Talk:Tesla, Inc.

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

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

Good article reassessment

Tesla, Inc.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prose

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

Stability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supposed GA using cleantechnica for cites

Cleantechnica is a deprecated source for Tesla information. I suggest you find alternate sources for your information.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_290#Cleantechnica Greglocock (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Society, Ethics, and Technology

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

— Assignment last updated by Charshenk (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2024

i saw a lot mistakes in an article so i wanted to change it TechInsight24 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read the instructions regarding edit requests. You currently do not have the necessary contribution history to edit the article directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2024

Tesla, Inc. (/ˈtɛslə/ TESS-lə or /ˈtɛzlə/ TEZ-lə[a]) is an American multinational automotive, clean energy, robotics and AI company. Tahoeskibum2 (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done We try to keep these lead sentences brief with only the most essential details. Others can weigh in if they think that "robotics and AI" should be added, but it shouldn't be changed until there's consensus to do so. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. In it's financial statements, neither "robotics" or "AI" are one of the company's reportable business segments. In fact, in the most recent Q3 2024 report it says it is making "investments in AI projects" in order to, "capitalize on the ongoing transition in the transportation and energy sectors." Therefore, at this time, AI is not a primary business, it's in support of it's primary business. I think the same could be said for robotics. RickyCourtney (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

Under the Founders section only two of the founders are currently listed.

The list should be changed from: Martin Eberhard Marc Tarpenning

To list all of the official five co-founders: Martin Eberhard Marc Tarpenning Elon Musk JB Straubel Ian Wright

There may or may not be some political bias taking place in the current published version against one or more of the individuals missing, but this particular issue is no longer the subject of ongoing discussion and was in fact resolved as part of a legal settlement between the parties. This is a factual error and I hope it gets fixed. See link below.

https://www.removepaywall.com/https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/11/10/tesla-had-5-founders-only-two-got-really-rich/ 2604:3D08:477F:5E00:165:E301:54F1:68FE (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See previous discussions at:

• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_4
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Founders
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Elon_Musk_did_not_found_Tesla

• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Founders_2
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Certain_users_(QRep2020)_involved_in_biographies_policy_violations_participated_in_the_conversation._I_propose_a_new_conversation_about_the_founders_of_Tesla.
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_3#Founding
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Elon_Musk_as_a_founder
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#Elon_Musk_as_a_founder
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_2#On_Musk,_Straubel_and_Wright_as_founders
• Talk:Tesla,_Inc./Archive_1#Founders

As you can see, we have flipped-flopped between "2 founders", "5 founders" and "its complicated".  Stepho  talk  07:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I see. I will note, that it seems intellectually dishonest to state only 2 founders and then proceed to contradict that statement in the linked founders section revealing that all five have agreed to be referred to as co-founders.

It’s very much burying the lead, as the parties involved have settled this “very subjective” issue in 2009, and Wikipedia editors have then decided to reopen this case and rewrite history in a way that presents what is simply a subjective definition, as one of objective fact that includes an asterisk next to it to add some kind of perceived, invented, fictional context.

Again, in actuality, there is no immutable definition of a business founder or co-founder, and the parties involved in this business have settled on a definition via the court. 2604:3D08:477F:5E00:B1BE:840B:B467:EB16 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

If anything, there is more legal precedent set for these five co-founders to be listed, than for the majority of other business founders in the world today. 2604:3D08:477F:5E00:B1BE:840B:B467:EB16 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In my humble view, not much reasonable explanation has been provided in the recent RfC, which somehow supports legally incorrect information in the lead that mentions 2 founders when, factually and legally, there are 5.

Specifically, the statement "Tesla was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors"

can be questioned per WP:RS, WP:BLP per other 3 co-founders and also seems to violate WP:LIBEL per official court ruling being available.

The correct lead could be "Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors, and has 5 official co-founders ...."

Therefore, past discussions seem insufficient in discussingWP:LIBEL. Probably, some time soon, we should have a new RfC soon where the discussion is based more on Wikipedia policies. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2024 (2)

Missing founders information. 129.126.15.30 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

See the section just above this one.  Stepho  talk  07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

New article

Tornetta v. Musk, et al.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Founder of Tesla

Elon Musk was one of the founders of Tesla, and that should be mentioned in the article, not that he was just the "largest shareholder". Elon Musk has repeatedly claimed to have come up with the name "Tesla Motors", and the concept. He suggested it to Eberhard as they were both mildly involved(test driving and such) in another EV project called T-Zero. They did not own the rights to the name "Tesla Motors", since a guy called Brad Siewert had already registered it for his own company. While Elon officially didn't join the company before 6 months after Eberhard and Tarpenning had incorporated it, at the time the company was just a shell corp with no employees, no offices, no funding, no IP, no designs, no prototype, just this general idea of commercializing the T-Zero. First thing Elon Musk did after officially joining Tesla was to buy the rights to the name from Brad Siewert. Elon Musk was introduced to the T-Zero car by JB Straubel, who later became Tesla's first Chief Technology Officer. After experiencing the T-Zero, Musk was inspired and wanted to commercialize it, and the AC Propulsion guys(who made the T-Zero) connected him with Eberhard and Tarpenning, as they had the same idea. In Eberhard's lawsuit against Tesla, he wanted to be recognized as one of only two founders of the company(alongside Marc Tarpenning), a claim that was rejected by the judge. The judge struck down Eberhard's claim, and this decision was based on the broader context of Tesla's founding and the contributions of others, including Musk, JB Straubel, and Ian Wright, who were also considered integral to the company's early development. Obviously Eberhard has his own version of events, that are not compatible with Elon Musk's version, and the truth might be somewhere in the middle, but at the end of the day, this was dealt with in court, the court rejected Eberhard's claims, and concluded that Elon Musk was integral to the founding of Tesla... so, it seems only right that Wikipedia accept that there were(legally recognized) 5 founders of Tesla, including Elon Musk. I have not made any changes to the article, but just wanted to put this forward here, so others can evaluate whether to do so.

Here is Elon's perspective: https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-debunks-tesla-history-fake-news/

Elon Musk came up with the name: https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/why-elon-musk-named-his-electric-car-tesla/

Elon Musk was one of the founders("Musk is also among the founders of Tesla,"): https://www.reuters.com/article/tesla-suit-idUKN2131161020090921/

And again, the court ruled with Elon Musk, dismissed Eberhards claim that he and Tarpenning were the only founders. That should be the final word in this. https://www.cnet.com/culture/teslas-musk-gloats-over-eberhard-ruling/ https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cofounder-eberhard-drops-his-lawsuit-against-tesla-musk-2009-8 FindTheBalance (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out by Stepho, this topic has been discussed to high heaven. The current description of the company's founders reflects a carefully written, measured response to several facts that extend across Wikipedia policy, American corporate legal theory, etc. QRep2020 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with FindTheBalance and other editors sho support mention of 5 co-founders including Elon Musk

The current lead seems legally incorrect, and may violate WP:LIBEL as the court ruling clearly states that there are 5 co-founders of Tesla.

Lead statement "Tesla was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors"

seems to violates WP:RS, WP:BLP per other 3 co-founders and also violates WP:LIBEL per official court ruling being available.

In my view, the correct lead would be "Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors, and has 5 official co-founders ...."

Therefore, the past discussion in the recently closed Rfc seems insufficient as it did not address serious violatations of WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Please read #Semi-protected_edit_request_on_27_November_2024 and all the previous discussions. There are good reasons for both viewpoints, so my own view is to have the infobox simply point to the founding section and let the reader make up their own mind. See WP:BALANCE.  Stepho  talk 

I agree with FindTheBalance and other editors who support mention of 5 co-founders including Elon Musk

Specifically, the statement "Tesla was founded in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors" can be questioned per WP:RS, WP:BLP per other 3 co-founders and also seems to violate WP:LIBEL per official court ruling being available.

The correct lead could be "Tesla was incorporated in July 2003 by Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning as Tesla Motors, and has 5 official co-founders ...."

Therefore, past discussions seem insufficient in discussingWP:LIBEL. Probably, sometime soon, we should have a new RfC where the discussion is based more on Wikipedia policies. Thanks. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

In the "summary" change Tesla Founders from Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning to Martin Eberhard, Marc Tarpenning, Ian Wright, Elon Musk, and J. B. Straubel.

It's wrong to have just two founders, it's a LEGAL decision [source: https://www.cnet.com/culture/tesla-motors-founders-now-there-are-five/] Felipelodeiro (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There is already a link to the "founding" subsection below the two names. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)