Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Long-term strategic goals for Tesla

I added the recently released Master Plan, Part Deux that Musk wrote with his long-term strategic objectives/plan for Tesla, or really the combined entity of Tesla Motors and Solar City. Added it to the External links section for now, although maybe relevant enough to abstract the plan and cover in the history section noting that "In July 2016, Musk released a revised set of long-term strategic goals for Tesla ..." Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If the SolarCity merger goes through, this note should be relevant : Talk:Tesla_Motors/Archive_1#Solar_mileage_offset_calculation (noted here before I forget again) TGCP (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Elon Musk as a founder

Is he a founder is he is not named in the incorporation papers? Sources call him a co-founder, but the description sounds more like an early investor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Elon Musk is absolutely not a founder. [1] Tesla was founded by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning in July 2003. Elon Musk joined them in February 2004 after leading their $7.5m series A financing round..[2] I find it surprising that this error is still made on this page, it is fairly common knowledge.

Sk96sk (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://twitter.com/TechCrunch/status/520275489794301952
  2. ^ https://techcrunch.com/gallery/a-brief-history-of-tesla/slide/1/
Yet there are over 100 references stating he is, perhaps like Facebook, it was reincorporated with the new investors. It needs more research since we go by references and not "truth". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The references are repeating a common misconception which is factually incorrect. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Sk96sk (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Elon-Musk-the-face-of-Tesla-whereas-the-original-founders-Martin-Eberhard-and-Marc-Tarpenning-are-not
  2. ^ http://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2016/05/co-founder-of-tesla-marc-tarpenning/
  3. ^ http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0919/5-things-you-probably-didn-t-know-about-Tesla-Motors
  4. ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-the-origin-story-2014-10
  5. ^ https://gigaom.com/2009/06/14/tesla-lawsuit-the-incredible-importance-of-being-a-founder/
So instead of repeating one set of references that might be wrong, now we have 2 sets of references covering opposite viewpoints and no way to choose between them. Does anybody have a link to the incorporation papers? Is there any hint of re-incorporation that would invalidate those? Does "founders" mean "the people who are officially listed on the incorporation papers of the company" (ie, rejecting Musk) or "people highly involved in the company sometime near when it got famous" (ie, including Musk) or something in the middle ? Does the company agreement to always say there were 5 founders hold any weight for us?[1] It's the official policy of Tesla but I assume that the agreement is only binding to the people (and companies) that signed it.  Stepho  talk  04:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five". CNET. 2009-09-21. Retrieved 2009-09-21.
http://www.visualcapitalist.com/41-interesting-facts-about-tesla-motors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk96sk (talk • contribs) 03:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Which part of that is relevant to who founded Tesla? Closest I could see is "Elon Musk – the driving force behind the company." Anyway, all the references we have so far are opinions, except for Tesla's agreement to have 5 founders. I did some reading at Startup_company#Co-founders. Normally the people on the incorporation papers would be considered founders but there is no legal definition of founder and it can be whatever they agree on. In Tesla's case, there was going to be a court battle but they settled out of court to say there were 5 founders. Since there is no legal definition of founder and Tesla has officially declared their agreement, I would take this as the official answer.  Stepho  talk  04:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I maintain that Elon Musk is not a founder. Including him in the list will give readers the (false) impression that he conceived of the company and was involved in its incorporation. These are common misconceptions that Mr. Musk actively promotes, and Wikipedia as an arbiter of objectivity should not spread even further. Sk96sk (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC) (talk)
If the defintion of co-founder is to be one of the people who incorporated the company, then yes, you are 100% correct. But according to Startup_company#Co-founders: "In fact, there is no formal, legal definition of what makes somebody a co-founder." Unfortunately, that means your definition has no weight. Furthermore, from the same article, "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." In this case, Tesla's board has come to an agreement that Musk is a co-founder. This is a fact and we don't have the right to override them - however much it rubs us the wrong way.
However, this article does proclaim in the history section "Tesla Motors was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning who financed the company until the Series A round of funding." That counters your claim that the article says he was involved in the incorporation. It is then followed by "Musk led the Series A round of investment in February 2004, joining Tesla's board of directors as its chairman as well as in operational roles." To me that says Musk was not there at the very start but joined shortly afterwards when the company was still quite small. We could make it slightly clearer by adding a sentence after that saying something like "Musk was not involved with incorporation of the company but was later publicly declared as a co-founder by the board of directors.[1]"  Stepho  talk  08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Tesla Motors founders: Now there are five". CNET. 2009-09-21. Retrieved 2009-09-21.

Gigafactory 2

So I have a draft up at DRAFT: Gigafactory 2 -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Tesla Motors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Corporate rebrand to Tesla Inc.

Can someone help to change the naming of this article to reflect the corporate rebrand to Tesla, Inc? (from Tesla Motors, Inc.) The category for Tesla should also be updated. [1]

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I renamed the article about five hours ago. Regarding having "Tesla Motors" changed so that the word "Motors" is gone, I am not sure if it should be changed. --Frmorrison (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of changing over to Tesla Inc. in all Tesla-related articles and categories. "Tesla Inc." was used any time it was wikilinked, while merely "Tesla" was used anywhere else. In some cases I did things like "...Tesla Motors (now Tesla Inc.)...". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 23:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • it is important to note in the history section and in the lead paragraph that the company was known as Tesla Motors until 1/2/2017. It is also important to link the word "Inc." to Incorporation (business) because not everyone knows what "Inc." is. Andreas Mamoukas (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The date of the name change doesn't typically go in the lead sentence, just a mention of the former name. The details of the change can go later in the article. Also, I can't think of a single other article that links the "Inc." part of a business name, as it's a very common part of company names. See WP:LEADLINK and WP:COMMONWORDS. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
It is "Tesla, Inc." not "Telsa Inc." per the 8K filed with the SEC: http://ir.tesla.com/secfiling.cfm?filingid=1564590-17-802&CIK=1318605 --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Effective February 1, 2017, Tesla Motors, Inc. amended each of its certificate of incorporation and its bylaws solely to reflect a change of its corporate name to "Tesla, Inc."

While the comma is part of its official name, that is not going to be in the name of the article since only other Inc. pages don't have a comma, see Apple Inc.. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I feel we are giving undue weight to the name change - both in the first sentence and having an entire Name change section. People already referred to Tesla Motors before the name change as simply "Tesla", so anything more than a footnote in History of Tesla Inc. seems like WP:Recentism to me. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 12:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Obsession with Inc.

1. The company was previously known as Tesla Motors, Inc. yet all references to the name as "Tesla Motors" were acceptable. Once Motors is dropped, ",Inc." suddenly becomes important? Recommendation: Tesla, Inc. be referenced once in the title and simply "Tesla" thereafter.
2. What is the purpose of recreating the Tesla wordmark in ASCII text in the lede? Exactly zero people write Tesla in that fashion and even Tesla doesn't stylize their name like that in writing. The actual wordmark is right there in the infobox. Further, the stylization isn't even accurate, attempting to approximate only the E character. Recommendation: remove wordmark from text intro.
--108.176.112.101 (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done I removed the spurious stylization in the lead sentence. — JFG talk 06:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

There are about 498 references, and they clutter almost half of the screen. Is it possible to hide/collapse them like the templates on the bottom? -- Matthead  Discuß   20:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Since references are important to having verification of the article's content, they must be shown. Templates are for showing related topics, so it is fine to hide those. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Tedious and unnecessary list of recalls

It may not be bleeding obvious to fanbois but recalls are model specific. This article is about the company not the vehicles. Make that list go away nicely or i will, nastily. Or provide some rationale for its existence here. Greglocock (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree it is not appropriate in this article. A summary would be enough. --Ita140188 (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbers without context - feels intentionally misleading

The raw sales numbers (and benchmarks met) are presented without any context whatsoever, and to seemingly give the impression that Tesla sells a lot of cars. It doesn't. Other car manufacturers' pages present more context. Ford, who sells roughly two orders of magnitude more cars than Tesla, lists the market share the automaker captures. That gives context to the raw numbers. So rather than acting as a Tesla cheerleader, it would be nice if the article included some context like market share which showed just how small those numbers really are. --108.254.174.54 (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The articles for the biggest companies, Toyota and Volkswagen/Volkswagen Group, show very little information about market share and comparison with other manufacturers. That is probably more important to fix, if needed. Tesla's "low" production and market share is only controversial compared with its market value, which again raises different article issues. Market share could also be in the context of market segment (high priced), or electric vehicles. TGCP (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. At its peak of 25,000 vehicles per year, Tesla is obviously not in the world's top 10 vehicle manufactures. As for market share, this is such a controversial subject that has caused many arguments on Wikipedia. When ranking manufacturers, do you include only passenger cars or do you also include light trucks, off-road 4WD, light trucks and heavy trucks? Do SUV's count as a passenger car or an off-road 4WD? Does a Ford F150 count as a passenger car (as often used in the US) or a light truck? Do you include knock down kits for export or not? Do you include partly own companies ? eg Should Toyota's totals include Hino or not? You are trying to open a can of worms and I don't see what the benefit is.  Stepho  talk  23:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tesla, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Date format in citations

Based on MOS:DATEVAR, the standing date format should be the YYYY-MM-DD all-numeric format as this was the first format introduced. However, all-numeric date formats are now contraindicated, according to MOS:BADDATE. It appears that the the first format used which was not all numeric was the mmm-dd-yyyy format (e.g. October 26, 2017). I personally despise the all numeric format; however, I will not make a change without consensus. I'm asking whether editors would support moving to the alphanumeric format, at least for dates not related to visitation? Thanks for your comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In MOS:BADDATE you can scroll a little higher (to the section also linked to by MOS:DATEFORMAT) to see "Special rules apply to citations". yyyy-mm-dd are, quite rightly, not allowed in prose but are allowed in tables, citations and a few other places. So, no official reason to change.  Stepho  talk  02:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyedit

Finished one pass of a copyedit. Feedback encouraged! Comments:

  • Reduced the word count by ~5k. Lots of out-of-date and unnotable stuff gone.
  • I could see a split to replace the exhaustive list of controversies with a summary and a link to the details. There will be many more.
  • Tesla's sales model has produced many controversies. I'd like to see a fuller treatment.
  • Not enough treatment of SolarCity.
  • As Tesla continues to expand, both in models and lines of business, it will probably make sense to split most of the transportation stuff into a separate "Tesla Motors"-focused piece. Otherwise this article again gets too big.
Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The edits are large. The best way to weigh them is probably to open this version and this version in separate windows, and then compare. I have not looked at the overall picture. A few unrelated edits were made during that time. TGCP (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to unmerge Semi?

Can it have its standalone article now? There should be a wealth of info and followups in the next few days. L3X1 (distænt write) 05:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

After Tesla Semi announcement, and accompanying flurry of news reports - business, car, tech sites - Semi page seems warranted Doug Grinbergs (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Now that it is official and there is plenty of information, it needs its own article. I will address it. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I’m opposed to so much content based almost 100% on Tesla’s press releases and public demos. How much can we say outside of information that Tesla has chosen to tell us? And claims by Tesla that nobody can independently verify? And promises that Tesla has no obligation to keep? I suspect neither a Semi article nor the Roadster 2 article would survive an AfD discussion. I’d urge everyone to put quality above quantity on the electric car topics, especially future products that WP:CRYSTAL says probably shouldn’t even exist. —Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why would I write based "almost 100% on Tesla’s press releases and public demos"? I have a ton of RS for that. The same RS that prove it is notable. It would have no problem surviving an AfD, except from a couple of NotNewsers. Crystals has nothing to do with this. L3X1 (distænt write) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Some !votes might pull out SUSTAINED, but that in and of itself if crystal ball work. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Many sources have written about the Semi and Roadster and these vehicles exist today, so it is not a crystal ball saying these exist. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that prototypes don't exist. I said that Tesla has had complete control over all information about these future products. It's easy to plan a demo that works around all the bugs for your captive audience. That's how you sell software that isn't done yet. Steve Jobs was the master of this. The crystal ball policy reads: "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Plain and simple. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Secondary sources qualify notability and verify that claims have been stated, but the numbers themselves are only from Tesla and not verified. The articles should state that the numbers are for prototypes, and are what Tesla said, not what reviewers have measured. TGCP (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
See above. Since I'm not too bright, can you tell me specifically which claims have been verified? Even if an independent source had put their hands the wheel on one of these prototypes (let alone under conditions not under Tesla's complete control), Tesla still has no reason to be constrained by any of these promises, or to even sell it at all. The fact that secondary sources have written that Tesla said they might (or might not) build these products, the crystal ball policy reads: "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." No matter how earnest Elon Musk sounds when he gushes about this future product, in the end everything he says is speculation. Again, maybe I'm too simple minded to grasp the subtleties of these words, because to me the meaning is plain and simple.

I'm not accusing Tesla of anything. They have simply said this is what they're working on and they have announced their timetable. If their plans change, that's their prerogative. This is about what is and isn't encyclopedic. And IMHO there are other, more urgent problems with pretty much every article on the topic of Tesla, not to mention all the other EV articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess we just disagree on what speculation and rumour is. "We are going to build this product" ≠ "Our product will be awesome". L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources concur that the vehicles are scheduled for production; i.e plans and effort, not speculation. The defining difference could be that production efforts are underway, not just hoped for. Until further notice, the vehicles could be regarded as prototypes, and their notability graded as such. The vehicle program notability, on the other hand, may be graded differently. The effort may be viewed as notable, as is the case for Faraday which seems to be near its independent life.

Over at WP:Aviation, consensus is that prototypes are often notable (even if never flown), and aircraft concepts (plans, no physical object constructed) are sometimes notable. This could apply differently here at Automotive (due to lower engineering threshold?).

Stating upcoming specifications is usual for established manufacturers, and is usually regarded as reliable, with the caveat that they are manufacturers' numbers and subject to adjustment. When the important ones (mpg, weight etc.) are verified, the verification is also noted (and used in addition to manufacturers'). TGCP (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Speculation: "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence", "The conjectural anticipation of something."

What firm evidence is there that these vehicles will have specifications anything like what they announced today? What firm evidence is there that these vehicles are more than rolling mockups? Keep in mind that the "master plan" didn't exactly turn out as claimed. They went and built an SUV they hadn't originally intended to. The Model 3 wasn't exactly the cheap car that was expected. Depending on what your definition of "is" is. The fun thing about press releases is that they aren't binding contracts. Press releases or dog and pony shows are not "firm evidence".

If an independent source has verified the amount of money or number of people working on these projects, or verified the tooling built to produce them, then you could argue that the projects exist on the scale that is claimed. Those are facts based on firm evidence. These 0 to 60 times, the charging rate, the wheelbase, basically everything, is speculation. Tesla is making a conjecture as to what they think they can deliver. Have you looked at the contents of these articles? Or the sources the articles are based on? It's pure hype. Elon Musk said this. Elon musk said that. The video Tesla released was fun and colorful! It's fine, companies are allowed to publish hype. Bloggers write about they hype. Investors want outlines of where the company is going. It has its place but that place is not an encyclopedia. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is totally fine that all this early news passes us by and we take little note of it. We only need a few lines mentioning these are their future plans. After all the dust has settled and sources are giving us facts based on firm evidence", we have something to work with to make articles from. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Dennis is on the right track. When there is one source of information, and that is self serving, the article can be nothing more than a veiled rewrite of the PR stuff released by Tesla. As such a paragraph in this article is is appropriate. I had a great deal to do with the GM Volt page, and most of it was a waste of time, if rather amusing. There at least we had patents and SAE papers to refer to, not just GM propaganda. Greglocock (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tesla, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Need your opinion: content re: Tesla Semi, electric autonomous truck

Someone keeps deleting ALL of the updates about the new autonomous Semi truck in Planned products.

Surely this content is appropriate and the citations confirm it is not "PR material".

The content that was deleted: Tesla Semi

The Tesla Semi is an all-electric Class 8 semi-trailer truck first mentioned in the 2016 Master plan. Early reports from Tesla said that the working prototype used ‘a bunch' of Model 3 electric motors."Tesla Semi is using 'a bunch' of Model 3 electric motors, says Elon Musk". electrek. May 3, 2017. Retrieved 8 September 2017. Tesla's Vice President of Vehicle Programs, Jerome Guillen leads the truck program. Production is slated to begin in 2019.

The vehicle's official announcement was at a November 16, 2017 press conference where two prototypes were shown. Musk confirmed that the range would be 500 miles and that the zero to 60 mph time would be 5 seconds versus 15 seconds for a similar truck with a diesel engine. http://beta.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-tesla-truck-preview-20171114-story.html The Semi will be powered by four electric motors of the type used in the Tesla Model 3. The most noteworthy feature is the Enhanced Autopilot which provides autonomous operation on highways. Using radar devices and cameras, it will enable the truck in to stay in its own lane, a safe distance away from other vehicles. https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-truck-revealed/

Musk promised that the company would be involved in installing a solar-powered global network of the Tesla Megacharger devices to make the Semi more attractive to potential long-haul customers. A 30 minute charge would provide 400 miles of range.http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-electric-truck-walmart-test-1.4407198 https://www.wsj.com/articles/teslas-electric-semi-truck-gets-orders-from-wal-mart-and-j-b-hunt-1510950438 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi has its own article. All that is needed here is a one para summary just in case somebody is reading the Tesla page and hasn't heard of the Semi. There's already a link to the Semi page that's all that is really necessary. Greglocock (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, but why delete arbitrarily? i.e. retain outdated information and delete all recent content such as the range and the fact that it is an autonomous vehicle on highways? Peter K Burian (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Autonomous is not currently relevant - this source says: "Musk also briefly mentions some semi-autonomous driving capacity – though he made sure not to mention anything about the possibility of fully self-driving capacity, which would be sure to upset a lot of truck drivers."

The pressure for Autonomous would come from the owners who seek to reduce cost: "therein lies the strongest part of the economic case for self-driving trucks". TGCP (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we are in pretty good agreement here. The Tesla Semi deserves mention in this article, but should of course only be a fairly high-level summary of what is in the main article. Given the main article at this time is fairly light on detail, and that the Tesla Semi is merely a designed and now unveiled new class 8 truck, and that the vehicle is a couple of years from production, it does seem to me that the summary should be fairly short, a paragraph or two, and leave all the detail for the full article. N2e (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for getting involved and revising the section about the Semi in the Planned vehicles section @N2e The issue was never about the length of the coverage about the Semi but what content should be retained: the old/outdated or the new/updated. Your edit has achieved both: brief coverage and the current material. Peter K Burian (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Redundant Content ("Model 3 rollout" Section)

Hello,

There is redundant content under the "Model 3 rollout" section.

It currently states: "Musk postponed the target date for manufacturing 5000 of the vehicles per week from December 2017 to "sometime in March" 2018.[105] When asked when the company would reach a production level of 10,000 units per week, he declined to speculate.[107] Musk postponed the target date for manufacturing 5,000 of the vehicles per week from December 2017 to March 2018.[109] When asked when the company would reach a production level of 10,000 units per week, he declined to speculate.[107][109]"

I suggest it be changed to: "Musk postponed the target date for manufacturing 5,000 of the vehicles per week from December 2017 to March 2018.[105][109] When asked when the company would reach a production level of 10,000 units per week, he declined to speculate.[107][109]"

I cannot make the edit myself as the page is currently under "semi-protection."

Best, Kyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelerner (talk • contribs) 04:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, will do. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

IPO

Hi,

Since Tesla is an IPO company, is it useful to add the ISIN into the box on the right? It already states revenue and similar items, so adding the ISIN US88160R1014 should make sense in my opinion.

Regards, Tom 2003:F2:BC5:B00:35D2:F427:C2F6:72D9 (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The ISIN is another way to identify companies, so I will add it. --Frmorrison (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Revenue vs income

As a note, why is it that the revenue and income numbers don't match the NASDAQ Annual Income Statement? 2016 shows a loss. Every quarter shows a loss as well. Yet this page lists positive income. Very misleading at best.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.156.243 (talk • contribs)

The Income shows a negative number, which means Tesla lost millions of dollars in 2016. Do you see something that indicates otherwise in the article? --Frmorrison (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Revenue is emphasised in the article and unless you know accounting terminology the whole revenue-expenses=profit\loss will be lost on you. Perhaps income should be prioritised instead? 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

aimed at eventually offering electric cars at prices affordable to the average consumer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.38.29.46 (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Table of shareholders

Notable known owners of Tesla
Percentage Owner
~20% Elon Musk Foundation[o 1]
Fidelity Investments OTC Portfolio mutual fund[o 1]
6.4% T. Rowe Price[o 1]
~5% Tencent[o 1]
BlackRock
The Vanguard Group[o 1]
3–5% Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia[o 2]
0.48% Government Pension Fund of Norway[o 3]
~0.1% Kimbal Musk
  1. ^ a b c d e Hull, Dana; Melin, Anders (7 March 2018). "Big Tesla Shareholders Back Musk's $2.6 Billion Pay Package". Bloomberg. Retrieved 7 August 2018. [Elon] Musk, 46, owns about 20 percent of Tesla. … Baillie Gifford, … about 7.6 percent … T. Rowe Price holds about 6.4 percent. … Fidelity Investments … Tencent Holdings Ltd. and Vanguard Group Inc. -- three major Tesla shareholders
  2. ^ Kim, Tae (7 August 2018). "Tesla shares rise on report Saudi Arabia sovereign wealth fund has $2 billion stake". CNBC. Retrieved 7 August 2018. Saudi's Public Investment Fund bought a 3 percent to 5 percent stake
  3. ^ "Norway's wealth fund opposed Tesla chief's stock option plan". Reuters. 22 March 2018. Retrieved 7 August 2018. Norwegian fund, which at the start of 2018 owned 0.48 percent

Would something like this be useful to expand/include? —Sladen (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks relevant and well-sourced. Go for it. — JFG talk 20:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Claim about patents being open source

The article contains the claim that Tesla's patents are part of the open source movement. Tesla may call it that but I would refrain from stating it as a fact on Wikipedia, considering Tesla has not actually done it in a legally binding fashion and that the usage of Tesla's patents has numerous strings attached that cannot be considered "open source" at all. For example:

"If a company using Tesla patents violates and sues Tesla for infringing on one of its own patents, Tesla reserves the right to countersue."

"'It is important to recognize that Musk’s pledge was delivered by means of a blog posting on Tesla’s website. This may or may not constitute an enforceable contract.' Musk’s language, the authors add, is general and open to a 'significant degree' of interpretation. Unlike pledges from other companies like IBM and Red Hat, Musk did not explicitly say that his promises were intended to be legally binding or irrevocable. 'Tesla may be able to withdraw or change its ‘open source’ patent policy at any time,' Johnson and Damiani write. 'Even if Tesla remains committed to its patent pledge, its patent can be sold or assigned to third parties who may choose to enforce the full complement of their entitled patent rights.'"

"But assuming Tesla offers nothing more than a public promise not to sue 'good faith' users, this announcement may be of little social benefit. Worse, it seems that such public promises could provide a new vehicle for trolling. Tesla may be estopped from enforcing its patents—though estoppel requires reasonable reliance and this announcement is so vague that it’s difficult to imagine the reliance that would be reasonable."

Sarrotrkux (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We can make the article say something like "Tesla has promised to make its patents part of the open source movement but the legal standing remains unclear. Tesla reserved the right to sue for patent infringement if the other company sues Tesla for patent infringement first." Which of course could be interpreted as "I will give you my patents for free but only if you give me your patents for free."  Stepho  talk  19:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sued by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over Tesla privatization "Funding secured" tweet

Musk was recently sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the "Funding secured" tweet concerning Tesla going private.

New York Times - S.E.C. Sues Tesla’s Elon Musk for Fraud and Seeks to Bar Him From Running a Public Company

The Verge - Elon Musk sued by SEC over ‘funding secured’ tweet

XYZt (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 22:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of bringing OR into the conversation, one commenter (not an RS) has just pointed out that 420, the price at which Musk claimed he'd buy out Tesla, is code for marijuana.

Have any reliable sources commented on this? It makes such perfect sense I'm surprised I haven't seen it commented on before. --83.218.138.8 (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The text of the SEC lawsuit makes that claim. A number of other sources do as well. Springee (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Overlink"

@BLDM: Your logic regarding WP:OVERLINK is little falwed since the infobox is the first thing that appears on the page (both in code and to the casual reader), so if anything, it should be delinked in the lede. Also if you are saying Musk has to be unlinked, Palo Alto, Eberhard, Tarpening, SolarCity, Tesla Energy, electric verhicles (and so on) would also have to be unlinked.

But then, it is common practice to link once in the infobox, once in the lede, and once in the article body (I'm not aware of any guideline that states exactly this, but is pretty much the case on all of the 1300+ pages on my watchlist, or any good article for that matter (cf. Today's feature article). IMHO, it would be best to just follow that practice and focus on the real overlinking problem, such as Eberhard and Tarpenning, as well as several Tesla Models, being linked multiply in the lede. Lordtobi (✉) 05:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

the infobox is the first thing that appears on the page (both in code and to the casual reader) - perhaps only if you're reading right-to-left, or immediately scrolling past the lead on mobile.
From WP:OVERLINK: Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.
If the debated items were only linked deep in the article, then I'd agree that it may be helpful to add them to the infobox - but that's not the case here. Had the infobox not already been cluttered with links, I wouldn't really care. BLDM (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah yes, there it is: [...] if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes [...] (emphasis mine) — And I do find it helpful. As I already stated, many casual readers care to first check the infobox (also an eye catcher when it holds fancy images) before actually reading the text. It might not apply to you or me, but to the majority of Wikipedia's clientel. This is also the reason why the infobox is indexed and reproduced by Google (a popular search engine) when searching for the topic. Furthermore, I cannot seem to find why you would consider linking Straubel as unhelpful, but still bother linking Tarpenning and "automotive industry", which would fit the same criteria (for better or worse consistency, but at least consistency). Lordtobi (✉) 07:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
I might also want to add that WP:STATUSQUO applies to the version with linking, as you only changed that a couple hours ago, after the links had been in place for years. Lordtobi (✉) 07:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I appreciate the emphasis on what I was already addressing.
many casual readers care to first check the infobox (also an eye catcher when it holds fancy images) before actually reading the text[citation needed]
after the links had been in place for years - either you made no effort to verify this, or you're deliberately trying to mislead people. The edit that introduced the CEO link is here (spoiler: it's yours!), so you're only half right. And here is a random revision from a month ago that shows many of the current links did not exist then. BLDM (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
👀 Both revisions show that Musk and Straubel were already linked (even multiply) in the infobox. I introduced links for additional roles as CFO was already linked, and I aimed at consistency. If you wish to play the time game, in the earliest revision featuring the |key_people= parameter, Musk, Chairman and CEO were already linked, and so was Straubel (and his respective role) when he was introduced there too. The linking was kept until it was removed only in March this year. Let me quickly introduce an interim status quo to the article (+people, -roles). Lordtobi (✉) 13:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Now that we've established that, I'd appreciate if other editors could provide their input on whether links from the lead should also appear in the infobox. BLDM (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

On Musk, Straubel and Wright as founders

Despite anonymous editors' best intents to proclaim Musk as founder (even placing him on top, as if he was the primary founder), we should make sure that it is clear to reader that the company itself was founded by only Eberhard and Tarpenning, and the other three (not just Musk) are just allowed to call themselves founders due to a lawsuit setteled over six years later (which does not, however, make them actual founders). @BLDM, you are also very active on the article, would you think adding an {{efn}} note to the founders field, explaining the Musk/Straubel/Wright situation, would make sense? Lordtobi (✉) 10:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the archived discussion at Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_1#Elon Musk as a founder. My position then and now is that there is no formal definition of "founder" and it can be anything the company wants. In this case, Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated the company but the company has chosen to call all five as founders.  Stepho  talk  11:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs, thanks for your input. I wasn't aware of the discussion you linked, but from a first glance it doesn't appear as if there was any concise consensus. Our template docs currently read The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company, which, stricly seen, would only apply to Eberhard and Tarpenning. Musk/Straubel/Wright are founders but didn't found the company. This marks my opinion, obviously, so I would appreciate if we could get some involvement in this discussion and reach a clear consensus. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 12:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no "strictly". There is no formal definition of founder - see articles Startup_company#Founders/Entrepreneurs, Organizational_founder, Founder and dictionary definitions https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/founder, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/founder, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/founder . Many people assume that the founders are the persons that incorporated the company but this is not necessarily true. In Tesla's case, they have publicly stated that there are 5 founders - see https://www.cnet.com/news/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/ . However, the article lists Eberhard and Tarpenning separately as doing the incorporation.  Stepho  talk  21:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Stepho-wrs, again, I see your point. With the 'strictly' I was referring to the part-sentence "... who founded the company", wherein Musk/Straubel/Wright are founders (by definition of qthe lawsuit settlement) but didn't found the company per se. This is, if you consider the incorporation as the foundation. Hence I think opting for consensus-reaching is the best way to find the proper use. Lordtobi (✉) 01:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, but it's the 'per se' that is the sticking point. Since founder(s) does not always mean the person(s) who incorporated the company, there is no "per se". For example, it is common for a family business to run over a few generations and finally get incorporated. The founder may have died 50 years before the incorporation. In Tesla's case, Eberhard and Tarpenning did the incorporation for a fledgling company, then Musk, Straubel and Wright took it to the level that became famous. Either side could be argued (here, in forums and in court) but ultimately we just report who the company itself decided to call founders.  Stepho  talk  01:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that the best way to solve this conundrum is to mention the five persons as per the lawsuit settlement (no choice here, it is a mandatory decision), and then explain briefly that began with two and as agreed by the settlement there are formally five founders. The corresponding section details when and what each individual did. A hidden comment should be left in the infobox to avoid recurring discussions on this topic again.--Mariordo (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 02:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. Tesla, Inc.#Original roadster and private funding does already say this in the first paragraph, although it can always be tweaked a bit. The current infobox only lists 2 founders - that should be expanded to all 5, as per the court case.  Stepho  talk  02:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Then the reference in the box should have an embedded comment (between }} and </ref>) explaining this is by a legal settlement, and a hidden comment about this and the previous discussion. Agreed.--Mariordo (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Does this sound to your liking?
| founders = {{ubl
 | [[Martin Eberhard]]
 | [[Marc Tarpenning]]
 | [[Elon Musk]]{{efn|name="founders"|Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated Tesla, while Musk, Straubel and Wright joined in a [[Series A round]] later on. A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five to call themselves founders.<ref>source</ref>}}
 | [[J. B. Straubel]]{{efn|name="founders"}}
 | Ian Wright{{efn|name="founders"}}
<!-- Please see talk page before changing. While Eberhard and Tarpenning incorporated the company, Musk, Straubel and Wright have been pronounced founders of the company by lawsuit settlement agreement. -->
}}

Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I would make one change by adding the reference to the agreement on each name. And Wright would probably like his name spelt correctly. Otherwise it looks excellent.  Stepho  talk  10:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, just the source or a note that gives some context to the list? See edited version for my proposal. Lordtobi (✉) 12:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. I have no objections.  Stepho  talk  13:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Cool. @Mariordo, thoughts? Lordtobi (✉) 13:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as noted by Stepho-wrs, please add a RS (I think already in the section) with the comment embedded. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Year over year sales increase of 280% in lead

Per wp:lead I placed year over year sales increase of 280%. I think everyone will find that information very interesting and makes the topic very interesting. Someone doesn't think it belongs in the lead. What do you think?   Thanks! Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Check the source, that is only the change between Dec 2017 and Dec 2018. The annual change I just included in the sales section, up 138% from 2018. Furthermore, as per MOS the lead is a summary of the notable facts of the article, that info is not elsewhere in the article. It is a bad practice to include tidy bits directly in the lead. I will reverse you again just because the figure is wrong. If you think that change between those two months is more relevant than annual change, go ahead and move it to the sales section (after the 532K cumulative sales, which I believe is much more relevant and deserve to be in the lead but some time back someone removed everything related to sales records from the lead. Cheers-Mariordo (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Confusion is around U.S. sales versus world. The number in the lead is for U.S. sales. I'll reverse your change because numbers are correct. Info has been added to sales section. Agree raw sales numbers do not belong in the lead. What makes this info interesting is the magnitude of sales increase. The raw sales numbers are just there to back up the percent increase. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Board of directors

Description of the directors is incorrect for two entries, namely, Elon Musk & Robyn Denholm Vinod (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Then what should they be changed to? Maybe you could edit it! Houdinipeter (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Slimming down this Article

This article on Tesla is very large. Currently the article is roughly 254 kb, surpassing the style guide's standard of under 100 kb. Potential breakout articles are the lawsuit & controversies section, the product model section and the history. Any opinions? Houdinipeter (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Houdinipeter: Agreed! Your suggestions are very logical. Vcpecon (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Houdinipeter: Thank you. The history section also needs to be trimmed, considering there is already a separate article. --Ita140188 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Vcpecon and Ita140188: I bluntly moved sections to History of Tesla, Inc. and lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc., but the article is still about 70kb too big. Any help is appreciated! Houdinipeter (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The 100k limit is a suggestion, not a rule, and it is about "Readable prose", which is currently 53kB with tables; well below the 60 or 100k suggested. The current 170k includes refs, images etc which is not relevant for sizing. I agree that significant editing is still needed (product model section could be next), perhaps the SpaceX articles may serve as inspiration for quality and structure. TGCP (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Model Y prototype production news

There is some new info for Model Y that I thought could be relevant: The Model Y’s prototype production could begin in 2020. [1] Gdasu (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The keyword in your comment is "could". WP deals in facts and tries to avoid guesses and rumours.  Stepho  talk  08:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The situation is the same as the Model 3 before 2016, which was moved in April 2016. There was a discussion about it, but Talk:Tesla Motors is no longer accessible, and just redirects here. Something has gone wrong, how to fix it? TGCP (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Surfboards

I reverted an IP addition of "surfboards" to the "Industry" field in the infobox, as it was unsourced and seemed inappropriate as per WP:WEIGHT. But it seems they should be mentioned somewhere in the article: [2], [3], [4], etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Model Y split off

Hey everyone, considering that Elon has confirmed the Model Y unveiling for March 14th, I think it would be in our best interest to start a new page for Model Y, as we will be getting additional specs and images for the car very soon. If someone creates this page I'd be happy to work on it as more information becomes available. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnc319 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Tesla Model Y could be a place for cooperation until unveilment, at which point a Mainspace article may be considered. Or someone could create a different UserPage to propose different content. TGCP (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That works for me, I'll check it out. Thanks for your feedback. Bnc319 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Founders - yet again

See previous discussion in the archive at Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 1#On Musk, Straubel and Wright as founders and Talk:Tesla, Inc./Archive 1#Elon Musk as a founder. Do we really have to go through this yet again?  Stepho  talk  11:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Technology or automotive company?

The article begins with: "Tesla, Inc. (formerly Tesla Motors, Inc.) is an American automotive and energy company based in Palo Alto, California.[7] The company specializes in electric car manufacturing and, through its SolarCity subsidiary, solar panel manufacturing. It operates multiple production and assembly plants..."

I think those lines (the firsts so the more read) do not reflect what Tesla is now and become. From those lines I understand that Tesla makes cars and sells energy, since:

- Wikipedia definition of 'automotive industry': "The automotive industry comprises a wide range of companies and organizations involved in the design, development, manufacturing, marketing, and selling of motor vehicles."

- Wikipedia definition of 'energy industry': "The energy industry is the totality of all of the industries involved in the production and sale of energy, including fuel extraction, manufacturing, refining and distribution. Modern society consumes large amounts of fuel, and the energy industry is a crucial part of the infrastructure and maintenance of society in almost all countries."


Instead Tesla is more a tech company, specifically does hi-tech since has developed cutting edge technology and produces software as a service like full self driving:

- Wikipedia definition of 'technology industry': "A technology company (often tech company) is a type of business entity that focuses primarily on the development and manufacturing of technology, or providing technology as a service. ("Technology", in this context, has come to mean primarily electronics-based technology.) This can include, for example, business relating to digital electronics, software, and internet-related services, such as e-commerce services. Many large tech companies have a reputation for innovation, spending large sums of money annually on research and development. [...] Information-technology (IT) companies and high-tech companies comprise subsets of the set of technology companies. Apple, Samsung Electronics, Amazon, Hon Hai Precision Industry, Alphabet (Google), Microsoft, Huawei, Hitachi are the largest revenue technology companies."

- Wikipedia definition of 'technology industry': "High technology, or high tech (sometimes also called frontier technology or frontier tech), is technology that is at the cutting edge: the most advanced technology available."

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giolosi (talk • contribs) 10:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

They started out making electric cars. Electric cars need batteries, so they diversified into batteries. From there they diversified into energy storage. They're not really into tech for tech's sake - they just found another use for what they already knew for the cars.
In a similar manner, Toyota is also called an automotive company but its subsidiaries make forklifts and prefab houses.  Stepho  talk  10:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Criticism?

This article fails to acknowledge many of the relevant criticisms and controversies such as extreme working conditions.[2] [3] THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ <https://electrek.co/2019/01/30/tesla-model-y-volume-production-gigafactory-1-2020
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/18/tesla-workers-factory-conditions-elon-musk
  3. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/13/elon-musk-responds-to-criticism-of-tesla-factory-worker-conditions.html

Nikola Tesla template

The company bears no relation whatsoever to Nikola Tesla. The Nikola Tesla template should be removed, as it does not feature Tesla Inc., nor should it.

I agree, I took away the Nikola Tesla infobox. The company is named after him, but that is most of the relationship. --Frmorrison (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

BRD discussion: on whether Tesla supplying batteries and motors unrelated to automotive or grid power technology is article-worthy

A bold edit was made to the article, to simply support the idea that Tesla is selling batteries and motors to customers unrelated to automotive or grid power technology:

Tesla has on occasion sold battery packs and motors for special purpose projects unrelated to automotive or grid power technology. For example, in 2019, the SpaceX Starship Mk1 9 m (30 ft)-diameter fully-reusable rocket second stage prototype uses four Tesla 100 kWh (360 MJ) battery packs and Tesla Model 3 motors to provide electrohydraulic actuation of the four large aerodynamic control surfaces used during atmospheric reentry.[1]

It was sourced, as shown, to a live interview with the CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk.

The edit was reverted by another editor in good faith, who gave this rationale in the edit summary:

youtube is not a reliable source (if not an official channel of a major media org), and what is the significance of this fact?

So, per WP:BRD, let's discuss it here on the Talk page, and see if a consensus cannot be reached. The fact that the automotive and solar cell and battery pack company is selling motors/batteries to a non-automotive and non-electricity or electric-storage provider seems article worthy. This sort of info about Tesla did not seem to exist elsewhere in the article. YouTube is not a source, merely a web-enabled distribution medium. The source is the Tesla CEO himself, Elon Musk, via the (admittedly geeky) news outlet Everyday Astronaut, and journalist Tim Dodd. Seems like an edit that a) improves the article and b) is adequately sourced.N2e (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • SUPPORT, per nom, support this basic information in the article, and that the source is adequate. N2e (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion, not a !vote, but I don't really feel that this is worthy of inclusion in the article. The wording is misleading at best and flat out wrong at worst. It's a one-off situation (not "on occasion") under special circumstances. There is no evidence that Tesla "sold" anything to SpaceX. Elon Musk runs and is the largest shareholder of both companies, and might've just loaded them up on a pallet jack and walked out the door with them. They might be on loan, they might be salvaged from vehicles purchased by SpaceX, or they might've purchased them from a junkyard. At best, we can say that "Once, SpaceX used Tesla motors and batteries for prototyping purposes", but that's not really worthy of inclusion in the article, is it? --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. And the source is a self-published video blog. If this were important there must be plenty of good sources. Retimuko (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Object based on what is presented. This looks like a one time sale by one of Musk's companies to another and Musk is the source of the evidence. I'm not sure that it's DUE and per since it's sourced to Musk himself it might be an ABOUTSELF problem. Springee (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A conversation with Elon Musk about Starship, Tim Dodd, The Everyday Astronaut, 1 October 2019.

Cumulative production needs updating

Given latest Q3 2019 numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:E6C4:5C00:D996:5AA6:B748:6592 (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to jump in and update it yourself. That's the idea of a community made wiki.  Stepho  talk  19:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Tesla's in-house "Crash-test Lab"

So Tesla has built its own crash test lab. It's several hundred feet long and the cable-attached acceleration system for the crash objects being tested is powered by two Model S performance motors. They released this video publicly only yesterday: Tesla Crash Lab, Tesla, via YouTube, 15 October 2019.

This area of Tesla technology development is not well-covered in the existing article. As secondary sources are found supporting this material on the in-house crash test lab, it seems to me it might improve the article to say something about this, beyond the batteries, motors, autopilot and glass sections that are in the current article. N2e (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is this notable? Greglocock (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Crash test labs differ widely. Some manufacturers have full-featured labs, others have semi-featured labs, others have none and must pay external labs to schedule tests, which extends development time and reduces learning. It's an aspect of company ability, like test track, climate tunnel etc. As far as I know, Ford has a climate chamber and wind tunnel, Tesla does not. TGCP (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Cnet visits the crash lab (secondary source) TGCP (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Tesla"?

Is there a reason to ignore the template:infobox company guidelines for this company? Let me explain. According to the guidelines the "name" parameter must include "the full, legal name of the company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof. The full legal name of the company may be different from the common name used for the article title". So, the parameter should use the legal name, not the common one. The common can be used as article title and in the lead section. I was about to change it right away, but I'll let some time for regular article editors to present their reasons to keep it that way (other that WP:ILIKEIT, of course). --Urbanoc (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Stripped sections due to WP:UNDUE

Finding it odd to see this massive array of negative sections in the article:

10 Lawsuits and controversies 10.1 Securities Litigation Relating to SolarCity’s Financial Statements and Guidance 10.2 Securities Litigation Relating to the SolarCity Acquisition 10.3 Securities Litigation Relating to Production of Model 3 Vehicles 10.4 Litigation Relating to 2018 CEO Performance Award 10.5 Securities Litigation related to Potential Going Private Transaction 10.6 Settlement with SEC related to Potential Going Private Transaction 11 Product issues 11.1 Recalls 11.2 Crashes and fires 11.3 Maintenance costs, crash rates, and insurance costs 11.4 Delays 11.5 Hacking 11.6 Servicing

(Let's not play dumb and pretend that we don't know why this article has so much WP:UNDUE content)

I decided to check to see if there was anything comparable for any other major automaker - down to whole sections on every single major lawsuit the company has been in.

In accordance with the policy of WP:UNDUE, these sections are stripped, and should remain stripped until similar sections can be found in the articles for other automakers. Only "Recalls" is left, as it can be found in at least a couple articles on other automakers. The linked "sub-article" about controversies is left untouched. -- Rei (talk) 11:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that Rei is a long term holder of Tesla shares and hence has a conflict of interest. Greglocock (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Rei isn't looking very hard. Toyota has a massive article for 2009–11 Toyota vehicle recalls. VW also has a massive article for Volkswagen emissions scandal. The others may also have separate articles for such things but I'm too lazy to do his research for him.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that the other manufacturers, as suggested by stepho, have entire articles of negative coverage. See Firestone and Ford tire controversy, Diesel emissions scandal that covers several manufacturers, Mitsubishi Montero Sport crash incidents, among countless others. Since Tesla is new to largescale manufacturing, their early foibles and incidents are more applicable. MartinezMD (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
None of these are the main articles for their respective topics. Not a single one. Until you can point me to where the main article for other auto manufacturers are like this, this content violates WP:UNDUE. Side articles are fine - I didn't touch the (already present) side article, as was noted in the initial post.
And I'm sorry, but how do you know me, Greg Locock? Is this your version of a doxxing attempt? -- Rei (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
There's a Tesla shill on /. called Rei. I lurk on /., as the signal to noise ratio is so poor. I'm not sure that connecting two identical usernames is doxing. Perhaps it is. Either way, do you own TSLA, and hence do you have a COI? Greglocock (talk) 09:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

No really taking a stance as I'm not that interested in Tesla, but I saw this discussion while checking this talk page. In general, per WP:NOCRIT, "criticism" and "controversies" (or equivalent) sections, while not completely shunned, should be avoided as much as posible as they highlight too much the negative aspects of a topic, and can be a catch-all for relevant/irrelevant bashing. Maybe some of the content of the "Lawsuits and controversies" and "Product issues" sections could be moved to other parts of the article, leaving only major controversies/disputes with their own section and with more specific titles. In any case, I'll leave it to the editors active here. --Urbanoc (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The "massive" array is really 2 sections:

  • 10 Lawsuits and controversies
  • 11 Product issues

with a pile of short sub-sections each. We could remove the sub-section heading s to make it just 2 if you like but I can't really see that as better.

The Lawsuits section is actually covered by the article Lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc. and the whole section could be reduced to that link and a single paragraph - just like the other companies.

The product issues is a little trickier. The other companies (Ford, GM, etc), their products and the technology used are well known, so there isn't really that much that the pubic needs to be educated on. But Tesla is new and its products are radically different to most other car companies. The public therefore needs a bit more education in the ins and outs of the company. Considering the relative newness of the technology, there is much more scope for Tesla to make errors along the way. Things aren't helped by Musk promising the moon at every opportunity and delivering a mere 80% of what he promised. So it's not surprising that people find things to be unhappy about. I do agree that the 'Crashes and fires' section can be just a link to Tesla_Autopilot#Serious_crashes and a single paragraph - just like the other companies.  Stepho  talk  00:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are good points, and it's true Tesla is an oddball. The discussion appears to have died out so I don't want to beat a dead horse, but if further concerns are raised your suggestions seem a good compromise in line with policy and guidelines. --Urbanoc (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

I want to add the new cybertruck as a new subject if this page. I want to include specs and images Carguy1213 (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Please make your request in the form of change X to Y. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 03:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
There is already a Tesla Cybertruck page, I suggest making edits there and then copy the most notable to here later when things have settled down. TGCP (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

S3XY Update

I noticed the brief mention of the S3XY section. I wanted to point out that this should be updated, as the following has been speculated: All of tesla's models combined spell "S3XYCARS" (sexy cars): S - Model S 3 - Model 3 (E) X - Model X Y- Model Y C - Cybertruck A - ATV R - Roadster 2020 S - Semi 0w0 catt0s (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

1. Speculated by whom? 2. WP goes by reliable sources, not speculation. MartinezMD (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We don't publish speculation or trivia. Find a reliable, published source that shows that this is more than a coincidence and it might have a chance of being mentioned in the article. General Ization Talk 04:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Tesla Yearly Profit

The current third paragraph of this article states,

After 10 years in the market, Tesla ranked as the world's best selling plug-in passenger car manufacturer in 2018, both as a brand and by automotive group, with 245,240 units delivered and a market share of 12% of the plug-in segment sales.[26][27][28] Tesla vehicle sales in the U.S. increased by 280% from 48,000 in 2017 to 182,400 in 2018,[29] and globally were up by 138% from 2017.[30] Tesla has never had a profitable year.[31] However, it has had several profitable quarters starting from the first quarter of 2013 when it posted an $11 million profit.

However, in 2019 Tesla has reported a yearly profit.

How should I amend the paragraph? Should I just truncate the last two sentences? Recommendations please. --Osunpokeh (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Claims by Eberhard are not generally considered reliable, he was fired after being caught committing fraud by an audit

Members repeatedly have changed the page due to claims by former CEO Martin Eberhard.

Eberhard was caught committing fraud and coercing employees to lie to the board and investors. That was the reason he was fired as CEO.

His claims are generally not considered reliable, as he is well known for behaving in a dishonest manner.

Nearly every single person involved in Tesla has disputed claims made by Eberhard. He is not a reliable source and should not be used as the primary source for this article.

207.141.33.19 (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism to push founding conspiracy theories

Several members have been editing Tesla related articles to push a conspiracy theory that Elon Musk was not a founding member.

This section is to address those claims in case action is required by administrators later on.

Here is the issue:

There is a large group of people called "TSLAQ" who push conspiracy theories about Musk, very similar to QAnon conspiracy theories. Many of the members openly state that they are "shorting" (betting against) Tesla stock, and so they have a financial benefit if they mislead the market[1]. They have lost a total of over $8 billion this year making wild bets that Tesla would go down instead of up[2], and are becoming desperate to recoup those funds.

In order to do this, they spread misinformation and try to accuse Musk of being a fraud. This includes false claims that he was not a founding member and that he stole the company from Eberhard.

Here are the facts: Eberhard was the first CEO, and was appointed by Musk, who was the first chairman of the board. Several months after the company was founded they closed their series A funding, which was lead by Musk. So he was very clearly there before Series A closed.

It takes weeks or months to complete a series A. Musk did not just show up that day and complete the series A on his first day in office.

Between him being the one who appointed Eberhard as CEO and the one who organized their series A funding, it is completely clear that he was there from the start. How can he appoint another founder if he was not a founder himself?

Attempting to use wikipedia to manipulate the stock market is very clearly against wiki rules (and illegal) and should this continue we may need to get the admins involved.

207.141.33.19 (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/tslaq-telsacharts-tesla-elon-musk/
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/investing/tesla-short-losses/index.html
This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, or TESLAQ, or whatever. It is well documented that Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Eberhard and Tarpenning, using money from their sale of NuvoMedia (and the Rocket eBook) to Gemstar. After incorporating, AC Propulsion suggested that they contact Musk, who eventially invested in the company in 2004, becoming its largest shareholder and chairman (and when he appointeed Eberhard to the newly created role of CEO). A 2009 lawsuit ended with a settlement that allowed Musk, Straubel, and Wright to list themselves as founder. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Nonsense. That does not disprove anything I just said. In fact its highly contradicting.
Musk did not just show up on the first day of Series A, he was the one who set it up for Eberhard months before. And appointed Eberhard to be CEO. To try and claim he wasn't involved until months later is clearly nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.33.19 (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Please keep and eye out for manipulative edits. The SEC just blocked short selling of Tesla stock due to stock manipulation by opponents of Tesla

This morning the SEC blocked short selling (betting against a stock) for Tesla stock. This was due to a multi billion dollar financial attack against the stock which originated in Europe. This article had a significant number of unproven claims which originate from short seller or from opponents of Tesla, such as their former CEO Martin Eberhard. Please keep an eye out for any further manipulative edits. 207.141.33.19 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

What are these "unproven claims which originate from short seller"? If you have identified these, please let others know so that the article can be corrected. Pakaraki (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Short selling was not blocked, it was t,mporarily suspended for standard reasons :Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA) short selling was temporarily restricted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) until markets close on February 6 . The decision was made in accordance with the SEC's Rule 201, also known as the Uptick Rule. Greglocock (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

"Teslarati" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Teslarati. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Factory names

See this recent article: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-elon-musk-gigafactory-naming-system-update/ Presumably the relevant content and articles should be renamed to align to this standard? -- Chuq (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done I did this on 25 February 2020 at 22:03. All references to Gigafactory 1 were changed to Giga Nevada; Gigafactory 2 to Giga New York; Gigafactory 3 to Giga Shanghai; Gigafactory 4 to Giga Berlin. I left in a reference to Gigafactory 4 when the context was around choosing the site (before it was decided to locate it in Berlin). ReferenceMan (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Referencing TSLAQ in Controversies section

In an eye towards comprehensiveness, the Controversies section should reference the existence of TSLAQ, much like how Greenpeace is mentioned on Stuart_Oil_Shale_Project. Several of the listed controversies here surrounding Tesla are already included as "motivations" for TSLAQ. QRep2020 (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be a single-purpose account. WP:SPA. MartinezMD (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a single purpose account. I support it. Springee (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
You would have more credibility then. I'm not necessarily against it, I just don't trust the initial recommendation. MartinezMD (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Please let me know if I understand this suggestion correctly. The proposal would be to not only list Tesla's notable controversies, but to also reference that there are indeed individuals who find themselves on the other side of these controversies. To focus so to speak not only on the message, but also on the messenger. Lklundin (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Tesla is a bit unusual in having fans and anti-fans. Maybe a very brief mention of fan groups and opposing TSLAQ?--Hippeus (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
That could work, yes. QRep2020 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I object to this. German auto makers are infamous for Dieselgate and have even subjected lab monkeys to emissions from their cars (think about that in the historic context of the home country of these companies). Wikipedia therefore has (or could have) articles or descriptions otherwise on controversial topics such as these. But we do not (and should not) link to articles on VWQ or BMWQ that describe people who find such criticism interesting or important or whatever. The same for Tesla. Lklundin (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a bit of a difference here but I don't think a "TSLAQ" section is appropriate. There wasn't a group of people expecting VW or BMW to go under and neither BMW or VW have financial statements that are as ugly as Tesla's. Beyond that, there is clearly an association of Tesla critics in a way that we don't see with other companies. Tesla/Musk have interacted with and/or taken action against some of those critics. The general war Musk/Tesla has against short sellers and critics (protective order, doxxing, contact via Twitter, etc) absolutely should be in the article and in context that should mention the loose association that is TSLAQ. What this article shouldn't have is some long section on TSLAQ itself. Springee (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Are they notable to Tesla other than being critical of the company and Musk? Otherwise adding them is undue weight. Lots of companies have critics. What makes this one rise to the level of inclusion in the main article? Did they affect company policy? Have a significant lawsuit? etc. That is my question. MartinezMD (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Are you asking about the individuals or as a group? There are enough news articles that discuss TSLAQ to justify a single mention in the article [[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]]. I would say as a whole they are notable to Tesla as the company/Musk have taken unusual steps in interacting/reacting to them as a whole. However, TSLAQ as loose organization is secondary with respect to the large number of sources that have raised critical concerns about the company (quality, safety, questions about accounting etc). Springee (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Then I am unsure how much you and I disagree here. But just to be clear while using your phrasing, I am now convinced that this page should not focus on something that "as loose organization is secondary" to the actual, listed controversies. We agree that there is ample source material for the controversies themselves, so we can agree to focus on detailing these (when notable). Lklundin (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. What about a "See also" link at the end of the article? I certainly agree that fleshing out the actual controversies etc is more important that discussing the association that is TSLAQ. The one part that might be notable is if the interactions of those people resulted in a reported change in how Tesla handled something. By that I mean there is a difference between Tesla reacting to person A, B and C individually. However, if information from A+B+C forms a bigger picture (for example the discovery and reporting on cars stuck in Lathrop, CA) then the association itself becomes significant because the results are greater than the individual contributions. Springee (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

That is my point (see my post preceding this one). Original poster wrote "...controversies here surrounding Tesla are already included as "motivations" for TSLAQ", but that is a justification to include Tesla in the TESLAQ article, not vice versa. Has TESLAQ had notable impact on Tesla as he suggests a comparison of Greenpeace to Stuart Shale Oil (not even remotely comparable imho)? I was expecting the Bloomberg Business article linked in this discussion would offer something to make the connection; instead it describes TESLAQ as "an informal yet obsessive global fraternity...who just love trolling". The other articles are equally notable as sources for TESLAQ's article, but not for Tesla. I don't see anything yet of to meet a reason for inclusion. MartinezMD (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

For that reason it might be better to just have a see also link. The efforts of members of TSLAQ have had an impact on Tesla Inc and certainly Tesla/Musk have reacted to them. But I would be less concerned about getting "TSLAQ" into the article vs a better summary of the issues and criticism surrounding Tesla and it's war with those who question or bring up information that falsifies parts of Tesla's overall narrative. Springee (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I was initially approaching this from the perspective of complementing the content-infused wikilinks in TSLAQ to Tesla, Inc. on the Tesla article and thereby increasing comprehensiveness in a hypertextual sense. I agree now that maybe a See Also link is sufficient to acknowledge the relationship between TSLAQ and Tesla and that the article itself would benefit more from content explaining the issues and criticisms surrounding Tesla (to which TSLAQ appears to be actively involved but need not be mentioned). Good discussion so far! QRep2020 (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not sure it belongs here, but I will await consensus. However, I think it would at least be highly appropriate as an inclusion in the article or a see also in List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc. MartinezMD (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Final thoughts about instead including a link to TSLAQ in a See Also section, everyone? QRep2020 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The comparison here of TSLAQ to Greenpeace is specious. Starting a Greenpeace membership is a bilateral process, the aspiring new member has to state their intention to join, Greenpeace will require payment and various personal information, which has to supplied. Then and only then is there a membership and it is terminated, when the member explicitly acts to leave, or by Greenpeace if the member doesn't continue paying. At any one time does a person and Greenpeace know if a membership exists. TSLAQ is not like this.
Wikipedia cannot give special treatment to Tesla. It is therefore not proper for us here to decide and set a precedent whether and how an anti-fan/Q-article should appear as a link from its subject. The only way forward I see is that we await the creation of a few more of such anti-fan/Q-articles. Then we can have a discussion involving the contributors to all involved articles on the various subjects and their anti-fan/Q-article counterpart. I see that QRep2020 is a frequent contributor the TSLAQ-article and on their user-page they link to that article with 'my first area of research into "Q Groups."'. So it should be possible to get to that point. I see that there was at least one (failed) attempt to have the TSLAQ-article deleted. With my experience in creating articles, I could help to avoid the pitfalls that could lead the new articles to be nominated for deletion. Until we have reached such a point, I see no way to mention TSLAQ here. Lklundin (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the offer, I'll keep it in mind. With that aside, I think you have the point about giving Tesla, Inc. "special treatment" backwards - there's something about Tesla that is polarizing large groups of people which is important to address on its article because it doesn't happen too often. This fact can be addressed in any number of ways and adding TSLAQ as a See Also link is perhaps the least invasive one. QRep2020 (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
For me, I am neither a strong fan nor a detractor of Tesla; I do find their development an interesting factor in the automotive and technology spheres of society. So I go by comparing this article to others, for example Ford, to use as a framework. TESLAQ doesn't appear to have a major, or even moderate, impact on Tesla overall, so that's my basis for the undue weight standpoint in the parent article. For their controversies article, as I mentioned before, I think that's an appropriate spot. MartinezMD (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It appears that we have a rough consensus in favor of inclusion of some mention of TSLAQ. Out of respect to the objection, I will add the reference as See Also item and include a modest description. QRep2020 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think you do. From rereading this discussion I think it's, at most, a mixed opinion for a See also. MartinezMD (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that we will have to call a non-unanimous consensus. But we need to give participants some time to consider my latest attempt at a compromise. Lklundin (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
To follow up, in another discussion I have suggested QRep2020 start an RfC. MartinezMD (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the conclusive Yes comment from the administrator below, how about we discuss how to mention TSLAQ in the Lawsuits section? Stonkaments, any thoughts? QRep2020 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

My vote would be to rename the section to "Criticism and controversy", like the articles on Google - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google#Criticism_and_controversy - and Facebook - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Criticisms_and_controversies - do. Like those two articles, I would include an introductory paragraph summarizing the main areas of discussion, and that would naturally call for mention of TSLAQ as a prominent group voicing much of the criticism of Tesla. I believe this title change would also help give guidance and direction on improving the descriptions of the lawsuits in this section, as I think they could do a better job explaining why they are relevant, noteworthy, or controversial, rather than simply list the details of the court proceedings like they mostly do now. Stonkaments (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
There's now four Yes votes and one No vote, with two Yes from uninvolved editors. Where does this leave the matter? QRep2020 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Financial Performance Graphs

I do not believe the financial performance graphs should be present at the top of this article. I question why they are put in that location initially when no other similar companies have these graphs. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but a large portion of the internet are big fans of the company and want it to succeed, I am wondering if that is the real reason they are there.

In any case I think they should be removed and put into their own section if people want to keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.59.1 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I second this comment. I've never seen similar graphs listed for other companies - I'm planning to remove them unless someone has a compelling argument to keep them? Stonkaments (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic

I wanted to start a discussion about the COVID-19 pandemic subsection of the Controversies section, as it was tagged with a non-NPOV tag and the following comment: "section does not tell the story of Tesla shutting down production at many sites in compliance with pandemic restrictions, nor that the reopening of Tesla Fremont was in compliance with the State of California removal of restrictions; nor the Tesla measures and success of pandemic measures on the reopened Tesla Shanghai plant in early March".

1. It doesn't seem notable to me, or worthy of mention, that Tesla complied with pandemic restrictions and shut down production elsewhere. Obeying the law isn't notable, and highlighting the instances where Tesla obeyed the law seems like giving undue weight. All other auto manufacturers complied with the restrictions and shut down production as well. What was notable and controversial was Tesla's decision to defy the order and reopen in Fremont.

2. Reopening was not in compliance with the state's order. The governor's order for the state of California specifically stated: "counties can choose to continue more restrictive measures in place based on their local conditions, and the state expects some counties to keep their more robust stay at home orders in place beyond May 8." - https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/05/04/governor-newsom-provides-update-on-californias-progress-toward-stage-2-reopening/

3. I don't see how Tesla Shanghai is relevant to the controversy surrounding the Fremont factory reopening.

4. Lastly, unless I'm mistaken, isn't the POV template supposed to be used for an entire article, rather than a single subsection of an article? Should the template be removed? Stonkaments (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

In the case of WP:NPOV is always better to err by excess. So, I think it is fair to make a short summary of that background, raising the issues you made above with proper WPRS. Cheers - Mariordo (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
In regard to NPOV, it can apply to article, section, or even single sentence, but there are different tags available, such as {{POV section}}. It's reviewed at the end of WP:NPOV. MartinezMD (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
COMMENT I would be happy to tag the section with {{POV section}} instead of the NPOV tag it has now if that is preferred. Or someone else can do it.N2e (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I made updates to the subsection that address some of the concerns of N2e, nullify others (such as changing the subsection heading to be exclusively about the epidemic in the US), and incorporated points from Stonkaments's above statements. Can we agree to remove the NPOV tag now? QRep2020 (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks fine to me now. I think it was wise to focus only in the Fremont plant, since the controversy took place there, not in China or elsewhere. - Mariordo (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The section seems better with the changes made over the past day or so; but it continues to have a number of unbalanced items we should improve to avoid the POV slant. I tagged some specific things, and added a few explanatory bits for why in the relevant areas of the wikisyntax. Seemed best to comment inline by each visible issue, so we might best make the section come to have a nuetral point of view.

In my view, this section continues to come off with a slant as of the end of 13 June (UTC time), a narrative, which is (unfortunately) exactly what so much of the behavior in news media is today. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we don't have to win clicks to pay the writers and editors who produce the content like much of the news media does. So the encyclopedia of all human knowledge can and should be more balanced where the facts allow for other sides to an issue. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

How is the Kolodny article a "false verification"? QRep2020 (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the comment about employee concerns over lax coronavirus precautions ("the source seems to indicate that a few expressed concern that the stated precaustions prevented them from doing their jobs, while a few others indicated that the rules were being laxly enforced. The reporter was, in this way, more balanced than this section prose is at present.") - That's an incorrect reading of the source. The employees said that "it's impossible to do their work building cars while complying with the safety rules....Specifically, these employees said, they cannot wear a face covering during their entire shift, thoroughly clean shared tools and equipment between shifts, and keep social distance between coworkers during work, or even during breaks." Those are not concerns that the precautions are preventing them from doing their jobs; they are concerns that the precautions are not being followed, because it is not possible to do so. Thus I've removed the 'false verification' tag. Stonkaments (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, it seems unnecessary and undue weight to include Musk's complete tweet about the lawsuit against Alameda County. Or is there a good reason to keep it that I may be overlooking? Stonkaments (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I added it to give the section a "rich" element, no other reason. QRep2020 (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2020: Clarify Tesla customers do not need to pay for Destination Charging Locations

Please change page source:
the location must pay the electric charges at no cost{{clarify|is this for all Tesla drivers? only those who lodge at the facility? only those who buy something? etc.) to the driver.

To:
the location must pay the electric charges at no cost to their customers.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Lilly |first1=Chris |title=Tesla Network - charging guide & cost |url=https://www.zap-map.com/charge-points/public-charging-point-networks/tesla-network/ |website=Zap-Map |accessdate=14 June 2020 |quote=Destination chargers are free to use by all Tesla drivers who are customers of the destinations where points are located.}}</ref> GoldSuit (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: I clarified the sentence but I didn't use the additional source. That sentence's original citation explains who the free electricity is for clearly enough on its own, so another source isn't necessary. TJScalzo (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New article - Tesla master plan - is PROD. please comment, help, find independent sources

The new article Tesla master plan needs more WP:Independent WP:RSes, please contribute if you can.

Also may comment on the "proposed for deletion" where I've argued that it is of Talk:Tesla master plan § Broad social, cultural, scientific, and technological interest

It is important, because the present article Tesla, Inc. has a WP:Recentist bias (like most of wikipedia), and does not include much about the stated mission of the company: to stimulate innovations that will hasten the global movement to a sustainable energy economy

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The Tesla master plan article is a blatant POV fork of this article, and contrary to multiple policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Business Strategy => Sustainable energy economy

See also: slink and Talk:Tesla_master_plan § Plan_for_a_Sustainable_Energy_Economy

This section Tesla, Inc. § Business strategy which references the Tesla master plan, is inadequate for several reasons.

Biased toward a consumerist perspective, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to marketing and WP:PROMO, while ignoring the broader social, cultural, scientific, and technological issues, which were explictly stated by Mr. Musk the the opening sentence of his master business plan, 2006 "part one", to wit:

The overarching purpose of Tesla Motors (and the reason I am funding the company) is to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy, which I believe to be the primary, but not exclusive, sustainable solution.

For my attempts to include this in the alleged POV-fork article, I have been perversely accused of "promotional marketing bullsh--t" by some WP:Illustrious Looshpah "master editors", who I dare say are ignoramuses. And if they wish to defend themselves against this accusation, they may do so in associated article's talk page comments, where they initiated or silently endorsed the personal attacks on Mr. Musk and on me. Since they have already made their Points-of-view clear, I will ask them now to abstain from further commentary, as I will also do.

I would like to give a month to hear back from informed contributors, but since the other article will be up for AfD tommorrow (after I or someone else removes the PROD tag), we will have to accelerate the process. If the quoted business plan is not in the article in two days, I will tag it {{POV}} and NOT WP:Neutral

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Retracting an equivocation: the section as stated does not ignore the socio-economic issue, but adequately addresses it. Good job. Clarification: It ignores the ENVIRONMENTAL social and cultural issue which is of interest even to persons who do not own or plan to own Tesla cars. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
See our guide on use of WP:Primary sources before accusing me of misusing them, please. Plenty of secondary sources quote this, and establish its notability, for anyone who is not too stubborn or lazy to look them up. Jaredscribe (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
You are giving far too much credit to Tesla and its founder, which is WP:UNDUE in itself. Besides the fact that electric cars are not really sustainable (they are no different than internal combustion cars, but merely transfer the energy consumption to the electrical grid - but that is a different discussion), the above bolded sentence is indeed an obvious marketing statement merely meant to bolster investment. A company business plan is nothing but an intension, forecast, or guidance to its goal. So, if the company's goals are notable, it can be added to the main article, but as a stand-alone article, a company's business plan would be WP:SOAPBOX. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Then add it to the main article, this one. If the other is going to be deleted, then the business "master plan" should be added here. And if its not added here, then the other article should be preserved.
Also, you opinion about sustainability is irrelevant, and moreover it ignores some basic facts stated clearly in the lede of this article and in Tesla master plan § Co-marketing photovoltaic cells. Are these facts in the present, main Tesla Inc. article?
The companies intentions, goals, and forecasts are relevant. Else this article may possibly be pushing a Recentist, consumerist WP:SOAP y and newsy POV, while you have in-accurately (and somewhat perversely) made those very accusations against my article, which focuses rather on the science, technology, and broader environmental concern.
Jaredscribe (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
After I added this paragraph to the article, @QRep2020 reverted it [11], saying that the so-called master plans are not official corporate documents.
I restore, [12] Yes, they are on the official corporate website and are announced on the official corporate investor days
Now @AndyTheGrump has reverted me again, arguing fancruft. [13]
This refusal to acknowledge the demonstrated error in in @QRep2020 argument, is an agreement with it, a refusal to acknowledge the the demonstrated correctness of my argument - these are official corporate documents.
Instead, he resorts to mockery, an informal fallacy of appeal to ridicule. It is a form of intellectual dishonesty, as he has been doing at Talk:Tesla_master_plan
The world we live in is not a fictional universe. Tesla is not a fictional company, and the energy we consume is not a fictional resource assigned to your fictional character with role of the dice so that you can play with it on your board game. The dozens of reliable sources who have written about this are not comparable to the pokemon fan club. Hello? Jaredscribe (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The ANI thread discussing your behaviour is not fictional either. [14] I suggest you respond to it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Camera lawsuits and admission of potential privacy violations by Tesla

It was recently reported by Reuters that Tesla employees were directly accessing car camera footage and sharing imagery amongst themselves, including (potentially unknowingly) that of Elon Musk’s personal Tesla: https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/

A lawsuit was filed over this in the US: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-alleged-privacy-intrusion-2023-04-08/

Tesla has also admitted that their cars’ camera setups are in violation of European privacy laws: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-warn-data-privacy-risk-car-security-cameras-germany-2023-04-04/

All of this is notable and should be included in this article, as it has been quite widely reported on in the media by reputable sources. 136.57.164.226 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Tesla Files subsection

Can someone help fill in the Tesla Files subsection? Maybe a German citizen who could provide some perspective on how the German media has responded to the breach? QRep2020 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Any takers? QRep2020 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Clean energy

The WP:LEDE should summarize what is in the body, and currently in the first sentence is a statement that Tesla is a clean energy company. The phrasing 'clean energy' itself is promotional/undue, and I would accept alternative/renewable energy if secondary and reliable sources were provided. Courtesy pinging for people involved in edit war earlier. @BilledMammal @RickyCourtney @Ita140188 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

'automotive and clean energy company' is widely used by reliable sources to describe Tesla, these are just a few results on Google for a quick search: [15] [16] [17] [18]. I was not aware that 'clean energy' is so controversial. Either way, we should follow what the sources say. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous and written like an advertisement. There is nothing "clean" about lithium mining. Ridiculous that such puffery is allowed. Do better, Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.162.56 (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, there is not a single person on Earth that is truly "clean". Even living in the desert with nothing but your wits will emit CO2 (a greenhouse gas) from your breath and methane (another greenhouse gas) from the other end. In fact, your act of putting a comment here contributed to poisoning the environment due to the energy used by your computer and the plastic and other chemicals used in your device - shame on you!
Dirty energy is easy to find. Burning coal in a electrical generating station is an obvious one. Burning diesel or petrol (aka gasoline) in cars is another. Using LPG in either is better but still emits some greenhouses. Solar emits no gases but making solar cells produces toxic by-products and the mining of the materials is bad for the environment. Similar for lithium batteries - the usage of the batteries is fine but their production and disposal have problems. But compared to coal they are way, way better. So, they are not truly "clean energy" but the expression really means that they are relatively clean compared to previous techniques (especially coal).
If you have a better term that doesn't just divide energy sources into "dirty" and "impossible"/"impractical" then please present it.  Stepho  talk  06:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
"Clean energy" is a well-established category, your (incorrect) opinions on "lithium mining" notwithstanding (lithium makes up only 2-3% of a li-ion battery, is produced from concentrated deposits, and nearly half the market (salar) is just "evaporating saltwater by leaving it out in the sun", while the rest (spodumene) is quite ordinary hard-rock mining, and not particularly associated with heavy metals or acid mine drainage). The overwhelming majority of a vehicle's lifetime impact comes from its operation, not its production, and the lion's share of a vehicle (including batteries) are recycled at end-of-life. A "clean energy" economy involves far less resource extraction than a traditional energy economy. -- ~~

Company overview states Cybertruck is light duty

Should that be in the overview of vehicles produced by the company? None of the other vehicles have their classification stated, and Tesla has made many statements suggesting the Cybertruck will qualify as a medium duty pickup. BronzeSpider (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Tesla seems to be going out of their way to state lots of other dimensions and figures but to not state the weight. They state a payload of 3500 lb but without the empty weight we cannot find the gross weight. Being light duty or medium duty depends on the gross weight (see Truck_classification). Given that the Tesla Model S is about 5000 lb and the Cybertruck's steel body will weigh more, plus up to 4 fat people inside, the gross weight is likely to be about the classification limit of 10,000 lb. So it could go either way - fat passengers with less payload with soft, comfortable springs (light duty) or everything hefty with stiff, uncomfortable springs (medium duty).
Which is a long-winded way of saying we don't know which class it will be. So we should not list it here.  Stepho  talk  23:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2023

Add info about the sympathy-strikes from other unions (fackförbund) for example PostNord that is doing it with seko. Charkel (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 14:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2023

Please add comedian Stephen Colbert as a co owner. He currently owns teslas stock. 71.143.137.44 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Tesla is a public company with thousands of shareholders. I don't believe that the identities of the notable ones is worth mentioning. Maproom (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2023 (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

Thanks

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

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

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2&oldid=1223211652"