesla vandalism cases" would make it clear that it's a list article, expand the timeframe, and help defuse any suggestion of coordination. QRep2020 (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::That is actually worse because there is ZERO reason for an article like that to exist. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::That might not be worth it, I don't know about you, but for me a basic search doesn't turn up any news articles on the vandalism before 2025. Any earlier vandals seems to not be notable. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::I would specify 2025 in the title if such a change is made. Either way, the FBI created a task force specifically for Tesla attacks, and most news articles on local incidents mention that it's "part of a larger wave of crimes against Teslas" or something similar, so I think this article has enough standalone notability. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::"Most news articles on local incidents" is extremely nebulous, and the FBI would be a primary source. "The larger wave" is the widespread protests against Elon Musk, DOGE and the country's rapid descent into fascism under the new trump administration. Highlighting a few instances of car vandalism serves only to deflect from that, in order to create a narrative of the totally real "far left terrorism" (still not sure where this mythical "far left" is in the United States). 46.97.170.73 (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

While I don't have a solid opinion on merging the two articles, I propose merging 2025 Tesla vandalism and Tesla Takedown. I don't know what the article would be called (2025 Tesla vandalism and protests?). The reason for this is that there is a lot of confusion, people seeing the takedown article and wondering where the coverage of the vandalism is (take a look at the headings of Talk:Tesla Takedown). These two events occurred at the same time and due to similar contexts and there is an overlap of some vandalism in both articles. The two might even be some form of WP:POVFORK. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support the only reason we split the articles was because it associated the vandalism with an unrelated movement. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::They should remain split for the reason above. They are widely known, including by law enforcement, to be unrelated. 76.166.160.233 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. The vandalism has not occur during any Tesla Takedown protests and plenty of independent reliable third party sources verified this. After intense discussion on Talk:Tesla Takedown as well as related threads on Talk:Protests against Elon Musk, editors decided to create a separate article to record the increase in acts of vandalism against Tesla property. All three articles conspicuously link between one another, house dozens of their own sources, and even articulate the voiced distinctions. No user should have any difficulty finding the information they seek. Finally, the pages in question are different Assessments, with one being a C-Class Article and the other a List, making their contents incommensurable in terms of purely classificatory actions. QRep2020 (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. Per @QRep2020. AndyBloch (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose. As mentioned, the Tesla Takedown article is focused on peaceful protests. The Tesla Takedown article has a logo and official website of a specific organization which is unrelated to the other article. For both articles, the See also section should have a link to the other article for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.215.116 (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)