Talk:Tesla, Inc.

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 201 Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nanjingnan123 (article contribs).

Good article reassessment

Tesla, Inc.

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

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Closing as no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I reviewed this article back in February 2021 and I now believe that the article is too unstable to remain a GA. There were edit wars in May and March 2023. There was a period of heavy editing back in October 2022 which included countless reverts and changes ([1]). The article recently underwent some significant changes in the space of a couple of weeks and continues to be edited heavily. Since I reviewed the article it has increased in size by over 2 thousand words and in Wikitext size by nearly 50k. Ahsoo1122 11:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

As stability doesn't often come up in GAR discussions, I'll ping the coords @WP:GAR coordinators: and ask for their opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

So, something being unstable (inheritly or not) is not a reason to delist. We need to asertain that the articles new text is suitably far from the criteria for delisting. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I will take a more thorough look at the article this afternoon. A first glance and it seems that the article has changed significantly from the reviewed version, so I find it likely that the article will have moved further from meeting the criteria. Willbb234 11:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with Lee's comment above. Instability isn't a reason to delist in and of itself, but it may indicate other issues are present. I just skimmed the article and it appears to be very well cited. I do see an awful lot of one-sentence paragraphs and PROSELINE, but I'm not sure that alone would merit delisting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Also agree with Lee V.'s assessment. We could introduce some sentence connectives here and there to help with the flow, but the information and the sourcing are relevant and appropriate. QRep2020 (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources During my source review in the initial review, I think I failed to properly question the reliability of all the references or some potentially unreliable sources have been added in the time since. Here is a list of sources which might not meet reliability requirements:

• Ref 8 [2]. Unsure if Teslarati has an editorial process in place [3].
• Ref 21 [4]. Self-published source. Content in question does not meet WP:SELFPUB.
• Ref 41 [5]. Same reasoning as ref 8.
• Ref 103 [6] is a blog.
• Ref 121 and 207 [7][8] same site as ref 8.
• Ref 149 [9]. What evidence is there that this data is reliable.
• Ref 175 [10] is primary.
• Ref 202 and 350 [11][12] appear to be a blog site.
• Ref 216 [13]. No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 307 [14]. Unable to access, but appears to be a blog site. Url now directs to a Turkish gsmbling site.
• Ref 328 [15]. No evidence of an editorial process.
• Ref 359 [16]. Deadlink. Unsure of reliability of the site.
• Refs 395, 397 and 399 are primary.
• Ref 403 [17] likely a blog.
• Ref 431 [18]. Blog.
• Ref 440 [19]. Foreign language. Can't verify reliability.
• Ref 442 [20] is a social media site.
• Numerous sources have an editorial team, but no other indication of reliability: Green Car Reports, Road and Track, Green Car Congress, Tech Briefs, Tesla North, Mining.com, Torque News, Transport Evolved, CSO, Daily Kanban, ZDNet, The Drive (used lots of times).
• Lots of reliance on the source Elecrek, which is at the least a questionable source [21]. A single author, Fred Lambert, has written 29 of the sources in use in this article. This needs to be discussed at the very least. Nom defended this in the review [22], but I'm not so convinced. It appears it's come up in other talk page discussions as well.
• Lots of references missing authorship and there is inconsistent wikilinking and formatting throughout the references.

Stopped at ref 450 because this was taking too long. I think the problem here is that a significant proportion of the article is based on sources which we don't know are reliable and need to be discussed on a case-by-case basis which could potentially take some time. Of course there's some blatant issues here like this source which looks a lot like TikTok. Of course, this can be removed in a few seconds but if there's more issues like this that have fallen through the cracks, then the article surely can't be up to GA standards.

Prose

• The vehicle models section has been trimmed quite significantly from the reviewed version. I question whether this takes away from WP:GACR point 3 as it reduces the breadth of coverage, especially when the vehicle models should be covered in reasonable depth and breadth.
• WP:PROSELINE is an issue and the lead seems fragmented. Other formatting issues need addressing to improve readability.

Stability

• I understand the point about stability not being a reason to delist simply because the article is unstable. However, it is safe to assume that the article will continue to be unstable given previous editing pattern and thus it is difficult to predict whether the article will continue to meet the GA criteria in the future. If social media sites continue to be used as sources and not removed, then I highly doubt that the article can remain of GA status.

I'm happy to discuss this further and look for more evidence. The issue with an article of this length is there is so much content to try and work through, as I found in my initial review. Willbb234 12:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

At 11663 words, 74902 characters, the article is past the point at which trimming and/or splitting off content would be clearly reasonable, per WP:SIZE. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the above, @Lee Vilenski and QRep2020:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

We could trim here and there, of course, but nothing that warrants a reassessment. The company receives near constant attention in the media and invites controversy at every turn, naturally its article will be long. QRep2020 (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the main issue raised above was the quality of the sourcing, QRep2020. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I have complained about the article's overreliance on Electrek in the past, but the website has grown less partial to Tesla and Musk in recent years. The primary, tesla.com-based sources are minimal and the cited industry news sites seem reliable enough to me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask @WP:GAR coordinators: to close this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm having trouble closing this on consensus, so I thought I'd add my thoughts. The issues raised in this discussion were stability, writing and layout, sourcing, and overall size. While each may or may not (as has been mentioned) be enough of an issue on their own, they are not alone which suggests a higher level of work would bee needed. In addition to the sourcing, at least some of which seems to have been improved, the aforementioned WP:PROSELINE issues remain significant throughout the article (relatedly, the table of contents is over two screens long!). I would assess this as quite far from the GACR, and agree with a delist. CMD (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd also point out that while Electrek has not been directly reviewed, it's parent company 9to5 has been given a 100% score by NewsGuard for adhering to all of that organization's to standards of credibility and transparency. I'd say its up to the level of many trade publications at this point. Because of it's focus on one industry, it can come across as somewhat partial to that industry, but I have seen skepticism in recent years, especially of Musk's statements. But we use trade publications because they have a level of intimacy with an industry to be able to offer in depth and frequent coverage. As to the PROSELINE issues, it's valid, but I think it's unavoidable with a company with Tesla's stature. Inexperienced editors will always come in and add the latest factoid to the history section. It's incumbent on more experienced editors to come in every so often and convert the proseline into actual prose. I don't see these issues as disqualifying for GA status. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

"Elon 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.[20]"

The citation leads here:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-07-30/power-play-tesla-book-review

with archive here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210802080819/https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/books/story/2021-07-30/power-play-tesla-book-review

No text in either version of this article supports either assertion in the quoted text. Neither Musk's involvement in the Roadster nor his non-involvement in the day-to-day business operations of Tesla are even discussed in the article. It *may* be the case that the contents of the book this article is very roughly summarizing contain this information, but there is no support whatsoever for the quoted statement in its purported citation. If book offers support for either or both assertions, then the book should be cited so that it can be examined.

There is similar text in the "History of Tesla" page, and it cites a difference source, a now dead link on Tesla's own page. There is no provided archive.

Finally, the text itself, even if it were supported by the citation, literally does not cohere. The early years of Tesla were entirely about designing, developing and pre-selling the Roadster. They didn't do any other things. It is physically impossible for Musk to have been intimately involved in the design of the Roadster but not involved in the "day to day" business operations of Tesla at that time. There were no other business operations at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.229.55 (talk) 09:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Investigators discover hazardous waste violations at more than 100 facilities

I'm not sure how to include this, please do add it in wherever you think is best

• https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/3/24058476/tesla-hazardous-waste-suit-settlement-california

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Canceled black-owned business order

Tesla canceled an order they placed at a black-owned business when they requested 4,000 small pies from The Giving Pies. This is notable because Tesla has had allegations of discrimination against black employees and this is a black-owned business during black history month. Because of the pattern of alleged anti-black sentiment at the company, the Giving Pies incident has been covered in SFGate, NBC, Mercury News, The Guardian, People, and dozens of other sources.

This should be added to the “Lawsuits and controversies” section. 172.59.0.165 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like some middle-management type at Tesla made an order that they weren't authorised to do. That's bad on Tesla but at least Musk has "promised" to make good. Be careful about saying it was a racist thing. The articles you listed only say that it was a black-owned business and do not say that it was a race inspired incident - not ruling it out, we just need a reliable source that explicitly says so. Wait a week or so and see if Musk does make good.  Stepho  talk  21:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've seen no articles stating that race was a consideration. Likely anyone that says it is, is invoking pure speculation. War (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Tesla paid the shop 2,000 USD when the total price was either 6,000 USD or 16,000 USD: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-pays-bakery-tesla-pies-canceled-black-history-order-2024-2 QRep2020 (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"many controversial statements" at the end of the lead and 'paying back the loan 10 years early'

I added back "nearly 10 years early" a few minutes after QRep removed it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tesla,_Inc.&diff=prev&oldid=1216267080 Seems like a notable bit of info to me. I also removed "many" from this sentence at the end of the lead: "and Musk's many controversial statements." It seems unnecessary and makes the article sound biased. Tikaboo (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

What makes this fact notable?

Here are some sources that took it upon themselves to describe Musk's controversial statements as many or numerous:

https://theweek.com/elon-musk/1022182/elon-musks-most-controversial-moments

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/elon-musks-most-controversial-moments-through-the-years/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/elon-musk-twitter-terrible-things-hes-said-and-done

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-twitter

https://www.investopedia.com/how-elon-musk-uses-twitter-5270368

QRep2020 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In this case am I correct in thinking Tesla was the only one the paid it back so early? Or even early at all? As for "many controversial statements" I'm sure I can find just as many sources they don't use "many", the only point I'm making is that it seems superfluous. Tikaboo (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that in the original source?

But do any of them say there aren't many or describe the sum total of controversies as an unsubstantial amount? QRep2020 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've seen sources specifically mention that Tesla paid it back early, I don't know if they were the only ones that did so. So others certainly find it notable enough to mention.

I'm not saying we should say that the controversial statements are unsubstantial, just that it should say "controversial statements". It's already plural, tacking on "many" seems unnecessary. Tikaboo (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Rfc regarding Tesla's founders

This Rfc comes to resolve an ongoing impasse as to who should be listed as the founders for Tesla Inc. One argument states that only Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning should be designated as the founders because they originally incorporated the company which ultimately became Tesla Inc. Another argument states that Elon Musk, Ian Wright and J.B. Straubel should also be included as founders because a lawsuit settlement agreement stipulated that they should be designated as "co-founders". Bearing this in mind, which figures (if any) should be listed as founders in the infobox section? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney, Stonkaments, Stepho-wrs, QRep2020, and MartinezMD:Emiya1980 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Continue to list in infobox as a redirect to section. This is far too complex a discussion to include in the infobox which is supposed to a brief summary. That’s why the stable solution was just to point readers to the section of the article that places it all in the proper context. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

State Eberhard and Tarpenning as the founders, link to section with "(See § Founding)". Eberhard and Tarpenning founded the company, no question there. The complexity of the "founder" titles situation though necessitates a link to the section with the appropriate details. QRep2020 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I think QRep200's proposal sounds like a fair compromise. Just because Elon Musk and his cronies are the current owners of Tesla does not give them carte blanche to rewrite the company's history. Facts are facts. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

FFS, do we have to revisit this over and over and over?

There is no formal definition of "founder", so there is no "facts is facts" argument.

Yes, Eberhard and Tarpenning registered the company - that is what many people think a founder is. But again, no formal definition. And even those 2 with the most to lose/gain agreed to 5 founders.

There is an argument that E+T started a teeny weeny struggling company but that Musk brought in enough money (his and others) to make it a financially viable company.

After the law case they all agreed there were 5 founders - no formal definition but if those directly involved (with various degrees of finance and reputation) all agree then who are you to disagree.:::No matter which way you choose for the infobox there will be Musk fanboys and Musk haters saying to change it the other, no matter how many explanations you put in.

Its complicated - there is no right answer. The current infobox solution is our best compromise for a no-right-answer situation.

Search for "founder" in archives 2 and 3 for many previous discussions. Do you have anything that wasn't said before?

Leave the damn thing alone and find something productive to do.  Stepho  talk  05:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually, there is a formal definition of what constitutes a founder. Wikipedia's organizational founder article defines a founder as "a person who has undertaken some or all of the formational work needed to create a new organization, whether it is a business, a charitable organization, a governing body, a school, a group of entertainers, or any other type of organization." Likewise, Oxford American Dictionary defines the verb, "found", as "to establish , to originate, to provide money for starting (an institution)." Musk may be responsible for building Tesla into a successful company but he was not present at let alone involved in its creation. That is what constitutes a founder. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, there is a court ruling striking down Eberard's and Tarpenning's argument that they were the company's sole founders. However, this is hardly conclusive. Judicial precedent is always changing. Just recently in 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade's long accepted rationale that having an abortion was an inalienable right enforceable in every state. Moreover, given that the ruling on Tesla's founding is not a SCOTUS decision but that of a mere county court, whose to say the legal argument it based its decision on will not be overturned by a higher court involving a case of similar facts?

Additionally, the terms of a settlement agreement is hardly definitive proof that both sides in fact reached a genuine meeting of the minds. Many variables come into play in a plaintiff's decision to settle. It often has little to do with an actual change of heart on why they filed the suit in the first place.

Finally, fear of disruptive editing by a bunch of internet trolls who are Musk fans is no argument for defending a flagrantly dishonest claim. It's the equivalent of removing all mention of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election for fear of earning the ire of Trump supporters who insist (in the face of all evidence to the contrary) that the election was stolen. There is always the risk of angering people who disagree with you. The only question is whether you can back up your claim with objective sources and corroborate that they are reliable before a majority of editors. Once that consensus is obtained, it cannot be overturned unless those who oppose it go through proper channels and can convince a sufficient number of editors that enough evidence exists to bring the previous decision into question.Emiya1980 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Responding to RfC.

First - I agree that it's unreal that so much can verbiage can be expended on an issue like this but it's how Wikipedia works. No issue is ever really settled and it is very frustrating.

Second - Whose 'fault' is that? Everyone things it's the other guy. The basis we work on is good faith. Please stick with assuming good faith so, in this case, best leave the issue of Musk lovers and haters who may or may not edit here alone. It is irrelevant.

Third - The courts decision may be overturned but any party to it who decides that they regret their acquiescence has had fourteen years to try and overturn it and haven't - so saying it is "hardly conclusive" is a is a very poor argument.

The unchallenged agreement of all the parties on exactly the issue of who founded is the best, most definitive, thing we are ever likely to get with something like this.

So the founders are (by their own unchallenged mutual agreement) five in number and there is no reason for not including all of them in the info box. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to only include two, and readers can see the first section very fast anyway. Support all 5 without the section link if possible since these people were indeed integral to the success, otherwise leave nothing and just link. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The language of the agreement - what is known publicly about it at least - centers on "co-founder" status though. That's a critical point of contention from all of the previous Talk page discussions. QRep2020 (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't co-founder just mean there's multiple founders? "Co-" is not a synonym for "Vice". Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

https://foundersnetwork.com/blog/founder-vs-cofounder/ QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

But all of them call themselves co-founders. There's nothing where one of the two and one of the others in the five appear at the same time and one of them calls himself a founder Aaron Liu (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That article only confuses things further: "a founder is a person who establishes a business, turning profitable ideas into actual profit." So you're not a founder if you don't turn an idea into actual profit? By that definition, there's a lot of non-founders out there. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said above - it's complicated.

foundersnetwork.com is just a company that helps startups - presumably for a fee. I see nothing that makes their opinion official.

"undertaken some or all of the formational work needed to create a new organization" could be applied to any of the 5 or not depending on further definitions. Formational is vague. Create is vague. It just means those involved in the early days. It's complicated.

"found", "to establish", "to originate", "to provide money for starting" is also vague. E+T registered the company. Musk brought in money. The other 2 certainly helped establish the early company. It's complicated.

The infobox is meant to summarise things in simple terms - so that you see things at a glance. When it's complicated it should either be silent or simply point to the fuller argument.

If you make the infobox say "E+T but see below" then you will get Musk fanboys saying he MUST, MUST, MUST be in the infobox.

If you make the infobox say all 5 then you will get Musk haters saying he must NOT, NOT, NOT be in the infobox. And because the term founder/cofounder is not well defined, both sides will find various definitions and declarations, etc to support their argument. Both sides will be right and both sides will be wrong. It's complicated.

For what it is worth, I favour the 5 founders view. But because it is complicated I am quite happy to not say that in the infobox. WP:CONFLICTING is an essay suggesting that we just present both viewpoints and leave it to the reader - which is what we already do.

Did I say that it's complicated? Better put it in another time - it's complicated !  Stepho  talk  23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything in the world that makes the use of a word "official" or not. What I provided was an example of 'co-founder' and 'founder' being used in a non-synonymous manner. And it is one of many examples. QRep2020 (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

1. The dictionary disagrees.
2. But all of them call themselves co-founders. There's nothing where one of the two and one of the others in the five appear at the same time and one of them calls himself a founder, so whether there's a difference is moot. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Since when do dictionaries officiate anything? "The lexicographer is an empirical scientist", not a world-builder.

Who cares what they call themselves? Musk calls himself a technoking, yet the article rightfully ascribes to him the title of CEO. QRep2020 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Tesla or any RS uses the terms non-synonymously. I'm sure that none of us here will consider your argument until you provide much more evidence to the contrary. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Continue to list in Infobox as redirect to section. As one of the first things people see in an article, the infobox is analogous to the lead. We should strive to be matter of fact and not overly contentious. The infobox should also be streamlined. It should be as concrete and straightforward as possible. The various perspectives, issues, and litigation regarding founding are best handled in the article body. Trying to distill too much into Infobox fields also creates perpetual disagreement in edits. Better to keep this material to the body where it can be expressed with nuance, different views, and attributed as necessary JArthur1984 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

State Eberhard and Tarpenning as the founders; also link to section. Those two are clearly, factually founders. It's not WP's job to present "legal fictions" as if they are reality, and to the extent other people like Musk are sometimes claimed to be founders based on such a legal fiction, that should be covered in the article body and is not infobox (or lead section) material.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

List Eberhard and Tarpenning, but definitely link also. Since those two seem to be the closest thing Tesla has to outright founders, I'd list them there. Part of me thinks that Elon Musk should be included as an angel investor, but I think that is best left to the Key Figures section of the infobox. I would not be opposed to listing him in the present IB as both CEO and Angel Investor. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

List them all, with a note or something pointing to the controversy. This reeks of Elon Musk hate-boner.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Musk hate-boner" - this proves my point! No matter whether we list 2 or 5 there will always be somebody saying we are rabid Musk hater/lovers and we MUST, MUST, MUST do it the other way. Just the note+link is the least controversial way.  Stepho  talk  23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

List then all, since that is the official, reliably sourced position, as opposed to our OR with respect to how we decide to define who are the founders. Of course there should be a link to the "Founders" section to discuss the controversy. Rlendog (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

• List Eberhard and Tarpenning only, possibly with a link to the see-also section (but I don't feel it's strictly necessary.) The highest-quality and most in-depth sources are clear that they are the actual founders and that Musk is not; winning the right to describe himself as co-founder in court doesn't bind Wikipedia, obviously, and if sources still describe him in a way that makes it clear that he is not an actual founder, then we have to be clear as well. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, proving my point from the other direction. You say is Musk is definitely not a founder. Others list you as a Musk hate-boner. Yet both sides are looking at the same sources, are (presumably) intelligent and hold their positions very passionately. It's complicated. Just leave the note+link with no names.  Stepho  talk  07:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

Owner section should be listed as publicly trader or omitted from the page as it is with other publicly traded companies. aside from this, his ownership percentage is wildly incorrect. this is public information on DEF 4A. 2600:382:2B00:258:2CA3:A114:5B4E:521A (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)