Jump to content

Talk:Tesla, Inc.: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 94: Line 94:
{{OD|12}}Given the conclusive Yes comment from the administrator below, how about we discuss how to mention TSLAQ in the Lawsuits section? [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]], any thoughts? [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
{{OD|12}}Given the conclusive Yes comment from the administrator below, how about we discuss how to mention TSLAQ in the Lawsuits section? [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]], any thoughts? [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]] ([[User talk:Stonkaments|talk]]) 14:55, 16 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. [[User:Stonkaments|Stonkaments]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:QRep2020|QRep2020]] ([[User talk:QRep2020|talk]]) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


== RfC on TSLAQ mention inclusion ==
== RfC on TSLAQ mention inclusion ==

Revision as of 13:40, 25 May 2020

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajlurie2001 (article contribs). 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).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This appears to be a single-purpose account. WP:SPA. MartinezMD (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a single purpose account. I support it. Springee (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That could work, yes. QRep2020 (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Final thoughts about instead including a link to TSLAQ in a See Also section, everyone? QRep2020 (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
To follow up, in another discussion I have suggested QRep2020 start an RfC. MartinezMD (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC on TSLAQ mention inclusion

Issue at hand is whether or not inclusion of mention of TSLAQ (article) in some section of Tesla, Inc. is warranted. Suggestions for inclusion were in either the Controversies or the See Also sections. Discussion available at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&section=5#Referencing_TSLAQ_in_Controversies_section. QRep2020 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)— QRep2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Yes - This group has a Wikipedia article (unlike BMWQ, etc. if that's a real thing) so it's at least to some degree notable, and it's clearly related to the company. Template:Tesla, Inc. seems a bit more natural than the "See also" section, and would be both unobtrusive and show up on all related articles, for navigational purposes. Mentioning it in the Controversies section as well would not be unwarranted, but to avoid undue weight, maybe keep it to a sentence or so? (I've added TSLAQ to Category:Tesla, Inc., as it also seems to belong there for navigational purposes.) -- Beland (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No This RfC is not opened in good faith. Rather, it is opened by QRep2020, an WP:SPA (first noted by MartinezMD), who have more than once stated their interest in "anti-company-articles" starting (from their 6th edit) with TSLAQ, but who have instead (except a handful of trivial edits) spent their efforts on TSLAQ and on arguing at length as to why this and this source they perceive to be pro-Tesla (i.e. anti-TSLAQ) should be deemed unreliable and/or have their articles deleted. While mentioning but without tagging the relevant page creator they have discussed this effort with a different user. Two days after this RfC received its first comment (so before it closed), they went ahead and introduced the contested edit in the article. They seem to be here to promote TSLAQ here and on social media, citing on the page of Tesla-controversies an entity which is itself an anti-Tesla-investor (via put options) and a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Tesla and Elon Musk (so unsuitable as a source). Disclosure: I have become aware of this unhelpful editing pattern because I am the aforementioned page creator (in 2018) of Electrek and more recently of CleanTechnica. Lklundin (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC) PS. I will expand on my preceding arguments: While we have an article on the Bible code (due a notable book on the topic), our articles on the Bible and old testament and the Torah do not have links to the Bible code. Until now it could be argued that TSLAQ was similar, a group of people who like QRep2020 believe that Tesla, a successful and popular maker of innovative cars are actually comparable to Enron - an actually bankrupt company, that was fraudulent in their sales of a non-tangible product (electricity). This could be seen as benign. The above mentioned law-suit from the person behind plainsite.org against Tesla (and Elon Musk) changes that. It demonstrates that TSLAQ is in fact not benign, but sinister. As divulged through their own court filing (see link above), the person behind plainsite.org has literally made a financial bet on TSLAQ, i.e. for a small payment they hope to get a payout of thousands of dollars if Tesla goes bankrupt before a given date. So people who take the meaning of TSLAQ literally have in fact a financial incentive that Tesla goes bankrupt. The attempt of such an (anti-)investor to facilitate such a bankruptcy (e.g. by influencing the public through social media) is apparently known as short and distort which can even be illegal. An example of this could be to try and create of lot of attention regarding a single Tesla that catches fire, glossing over the fact that internal combustion engine cars have a higher frequency of catching fire - so as to dissuade the public from buying cars from Tesla. In fact, plainsite.org is publishing exactly such material. So while we can have an article on TSLAQ we really have to be very careful, that those people behind TSLAQ who are financially incentivized to attempt to bring about Tesla's bankruptcy, do not use Wikipedia as a medium to that effort and do not use Wikipedia to promote such efforts elsewhere. As such I stand by my recommendation that TSLAQ should not be referenced by Tesla (even though the reverse is fine). And as for the plainsite.org we clearly cannot cite them in relation to Tesla (nor to Elon Musk). Lastly, I apologize again for the truly unfortunate and unintended deletion of comments of other editors and hope that the confusion that this has brought about to the actual process of debating this important topic can be cleared up. Lklundin (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comments accidentally removed by Lklundin reinstated by them (with profound apologies - it seems some kind of conflicting edit happened): Lklundin (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not explain the change you made to my signature at the top of the Rfc. QRep2020 (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The template I appended to your signature contains a link with an explanation, it informs others in this discussion that you are an WP:SPA. Lklundin (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an SPA though, you only think I'm an SPA for whatever unfounded reason. Wikipedia policy also asks editors to act in abundance of caution when using it and, in general, to be kind and considerate. QRep2020 (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that he is trying to WP:Bludgeon the process. MartinezMD (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)>[reply]
He?
Please explain how following the process of RfC, which was proposed by both you and Lklundin, waiting until a comment was received - from an Admin no less - and then moving forward is somehow "bludgeoning". I made the edits, one of which was changed and I took no issue with the alteration. Frankly, I considered this matter closed but it appears some of us are on a bit of a tear. QRep2020 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, folks need to stop attacking each other and focus on the merits of points being made. And by attacking each other, I mean pointing out perceived flaws in each others' behavior instead of talking about Wikipedia policies, sourcing, proposed changes, or evaluating the article as is. Bias should be measured by whether or not an article covers all points of view and whether readers from any of the covered perspectives would say that they've been given a fair shake. (And due weight should be considered based on coverage in reliable third-party sources.) Bias should not be measured in the intentions of other editors, because Wikipedia:Assume good faith (or at least pretend to, for politeness' sake!), and because a community of editors with a diversity of biases can work together to produce a neutral article. I just read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSLAQ, which is sadly full of incivility, and that article was kept because of the objective arguments made about coverage in reliable third-party sources, not because of the history or intentions of any involved editor. Reading all of these angry attacks on each other is just alienating volunteers and making everyone want to go work on other articles, or quit Wikipedia for the moment and go outside. My recommendation, if you think continued bad behavior on the part of another editor is hindering progress in writing a great encyclopedia, then instead of smearing attacks all over article talk pages, contact an uninvolved administrator or start a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If there's a dispute over whether or not a discussion has ended with a clear consensus, please just be polite about noting that you don't think there was consensus, and ask an uninvolved editor to evaluate the discussion so far. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure exists specifically to help in these situations. Sometimes all it takes is soliciting a few more opinions (which is what this RFC was for) or politely discussing the various points made and coming to some compromise, which was more or less happening in the above section until things started going off the rails here. -- Beland (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Beland. I admit that my responses can be a bit charged. I'm working on it. Lklundin, I see you removed the edits to the Lawsuits section. Can you please explain why the mention was not warranted based on the discussion from before and the comment provided by Beland? QRep2020 (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While it is indeed unfortunate that the editing of a specific editor like QRep2020 has to be brought up, I will explain why. When I previously had to bring up the problematic edits of this WP:SPA, they explained "My focus here is verified high-profile frauds (Enron, Worldcom) and groups who claim they've discovered a high-profile company committing fraud (at the moment TSLAQ and WeQ, albeit the latter hasn't been referenced in published material as of yet so I haven't published an article)". This is demonstrably false and misleading. Enron and Worldcom has received the most perfunctory attention from this editor, and it is specious of them to compare TSLAQ to WeQ, since the latter also has received no real attention. As such it is difficult to assume good faith on their part. I will now explain why this is a real problem in relation to Tesla-related articles. An anti-investor is someone who bets against a company, by short selling or more speculatively by buying derivatives such as put options that potentially have huge payouts. Such an anti-investor is financially motivated to publicly criticize the company they invest against, a practice which can be illegal. Through their own court filings, a person who is behind a source critical of Tesla (and Elon Musk), has recently divulged to be an anti-investor (see above). So in the case of the TSLAQ-people, this practice is now known to be real. As such, the difficulty we have with assuming good faith on the part of an editor like QRep2020 is very unfortunate for them, because their editing pattern aligns perfectly with a Tesla-anti-investor. A Tesla-anti-investor would have no interest in contributing to articles on already bankrupt companies like Enron. Instead, such the Tesla-anti-investor would be incentivized to promote their critical views on Wikipedia and also to use Wikipedia to promote these views on social media. Exactly like QRep2020. Further, a Tesla-anti-investor would be incentivized to try to discredit on Wikipedia sources[7] that they perceive to be positive in regards to Tesla, just like QRep2020 have done - without involving affected editors. As such, an editor like QRep2020 and indeed any editor with a known anti-Tesla-bias should probably not be editing articles directly related to Tesla. Lklundin (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument really is as such ("Exactly like QRep2020"), please produce evidence of me being a "Tesla-anti-investor". If evidence cannot be produced, then the conclusion is unverifiable. If the conclusion is unverifiable, then there are no longer grounds to argue that my edits to Tesla, Inc. should be disallowed. Since I have demonstrably shown an interest in other topics related to fraud, as of now there's more evidence of me not being a "Tesla-anti-investor" with "no interest in contributing to articles on already bankrupt companies like Enron" than there is for me being one. And please refrain from judgments of "triviality" as there's nothing to suggest I didn't spend significant amounts of time researching any of my edits on Wikipedia. QRep2020 (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see Lklundin changed their argument again and it is now something about TSLAQ and perhaps Plainsite being "sinister". This argument appeared on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TSLAQ and it wasn't a good argument then. Short-selling or more broadly making money from suing someone believed to be committing fraud isn't sinister because it is a means of capitalizing on what is thought to be a fraud without committing fraud. It is a means of drawing attention to what is thought to be a fraud and, since capitalism first and foremost incentivizes capitalization, it does so by allowing participants to make money by "declaring" or arguing successfully in trial their suspicions about a stock (which roughly represents the company in the stock market). QRep2020 (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Lklundin, why did you remove my and others' comments? It's clearly stated at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines under "Editing others' comments" to never do that unless the posts are harmful. There wasn't even an explanation of said deletions in the Edit summary.
I also see that my signature was altered at the top of the Rfc. Likewise, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states that one should never alter another's signature.
What evidence do you have that Plainsite is "part of TSLAQ"? And even if they were, what is wrong with factual statements that they've produced independently? Tesla is a defendant in over 600 lawsuits - is that in dispute?
As a Tesla-anti-investor, the person behind plainsite.org is per definition part of TSLAQ. As such I have brought the use of plainsite.org as a source up on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Plainsite.org_on_Tesla,_Inc._and_Elon_Musk. Lklundin (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TSLAQ is a self-organizing group, not a label attached to an otherwise yet to be differentiated mass of people. The "definition" - there is no definition provided in the article because the subject of TSLAQ is not a word though there is a description - of belonging appears to amount to pledging membership. Where has the person behind Plainsite pledged to belong to TSLAQ? QRep2020 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the comment you removed, Beland brought up the point of Good Faith. To echo Beland's point, I am contributing to Wikipedia articles, mine own and others, as well as posts on Talk pages in Good Faith. The fact that I spend time and effort on an article that I helped create doesn't reflect anything except diligence.
  • Yes - TSLAQ is a noteworthy phenomenon that is directly tied to Tesla, Inc. that has been chronicled by many reliable, independent sources and therefore fits the criteria for mention. QRep2020 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but... I think TSLAQ as a voice of short sellers and critics (not all are short sellers) is significant. Musk/Tesla have gone after "members" of this community in ways that stand out from typical business. Additionally it's a fact that Tesla is one of the most shorted stocks both by percentages and by total value of shares. As an exchange and source of information regarding news/information/analysis about Tesla this makes the general TSLAQ community impactful on Tesla. However, I'm not sure of the best way to integrate this and think it would be best if we wait for clearer outside sources/references to show the way. In short I don't see a reason to hurry to get it in.
Aside: A number of editors have gone far into discussing/focusing on editors rather than content. If there is an editor breaking rules please create a thread at WP:ANI. Else, editors should be assumes to be acting in good faith. On article talk pages the quality of the argument, not the messenger is what's important. Springee (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TSLAQ has been around since at least mid-2018. The TSLAQ article's about six months old. The phenomenon is pretty unprecedented so why shouldn't it be the "defining" example of how to integrate? If what's happening here is any indication of how editors of some future "parent" topic will respond to inclusion of mention of a critical counter-culture, it's going to be a tough slog yet again. QRep2020 (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tesla,_Inc.&oldid=958741124"