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.

Relevance of this sentence

At the end of the introduction, the article says:

Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism, stemming from allegations of whistleblower retaliation, worker rights violations, safety issues, product defects, fraud, and controversial statements from Musk.

This is all undoubtedly true, but I would argue that for any sufficiently large corporation, such observations are extremely unexceptional, to the point that it'd be more noteworthy if the opposite were true. Are there ANY major automakers to which the above statement wouldn't fit? Yet no such observation is in the Wikipedia introductory paragraphs for Ford, GM, Toyota, and most other large automakers.

There may be some value in in replacing it with sentence about the controversial nature of Musk as CEO, but the notion that a big corporation has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism seems far too unremarkable to warrant space in the introduction. Simon Wright (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Every large company has such allegations, so no need to put it in the lead. Of course, we keep the Tesla,_Inc.#Lawsuits_and_controversies section, just like other large companies.  Stepho  talk  02:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, there has been a tremendous amount of independent third party sources noting all of the issues mentioned in the sentence. The amount dwarfs what has been reported relative to, say, another EV company. Or another auto company for that matter, besides maybe Ford, which has been around a century.

The sentence has also been workshopped in previous Talk page discussions and has survived GANs. QRep2020 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is: are any of these exceptional, as compared to Tesla’s peers?

Are the lawsuits exceptional?

Is the government scrutiny exceptional?

Is the journalistic criticism exceptional?

Are the allegations exceptional?

I’d argue that the company is subject to a very high level of journalistic scrutiny, mostly because of Musk, which tends to amplify the coverage of the other issues beyond what other automakers would receive.

The controversial statements from Musk belong on his page unless directly related to Tesla. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia supposed to reflect the coverage of a topic? If there is a very high level of journalistic scrutiny comparatively, we can mention that of course, but that makes it all the more important to state clearly and early. QRep2020 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I think this article does reflect the coverage of the topic. The question at hand is, are these allegations so exceptional that they warrant such exceptional coverage in the introduction? RickyCourtney (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Like we agreed, the journalistic coverage is largely critical and Tesla receives a lot of it. The article reflects that exceptional coverage and addresses many of the issues that constitutes it. A general purpose of the introduction for a Wikipedia article is to highlight what the article addresses. The Tesla article's introduction currently summarizes the extent of the exceptional nature of the allegations and controversies surrounding Tesla and does so with a single sentence. It situates the reader appropriately. QRep2020 (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla gets more media coverage mostly because it is the new kid on the block - ie WP:RECENTISM. The allegations themselves seem to be about the same as any other large company. It's just that the media watches Tesla a lot closer than it watches the others - partly due to Musk doing a lot of showmanship stuff. So, putting the allegations right at the very top is out of proportion to the allegations themselves.  Stepho  talk  00:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. Musk and Tesla have clearly pushed the boundaries in many ways, well beyond the norms of a typical large company, and the significant volume of critical media attention reflects this. Musk, in his role as CEO of Tesla, has been credibly accused of committing two of the largest instances of securities fraud of all time, as well as arguably the largest consumer fraud of all time, in addition to a thoroughly documented history of retaliating against whistleblowers. These actions are egregious and noteworthy by any standard, and clearly make up a key part of Tesla's story, and as such we should not seek to hide or minimize them. Stonkaments (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

When you describe the delays surrounding FSD as "the largest consumer fraud of all time" I'm led to wonder if you are aware of any other consumer frauds perpetrated by any other corporations. I'm inclined to wonder if you're aware of whistleblowing at other companies, or "accusations" of securities fraud.

Believe me, I'm not saying that there's nothing for Tesla or Musk to answer to in the above. These aren't trivial things. But they're also not remotely exceptional, even if you ignore WP:RECENTISM and limit yourself to the past two decades. Simon Wright (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead section still fails to illustrate that these controversies are more exceptional than controversies in other companies.

"Tesla has been the subject of lawsuits, government scrutiny, and journalistic criticism, stemming from allegations of whistleblower retaliation, worker rights violations, safety issues, product defects, fraud, and controversial statements from Musk."

Apart from the Musk part, you can apply this exact sentence to most other auto companies. Toyota, GM, Ford, Stellantis, you name it.

I think if we were to keep the sentence, add a bit more detail. For example, "worker rights violations such as sexual harassment allegations, and controversial statements from Musk such as overpromise..." etc. Andra Febrian (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding more detail. QRep2020 (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. QRep2020 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The added detail doesn't materially change the original criticism. None of these controversies are exceptional or remarkable enough to be worthy of the article introduction:

• Allegations of sexual harassment have occurred at pretty much every large corporation on planet earth. Ford Motor Company is especially noteworthy with a long trail of allegations and many settlements. Curiously there's no mention of any of them on Ford's article anywhere, let alone the introduction.
• "Anti-union activities" is not remarkable. Companies like Apple Inc. and Starbucks have been embroiled in substantially more serious and widespread "activities" yet neither have these featured in their respective introductions.
• "safety defects leadings to dozens of recalls" is wildly unremarkable. Recalls are very common.
• "The lack of a public relations department" is unconventional, but I fail to see how this forms a per se criticism.

The criticisms of Musk over-promising self-driving is reasonable and relevant. It's an important part of the Tesla story over the past 5+ years. Simon Wright (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Tesla is genuinly a corporate outlier, see their (lack of) public and media relations departments for more on that... "Electrek can confirm that Tesla has dissolved its PR department — technically becoming the first automaker who doesn’t talk to the press. It’s something that we have discussed on our podcast several times over the last few months, but now that reporters are publicly complaining about it,[23] we thought we’d clear things up in an article." so saying that they're just like all of the other corporations doesn't appear to hold water. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

It's unconventional. I can see how it might be frustrating for some people media. But I don't see how it's a per se criticism from the NPOV of an encyclopaedia, let alone worthy of the article introduction.

In fact it's so unremarkable that I can't seem to find any reference to it in the body of the article, nor on the page Criticism of Tesla, Inc. Despite this, it's now somehow worthy of the article's introduction. I think that speaks volumes. Simon Wright (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

English

Tesla model 3 And tesla model Y 169.224.73.236 (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Don't understand. Use more words.  Stepho  talk  01:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Supposed GA using cleantechnica for cites

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/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)