Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 3

RfC on TSLAQ mention inclusion
Issue at hand is whether or not inclusion of mention of TSLAQ (article) in some section of Tesla, Inc. is warranted. Suggestions for inclusion were in either the Controversies or the See Also sections. Discussion available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&section=5#Referencing_TSLAQ_in_Controversies_section. QRep2020 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC) — QRep2020 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yes - This group has a Wikipedia article (unlike BMWQ, etc. if that's a real thing) so it's at least to some degree notable, and it's clearly related to the company. Template:Tesla, Inc. seems a bit more natural than the "See also" section, and would be both unobtrusive and show up on all related articles, for navigational purposes. Mentioning it in the Controversies section as well would not be unwarranted, but to avoid undue weight, maybe keep it to a sentence or so? (I've added TSLAQ to Category:Tesla, Inc., as it also seems to belong there for navigational purposes.) -- Beland (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No This RfC is not opened in good faith. Rather, it is opened by, an WP:SPA (first noted by ), who have more than once stated their interest in "anti-company-articles" starting (from their 6th edit) with TSLAQ, but who have instead (except a handful of trivial edits) spent their efforts on TSLAQ and on arguing at length as to why this and this source they perceive to be pro-Tesla (i.e. anti-TSLAQ) should be deemed unreliable and/or have their articles deleted. While mentioning but without tagging the relevant page creator they have discussed this effort with a different user. Two days after this RfC received its first comment (so before it closed), they went ahead and introduced the contested edit in the article. They seem to be here to promote TSLAQ here and on social media, citing on the page of Tesla-controversies an entity which is itself an anti-Tesla-investor (via put options) and a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Tesla and Elon Musk (so unsuitable as a source). Disclosure: I have become aware of this unhelpful editing pattern because I am the aforementioned page creator (in 2018) of Electrek and more recently of CleanTechnica. Lklundin (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC) PS. I will expand on my preceding arguments: While we have an article on the Bible code (due a notable book on the topic), our articles on the Bible and old testament and the Torah do not have links to the Bible code. Until now it could be argued that TSLAQ was similar, a group of people who like believe that Tesla, a successful and popular maker of innovative cars are actually comparable to Enron - an actually bankrupt company, that was fraudulent in their sales of a non-tangible product (electricity). This could be seen as benign. The above mentioned law-suit from the person behind plainsite.org against Tesla (and Elon Musk) changes that. It demonstrates that TSLAQ is in fact not benign, but sinister. As divulged through their own court filing (see link above), the person behind plainsite.org has literally made a financial bet on TSLAQ, i.e. for a small payment they hope to get a payout of thousands of dollars if Tesla goes bankrupt before a given date. So people who take the meaning of TSLAQ literally have in fact a financial incentive that Tesla goes bankrupt. The attempt of such an (anti-)investor to facilitate such a bankruptcy (e.g. by influencing the public through social media) is apparently known as short and distort which can even be illegal. An example of this could be to try and create of lot of attention regarding a single Tesla that catches fire, glossing over the fact that internal combustion engine cars have a higher frequency of catching fire - so as to dissuade the public from buying cars from Tesla. In fact, plainsite.org is publishing exactly such material. So while we can have an article on TSLAQ we really have to be very careful, that those people behind TSLAQ who are financially incentivized to attempt to bring about Tesla's bankruptcy, do not use Wikipedia as a medium to that effort and do not use Wikipedia to promote such efforts elsewhere. As such I stand by my recommendation that TSLAQ should not be referenced by Tesla (even though the reverse is fine). And as for the plainsite.org we clearly cannot cite them in relation to Tesla (nor to Elon Musk). Lastly, I apologize again for the truly unfortunate and unintended deletion of comments of other editors and hope that the confusion that this has brought about to the actual process of debating this important topic can be cleared up. Lklundin (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Previous comments accidentally removed by reinstated by them (with profound apologies - it seems some kind of conflicting edit happened): Lklundin (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not explain the change you made to my signature at the top of the Rfc. QRep2020 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The template I appended to your signature contains a link with an explanation, it informs others in this discussion that you are an WP:SPA. Lklundin (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an SPA though, you only think I'm an SPA for whatever unfounded reason. Wikipedia policy also asks editors to act in abundance of caution when using it and, in general, to be kind and considerate. QRep2020 (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that he is trying to WP:Bludgeon the process. MartinezMD (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)>
 * He?
 * Please explain how following the process of RfC, which was proposed by both you and Lklundin, waiting until a comment was received - from an Admin no less - and then moving forward is somehow "bludgeoning". I made the edits, one of which was changed and I took no issue with the alteration. Frankly, I considered this matter closed but it appears some of us are on a bit of a tear. QRep2020 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoa, folks need to stop attacking each other and focus on the merits of points being made. And by attacking each other, I mean pointing out perceived flaws in each others' behavior instead of talking about Wikipedia policies, sourcing, proposed changes, or evaluating the article as is. Bias should be measured by whether or not an article covers all points of view and whether readers from any of the covered perspectives would say that they've been given a fair shake. (And due weight should be considered based on coverage in reliable third-party sources.) Bias should not be measured in the intentions of other editors, because Assume good faith (or at least pretend to, for politeness' sake!), and because a community of editors with a diversity of biases can work together to produce a neutral article. I just read Articles for deletion/TSLAQ, which is sadly full of incivility, and that article was kept because of the objective arguments made about coverage in reliable third-party sources, not because of the history or intentions of any involved editor. Reading all of these angry attacks on each other is just alienating volunteers and making everyone want to go work on other articles, or quit Wikipedia for the moment and go outside. My recommendation, if you think continued bad behavior on the part of another editor is hindering progress in writing a great encyclopedia, then instead of smearing attacks all over article talk pages, contact an uninvolved administrator or start a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If there's a dispute over whether or not a discussion has ended with a clear consensus, please just be polite about noting that you don't think there was consensus, and ask an uninvolved editor to evaluate the discussion so far. Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure exists specifically to help in these situations. Sometimes all it takes is soliciting a few more opinions (which is what this RFC was for) or politely discussing the various points made and coming to some compromise, which was more or less happening in the above section until things started going off the rails here. -- Beland (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Beland. I admit that my responses can be a bit charged. I'm working on it., I see you removed the edits to the Lawsuits section. Can you please explain why the mention was not warranted based on the discussion from before and the comment provided by ? QRep2020 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While it is indeed unfortunate that the editing of a specific editor like has to be brought up, I will explain why. When I previously had to bring up the problematic edits of this WP:SPA, they explained "My focus here is verified high-profile frauds (Enron, Worldcom) and groups who claim they've discovered a high-profile company committing fraud (at the moment TSLAQ and WeQ, albeit the latter hasn't been referenced in published material as of yet so I haven't published an article)". This is demonstrably false and misleading. Enron and Worldcom has received the most perfunctory attention from this editor, and it is specious of them to compare TSLAQ to WeQ, since the latter also has received no real attention. As such it is difficult to assume good faith on their part. I will now explain why this is a real problem in relation to Tesla-related articles. An anti-investor is someone who bets against a company, by short selling or more speculatively by buying derivatives such as put options that potentially have huge payouts. Such an anti-investor is financially motivated to publicly criticize the company they invest against, a practice which can be illegal. Through their own court filings, a person who is behind a source critical of Tesla (and Elon Musk), has recently divulged to be an anti-investor (see above). So in the case of the TSLAQ-people, this practice is now known to be real. As such, the difficulty we have with assuming good faith on the part of an editor like  is very unfortunate for them, because their editing pattern aligns perfectly with a Tesla-anti-investor. A Tesla-anti-investor would have no interest in contributing to articles on already bankrupt companies like Enron. Instead, such the Tesla-anti-investor would be incentivized to promote their critical views on Wikipedia and also to use Wikipedia to promote these views on social media. Exactly like . Further, a Tesla-anti-investor would be incentivized to try to discredit on Wikipedia sources that they perceive to be positive in regards to Tesla, just like  have done - without involving affected editors. As such, an editor like  and indeed any editor with a known anti-Tesla-bias should probably not be editing articles directly related to Tesla. Lklundin (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If the argument really is as such ("Exactly like QRep2020"), please produce evidence of me being a "Tesla-anti-investor". If evidence cannot be produced, then the conclusion is unverifiable. If the conclusion is unverifiable, then there are no longer grounds to argue that my edits to Tesla, Inc. should be disallowed. Since I have demonstrably shown an interest in other topics related to fraud, as of now there's more evidence of me not being a "Tesla-anti-investor" with "no interest in contributing to articles on already bankrupt companies like Enron" than there is for me being one. And please refrain from judgments of "triviality" as there's nothing to suggest I didn't spend significant amounts of time researching any of my edits on Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see changed their argument again and it is now something about TSLAQ and perhaps Plainsite being "sinister". This argument appeared on Articles for deletion/TSLAQ and it wasn't a good argument then. Short-selling or more broadly making money from suing someone believed to be committing fraud isn't sinister because it is a means of capitalizing on what is thought to be a fraud without committing fraud. It is a means of drawing attention to what is thought to be a fraud and, since capitalism first and foremost incentivizes capitalization, it does so by allowing participants to make money by "declaring" or arguing successfully in trial their suspicions about a stock (which roughly represents the company in the stock market). QRep2020 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In response to both the above two comments I note that in a short span of time has:
 * Been identified as an apparent WP:SPA.
 * Has made false, misleading statements about their editing (see above)
 * Has been admonished not to make edits that are being actively contested
 * Has nevertheless continued to do so, in relation to this RfC.
 * Has discussed with another editor how to remove articles (that they perceive to be biased in relation to Tesla), while tagging but not involving the page creator.
 * Has been identified as apparently trying to WP:Bludgeon this RfC
 * As such other editors can no longer WP:AGF on the part of QRep2020 and as such QRep2020 have shifted the onus of showing that they are not here in WP:BADFAITH onto themselves. As noted above this is very unfortunate for QRep2020, since their own editing pattern aligns perfectly with someone who is in fact editing in bad faith, as detailed above. On that note, it becomes apparent from the above mentioned plainsite.org court filing that even the lack of willingness to wait for a debate to reach its conclusion before making a contested edit and the eagerness associated with WP:BLUD is a behavior that can be expected from an anti-investor who has bought the above mentioned speculative put options (against e.g. Tesla). Such options have an expiration date by which they expire with zero value if the stock price has not moved down as expected. In the above mentioned case of the plainsite.org maintainer, their options investment against Tesla expired worthlessly on May 15, only 8 weeks after the investment was made. With such a short time horizon before a 100% loss the speculative investor will feel significant time pressure, which in turn can cause them to attempt some kind of advocacy against the company their bet is against. This could well be the case with plainsite.org, which this year published a report critical of Tesla - cited here on Wikipedia by no one else than QRep2020, see also Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. In addition to the above two examples, we see also here an eagerness to conclude a debate with is essentially waiting for the conclusion of this very RfC. It important to understand that I do _not_ accuse QRep2020 of being a Tesla-anti-investor nor that their editing is WP:ADVOCACY motivated by such a WP:COI. What I am doing is to argue that the editing behavior of QRep2020 aligns perfectly with advocacy that could be expected from such a COI and that - as noted above - this is very unfortunate, since by their own actions QRep2020 have made it basically impossible for other editors to assume good faith on their part. As such, an editor like QRep2020 should probably not be editing articles directly related to Tesla. Lklundin (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , while you say you do not accuse QRep2020, you are in action. If you have those concerns take it to ANI.  As an experienced editor you should know article talk pages are not for discussions of the editor WP:ABP.  What I'm seeing is a new editor who is acting in good faith but doesn't know all the rules and had rubbed you the wrong way on this topic.  As for plainstite.org, if COI related to a source is a concern then all references to Electrek and Cleantecnica need to be removed as they also have COI with respect to the topic.  If you can't drop the attacks against this editor I will take your behavior to ANI.  Springee (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not just about QRep2020. You have as part of this RfC asserted that 'Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks both by percentages and by total value of shares'. As such it is a real concern that editors with a financially motivated COI will attempt TSLAQ-advocacy here. So there is a challenge to both AGF and avoid that articles such as this one becomes the subject of advocacy. We therefore have to have this discussion. As for QRep2020, they have not learned from their mistakes and continue to drive forward contested changes to relatively important articles like this one, so I place no value on the argument that they are a new editor acting in good faith. Lklundin (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That Tesla is a highly shorted stock is not an opinion on mine. It's a well documented fact.  [].  Regardless, I'm going to warn you now.  If you focus on QRep2020 as an editor again I will start an ANI.  Springee (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Lklundin, why did you remove my and others' comments? It's clearly stated at Talk page guidelines under "Editing others' comments" to never do that unless the posts are harmful. There wasn't even an explanation of said deletions in the Edit summary.
 * I also see that my signature was altered at the top of the Rfc. Likewise, Talk page guidelines states that one should never alter another's signature.
 * What evidence do you have that Plainsite is "part of TSLAQ"? And even if they were, what is wrong with factual statements that they've produced independently? Tesla is a defendant in over 600 lawsuits - is that in dispute?
 * As a Tesla-anti-investor, the person behind plainsite.org is per definition part of TSLAQ. As such I have brought the use of plainsite.org as a source up on Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Lklundin (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TSLAQ is a self-organizing group, not a label attached to an otherwise yet to be differentiated mass of people. The "definition" - there is no definition provided in the article because the subject of TSLAQ is not a word though there is a description - of belonging appears to amount to pledging membership. Where has the person behind Plainsite pledged to belong to TSLAQ? QRep2020 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In the comment you removed, Beland brought up the point of Good Faith. To echo Beland's point, I am contributing to Wikipedia articles, mine own and others, as well as posts on Talk pages in Good Faith. The fact that I spend time and effort on an article that I helped create doesn't reflect anything except diligence.
 * Yes - TSLAQ is a noteworthy phenomenon that is directly tied to Tesla, Inc. that has been chronicled by many reliable, independent sources and therefore fits the criteria for mention. QRep2020 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you have a significant conflict of interest as a single-purpose account. By bludgeoning the process, I refer to the volume of comments relative to the other editors, and that you are making contested edits before there is consensus. I believe getting an administrative ruling would be the best course. Lastly my use of He was intended in the generally understood generic manner. If I offended you, I apologize. MartinezMD (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes but... I think TSLAQ as a voice of short sellers and critics (not all are short sellers) is significant. Musk/Tesla have gone after "members" of this community in ways that stand out from typical business.  Additionally it's a fact that Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks both by percentages and by total value of shares.  As an exchange and source of information regarding news/information/analysis about Tesla this makes the general TSLAQ community impactful on Tesla.  However, I'm not sure of the best way to integrate this and think it would be best if we wait for clearer outside sources/references to show the way.  In short I don't see a reason to hurry to get it in.
 * Aside: A number of editors have gone far into discussing/focusing on editors rather than content. If there is an editor breaking rules please create a thread at WP:ANI.  Else, editors should be assumed to be acting in good faith.  On article talk pages the quality of the argument, not the messenger is what's important.  Springee (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * TSLAQ has been around since at least mid-2018. The TSLAQ article's about six months old. The phenomenon is pretty unprecedented so why shouldn't it be the "defining" example of how to integrate? If what's happening here is any indication of how editors of some future "parent" topic will respond to inclusion of mention of a critical counter-culture, it's going to be a tough slog yet again. QRep2020 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, because TSLAQ has been covered in the context of Tesla. TSLAQ content should probably be short.--Hippeus (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the amount of criticism and controversy surrounding Tesla is significant and well-documented in reliable sources, and TSLAQ has played a large role in much of the criticism. Also, the "cult-like" status of some Tesla/Musk fans, and the fact that there are such large and fervent communities both pro- and anti- Tesla, is highly unique for a company, implies that there are some big controversial issues surrounding the company, and deserves mention in the article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS vs WP:UNDUE - That TSLQA exists is not the issue. The collection of people in the category/group is well sourced. What has NOT been well-sourced is the influence the group has had on Tesla. THAT is what must be addressed. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think anyone has provided reliable sources for that yet. Has Tesla as a company been contentious or publicly responded to them? The amount of effect, not just existence, is what would support the inclusion and the degree thereof. Mickey Mouse, for example, likely has millions of fans, but the article is silent about them. The Grateful Dead, however, has such an involved group of fans (significant social phenomena, recorded all their concerts before the band did, and had support of the band. etc) that they are mentioned in the second sentence of the lead. Also, other than my concern about any editor's potential bias, I agree we need to avoid any personal attacks. As thoughtful editors, I expect that we can come to a resolution without any escalation. MartinezMD (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Adding a sentence about TSLAQ and linking to the Wikipedia article is not an instance of WP:UNDUE, which deals with weight of expression within an article and not about real world influence between mentioned aspects. The policy says, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Adding a sentence about TSLAQ and at most two wikilinks to Tesla, Inc.'s 11,000 words is a minor inclusion. QRep2020 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And what was my last edit to the article? I only removed the name from the sub-header and left the sentence with link. Given the group's apparent lack of influence/effect the single sentence may be alright. I believe you had originally proposed a section. Did that change? MartinezMD (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I ever suggested an entire section. I am suggesting adding a sentence to the Lawsuit section like I did at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla,_Inc.&oldid=957129694. QRep2020 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How this should be integrated into the article is up in the air. As for does TSLAQ have an impact on Tesla I would say yes but are we talking the members or as a nebulous entity.  It's well known that short seller preoccupy Musk.  That is easy to verify in the articles that talk about Tesla and short sellers.  It's also known that Tesla has taken unusual actions against at least a few prominent people associated with TSLAQ.  There is the doxxing of a critic (not clear if this was by Tesla vs by a Tesla supporter) but Tesla published the person's real name, not something a typical publicly traded company would do.  Further, Musk called the critic's employer and threatened a lawsuit if the critic wasn't silenced.  When the CEO personally threatens a critic that means they had an impact.  There is also the case of the college student who had reported on Tesla's production numbers.  That was causing Tesla credibility issues when they were claiming a faster Model 3 ramp vs the evidence on the ground.  Tesla filed a work place violence emergency restraining order against the person.  The person fought back.  There were lots of unusual events along the way.  If I recall Tesla changed legal teams, tried to have reporters barred from the proceedings and basically did everything they could to avoid presenting evidence that would have supported their accusations.  In the end the case against the individual was dropped at Tesla's request.  The unusual legal steps they took against a critic providing hard evidence that the company's production numbers were misleading was again notable.  For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with an inline link somewhere in the text or a "see so" type link.  This is after all just a sub-set of the discussion of Tesla's critics and criticisms.  Springee (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And no one provided a RS here for anything like that. MartinezMD (talk) 00:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anything like what? I have linked to the TSLAQ article which already has references for the Fossi doxxing, the @Skabooshka trial, and more. If you want an article where Musk discuss his feelings about short-sellers see https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-short-selling-should-be-illegal-2019-12-1028733903. QRep2020 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if "no one" has but I certainly haven't but I also wasn't asked to provide citations for those things as I haven't tried to add them to the article text. Springee (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Read this and the conversion above this one. Sources were discussed. For QRep2020, sources have to be provided in each article. Linking to other articles isn't enough. See WP:V and WP:CITE. MartinezMD (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone is adding the material to this article then yes, the citations are required. For talk page discussions sources can be requested and are very helpful to support a point but aren't required.  V and CITE related to the article, not the talk page.  Springee (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We're talking about what's in, or proposal to, the article. MartinezMD (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go. [][][][].  Here is an article pointing out that Tesla claimed it had evidence against a critic then walked away when the courts said show it [].  Here is the Wall Street Journal talking about Musk contacting the critic's employer.  Basically threatening a critic. []  Here is a recent article where Fortune quotes the doxxed critic, not for a story about the doxxing but instead for a very recent story suggesting Tesla has been falsely accounting for warranty reserves.[]  So at this point the doxxed critic is being interviewed by a major business news publication.  Yeah, there's sourcing for the above.  Springee (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think any of the Yes voters in this Rfc were suggesting adding all of the above to Tesla, Inc. but if an editor did add it, then there would be even more cause to link to TSLAQ. The TSLAQ article goes into detail about these happenings and especially about the Hothi case. QRep2020 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I am required to provide the exact edits here but what I myself have in mind for the inclusion at the top of the Lawsuits and Controversies section is
 * Tesla, according to a count provided by PlainSite, is party to over 600 lawsuits. Other controversies surrounding the company range from securities fraud allegations to product delays to workers safety complaints. TSLAQ, a loose collective of anonymous short-sellers and skeptics of Tesla and Elon Musk, regularly promotes discussion of these lawsuits and controversies as well as investigations into Tesla's activities.
 * Constructive comments welcome. QRep2020 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you introduce PlainSite you need to say what it is and why it is being introduced. Else you might say "The Drive reported xxx".  The second sentence has no supporting reference.  As suggested it reads like name dropping.  How have RSs introduced TSLAQ?  If this is to be done in text we should follow how RSs have done it.  The most likely place is in some paragraph about Tesla's battle with critics.  Springee (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In the proposed edit the number 600 is not present in the cited source from thedrive.com, so the number is (if at all) supported by plainsite.org, which is a no go, per Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296. As for the second sentence, I agree with that it is unsupported and appears as misplaced name dropping, i.e. Advocacy. Lklundin (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TheDrive article features the embedded PlainSite tweet with the number at 620 so saying it is not "present" seems like a stretch.
 * Tesla, according to a count provided by the legal advocacy website PlainSite, was party to 620 lawsuits in June 2019. Other controversies surrounding the company range from securities fraud allegations to product delays to workers safety complaints. Critics such as TSLAQ, a loose collective of anonymous short-sellers and skeptics of Tesla and Elon Musk, have been acknowledged as impacting perceptions of the company with their complaints and activities.
 * QRep2020 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't like it. Take a step back and think about the bigger picture that this section is trying to summarize.  For example, lets only think about the Tesla lawsuits.  We have several significant legal cases that get their own paragraph.  They should be introduced by a summary paragraph that tells the reader why this is significant.  So if we have a RS that says Tesla is facing more lawsuits/legal actions than a typical car company that would make for a good intro sentence.  A supporting sentence would be facts like Tesla is facing X times the number of lawsuits car company Y is facing (or a list).  Another supporting statement is "a list compiled by PS showed 620 pending lawsuits as of [date].  The lawsuits related to [range of topics].  From there you can go into notable lawsuits/legal actions.  A similar structure could be taken with worker safety etc.  In a topic on cricicism of Tesla's business practices and reporting you could have several articles talking about that subject, noted critics (Einhorn etc) and the TSLAQ ground swell community.  This would also be a place where Tesla's actions against critics could be discussed.  Those actions range from silly (Musk sending shorts to Eihorn) to questionable (calling a critic's boss as a threat) to legal actions (lawsuits and the like against whistle blowers etc).  [Rant] A problem with many Wikipedia articles is editors often want to jam positive or negative factoids into the articles with little consideration for how they fit.  This frequently leads to edit wars as one party wants the dirt in the article (perhaps rightly so) while the other party see the edit as poorly constructed and jarring and thus reverts.  The material may be due but it should still be well integrated into the bigger picture the article creates.  [/rant] Springee (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I've added a mention in the "Short sellers" section, along with more general background. -- Beland (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Used vehicles
The section in the article entitled "Used vehicles" says little, and says nothing since some activities of Tesla, Inc. back in 2015.

Summarized, the section says "Tesla was gonna start selling used vehicles in 2015, and did so in the US. They also did this at some other locations globally." ...But it says nothing about if they did it after 2015, or do so today.

Should the outdated info just be moved to the History of Tesla, Inc. article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

How is E. Niedermeyer's biased book improving this article?
Per WP:BRD I have reverted the introduction (with an edit summary that looked like light copy-editing) of a book by a strongly biased author with no access to Tesla, Inc.. Before we can actually accept this addition we will need to establish how exactly that is going to help anyone better understand article's topic. Lklundin (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it to Further Reading section by the way. Not exactly a bold move but so be it. And Niedermeyer had unofficial access to plenty of Tesla material and personnel. QRep2020 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It improves the article because the other entry in the Further Reading section is equally biased but written with the opposing sentiment. Furthermore, bias does not discredit a source of further research. QRep2020 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * From the book's LA Times review: "[Niedermeyer] is in a good position to assess the foibles of Musk as Tesla struggles to prove that it can earn sustainable profits after 16 years of surviving on cash raised from lenders and investors, with no return on invested capital to show for it." And from Jalopnik's review: "While I consider myself a pretty diligent watcher of Tesla’s, I learned a lot about how Musk has run the company from Ludicrous, particularly when it comes to the development and introduction of new components of Tesla’s business plan. Niedermeyer is careful to follow the many subplots of Tesla’s rise, like Musk’s brash assertions regarding the gradual increase in affordability of Tesla’s offerings and his claims about the “autonomous” capabilities of the company’s cars." Clearly these reviewers think there's some perspective on Tesla to be gained from reading the book. QRep2020 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else take issue with including a reference to Niedermeyer's book in the Further Reading section? QRep2020 (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding Link To Tesla Grohmann Automation
Hi,

it would be fine to mention Tesla Grohmann Automation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Grohmann_Automation

Regards,

Jens — Preceding unsigned comment added by JensHibbeler (talk • contribs) 22:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Grohmann is already in the article. TGCP (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Article simplification
This is becoming a pretty lengthy article. It might be time to break out some sections into their own articles (such as cumulative vehicle production) and shorten the vehicle sections (as each model has its own article as well). Arrowmouse (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The sections with a corresponding link can be shortened down to a single paragraph each.  Stepho  talk  08:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I was also just noticing that [List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc.] is quite long and has some but not all of the same content as this page and these should somehow be merged (that article back into this one, or the relevant content from this one into that one). Please note I have a COI as a Tesla (long) investor. (Is there a more general way I should disclose that while commenting on talk pages related to my COI?) Arathald (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The controversies and lawsuits surrounding Tesla are clearly abundant, so whatever is done (minus removing content entirely from Wikipedia) to reorganize and de-duplicate content across articles it needs to be evident on this main article that there are in fact abundant controversies and lawsuits of different varieties. A simple link to the Controversies and Lawsuits list will not suffice. Likewise, the controversies and lawsuits material on this article in the end should be at least the size of any other given section if not more than an average one.
 * You can announce your COI on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arathald but need to declare it "whenever and wherever you discuss the topic" that is conflicted (Conflict_of_interest). QRep2020 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that the fact that there are controversies/lawsuits should be included (they are, broadly, definitely notable and can easily be reliably sourced) but I don't know that I agree with "the controversies and lawsuits material on this article in the end should be at least the size of any other given section if not more than an average one". Specifically, when I look how the articles on Google and Apple (other large tech companies with significant controversies), those sections are rather short, but attempt to give a full but brief overview of the controversies (with details left to the other article). Is there a reason that approach can't be equally appropriate for Tesla? Arathald (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I've appropriately filled out and attached the template to this talk page. Any editor should feel free to fix it for me or ask me to fix it if I did something wrong there. Arathald (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that on both the Google and Apple, Inc. articles, there are requests to better summarize their respective controversies sections. I would not use them as examples on which to proceed. QRep2020 (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are requests to better summarize, but not to remove the summaries or replace them with an arbitrarily chosen list of important or recent controversies. I don't see any discussion on those articles' talk pages in the past two years addressing the Controversies sections. There's a very clear intention in both articles for their "Controversies" sections to be summaries of their respective main controversies articles. Those summaries needing work doesn't invalidate the overall approach. This is also the approach suggested by WP:SUMMARY though I'll note that both it and WP:CRIT strongly discourage the use of criticism sections or forks in the first place as they tend to be POV forks, and to instead split by topic (for example putting financial controversies into a "Finances of Tesla" article). Arathald (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to propose what you think are acceptable changes to the text as long as in the end the section still reflects the breadth of lawsuits and controversies that surround the company. My point about length was only that the section must remain a substantial portion of the article and one way to consider substantial-ness is by looking at the size of the other sections: For instance the Partners section is only ~800 words long and still is substantial while the Technology section is somehow ~3500 words despite linking off to featured articles for individual products. If you are so inclined to propose an encompassing edit to the section, and given your COI, please do so in your sandbox so that others can review and comment on the proposed material. QRep2020 (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Daimler AG
Since Freightliner is listed under Daimler, Smart should also be. Smart is a Daimler company also. J. P. Fagerback (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ ReferenceMan (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2020
Tesla is likened by Elon Musk as "both a software and a hardware company'. It optimises its advancement by cross-pollinating innovative materials, ideas, business models, technology across its various businesses in clean renewable energy, battery storage and space technology. Paul Ian Camp (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
Please correct the typo in Technology / Batteries section.

"Cheaper resources for the anode gains 5% and cheaper resources for the anode gains 12%" should say: "Cheaper resources for the anode gains 5% and cheaper resources for the cathode gains 12%" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubbase (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ReferenceMan (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2020
In the philantropy section,"In January 2020, 5 million Yuan ($72.3 million) to Chinese CDC to fight the Coronavirus outbreak." 5 million Yuan is $72.3k not million. Nadavelkabets12 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Changed it to be $723,000, which seems to be the correct conversion.ReferenceMan (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Tesla has dissolved the PR department
In a move that is unusual for large automotive companies, Tesla has apparently dissolved the PR dept as of early 2020, and is going with no formal PR function now. Tesla get plenty of press from many media outlets, and from the CEO's ongoing Twitter discussions, so any downside effect is unclear; and clearly there are cost savings (according to this article in the EV press: Tesla dissolves its PR department — a new first in the industry, Electrek, 6 October 2020.)

Not clear to me if this is article-worthy for Wikipedia, or not. The PR Department is mentioned only once in the current article, and that mention is incidental. N2e (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe all of the articles about the topics reference a "report" from Electrek, which has been established to not be an independent source when it comes to Tesla related news. A qualified source would need to verify the claim, though that seems unlikely given it would require a quotation from Tesla... QRep2020 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Founders
I don't think that Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel and Ian Wright should be listed as founders in the infobox. The lede section says: "Founded in July 2003 by engineers Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors...". Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel, and Ian Wright could only claim they were co-founders retroactively, after an agreement between Tesla and Eberhard in 2009 following a lawsuit.

It's important that Wikipedia reflect the true history of events at the company, not the titles negotiated in a private agreement between the parties involved. The fact of the matter is that Musk, Straubel and Wright were not founders of the company—and the info on Wikipedia should reflect that, regardless of their private negotiations and agreements after the fact. Stonkaments (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Second. QRep2020 (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you follow the reference, the agreement was enough to satisfy a law court. Does WP now prefer to invalidate the results of law courts? Also, founder is not a well defined term. It does not explicitly mean the names of the people who incorporated the company (although it can be if the participants agree to it). It can mean almost anything that the participants agree to. See Startup_company for definition "The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company." See Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_1 for previous discussion.  Stepho  talk 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) The source clearly states that the agreement was "an out-of-court resolution", not decided in any court of law. Furthermore, the agreement was between Eberhard and Tesla; Wikipedia not listing Musk, Straubel, and Wright as co-founders does not in any way "invalidate" their privately negotiated agreement.
 * 2) Per your link: "Founders or co-founders are people involved in the initial launch of startup companies." Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in July 2003 — Musk, Straubel, and Wright didn't join Tesla until 2004. How could they be involved in the initial launch of the company if they didn't join until Tesla's second year of operation?
 * Tesla did not form a board or hold a meeting until 2004, which is considered the launch date. It was not a functional company until that point, and was not legally considered an operating company without a board or officers appointed and its first meeting. Musk was the first chairman of the board and chose who was the first CEO. He also provided the first round of funding before they started developing a car. Since he was there from the very first board meeting and before the car even began development, it is clear that he would be considered a founder.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.54.254 (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is another source confirming that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the only founders of the company: Stonkaments (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is tech crunch. It is an online magazine. Online magazines are not valid sources because they do not actually do research to verify their claims.24.249.54.254 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Granted, it's an out of court decision. Which means that the court was satisfied that they worked it out amongst themselves.
 * The initial launch is not a one day event. It may be considered as a period of time early in a company's history. And the people listed on the formal papers when as company is registered or incorporated is not the same thing as the list of founders.
 * The TechCrunch article is an author's opinion - which has no bearing.
 * So again I ask you - if the 5 principle people agreed that all 5 of them should be listed as founders, who are we to say that 3 of them aren't.  Stepho  talk 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of us "saying" what they are or they aren't, it's a matter of separating what has been declared and what has occurred. The Infobox, as I understand its purpose, lists verified statements of what has occurred, i.e. facts if you will. Yes, the private resolution itself happened and therefore there is a fact that "obtains" it. However, since there is an adherence to a regular class of facts that can be presented via an Infobox Company template and Retroactive Founder is not one of them, the three retroactive founders should not be mentioned. The way Founder presents right now with quasi-footnotes is frankly an ad hoc measure to force the three names in there. QRep2020 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:PSTS - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." You are making your own interpretation of the out-of-court agreement, which gave Musk, Straubel, and Wright the contractual right to call themselves co-founders, but did not change the actual history of the founding of the company. Reliable secondary sources consistently and clearly state that Tesla was founded by just Eberhard and Tarpenning, and often also add that Elon Musk specifically did not found Tesla. See:
 * CNN
 * BBC
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Interesting Engineering
 * Yahoo Finance
 * Business Insider
 * The Street
 * TechCrunch Stonkaments (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no rigid, formal definition of what a founder is. Eberhard and Tarpenning registered the company and the references you cited have equated registering the company with founding the company. This equating is often true but is not always true. Eberhard and Tarpenning are the ones with the most claim to it, since their names appear on legal papers. Yet they agreed to include all 5 of them. They have made a public statement of this. Your job is to find something which trumps their statement. Secondary sources that state the opposite do not trump their statement - that is just the opinions of the those bodies. A legal definition would. So would a court of law judgement. Please find something of this nature.  Stepho  talk 21:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not the standard in place for a verified historical statement on Wikipedia. Stonkaments covers the standard in their reply. QRep2020 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated in my previous reply, Wikipedia policy is to rely primarily on reliable secondary sources and their interpretation of events. The clear consensus indicated in secondary sources is that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole founders; these take precedence over your interpretation of the public statement you're referring to, which would be a primary source. Stonkaments (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * None of you have provided a formal definition of founder.
 * The 5 principles have made their statement and this has been published by a secondary source (as required by WP). None of you have addressed that, which is against WP policies.
 * Listing it factually as only 2 references is cherry picking the references that agree with your view - which is against WP policies.
 * The article currently lists the controversy but you wish to delete that - which is against WP policies.
 * At best, you can defend your position by saying that sources disagree, listing the "Now there are five" reference against some of the above counter references for 2 founders and leaving the :controversy stated.  Stepho  talk 22:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) We do not have to provide a "formal" one. What Wikipedia standard states otherwise?
 * 2) The verification standard is third-party verification, not publishing of statements.
 * 3) I do not understand this point honestly, can you revise?
 * 4) We want to remove it from the Infobox, not from the article.
 * 5) This should all appear in the article, not crammed in the Infobox per my other argument.QRep2020 (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can't define something then how can you use it?
 * We have conflicting references, this must be dealt with.
 * To revise the point that wasn't understood, if you pick only references that say there are 2 founders and do not show the reference with the opposing point of view then that is cherry picking.
 * The principles themselves have decided that there are 5 founders and no higher authority has overruled them (Britannica, etc are respected but not higher). Therefore this should be the fact that is reported in the infobox - with a short note in the infobox to point out the controversy and fuller note in the main text.
 * This is pretty much how the article was. I'm not sure what you mean by crammed in the infobox? The list of 5 appears there, with the 3 contentious names having an "[a]" link after them. This leads to a note further in the main text. The note and the reference is not crammed in the infobox. This is simple, takes up the least amount of room in the infobox, leads the interested reader to a fuller description but doesn't distract the uninterested reader. To remove 3 of the founders and to remove the [a] link removes any hint that there is a controversy and actively hides information from the readers in a footnote in small characters.
 * It is a courtesy to not edit aspects of the article while they are under discussion. Please see WP:BRD.  Stepho  talk 22:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can use "founder" and its derived forms by participating in language game like we are right now? Do you think something is not a word until it appears in a dictionary? QRep2020 (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have requested a third opinion on our dispute here. It seems we're talking past each other at this point and not making any progress.
 * I disagree with your assertion that we need to provide a definition for founders, as many reliable secondary sources have already made the determination for us.
 * I also disagree with your assertion that there is any confusion or controversy about the clear consensus interpretation of events according to reliable sources.
 * Lastly, I disagree with your assertion that the principles "have decided that there are 5 founders and no higher authority has overruled them". The principles negotiated an agreement whereby all five could call themselves co-founders; that is not the same as them "deciding" that all five were in fact co-founders. As I have noted multiple times, secondary sources take precedence over the involved parties' own claims, and they have decided conclusively that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole founders. Stonkaments (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorporating is arguably different from running an operating company. They themselves agreed that 5 would be listed as founders, and per WP policy, the assertion is sourced. The article is specific in the sequence of creation, and the interested reader gets a clear hisotry. I would phrase it something like "Tesla was incorporated on July 1, 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning having been influenced to start the company after GM recalled all its EV1 electric cars in 2003 and destroyed them. blah, blah... the 5 agreed to named co founders". I think you are fighting an unnecessary, and likely losing, battle Stonkaments. MartinezMD (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Elon Musk has shown a strong interest in re-writing the early history of Tesla, even denying the fact that he was an early investor . I don't see how it is unnecessary to make sure that Wikipedia gets the facts right. I agree that the article should include mention of the lawsuit and settlement whereby all five can call themselves co-founders, but I disagree that should influence who is listed as a founder in the infobox.  Stonkaments (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * He could be easily arguing that he was not simply an investor. I don't see where this has merit. You've made your position adequately clear. Let's see what other editors have to say. MartinezMD (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Last reply for now, then I will wait for other editors' input. As I noted in an earlier reply, articles on the history of Tesla by CNN, BBC, Encyclopedia Britannica, Interesting Engineering, Yahoo Finance, Business Insider, The Street, and TechCrunch all list Eberhard and Tarpenning as the sole founders of the company. I was accused of cherry-picking those articles, but the only somewhat reliable articles I can find that cite Musk, Straubel, and Wright as co-founders as well are less reputable sites like Business Insider, Motoring Research and Biography. Shouldn't we rely on the consensus conveyed in reliable secondary sources? Stonkaments (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I have asked for more input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.  Stepho  talk 23:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * (I've come here after seeing the note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles) - Per WP:TRUTH, what Tesla themselves say, or what "actually" happened isn't what's most important. From what I can see of the sources people have given, the ones listing just the two engineers are the most convincing. They often specifically mention that Musk did not found Tesla. The sources which do are mixed. In the case of the CNet article they merely quote a representative from Tesla saying there are now 5 founders rather than 2 (which is as good an admission of rewriting history as any!), Business Insider  gives the two engineers as the ones who incorporated the company, with Musk only one of the "other co-founders", while Motor Research  do mention Musk as a cofounder but seem to do so in Tesla's "voice". Also the sources given by User:Stonkaments above (supporting 2 founders) are from more reputable sources on the whole. Finally, I agree with the users above that this dispute does warrant a mention/section in the article itself. A7V2 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Per IPBilly below, I think this is actually my preferred option, however if there is going to be something in the infobox my comments above still apply. A7V2 (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Also here from the note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles - This dispute seems to be centered not around the definition of a "founder", but what qualifies for inclusion in the infobox. per Template:Infobox_company "The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company, wiki-linked if notable." I'm inclined to ignore this definition because it is a bit recursive. Should the criteria be, as stated by others above the people listed on the formal papers when as company is registered or incorporated or the people that carry the title 'founder? On one hand, Eberhard and Tarpenning appear to be generally regarded as the people that started the company, but on the other hand Straubel, Mush, and Wright were (if memory serves) pivotal to its early success. I think the ultimate determination of who is or isn't actually a founder is inconsequential to anybody but those five, but what is of importance is identifying all five and the dispute generally. As to who should be included in the infobox, my vote is none of them based on the points raised above. The purpose of the infobox, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose,' allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." emphasis added. Taking that excerpt at a granular level, I think the key fact is that the founders are disputed, and that any concise listing of the founders (i.e. without footnotes or citations) does not summarize that key fact. Including some or all of them would be supplanting one's belief that either definition of a founder is more correct than another, and not accurately summarizing the article. IPBilly (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a compromise that I could live with. Of course, the explanatory text would have to be lifted out of it's existing footnote and made into proper text and a HTML comment (ie not displayed) left in the infobox founder field to discourage later editors "helpfully" filling it in with 2 or 5 founders later on.  Stepho  talk 21:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's very clear the way it is now. Who can't understand what it says? MartinezMD (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is issue is not about clarity - it is about organization of the article's information with an emphasis on the norms of Infobox usage. QRep2020 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP's priorities should always be facts first, clarity to the reader second and then followed by all other concerns. In any case, documentation has not clarified the norms of usage for this field, nor is the term itself well-defined, hence the reason for this discussion.  Stepho  talk  01:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are interpretations of rules outside of formalism, you know. QRep2020 (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, which is why clarity and ease of reading is high in the priority list. Glad we found a point we can agree on.  Stepho  talk 11:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with inference you made above, for the record. QRep2020 (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Lawsuits and controversies
Why is the "Lawsuits and controversies" section so long? Shouldn't it just be a one or two paragraph summary of List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc.? GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussed at Talk:Tesla,_Inc.. QRep2020 (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Article_simplification Stonkaments (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One change I would like to propose - how about we get rid of the separate subsections for lawsuits and controversies, and re-consolidate them all into a more cohesive whole? I feel like the current separation of lawsuits versus controversies, and breaking down the lawsuits into resolved vs on-going, is distracting and creating too much clutter. The lawsuits listed are generally notable first and foremost because they are controversial, not simply because they are lawsuits; we should focus on what is notable, and avoid getting bogged down in the legal minutiae. Stonkaments (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Second, as long as we keep some of the subheading going to help with navigating the article. QRep2020 (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree with and . The article is way too long, and when a dedicated article exists from a split, the main article should only keep a summary of the content. The importance of the lawsuits and controversies can be highlighted in the lead and in the section. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * After restructuring, the L&C section accounts for about a quarter of the entire article. I propose to cut it down to about 10-20K (average main section length) by discussing the most prominent (most media coverage and/or most potential impact) lawsuits/controversies (with their own subsection) and citing the minor ones in one or two paragraphs. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2021
According to Wiki’s bio of Nichola Tesla, he never graduated with a degree. Therefore, he was not an engineer as stated in the Tesla, Inc. bio page. Please correct. 172.79.186.135 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. A degree isn't needed to qualify one as an engineer. Reach consensus at Nikola Tesla first. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 11:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing clean energy from the lead
Tesla may have been a clean energy company in the past but the recent Bitcoin investment has changed that. I will remove it from the lead, unless current references to its clean energy aspirations are provided.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/9/22275243/teslas-bitcoin-purchase-clashes-climate-change-mission

https://www.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-tesla-climate/insight-elon-musk-wants-clean-power-but-teslas-carrying-bitcoins-dirty-baggage-idUSL1N2KF1EF

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-02-08/tesla-invests-in-bitcoin

https://www.newsweek.com/musk-bitcoin-environment-1567697

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/teslas-bitcoin-investment-could-bad-010425356.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcarlosmartins (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, , . Just because they do one thing that has links to carbon emissions, it doesn't mean they're suddenly not a clean energy company. I don't see what's so controversial here. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tesla continues to sell electric cars and solar energy panels, its main business has not changed. It would be blatant WP:OR to remove the clean energy label just because you consider so. Such change should be supported by reliable sources.--Mariordo (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, holding a Bitcoin does not require energy - it is usually done with an online cryptocurrency wallet, a USB flash drive or written on a solid substance such as paper or metal.
 * Trading bitcoin requires thousands of times more energy than for other electronic assets, but is small relative to other company activities if only done twice (buy&sell). If Tesla holds 43,000 BTC, and each BTC costs 741 kWh to trade, then the purchase cost 31.8 GWh, or about 3 years production by a 3 MW wind turbine or a 10 MW solar farm. Significant, but minor compared to what Tesla's factories use.
 * Producing bitcoin ("mining") consumes large amounts of energy (70 TWh/year), but that doesn't seem to be what Tesla is doing - yet?. TGCP (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Buying bitcoins does not change their core business, which is electric vehicles and clean energy (in the form of solar power+batteries). --Ita140188 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Cleantechnica citations
As it looks like this article is about to achieve a GA status for Eco/Biz - and rightfully so - I would like to point out that it does use Cleantechnica.com as a citation 15 times and that Cleantechnica has been considered a generally unreliable source per the discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290 especially in regards to Tesla matters. Undoubtedly many of the cited Cleantechnica articles can be switched with those from more reliable sources and I will gladly assist in the conversion process. QRep2020 (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the discussion that you have cited had enough participation to come to a meaningful consensus. Also, 15 cites of this source out of a total 500 cites isn't very many (3%). If a consensus is built, I'll happily agree and assist if needs be.


 * I think a different issue, however, is explained in this article. The journalist Fred Lambert is cited a lot in the Wikipedia article, and there might be something more to this that needs to be discussed. I encourage anyone reading this to read the article I have linked to to understand what I am talking about. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 20:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just as shonky as the rest of this article. If it really makes it to GA then that proves GA is meaningless. Greglocock (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you've read through the whole article and analysed the sources? Because you've bothered to do reviewing yourself? No, I didn't think so. If you don't have anything meaningful to say, then stay off the talk page. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No I won't stay off the talk page, and I have given up trying to edit this shonkky page. I suppose i could oppose the GA nom with reasons.WP:OWN Greglocock (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? What should be changed? --Ita140188 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The summary seems to indicate that controversies are equal to lawsuits.


Has Tesla lost those cases in court? If the company has not lost those cases, is there no reason to publish that information until the cases are resolved in court. The company has the right to defend itself in court.

Nor can controversies be linked with lawsuits. Summary that does not specify whether the company has lost or won those cases. The summary seems to indicate that controversies are equal to lawsuits. In addition, the company has also sued and the article does not speak of its lawsuits against other people and companies. --JShark (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There is an enormous number of reliable sources discussing all of these topics extensively. Lawsuits do not need to be closed or lost to be notable and be included in Wikipedia articles. Also nowhere it says that controversies are equal to lawsuits. There have been both controversies and lawsuits on all the topics mentioned. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The summary does not specify any case resolved in court. Anyone can say that the company has kidnapped children or workers in a company office and that does not mean that such a statement is real or can be taken into account as a controversy.--JShark (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tesla has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and controversies arising from statements and acts of CEO Elon Musk, allegations of whistleblower retaliation, allegations of children, workers and senators kidnapped by the company, alleged worker rights violations, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products. Anyone can say things about the company and that does not mean that it is real. --JShark (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tesla has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and controversies arising from statements and acts of CEO Elon Musk, allegations of whistleblower retaliation, allegations of children, workers and senators kidnapped by the company, alleged violations of the rights of disabled elephants, alleged worker rights violations, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products. --JShark (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Tesla has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and controversies arising from statements and acts of CEO Elon Musk, allegations of whistleblower retaliation, allegations of children, workers and senators kidnapped by the company, alleged violations of the rights of disabled elephants, alleged worker rights violations, alleged rapes of grandmothers and sick aliens from the planet known as I do not believe it, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products. --JShark (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The crazy old man in my neighborhood denounced Tesla for raping his dog. Lawsuits do not need to be closed or lost to be notable and be included in Wikipedia articles.
 * Do you have sources relating to these lawsuits? Best I could find was someone calling the police in 2017 thinking kids were abducted. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bystander-sees-tesla-owner-loading-kids-trunk-seats-040423700.html But it was cleared as a misunderstanding, there was not a lawsuit, and Tesla was not behind the refuted kidnapping. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tesla has been the subject of numerous lawsuits and controversies arising from statements and acts of CEO Elon Musk, allegations of dog rape by Musk and Tesla, allegations of whistleblower retaliation, alleged worker rights violations, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products. --JShark (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered "innocent until proven guilty". --JShark (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that escalated quickly.
 * The sentence serves to summarize some of the contents of the article. The article includes statements about lawsuits and controversies that are notable, that is discussed by independent third-party publications. QRep2020 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021
Add „Technoking“ after Elon Musk‘s title as CEO (source: https://sec.report/Document/0001564590-21-012981/) 2001:16B8:14EB:8000:8DF6:E8E1:D910:1BB0 (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * . It's unclear if this position is just a publicity stunt or holds actual meaning. Wait until more secondary sources cover and analyze this. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Elon_Musk --Trougnouf (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2021
The heading "History2" needs to be changed to "History". AlpacaNoire (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, albeit not by me. Thanks for pointing this out! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Where is Tesla Energy in the article?
Came to read about the character, scope and business of Tesla Energy and am not finding anything at all in the article.

Yet Tesla seems to find Tesla Energy a significant and important part of their business, beyond the Tesla vehicles business.

What am I missing? Is there a good reason Tesla Energy is not even mentioned in the article? N2e (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure if connected to this discussion--probably not--but the WP:REDIR I had created for Tesla Energy several years ago was finally replaced today by a substantive new article: a good effort by RickyCourtney! Long overdue need.  Thanks, Ricky!  That article would now have substantial detail that should be summarized in a high-level paragraph or section within the Tesla, Inc. article. N2e (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Nice! As for the section here, we can replace the battery products section with a Tesla Energy section which includes batteries and solar products, which are generally sold together (except for large scale battery installations). --Ita140188 (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for those nice words N2e. I went ahead and took a crack at making a Tesla Energy section. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021
The first line in “History” is unsubstantiated and needs a citation : “Musk took an active role within the company and oversaw Roadster product design at a detailed level, but was not deeply involved in day-to-day business operations.” 2601:1C2:780:63D0:113B:D71D:8D1D:38B1 (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 ( talk ) 18:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

According to whom
The "according to whom" reference is from the linked article. The answer is Dana Hull of Bloomberg Hyperdrive. Adam MLIS (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Including the name of the non-editorial piece's reporter is not terribly useful here. QRep2020 (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark Geragos sues Tesla over Lithium Fires
This should be mentioned here in Wikipedia. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/01/tesla-model-s-plaid-caught-fire-while-being-driven-fire-chief.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.198.247 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuit Alleging Racist Work Environment
Should the lawsuit alleging a racist work environment from sub-contractors have its own section? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The racism alleged as Tesla, especially the Fremont factory, is certainly worthy of its own subsection under Controversies. There are additional sources employed at Criticism of Tesla, Inc.. QRep2020 (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Corporate officers
The article should make note of the unique names used as titles for the CEO and CFO; Technoking and Master of Coin. Someone should footnote the corporate officers list with their titles as used in Tesla. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you check the two sources already provided? Are they not reliable enough, one being the U.S. federal government?

change Robyn Denholm (Chair)

Elon Musk (CEO)

Zach Kirkhorn (CFO)

Drew Baglino (CTO)

to

Robyn Denholm (Chair)

Elon Musk (CEO)

Zach Kirkhorn (CFO)

Drew Baglino (CTO)

which results in

Robyn Denholm (Chair)

Elon Musk (CEO)

Zach Kirkhorn (CFO)

Drew Baglino (CTO)

-- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Company specific jargon is not encyclopedic; it is, at best, trivia of interest to very few people RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I dispute the "of interest to very few people" characterization, since it was promoted all over the news/business reporting, therefore, it was of something that the programming directors of news/financial programming thought would be of interest to a large number of people. Thus it would be a viable material people would search for. And the proposed change only adds footnotes for the terms, not massive sections of material for it, providing just what is needed to cover that information for those users seeking such, from the weeks of coverage the media provided on it.
 * Also if people going through financials of Tesla find these titles, it would be good to gloss them here to provide cross-linkage from the financials to our article.
 * -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Headquarters have moved. Intro info is out of date
Someone with permission should update the article. They announced at their AGM that they had moved HQ from Palo Alto to Austin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.202 (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you get a source? Google and Tesla's website still says it's at Palo Alto. Tintinkien (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-q3-2021-vehicle-production-deliveries

This is the press release for their Q3 2021 delivery figures. The first line indicates that they made their announcement from Austin, Texas. Every previous announcement was made from Palo Alto.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/07/tesla-moves-its-headquarters-from-california-to-texas.html

The subtitle reads,

"Tesla officially moved its headquarters from Palo Alto, California to Austin, Texas CEO Elon Musk announced at the company’s 2021 annual shareholder meeting."

There's a clip of the AGM where Musk announces the move, the entire video of the event is an hour plus long but it can be found on Tesla's Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.202 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying about their own website.

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/contact

Under worldwide offices, they don't even have Austin listed, and HQ still says Palo Alto. I think their own website's out of date also. I was going off of the investor relations documents and having watched the AGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.232.202 (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

They just released an 8-K document stating they have moved their HQ to 'On December 1, 2021, Tesla, Inc. relocated its corporate headquarters to Gigafactory Texas at 13101 Harold Green Road, Austin, Texas 78725. ' 108.77.69.168 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Elon Musk did not found Tesla
Elon Musk is not actually a Tesla founder. He purchased Tesla after it was founded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtag10 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

CEO and CFO are wrong names for Tesla
In march of this year elon musk officially changed the job titles to technoking and master of coin so the page should explicitly say that. UrsuGL (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

More info https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-15/musk-adds-technoking-of-tesla-title-cfo-is-master-of-coin-kmahgu33 UrsuGL (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We know. Putting that information in will not inform anyone of anything as to the everyday responsibilities of the two executives unlike using the typical corporate descriptors. QRep2020 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Founders
Why is there a hyperlink in founders instead of just listing the 2 founders it's not like 10 ppl founded the company just 2. FlynFlynn (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Because it's complicated and this was the only compromise that we could settle on. Read the article at section Tesla,_Inc.. In short, there is no formal, legally binding definition of founder. Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated the company - often this is taken as founding the company but it is not strictly the same thing. Wright and Straubel helped start the compnay during its early days looking for funding. And Musk brought in lots of funding (both his own and from others). The court case says all 5 could call themselves co-founders. But enough WP editors disagreed with both sides of the story that we just listed the points and left it at that - otherwise we'd be fighting over it today. Better to let sleeping dogs lie.
 * See Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2 if you want the history of how we decided all this.
 * By the way, your reference doesn't list any founders at all.  Stepho  talk 12:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 22 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jasont678.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022
It should be "with a market cap of over $1 trillion" not nearly. TheGOATMessi (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Currently the market cap is 995B. Nearly is a perfectly good descriptor for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Tesla Energy Software?
I want to question the notability of the section on "Tesla Energy Software." The current text feels like it's lifted promotional copy and written like an advertisement: Tesla has developed a software ecosystem to support its energy hardware products. Autobidder, Powerhub, Opticaster, Microgrid Controller and Virtual Machine Mode are the products that Tesla offers. Tesla also has a "Virtual Power Plant" beta program.

implied in his edit summary that I dispute that tesla makes software, I don't. However, I dispute that the energy software is important or impactful enough to be notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The references given are to a website known for its skewed positive coverage of Tesla (Electrek) with a clickbait headline: Tesla Energy and its Autobidder software are making power companies nervous (emphasis mine) and a Wood Mackenzie trade article that also feels very thin (like it was ripped from a press release) that also names a lot of other companies more established in this space... none of which are notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia.
 * https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software The official Tesla website names all of those products. I don't see any promotion since those are the names of the products.


 * Autobidder
 * Powerhub
 * Microgrid Controller
 * Opticaster
 * Virtual Machine Mode

It is not spoken well but neither badly of these products. Only the products that Tesla offers to people are named. It is the same as naming the car models that Tesla produces. Also that section should be expanded to say what exactly those products do. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Interested persons can also request information about that software. If you delete that section you would be deleting information of interest to people and it would be like deleting the section about Tesla services. According to your logic the information about Tesla's solar power generation should also not be included as solar panels still don't make that much money. All of Tesla's businesses should be included regardless of whether we like or dislike businesses like solar power or software. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Tesla's solar power doesn't make a lot of money but it's still important to name that Tesla business. In addition, the company is already offering these software products to customers and therefore they are not future projects, but rather software that the company already offers to customers. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software/autobidder -> Autobidder (Autobidder is a real-time trading and control platform)
 * https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software/powerhub -> Powerhub (Powerhub is a monitoring and control platform for managing distributed energy resources, renewable power plants and microgrids.)
 * https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software/microgrid-controller -> Microgrid Controller (Microgrid Controller provides real-time control of paralleled grid-forming sources and variable renewable generation, as well as intelligent load and solar forecasting.)
 * https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software/opticaster -> Opticaster (It forecasts and optimizes energy in real-time.)

It is clearly software that Tesla customers already use and the section is only naming those products and not promoting those products. We should be expanding the section to say what each of the software products does. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH51-loeLgM - Tesla, Inc. 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders -> Tesla even shows an image with Autobidder to its shareholders. Watch the video at minute 56:08. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

https://www.tesla.com/ns_videos/2020-tesla-impact-report.pdf -> Autobidder appears again in this Tesla report. Page 8. "Maximizing utilization through software" --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The company even constantly mentions the importance of software development to all its shareholders. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 07:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Independent sources should be used to show notability, not just from company sources. Tesla Energy should only be broadly described on this main page, whereas details about Tesla Energy should be stated on that page. TGCP (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Independent sources:

--2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/tesla-plans-begin-trading-solar-wind-battery-storage-energy-2021-09-08/ (reuters.com)
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2020/07/01/teslas-autobidder-platform-is-one-example-of-a-new-energy-future/?sh=494779db67b7 (forbes.com)
 * https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a30153019/elon-musk-tesla-energy-autobidder/ (popularmechanics.com)
 * https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-electric-utility-autobidder-battery-technology/ (cnet.com)
 * https://insideevs.com/news/423011/tesla-autobidder-new-energy-software-platform/ (insideevs.com)
 * https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/tesla-energy%3A-elon-musks-next-big-plan-2020-05-14 (nasdaq.com)
 * Take it to Tesla Energy. This product line is highly specific. QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Reuters and these other sources are colluding to promote Tesla's software. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this information should be in both articles. It also takes up very little space in the article. It is not a huge section.--2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The section on Tesla's energy business in this article is even very small and highly summarized. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I proposed we drop the subheading and boil it down further and integrate it into this paragraph: "Tesla Energy's generation products include solar panels (built by other companies for Tesla), the Tesla Solar Roof (a solar shingle system) and the Tesla Solar Inverter. Other products include the Powerwall (a home energy storage device) and the Powerpack and Megapack, which are large-scale energy storage systems. Tesla Energy also develops software to allow customers to monitor and control their systems."

I'm going to go ahead and make this change. We can expand the information on the Tesla Energy page using some of those independent, reliable sources. --RickyCourtney (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You could add some of those sources to the article. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * To this article you could also add some source. Perhaps the Reuters source. --2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I added two sources --JShark (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuits section too long
Recent edits (mainly by ) significantly expanded the "Lawsuits and controversies" section, which was already long. After the edits it is the longest section in all the article, at 43.6 kb, significantly larger than the second, "History" at 37.7 kb (see the template "Section sizes" on the top of this page for details). Considering that we already have an article specifically about this (List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc.), this section should only briefly summarize the content of the main article. It seems to me that having such a large section on this topic may be against WP:NPOV, as well as making the article less readable overall. --Ita140188 (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That section did not significantly expand in size. All I did was add sub-headers to make it more legible and add to the Racism, Sexual Harassment, and Conduct during the Covid-19 pandemic sections. It is a tad long. I suggest moving "Intellectual Property", "Defamation", Misappropriation, "Property Damage", and "Criticism". I utterly protest moving other sections as that would remove very important information. Surge Of Reason (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm of the opinion that both the TSLA Q section and the "Tesla's Mission" section should be removed (and possibly other sections as well), as I don't feel that those sections rise to the level of relevance for a major automaker article like this. The guidelines for controversy sections on WP though are relatively open to individual judgement (see the subsections for criticism and controversy sections in Wikipedia:Criticism) and as of right now there doesn't seem to be a clear cut standard for major automaker articles, or company articles in general, so this may be a good time to start nailing down a precedent and deciding what criteria constitutes a relevant criticism or controversy. TKOIII (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Those subsections are not a part of the Lawsuits section. QRep2020 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I propose leaving in this article a maximum of 1-2 paragraphs summary for each main topic (100-150 words). The details should be added to List of lawsuits involving Tesla, Inc., and minor sections such as the ones you mentioned can be moved altogether. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

My opinion is that every section under Lawsuits & Controversies is allowed to be as long as Vehicle batteries, Autopilot, or Full self-driving. That is unless the core matter is of limited interest to the general public, or contains too many details that are of limited interest to the general public.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022
http://crweworld.com/article/regulatory/2298211/us-epa-settles-with-tesla-over-clean-air-act-violations-at-fremont-calif-facility I am not sure where it should go Nonvolare (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Finance section, bitcoin investment
I was surprised to learn here that “Tesla made more profit from the 2021 investment than the profit from selling cars in 2020, due to the Bitcoin price increase after the investment was announced.”

This pretty clearly says that in 2021, Tesla had more bitcoin profit than profit from selling cars. This is simply untrue. Both the referenced articles were written one month after the investment was made. Best I can find is for 2021 a bitcoin related accounting loss of $101M vs a profit selling ‘digital assets’ of $272M. 98.168.61.134 (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/QRep2020 20:04, 20 April 2022 El C blocked QRep2020 from the pages Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk with an expiration time of indefinite (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: For now. Sitewide may be needed as there's a limit to the number of pages that can be added to a p-block list, and there are many other Elon Musk and Tesla, etc. -related pages)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Founders

Certain users (QRep2020) involved in biographies policy violations participated in the conversation. I propose a new conversation about the founders of Tesla. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders. --JShark (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not how it works but feel free to propose a new discussion under other auspices. QRep2020 (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, you made the change you are proposing already? Without discussing it? QRep2020 (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Who is typically listed as a founder in reliable, independent sources? BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we doing this yet again? There is no formal definition of "founder". There are a lot of informal definitions. Many people choose to list the people who formally registered the company with the their local government. Other choose to list important people during it's early years. Others have a big lawsuit to decide it (especially if there is money and/or pride involved). It's complicated and often self-contradictory, so we put the various points in a section and left it at that. See WP:DROPTHESTICK.  Stepho  talk 02:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Phantom braking
"In some scenarios, the car will wrongly apply the brakes so hard that it may lead to accidents." Unless someone actually have any evidence of "Phantom breaking" causing any accidents i don't see how this is relevant at all. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is doing their investigation and once that's resolved and it's found guilty then I'm ok with the quote above. Otherwise it's just guesswork — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warbayx (talk • contribs) 14:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree --Ita140188 (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The wording is slightly off. The following would work with [|this WaPo article] as a source: "According drivers and experts, the car can wrongly apply the brakes so hard that it may lead to accidents. The NHTSA opened an investigation and has received over 100 complaints as of February 2022." QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again that's just assuming "may lead too" is disingenuous as there is no evidence of this happening. Warbayx (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of evidence that unexpected braking can cause someone to be rear-ended. Why would the car being a Tesla change this fact?
 * There is nothing disingenuous about saying "it may lead too" causing an accident, and suggesting otherwise is quite ignorant or disingenuous in it's own right. 174.94.67.227 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Founding
In the main info panel, founders is listed as a link to the “founding” section of the article which has since been removed. Perhaps we could find the relevant information and fill it in Alehanro999 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure what the issue is. Selecting that link delivers me to Tesla, Inc.. The article version at April 13 presents that way, too.  signed, Willondon (talk)  23:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The link also works for me.  Stepho  talk 04:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was an Rfc about how to handle the founding/ co-founders lawsuit issue and the Infobox link was part of the agreement reached. QRep2020 (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Zenith electric is called Tesla electric in Italy
left the following at the top of the page, with the edit comment "Zenith electric is called Tesla electric in Italy and sanyo in China."
 * Https://www.zenith.com<
 * Title=Zenith_opens_Tesla_electric_in_Italy The_son_of_Salko_Kljako_Selim_Kljako_opens_a_Zenith_electric_in_Torino_Italy_named_Tesla_Electric

I have shifted it down here because it didn't belong where it was put. Also, I find nothing supporting this claim on that website, nor by searching the web on the keywords in title.  Stepho  talk 01:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2022
Change the phrase “Tesla was incorporated by” to “Tesla was founded by” in the second paragraph to add clarity to the fact that Tesla did not exist before this point. 172.89.162.89 (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

✅. Zefr (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

❌ No, the word "incorporated" is accurate and describes a well defined concept of legally registering the company. "Founded" is a nebulous word without a strict definition. Normally it doesn't matter much but for Tesla there is a dispute over which of 2-5 people "founded" the company. There is no dispute over who incorporated the company. Better to leave just the well defined term that has no dispute.  Stepho  talk 04:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest holding an RfC on this wording. BilledMammal (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not really. "incorporated" is well defined and is uncontroversial. "founded" is not well defined and is controversial.  Stepho  talk 22:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter debacle
The - let's make it neutral - twitter debacle is hurting at least the brand and stock value of Tesla. This should be in the article. How? --Jensbest (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Market Cap
Tesla's market cap is highly volatile. Either the exact market cap number should be avoided or it must have an "as of" date next to it. The market cap currently in the article is quite wrong. Corb555 (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I came to write the same thing. The current market cap in the article is off by ~ $280,000,000,000, and will continue to rise and dip. Just having a market number in the article with no other information is at best misleading, and at worst, wildly incorrect. 209.6.236.65 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The market cap is now 388.77B. The article still says it's over 550B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmsterns (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * From the article, they had a cap of $86b in Oct 2020, $848b in Jan 2021, $1t in Oct 2021 and now you say it has a cap of $390b in Dec 2022 (note: no need for 5 figure accuracy for volatile figures). Given these wildly changing values, I would not put the market cap in the intro. If I did, I would definitely add a "" disclaimer. However, feel free to add the latest figure to the 'Global expansion and Model Y (2019–present)' section, which seems to have all the other market caps listed (can anybody think of a better place to move them to?). Don't forget to also include the reference so that your value can be double checked.  Stepho  talk 04:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is Musk's forcing out of one of the true founders of Tesla, Martin Eberhard not in the criticisms, or lawsuits and criticisms?
As the subject suggests. Musk forced his way into the company, then Musk forced Eberhard out of the CEO position because "cost overuns" and delays tot he Roadster, when in fact the cost overruns were the fault of musk changing the design of the roadster, on a whim, resulting in the need for major retooling, or increasing the cost of the car, notoriously Musk ordered that the door sill were lowered 2 inches because his wife "sort of complained" about it being difficult to get in the car when she was wearing a dress?

While Eberhard was put into the CTO role with the same day, it took only 2 weeks for Musk to want Eberhard gone, offering a sevrance and when Eberhard refused, Musk fired hsi puppet CEO to put anotherone in, and then 3 months later, Eberhard was forced to leave through threats by Musk. Once Eberhard was gone, the other true founder, Tarpenning found his position as CFO untennable and left, once the two true founders left, Musk then fired the CEO and put himself into that role, being now the Chairman of the Board and the CEO, something which no board would ever do or should allow.

And then he changed the history of the company to list as a founder..... KarmaKangaroo (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It could be! Do you have citations for the quoted material? QRep2020 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seconding what QRep2020 said and suggesting that the history section is probably the more appropriate home. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's slightly touched on in History of Tesla, Inc.. But as said above, further expansion would required meticulous referencing, as per WP:BLP.  Stepho  talk 22:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * None of what you wrote is true. Also bring some actual sources to your dumb claims next time. Cptfantastic7 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "dumb claims" - it's okay to disagree with someone but keep it civil, as per WP:CIVIL. Also, why restart a conversation that has already finished.  Stepho  talk 00:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro paragraph non-neutral
"In February 2004, via a $6.5 million investment, Elon Musk became the largest shareholder of the company. He has served as CEO since 2008."

This sentence is specifically designed to not be neutral, by specifically not naming the fourth and fifth founders, or the roles the three latter founders took. The settlement would be he neutral position here. And why is the cash mentioned for one, but not for the others? Each of which who bought into the company at some amount.

"With" would be more neutral than 'via' when the allegation (denied by the settlement) is that he bought the founding position. Most pages would use 'with' to describe such an investment. 2601:647:CA00:E6C:6084:58EE:29E4:B1C8 (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Most of what you want is in the founders section. The intro is not meant to cover every single facet of the company's history. Since Musk is the current CEO, the intro covers some aspects of him - possible some of which should be shifted to the founders section.
 * Do you have references showing that Wright, Straubel and Musk all brought in the same amount of money?  Stepho  talk 07:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The three you mentioned are not founders - they are allowed to call themselves cofounders because of a court decision. 13:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QRep2020 (talk • contribs)


 * QRep2020@undefined, there is no formal definition of founder/co-founder - see Organizational founder. A founder is whatever they decide to to be - whether it be the people who signed the incorporation papers, people heavily involved in the early period of the company, a financial saviour or a greedy buyer. In most cases there is no disagreement. When there is enough disagreement, then the courts decide.  Stepho  talk 21:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Last paragraph of intro not neutral
The last paragraph of the intro starting with "Tesla has been the subject of many lawsuits..." is not neutral. No other major car company Wikipedia article has this kind of mentioning of lawsuits in the very intro of the article. Not even VW despite an entire article on Wikipedia on the very recent emission scandal: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal).

There aren't many 100bn+ companies that HAVE NOT been subject to "many" lawsuits. Either we need to 1) substantiate that Tesla has been subject to more lawsuits than average companies their size, 2) add this kind of paragraph to hundreds of other Wikipedia articles or 3) remove it from the intro paragraph of the article. Neutral-fact-checker (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Roadster (2005–2009)
This section begins with -

"Elon Musk took an active role within the company and oversaw Roadster product design at a detailed level"

and links to an article which has nothing to do with the original roadster's design. The only mention of a roadster in the article is here -

"In 2016, Musk promised that a self-driving car, a Tesla semi truck and a new, possibly jet-powered roadster were imminent. None are remotely close to production."

Not exactly the same. 24.128.109.231 (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The original phrase was "Musk took an active role within the company and oversaw Roadster product design at a detailed level, but was not deeply involved in day-to-day business operations. From the beginning, Musk consistently maintained that Tesla's long-term strategic goal was to create affordable mass market electric vehicles. ". This source should be added back to the article. - Espandero (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing "creative accounting" and "increasing" government scrutiny from intro
Creative accounting is generally used as an euphemism, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. Additionally, very few people have accused Tesla of committing fraud (or related actions) compared to the other criticisms in the intro. "Increasing" government scrutiny seems unnecessary, and "government scrutiny" seems less biased. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's remove the criticism section; not notable enough
People criticize Tesla a lot. More than they criticize other automakers like Ford, General Motors, or Toyota. However, Tesla is also far more generally discussed than other automakers. Therefore, the criticism is blown out of proportion by having its own section on this article. We should move it to within one or more other sections, and also remove it from the intro. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 00:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Musk produces a lot of hype and often fails to live up to it - or it is significantly delayed (although, to be fair, he also aims higher than most people). So, he effectively generates a lot of the controversy himself as a direct result of his own hype. Tesla is also a relatively new company, so it makes lots of rookie mistakes in terms of consistency and quality. Plus the smattering of a few things found in any large company. I'd say that the current controversies section is reasonable.  Stepho  talk 03:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would make more sense to break up the information and put it in several different sections. Criticism of Musk is not inherently criticism of Tesla; yes, they're joined at the hip, but still separate entities. Additionally, it might not be adherent to WP:NPOV due to the outsized mention of criticism. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023
Change the number of employees from 110,000 to 127,855.

Source: 10-K filing 2603:9008:1C08:696:3C09:97C4:CF23:20AF (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Do you have a link to this 10-K filing? If not then we cannot add this since just saying "10-K filing" does not allow us to verify it. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already been changed, but here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000095017023001409/tsla-20221231.htm#:~:text=employees%20worldwide%20was-,127%2C855,-%2C%20a%2029%2C000%20year ARandomName123 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Lemonaka (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023
Please change "Tesla began production of its first car model, the Roadster sports car, in 2009" to "Tesla began production of its first car model, the Roadster sports car, in 2008".

(sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster_(first_generation) and https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-production-slower-than-expected-908) BrainstormerJr (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Also be aware that you are allowed to correct such errors yourself.  Stepho  talk 04:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Optimus (robot).jpg

Maintenance tag removal
There is currently a maintenance tag in the Battery research section that should be removed. The editor that posted that tag states, "Not an expert but a UC San Diego study showed 4680 batteries are actually less energy dense..." with the source of the study not linked and the statement could also be debatable. I read the linked article and watched the entire video and no citation of the study could be found. What was pieced together was that Jordan Glesige of The Limiting Factor YouTube channel purchased a  used  battery which already had over 400 miles on it. Glesige appears to have sent the battery to Shirley Meng of the Jacobs School of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. Throughout the presentation Glesige mentions a slide deck of the results but does not provide any link to the location or in the description of the video for further examination of the data. Glesige does state in the video that the results from the study state that the results involve a ""rough theoretical value" (16:30). Input is welcomed and if no input after some time, the tag will be removed with the Edit summary pointing to this Talk page topic. Adam MLIS (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Time was given for comments and now the tag has been removed with the Edit summary pointing to this discussion comment. Please add to the discussion if you think there is more that is needed regarding the original edit. Adam MLIS (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)