Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 • 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 QRep2020, an WP:SPA (first noted by MartinezMD), 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 QRep2020 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 Lklundin 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia: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. Lklundin, 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 Beland? QRep2020 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

While it is indeed unfortunate that the editing of a specific editor like QRep2020 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 QRep2020 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 QRep2020. Further, a Tesla-anti-investor would be incentivized to try to discredit on Wikipedia sources[1] that they perceive to be positive in regards to Tesla, just like QRep2020 have done - without involving affected editors. As such, an editor like QRep2020 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 Lklundin changed their argument again and it is now something about TSLAQ and perhaps Plainsite being "sinister". This argument appeared on Wikipedia: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 QRep2020 has:

• Been identified as an apparent WP:SPA.[2]
• 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 (Springee) 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Plainsite.org_on_Tesla,_Inc._and_Elon_Musk. 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)

Lklundin, 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. [[3]]. 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 Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Plainsite.org_on_Tesla,_Inc._and_Elon_Musk. 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. [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]]. Here is an article pointing out that Tesla claimed it had evidence against a critic then walked away when the courts said show it [[8]]. Here is the Wall Street Journal talking about Musk contacting the critic's employer. Basically threatening a critic. [[9]] 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.[[10]] 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#Plainsite.org_on_Tesla,_Inc._and_Elon_Musk. As for the second sentence, I agree with Springee that it is unsupported and appears as misplaced name dropping, i.e. Wikipedia: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)

References

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 {{main}} 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 (Wikipedia: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)

 Done 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)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • 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)

 Done 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)

 Done 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 [11].

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#Founders/entrepreneurs 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#Elon_Musk_as_a_founder 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: [12] 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)

@Stepho-wrs: 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)

@Stepho-wrs: 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 [13]. 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#Tesla founders.  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 [14] 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 [15] gives the two engineers as the ones who incorporated the company, with Musk only one of the "other co-founders", while Motor Research [16] 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#Tesla_founders - 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, {{Infobox company}} 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.#Article_simplification. 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 Stonkaments and GA-RT-22. 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)

 Not done. 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tesla, Inc./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Willbb234 (talk · contribs) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll review this article. It's a big one, so it'll take me a while so please bare with. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Thank you very much! I will soon start the revision according to your comments. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll look at the issues presented in the previous GA review and see if they have been addressed.

Extended content

copy and pasted from Talk:Tesla, Inc./GA1 As per cleanup banner at the top - article has too many references to self-published sources (Tesla's website). For example, references 8 to 21, and 157 to 167 are all linking to Tesla.com. Therefore, the content in the article needs to be evaluated/rewritten to reduce dependency on their company website(s). This issue has not been addressed. For example, references 236, 226, 459, 458, 451 and others are linked to primary sources. I removed about 90% of the primary sources since the last GA review. These are the ones left, which I felt were ok per WP:PRIMARY since they report a view or information that are only available from the primary source (such as the total vehicles delivered). Third party sources are generally just reporting this information taken from Tesla's reports. In any case, if you feel there should be no primary sources at all I can change these references. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC) There are cleanup tags littered over the article such as [citation needed] and [better source needed]. This has been addressed, no citation needed tags found Contents structure is inappropriate and too long - 19 sections is excessive (for comparison, although not good articles, even Ford Motor Company and Toyota are not that long). The number of sections has greatly decreased and is more concise. Lead section does not follow Manual of Style (MOS: Lead section). Needs to be 3 or 4 concise paragraphs. Some more work on the lede is needed, but the main issue has been addressed. Sales section - this is too high up in the article I wouldn't agree with this point, I think the sales section is fine where it is. Board of directors - this is too far down in the article Moved upwards Too many one sentence paragraphs or overly-short sections This will require further investigation. Some paragraphs sound like advertising or marketing material (eg. "Tesla's philosophy is not to make a profit on service. Tesla offers service at company-owned service centers. Mobile technicians can also perform most inspections and repairs") This will require further investigation. Article needs copy-editing for grammar, style and tone to be more encyclopedic A look at the history of the article shows significant steps towards reducing this poor quality content Philanthropy section just consists of three bullet points with no background or context Philanthropy section removed Lawsuits and controversies section - this is not easy to understand for general readers. In fact, large pieces of text have been copy-and-pasted from [17], a report by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This is a copyright violation. Earwig's copyvio detector is taking a long time to process the article, so this will require further investigation.

Lede

• The third paragraph should be merged with the first as the first paragraph is too short and the third contains important information.
• If the content is sufficiently sourced in the body of the article, there should be no need to include these references in the lede section.
• "battery electric segment" should this be "electric battery segment"?

"battery electric segment" is short for battery electric vehicle segment --Ita140188 (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• "with more than 500,000 delivered" when you say 'delivered' I'm not sure what this means. This should be clarified with manufactured/sold.
• I don't think the lede is long enough for the article. It should include more details of the history of the company, including the founders and early models of car.

More comments to come, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

"Deliveries" is the *ahem* preferred term of Tesla in their quarterly reports, 10-K's, etc. They don't report number of cars sold or manufactured, only how many they have "delivered." Critics have repeatedly pointed this out how unusual this is. QRep2020 (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reorganized the lede by presenting the main information in the first paragraph, a summary of the history in the second, and controversies in the third. I also expanded it to include the early vehicle models. I removed all references, since they are all already present in the relevant sections and there are no obviously controversial statements in the lede. As for the inclusion of the founders, I am not sure if this information belongs to the lead given the controversy surrounding it and the relatively minor importance of this information (it is also already in the infobox). --Ita140188 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

History

• Ref 16 is to Elon Musk's twitter, which isn't generally considered reliable. Please find a different source or remove the sentence.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the s in 'Series A funding' should be capitalised?

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• "with Elon Musk contributing $6.5 million" you should introduce Musk here as it isn't clear whether he was an employee at this moment or not.

 Done

• The lawsuit happened in 2009 which makes me think it should be in the next section.

Although not perfectly coherent chronologically, I feel leaving it together with the discussion on the founding makes the context more clear and easier to follow. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do think it's very relevant to the founding and for that reason it should stay. However, the title of the section is 2003-2004: Founding, meaning the events there should have happened in 2003 and 2004 only? Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You are technically right, but I see this as a compromise which helps with clarity and flow. Facts are mostly presented in chronological order, but I think that sometimes it's necessary to "break the rule" to connect related events and better understand the context of what happened. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The "2010–2015: IPO, Model S and Model X" section is very fragmented so please try and combine this into one paragraph.

 Done see below.

• The title for this section is also quite misleading as here is very little on the Model S and Model X, and the IPO.

 Done expanded section to include more information and context on the topics covered. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• The $465 million is very significant and much larger than any other funding the company had received, so I'd like some more details on this if possible.

 Done

• The small box title "List of chief executive officers of Tesla" looks misplaced here and doesn't have any references.

 Done I removed the side box and included the info in the text with references. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• In November 2016, Tesla acquired SolarCity.[38] Few months later, in February 2017, Tesla Motors shortened its name to Tesla, Inc., to better reflect the scope of the expanded business. Tesla began selling the Model 3 sedan in July the same year. this paragraph sounds very fragmented; it's just a series of statements with little expansion or explanation.

 Done added more context --Ita140188 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla made multiple contributions of solar power to areas recovering from disasters in 2017" you should provide examples of these areas and disasters.

 Done listed one notable example --Ita140188 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• In 2018, CEO Elon Musk briefly considered taking Tesla private.[45]

In March 2020, Tesla began deliveries of the Model Y crossover.[46]

These sentences once again are too short and they are two years apart, which doesn't really make sense.

 Done I completely restructured the History section. Hopefully it is clearer and more coherent now. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "$206 billion" the wikilink to dollar should be removed here.

 Done

• I've just read the discussion at the top of this talk page on the founders of the company. Please take extra care in the 'History' section so that it is clarified who the founders are. You currently say that the founders are Eberhard and Tarpenning which from my interpretation of the discussion is correct. I would appreciate your view on this.

In my opinion the way it is discussed in the History section is fair. We are just stating the facts. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Board of directors

• "an investor group" you should try to be more specific here.

 Done

• Wikilink to SpaceX.

 Done

• Ref 57 is from Tesla's website which is not reliable.

 Done: replaced all primary sources

• Still some references needed for the second column in the table.

 Done

• The sentence below the table should be moved above the table to join the rest of the text.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Business strategy

• Tesla's product release strategy is to emulate typical technological-product life cycles and initially target affluent buyers, and then move into larger markets at lower price points.[21][68] The battery and electric drivetrain technology for each model are developed and partially paid for through the sales of earlier models.[21][69] The Roadster was low-volume and priced at $109,000. Model S and Model X target the broader luxury market. Model 3 and the Model Y are aimed at a higher-volume segment.[20][70] This strategy is common in the technology industry.[71]

• This paragraph contains language that is too hard to understand for the common reader.
• The second sentence is a fancy way of saying "They use their profits to develop new products", which is essentially what every business does.
• What does "low-volume" mean in this context?
• A likewise for "higher-volume segment"?
• "This strategy is common in the technology industry" you should be more specific with examples. Also, if it is common why does it need so much explanation?

I tried to reorganize the section, let me know if it is more clear now. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• With the Model S, Tesla's technology strategy was to start with a "clean-sheet" design,[74] and build an integrated computer hardware and software architecture at the center of its vehicles.[75] Doing so enables Tesla to provide online ("over-the-air") software updates to its cars,[76][77] which allows Tesla to improve the functionality and performance of its already-sold cars for free.[75] Tesla also continuously improve the hardware of its cars rather than waiting for a new model year, as opposed to nearly every other car manufacturer.[75] This paragraph seems slightly promotional. Would you agree?

Agree. I removed most of it since it is mentioned elsewhere in the article and does not really belong in a "Business strategy" section anyway. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla does not advertise." you need to cite this claim. I don't believe it; there must be some form of advertisement even if very very limited and in small areas.

Musk's Twitter is an official channel anyway and he regularly tweets about product updates and prices. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I added another reference to this statement (although the following references also already confirm this). Tesla has never paid for advertisement. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Tesla doesn't advertise in the traditional sense, but it still advertises. See [18], [19]. To say it doesn't advertise in any form would be somewhat ludicrous. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 08:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. Ok, I changed the phrase to "Tesla does not pay for direct advertisement." which I think is a fair statement. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 14:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla is the first automaker in the United States that sells cars directly to consumers" This essentially repeats what has just been said.
• "CEO Musk" remove CEO.
• "Tesla allows its technology patents to be used by anyone in good faith, in order to promote the electric car industry in general," This, once again, repeats what has already been said in the paragraph.
• This whole section is of disappointing quality and overall seems quite promotional. I feel it needs to be nearly fully re-written.

You are right. I significantly reorganized the section, let me know if it's good now and what can still be improved. Thank you. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Technology

• As a vertically integrated manufacturer, Tesla has had to research and develop components in multiple technology domains, including batteries, motors, sensors, glass, and artificial intelligence. I'm not sure what this sentence is doing and it isn't referenced either, so this needs attention.

I fixed the sentence to be an intro to the section. Hopefully it is more clear now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Starting in 2016, Tesla established a 5-year battery research and development partnership at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, featuring lead researcher Jeff Dahn. more is needed on this. Simply that it carries out "battery research" doesn't tell the reader much.

I reorganized the section. The sentence is more in context now. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• "All three are expected to play an important role in Tesla's battery strategy." This sentence is out of date as it has been many years since the previously described events took place.

 Done

• "Some analysts" see WP:WEASEL.

 Done

• "that Tesla had a $42 ($158 versus $200)" I understand what is trying to be said here, but it needs clarification.

 Done

• "more miles" to 'further'

 Done changed to "longer range"

• "This would be achieved by a more efficient production process, new battery design, cheaper resources for the anode and cathode, and better integration into the vehicle." This sentence is quite speculative and unspecific.

I clarified that this is what the company announced.

• BloombergNEF: please clarify what this is and use a wikilink if possible.

 Done

• "so that would mean a price of $56 per kWh in 3 years," not entirely sure where you got this figures from?

 Done removed the sentence

• "Many analysts" WP:WEASEL

 Done

• "which will be an important milestone." this is quite a vague claim. Important for what and whom? I would recommend removing this.

 Done

• "and is expected to be used in the Semi" please clarify what you mean by the 'Semi'.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the switch in order, but another comment from the lede: "arising from the statements and the conduct of CEO Elon Musk," the controversies and lawsuits were not all from his conduct so this should be clarified, or perhaps removing the quoted statement in whole.

I hope the sentence is clearer now. The "arising from" refers also to the rest of the sentence ("allegations of whistleblower retaliation, alleged worker rights violations, and allegedly unresolved and dangerous technical problems with their products."). I strongly believe this statements belongs to the lead: the "Lawsuits and controversies" section is quite long and must be represented in the introduction. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla states that current (as of July 2020) Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous" this sentence will need copyediting for grammatical issues.

 Done

• "HW3 was released in early 2019." any details on HW3?

 Done

• On April 24, 2020, Tesla released a software update to Autopilot. With this update, cars recognize and automatically stop at stop signs. The cars also automatically slow down and eventually stop at traffic lights (even if they are green), and the driver indicates that it is safe to proceed through the traffic light.[134] Tesla acknowledges that the software is still in a beta test phase and far from being finished. you should try to look for more up to date information on this. If it was "far from being finished" last year, then how fair is it from being finished now?

I removed the last sentence altogether. The system is available, so I am not sure what is meant by "far from being finished". It's probably a reference to full self driving, which however is the topic of the next section. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "the roof tiles" a little more background is required to understand what these roof tiles are.

I put the full name with a link, I am not sure if more details are needed. --Ita140188 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• There are lots of "as of..." here, which are quite out of date (9 or 10 months out of date) which need to be updated.

 Done

Vehicle models

• The 'Model S' section is fragmented and should be combined into one or two paragraphs. It is also a little out of order, starting with events in 2012, then 2016, then back to 2013.

I ordered the section chronologically. However, I feel that merging paragraphs further would decrease readability. Let me know what you think. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Among other awards" a little bit of WP:WEASEL here. Either remove that phrase, or provide a direct ref.

 Done

• The wikilink for sedan should be moved from the Model 3 section to the Model S section.

 Done

• Once again, try to condense the Model 3 section into one or two paragraphs.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• The Model X section is quite short. It's probably worth copy and pasting some info from Tesla Model X with attribution.
• Likewise with the Model Y section.

Can you give me an indication of what would be best to add to Model X and Model Y sections without making the sections too long? Thank you! --Ita140188 (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• "2020 Roadster" I don't believe this is its proper name?

 Done

• From what I gather, the second generation roadster isn't on sale yet, so this needs to be clarified. Simply having it under the section 'Unveiled' doesn't explicitly imply this.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "2016 Tesla Master plan" please clarify what this is.

 Done removed this unnecessary detail --Ita140188 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla Megacharger" is this meant to be plural?

 Done

• "Many online critics" WP:WEASEL

 Done

• "Musk announced he will reveal a redesign of the Cybertruck in approximately December 2020." update required here.

 Done

• You should clarify that the Cyberquad is a quad bike.

 Done

• "dodged a question" When and where was this question asked?

 Done

• "most experts" WP:WEASEL

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Vehicle service

• "paying for a WiFi hotspot in the car" clarification is needed on what a WiFi hotspot is, perhaps add wikilinks.

 Done

• "the Tesla app store" likewise with this.

 Done

• "fast-charging Supercharger stations" I don't think Supercharger needs to be italicised here.

 Done

• "Model 3 cars do not come with free unlimited supercharging." If there is a specific reason for this, then you should try to include it.

 Done

• "In 2014, Tesla discreetly launched" clarification on why this launch was 'discreet' and how.

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• On April 25, 2016, Tesla launched European destination charging, with 150 locations and more to be added later.[230] Destination chargers worldwide totaled over 23,900 in mid 2019. I think this need to be updated, especially the part about the charging stations in Europe as this is about 2016.

 Done I removed the detail about Europe. I haven't found more up to date numbers from reliable sources on the total number of chargers. However, mid-2019 seems reasonably up to date. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla vehicles' software is continuously updated" Saying 'continuously' is vague. Presumably they're not being updated all the time. If it's often, how often? Please clarify.

 Done

• "and rear-heated seats (for Model 3 owners)." I don't understand how a software update can introduce a hardware change as significant as this?

The hardware is installed in all cars, but disabled unless the customer pays for the option. This is often done by other manufacturers as well (although not over the air) to keep manufacturing complexity low --Ita140188 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Try not to say "and/or". It's easier just to say 'or'.

 Done

• "For most vehicle manufacturers, only dealers can service (and sell) the cars" I don't think this is correct because a Automobile repair shop would service a car if I am not mistaken?

 Done

• In July 2020, Musk, relying on data obtained through their partnership with State National Insurance, announced that Tesla was creating its own major insurance company. The insurance will use individual vehicle date to offer personalized pricing. this needs updating if there is more information available.

There doesn't seem to be any new information on this as far as I can tell. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Battery products

• "6.7 hp" wikilink to hp, presumable this is horse power?

 Done removed unnecessary conversion

• There's a wikilink to the Megapack but not the Powerpack or Powerwall, so I'd change this for consistency.

 Done I added links to all three

• In May 2016, regulators had ordered SCE to invest in utility-scale battery systems to compensate local power supply after the closure of natural gas facilities you might want to expand on this to explain the relevance to Tesla.

 Done

• After Hurricane Maria in September 2017, Elon Musk offered to work with the Government of Puerto Rico in rebuilding the island's electrical grid. In October 2017, Tesla brought 700 solar panels to the "Hospital del Niño," where the batteries helped bring care back to 3,000 patients who needed constant care. perhaps another one or two sources for this paragraph would help.

 Done

• "received approval to deploy 449 Megapacks" I don't think 'deploy' is quite the right word here?

 Done changed to "install"

• "When operational in 2021" speculation like this isn't preferred on Wikipedia.

 Done I removed the year. However, I think it is relevant to say that it will be one of the largest batteries in the world once operational --Ita140188 (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Facilities

• Instead of saying "multiple large factories", you should give a number to be more specific.

 Done

• There's a few references missing from the table.

 Done

• "Tesla's first assembly plant occupies the former NUMMI plant in Fremont, California," a little bit more on the factory's former usage would be helpful.

 Done

• "The factory received substantial subsidies from the local and state governments." a little more on this would help as well, how about giving some figures?

 Done

• " Tesla aims to have up and running by the end of 2021" this sentence doesn't make sense.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• "to reduce EU import tax" please explain why this tax is reduced.

 Done

• "As of February 2018, Tesla is building a small research and development office in Athens, Greece." this needs updating.

 Done I removed the sentence, as I could not find updated information and there is no indication of notability --Ita140188 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Tesla confirmed its long-term plans to build a car and battery Gigafactory in Europe in 2016.[288] Several countries have campaigned to host.[289] A location and plans to begin construction near Berlin were announced in November 2019.[290] this needs updating. It also says 'several countries have campaigned to host', which implies present tense, but shouldn't this be past tense?

 Done

• "The groundbreaking ceremony was held on January 7, 2019." why was it 'groundbreaking'? It also seems a promotional word.

groundbreaking ceremony refers to the ceremonial start of construction. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh right that makes sense thanks for clarifying. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "In January 8, 2021 Tesla incorporated Tesla India Motors and Energy Private Limited in Bangalore, India" a little more on this would help. What does the company in India intend to do etc?

 Done

• Tesla opened the first showroom in Australia in Sydney's Martin Place in 2010,[300] followed by a showroom and service center in Melbourne in 2015.[301] By 2019, Tesla had opened 4 service centers in Australia.[302] In 2012, Tesla opened its first "new design" store in Canada in Toronto, Ontario. As of March 2019, a total of nine Tesla stores/galleries operated in Montreal, Calgary, Toronto and Vancouver. wikilinks to locations are needed here.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "In February 2020, several news sites reported that" there's a little bit of WP:WEASEL here. Also, you should include more references because 'several' means more than two.
• Brazil wants to have Tesla in the country, not only selling its cars but also producing them there. Tesla vehicles could then be exported to other nearby markets, such as Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, the Caribbean region, and even Mexico, a country with which Brazil has a free trade agreement. These two sentences are unsourced.

I removed the whole paragraph since it only contained speculation and was not encyclopedic/relevant enough in my opinion. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Partners

• "next generation cells" what does 'next generation' mean here. Sounds like something you'd hear on advertising.

 Done

• "In July 2014, Panasonic reached a basic agreement with Tesla to participate in Giga Nevada" participate in what way?

 Done

• Unlike many traditional manufacturers, Tesla operates as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), manufacturing powertrain components for other automakers. Tesla has had partnerships with other auto manufacturers, such as Daimler and Toyota. this is unsourced.

 Done I removed the sentence altogether as it is difficult to source: it was just a summary of the following sections. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Aabar is an Abu Dhabi government investment vehicle" I'm not sure 'vehicle' is the best term given the context and may cause some confusion.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuits and controversies

• "According to the legal advocacy website PlainSite, Tesla has been party to 620 lawsuits as of June 2019" this should be updated.

 Done

• "Ongoing cases include Musk's "Funding secured" tweet, CEO performance award, the acquisition of SolarCity, and allegations of whistleblower retaliation." could you please confirm to me that these are actually still ongoing?

As far as I can tell, they are all still ongoing. I am sure that the text will be updated as soon as new information comes in about the results of the lawsuits, given the attention this article gets. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "The tweet caused a furor on social media" among whom? Also, I thin it should be 'furore' not 'furor'?

 Done removed the sentence.

• According to the terms of the settlement: Musk was removed from his chairman role at Tesla temporarily; Tesla and Musk paid civil penalties of $20 million each; two new independent directors were appointed to the company's board; and Musk agreed to have his tweets reviewed by Tesla's in-house counsel. I'm not sure what's going on with all of these colons and semi-colons. I don't think they're being used correctly and you might want to re-write the sentence.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "A civil class-action shareholder lawsuit over Musk's statements is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California" Is it still pending?

I am not sure how to check this information. For now I just mentioned that it was filed, without specifying if still pending. I also summarized the sentence. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• Shareholders filed seven lawsuits challenging the acquisition. The consolidated lawsuit alleges that Musk knew SolarCity was going broke before the acquisition, that he and the board of directors overpaid for SolarCity, ignored their conflicts of interest and breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the deal, and failed to disclose “troubling facts” essential to an analysis of the proposed acquisition. there are a lot of claims here and I think for the sake of safety, there should be more than one reference.

 Done summarized, added a reference, and updated --Ita140188 (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Over 100 dissatisfied Dutch Tesla owners have formed a foundation in order to sue Tesla over difficulty getting service for their vehicles." any more details on this?

I could not find updated information from reliable sources on whether the lawsuit was actually filed, so I deleted the sentence. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I found several sources discussing the foundation but none have been updated since December. I will add references to List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc. until new information is released. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• You should provide the full expansion of FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) when first mentioned, with FBI in brackets.

 Done

• "A stockholder class action lawsuit related to Model 3 production numbers was dismissed in Tesla's favor in March 2019" is this linked directly to the FBI investigation?

 Done it is unrelated, although it is about the same controversy. This was clarified. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• You might want to clarify that the fires at the Walmarts were just roof fires.

 Done

• There's also a whole host of other sources with plenty of information on the matter: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. I'm suspecting the matter is more serious than the article currently suggests.

What do you suggest to add? I think it would be more appropriate to add the details article specifically about lawsuits: List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc.. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Tesla’s Security team" should the S be a capital here?

 Done Made lowercase. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• I was intending to write specifically about the sources used in this article later, but this sentence: "In September 2019, a California judge ruled that Musk and other Tesla executives have been illegally sabotaging employee efforts to form a union." reads just like the source provided [25] (only a couple of words were changed).

 Done Rewrote and included additional information. QRep2020 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Slate ranked Tesla number 14 on their "Evil List" of most dangerous tech companies in 2020" this is the view of only one media site, and I would consider it poor practice to include it in this prominence at the start of the sub section. Please give your opinion on this.

 Done I moved the mention into the subsection area. QRep2020 (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to place this in its own subsection. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I took your original points to indicate that the list was still worthy of mention somewhere in the article so I am not sure where else to put it. Would deriving a general statement about Tesla appearing on such kinds of lists work in the Controversies introduction? I am overly cautious about WP:SYNTH these days. QRep2020 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it shouldn't be in the introductory area to the section, but it would be a little weird just on its own in its section so it should either be removed or added into a section where the reasoning in the source agrees with the content in the article. The source says: One evil thing: Tesla has been criticized for using the term “autopilot” to describe its vehicles’ less-than-autonomous driver-assist feature, since drivers may put too much faith in a feature that is not meant to do the work for them (to occasionally fatal results). It also sells that as-yet-nonfunctioning “full self-driving” mode even though the rest of the autonomous vehicle industry now concedes such a thing is years or decades away. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. A lot is said about Tesla all the time, and the inclusion in a "Evil list" by one source is not relevant enough for this article. It is already cited in the main article about controversies. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• You say "In September 2019, a California judge ruled that Musk and other Tesla executives broke 12 labor laws in 2017 and 2018 when they sabotaged employee attempts to unionize." but a read of this reference [26], shows that it was twelve company actions which broke labor laws, not twelve labor laws that were broken.

 Done Doh. Fixed. QRep2020 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Outside of the courts, Tesla has been the subject of other public controversies, ranging from accounting issues to workers' safety complaints." not sure of the need for this.

 Done removed.

• Clarification for what "the SEC" are.

 Done

• "At the onset of and during the pandemic, CEO Elon Musk repeatedly downplayed its risks." this is unsourced, and I'd say that making claims like this needs at least three or four references, especially to show repetition.

 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Fremont factory" the F in factory should be capitalised.

 Done

• Wikilink to CNBC and this should be in italics.

 Done

• Capitalise f in factory again. Or maybe it shouldn't be? I don't know.

 Done

• Per WP:BALANCE, see [27] and [28]. You might want to expand this accordingly.

 Done thank you very much for the thorough review, I had missed this! I added this information. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's some more examples of uncapitalised fs in factory, I'm getting really confused now.

 Done I capitalized Factory when it refers to Fremont Factory. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see evidence in this source that "Environmental violations and permit deviations at Tesla's Fremont factory increased dramatically from 2018 to 2019". Perhaps it needs to be rephrased to say that there were violations but not that they had "increased dramatically".

The source does mention a dramatic increase: Like many manufacturing facilities Tesla’s Fremont plant has had a smattering of environmental noncompliance issues in the past, including two that that the company in the past year by paying fines to BAAQMD and the EPA. But the rate of deviations and violations jumped dramatically starting in 2018, as Tesla scrambled to stand up production lines for Model 3 and a series of fires at the factory drew increased regulator scrutiny. Though Tesla has emerged from the Model 3 “production hell” that apparently contributed to at least some of these violations

--Ita140188 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• You say that "there have been frequent fires since 2014" yet when I look at this source it says that "no fewer than four fires had taken place at Fremont’s paint shop since 2014." It could be argued that this isn't "frequent" and that the person who wrote this statement gave their opinion on this, which isn't right. If you think it does constitute 'frequent', then please let me know.

 Done You are right. To avoid any interpretation, I just cited the facts as they are reported. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• You say "The United States Environmental Protection Agency also investigated Tesla for violations of the Clean Air Act," whereas when I look at this source I see it says Investigators from the Environmental Protection Agency have joined the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in assessing Tesla's Clean Air Act compliance at its Fremont, California plant, The Drive has learned. EPA investigators have performed off-site partial compliance evaluations for the Fremont facility twice since last December, suggesting that the Title V permit compliance issues that Tesla recently downplayed in a public statement have attracted interest beyond the local regulator which is currently negotiating penalties for 19 notices of violation. To me, this looks like an inspection/assessment of the site to see whether it complied with the act as opposed to an investigation into violations of the act, which are two separate things.

 Done I removed the sentence. This information is hardly encyclopedic. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• There is a reoccurring theme of disappointing use of sources here. I'm thinking about declining the GAN off of this as it raises some serious issues about the validity of the article. We might be getting into hot water if these claims aren't accurate, as well.

@Willbb234: I will thoroughly revise the whole section. I haven't written almost any of this myself, and I should have paid more attention to it. I have mostly focused on the rest of the article. Please allow me to correct this before deciding on declining, as we both invested much time and effort in this. Thanks. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That specific section of the article has been a bit volatile so I am not surprised that some weird statements crept in when Ita140188 was not looking. I have done some major edits to the remaining subsections of Controversies to remove the unsourced claims and ask that you please continue your assessment. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• The statement on Giga New York could do with another one or two sources.

 Done QRep2020 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "with over 20% of its stock was shorted" this doesn't sounds quite right, how about "with over 20% of its stock being shorted"?

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Vehicle product issues

• "Tesla vehicles have received coverage for fires (both crash and non-crash related) as well as crashes involving the use of the Autopilot driver assistance system." I'm not sure this sentence is needed.

 Done removed. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The NHTSA is only introduced in the this section but it's written about in the controversies section. It should be introduced the first time it's mentioned then referred to as NHTSA from that point on.

 Done

• "after the automaker said it would provide more protection to its battery packs" saying 'the automaker' seems very strange here when Tesla is the automaker so this should be changed.

 Done

• There's lots of mentions about the NHTSA opening up investigations about vehicle issues, but none of these come to any conclusion. Is there anything more you can find on this?

NHTSA investigations can take years from my understanding. I did check to see if there were any updates. We can put a notice on the Talk page to check periodically maybe. QRep2020 (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• "In March 2018, an Apple engineer was killed in a crash in a Tesla Model X." I'm not sure that it's relevant that he's an Apple engineer. Perhaps just the 'a driver' or something like that.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure 'delays' would come under 'Vehicle product issues'

 Done Moved up to Controversies.

• "Tesla has been criticized for repeatedly delaying both production and release of products." From a quick read of the two sources provided, it seems this is more Musk's doing, so perhaps saying Musk instead of Tesla would be more appropriate.

 Done Changed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• "An analyst with Cowan and Company, a public relations firm, made this comment: "Elon Musk needs to stop over promising and under delivering"." I don't think this opinion should be here, firstly because it's just 'an analyst' and secondly because I wouldn't consider this firm a reliable source.

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Delivery dates for Model 3 slipped as well." I don't think 'slipped' is an appropriate word. Also more details should be included.

 Done Changed and details added. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this criticism is harsh. It appears that other manufacturers have done the same things, particularly with regards to self driving [29][30]. We're talking about very new and modern technology here and to present it in this light is somewhat unfair.

 Done Removed autonomous driving part. QRep2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• The software hacking section is fine how it is, but consider the fact that a bog-standard car can be hot-wired meaning perhaps this critisicm is once again a little harsh.

I think the key difference is that once access is gained, hackers can control the car just through their computer, and without access to the actual car controls in the cabin, which is fundamentally different from a traditional car. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Vehicle sales

• This section needs reorganising into chronological order.

I removed outdated information from the section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• "Countries other than United States do not protect dealers" This statement is wrong for many reasons. Firstly, what countries? Secondly, what protection? And thirdly, I question the factual accuracy of the statement.

 Done Removed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps this criticism belongs in another section.

 Done I moved the "Dealership disputes" to the Controversies section. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Citation needed tag [31] needs addressing.

 Done Removed. I believe you asked us to confirm that statement's validity and Ita140188 replied with "As far as I can tell, they are all still ongoing. I am sure that the text will be updated as soon as new information comes in about the results of the lawsuits, given the attention this article gets." QRep2020 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Finances

• As has been discussed on this talk page, the Bitcoin investment seems pretty significant (albeit not enough to change the company from being clean energy). I would suggest more information on this investment be included in the article. Here are some refs to demonstrate significant coverage. [32], [33], [34], [35].

@Willbb234: Yes I agree, this is relevant. I added a sentence also in the history section. I am not sure if we should add even more information other than the sentence already in this section? It seems another controversy has just started (about bitcoin being not very environmentally friendly) so maybe we should update the Controversies section too. What do you think? --Ita140188 (talk) 03:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ita140188 I don't think there has been enough controversy surrounding this, and I think the criticism for Bitcoin's emissions is still quite speculative [36]. You can add it if you want though becuase there' probably enough media coverage. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm pretty much done reading through the article. I will do any more reviews of the sources, images, and anything else that catches my attention over the weekend. Sorry for the delay. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Refs, images, and other stuff

• [37] dated 'as of December 31, 2019'. This ref is used in the infobox to show that Musk owns 20.8%, but this is quite out of date so this might have changed.

 Done replaced with more recent source --Ita140188 (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if [38] (ref 9) this is reliable.

 Done removed the three references in the infobox that did not seem to refer to anything in particular --Ita140188 (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 11 and 12 are to Twitter and youtube so should probably not be used, if possible.

These are used in the text to report the statement of Musk himself, so I think it should be ok per WP:PRIMARY. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• [39] (ref 15), has been widely used, but I don't think it's reliable.

 Done removed and replaced with more reliable sources --Ita140188 (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 17 is to youtube

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 20 ([40]) was written by Musk himself.

This source is used to report Tesla's declared intended strategy and its aim, so I think it should be fine to use per WP:PRIMARY. --Ita140188 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 34 needs to be expanded and is a dead link.

 Done removed the ref, since the other one from Bloomberg already covers this information --Ita140188 (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 48 needs expanding.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 56 needs expanding.

 Done

• Ref 123, 124 needs expanding.

 Done

• Ref 127 needs dating.

 Done

• I don't think ref 148 [41] is reliable.

 Done removed. There is another reference to support the claims already --Ita140188 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• There's a few inconsistencies. For example I've seen 'wsj.com', 'WSJ', and 'Wall Street Journal' all used to refer to the same media company. this doesn't need fixing, as it really doesn't matter, but if you have some spare time on your hands you might want to fix it.
• Ref 194, 195 need expanding.

 Done

• Ref 200 is dead link and needs expanding.

 Done replaced

• Not sure if ref 201 [42] is reliable and it's also very dated.

 Done

• Ref 201 [43] author is wrong. Also, I'm not sure if it's reliable as it looks like a blog site.

 Done removed as unnecessary --Ita140188 (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 227 author is wrong. Also, I can't seem to open the link, let me know if you are able.

 Done removed the sentence, could not find reliable non primary sources for the number.

• Ref 232, see 2 bullet points above for same issue.

 Done removed as unnecessary

• Ref 233 [44] needs author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Please note: you have removed some references, so the reference numbers will be lower than what I have said here
• Ref 240 [45] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 242 [46] needs author.

 Done

• ref 249 [47] needs author. You can see this by scrolling to the bottom of the page (Jacob Marsh)

 Done

• Ref 259 [48] needs author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 260 [49] looks like a primary source.

 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if ref 267 [50] is reliable because it looks primary.

What do you mean by primary in this case? It is a peer-reviewed scientific article --Ita140188 (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry should have clarified. It looks like a Primary source, instead of a secondary source which is generally preferred on Wikipedia. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 274 [51] same issue as ref 201 (see above).

 Done removed

• Ref 275 [52] needs author.

 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this might be a better source as it seems like some Germans are actively trying to stop the summer 2021 date: https://sifted.eu/articles/tesla-gigafactory-berlin/. QRep2020 (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure if ref 285 [53] is reliable.

 Done replaced--Ita140188 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 294 [54] authorship needs to be fixed. Looks like a slight refill issue.

 Done

• Ref 308 [55] is to youtube.

 Done removed

• Ref 309 [56] needs expanding. Also, authorship is wrong.

 Done replaced --Ita140188 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 312 [57], 313 [58] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 315 [59] needs format fixing. I believe there's a pipe (|) missing.

 Done

• Not sure if ref 316 [60] is reliable.

 Done replaced

• Ref 317 [61] needs author.

 Done

• I know this is quite a bit to do, so please take your time.
• Ref 308 needs fixing - 'no italics or bold'

I think this has been fixed?

• Ref 319 is a dead link and I don't think it looks reliable considering it's a primary source.

Not sure what this refers to anymore --Ita140188 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done removed X-Editor (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 324 from 'The Daily Green' is dead.

 Done removed

• Ref 330 [62] is a forum post so definitely not reliable.

 Done

• Ref 343 [63] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 345 [64] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 350 [65] needs author which can be seen at bottom of the page.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 353 [66] needs author.

 Done

• Ref 363 [67] and 364 [68] need authors.

 Done

• Ref 366 [69] needs author.

 Done

• Refs 374-378 all need authors.

 Done

• Ref 381 [70] is to youtube.

 Done removed --Ita140188 (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for the conclusion of the discussion about the source on the talk page before I'll approve the references. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Although not for me to judge, I think Electrek is fine for non controversial information about Tesla, which is the way it is used in almost all cases in this article. I think the factual accuracy of the reporting is not in question. Of course being a publication devoted to promoting electric vehicles, the editorial opinion is clear. On the other hand, if we were to remove all references from Electrek, many statements would be impossible to verify from independent reliable sources (as I think Electrek is the most reliable among those that report this much detail) and a lot of the information in this article would need to be deleted. I don't think a decision like this should be based on one or two critical articles. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Images

Generally look fine.

• I think a ref is needed for the image captioned "Tesla Motor's showroom in Aoyama, Tokyo, which was the first showroom opened in Japan."

 Done

• This caption "First deliveries of Model S at the Tesla Factory in Fremont, California" could do with a date.

 Done--Ita140188 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comments

• I think I previously mentioned this, but the article is still quite fragmented. I think you did some work to try and fix this, but the areas I still see are the 'Model S' section, 'Cybertruck' section, 'Software updates and upgrades' section, and 'Deployments' section. I think a bit more could be done to combine the small paragraphs into one or two larger paragraphs, if that makes sense.

 Done I combined several small paragraphs

• Just a suggestion, but there's got to be more books on Tesla which could be included in the 'Further reading' section.

 Done added a book. It seems there are no other notable books specifically about Tesla as far as I can tell (a lot of pseudo-self-published ones though).

• Also ref 1 [71] needs an author.

 Done --Ita140188 (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ita140188 there doesn't seem to be anymore going on at the cleantechnica.com discussion so I think I'll go ahead and pass this for GA. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There was some issues with too technical language or language that didn't make sense, but these issues have been addressed. The article has been trimmed where appropriate to make it concise. Any spelling or grammar issues were either fixed by myself, User:Willbb234, or User:Ita140188.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section went through formatting changes and paragraphs were combined. Other sections which were fragmented have been combined. There were issues with WP:WEASEL words, but these have been fixed. In general, the article adheres to WP:MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There were close to no unsourced statements when I came to the article, and any issues were fixed. There were some issues relating to how closely the content in the article followed the cited content, but these were also fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	All references were checked and any unreliable sources were flagged and removed. There is currently a discussion (which seems to have stalled) relating to the reliability of a source that was cited 15 times in the article. Contentious material, particularly that relating to the lawsuits and controversies was checked closer for consistency with sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As above. Sufficient inline citations.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	33.8% violation unlikely, especially considering said source was from the government so is in the public domain.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The coverage is wide and covers all main aspects of the company. The history section could be longer, but is sufficient.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There were some issues with how the criticisms of the company were presented, especially when the content wasn't completely consistent with the source, but the issues have been addressed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is currently semi-protected and is also monitored by a number of experienced editors. The high traffic to this article results in issues relating to addition or removal of content without consensus, but these issues, from what I have seen are sorted out.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Checked and fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There were two points I made about the captions, and these were fixed. The images are all relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	I initially had some issues relating to this article, most notably the use of poor sources and poor formatting, but Ita140188 has put in a lot of work to sort these issues. I can't blame them for nominating the article with a number of issues when the article is so large and needs a pair of fresh eyes to pick out the issues. I'd also like to thank QRep2020 for their involvement. Well deserved and happy editing.

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)

[72], [73], [74], [75]. 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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} 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 Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#Cleantechnica 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, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} 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. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} 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)

@Greglocock: 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.

@Ita140188:

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)

@JShark: 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)

@Ita140188: 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)

 On hold. 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#Reverted_Updated_lead_to_reflect_change_of_job_title --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)

 Done, 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)

 Done ––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)

 Done 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.#Racism and harassment. 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. [76][77] -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

 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

{{ubl
 | [[Robyn Denholm]] ([[Chairman|Chair]]) 
 | [[Elon Musk]] ([[Chief executive officer|CEO]])
 | [[Zach Kirkhorn]] ([[Chief financial officer|CFO]])
 | [[Drew Baglino]] ([[Chief technology officer|CTO]])
}}

to

{{ubl
 | [[Robyn Denholm]] ([[Chairman|Chair]]) 
 | [[Elon Musk]] ([[Chief executive officer|CEO]]) {{efn|CEO otherwise known as Technoking <ref name=Bloomberg-kmahgu33> {{cite news |url= https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-15/musk-adds-technoking-of-tesla-title-cfo-is-master-of-coin-kmahgu33 |title= Musk Adds ‘Technoking of Tesla’ Title; CFO Is Coin ‘Master’ |authors= Dana Hull; Anders Melin; |date= 15 March 2021 |publisher= Bloomberg }} </ref><ref name=SEC-1318605-000156459021012981/>}}
 | [[Zach Kirkhorn]] ([[Chief financial officer|CFO]]) {{efn|CFO otherwise known as Master of Coin <ref name=Bloomberg-kmahgu33/><ref name=SEC-1318605-000156459021012981> {{cite web |url= https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459021012981/tsla-8k_20210315.htm |title= FORM 8-K |author= Tesla, Inc. |publisher= U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission |date= 15 March 2021 }} </ref>  }}
 | [[Drew Baglino]] ([[Chief technology officer|CTO]])
}}

which results in

• Robyn Denholm (Chair)
• Elon Musk (CEO)
• Zach Kirkhorn (CFO)
• Drew Baglino (CTO)

Notes

References

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

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.#Founding_(2003–2004). 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#Founders 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)

 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.

References

@JShark: 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:

• 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)

--2800:E2:1C80:35D:6CBE:B74:298B:F514 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

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 Surge Of Reason) 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)

@Surge Of Reason: 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)

@Ita140188: 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)

 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 [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.#Founding (2003–2004). 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

2601:249:9100:41c0:2443:dff2:f9f4:a6a8 (talk · contribs) 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)

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

 Not done 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 "as of December 2022" 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'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, there is no formal definition of founder/co-founder - see Organizational founder#Legal status. 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)

 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 Wolf^Talk_{Blaze 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)

 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)

 Done 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:

• Optimus (robot).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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)

 Done 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)