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.

Neutrality and Wikipedia guidelines

I've noticed that the current paragraph on Tesla’s controversies seems to emphasize a list of negative claims such as allegations of whistleblower retaliation and worker rights issues in a way that doesn’t quite match how similar topics are treated in other company articles. This focus might unintentionally bias the article, especially since it singles out controversies related to the founders without offering a broader context.

For instance, Toyota has most of these issues as well. It seems that the political stance of a certain founder at Tesla has caused a biased article. This is something that should be avoided as much as possible according to Wikipedia guidelines.

Could we take another look at this section to see if we can balance it more evenly? It might help to either rephrase some of the language or add additional viewpoints to ensure that the coverage aligns with Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.

Thanks for considering this adjustment. SnoozerMan (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Controversy sections are negative by definition.

Most of other car companies have such sections. Tesla's list is a bit longer but each item is no harsher than for any other company. Put it down to Tesla doing more things wrong. Perhaps being a younger company just means they haven't learnt to put safeguards in place as well as the older companies.  Stepho  talk  01:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, but perhaps I should have clarified my position. Tesla certainly has controversies, I am not contesting that. However I have been unable to find a controversies paragraph in the lead of any other car manufacturer page (Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Rivian, Ford, Mitsubishi). My argument is not with the controversies subsection, only that there is a controversies paragraph in the lead for the article. I am not convinced that there is encyclopedic relevancy beyond that of, say Ford Motors, for Tesla. Please correct me if I am incorrect, but placing this in the lead seems to break convention.

Let me know what your thoughts are on this. Thanks. SnoozerMan (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

If Henry Ford were still alive doing crazy shit, and publishing wacky conspiracy theories the Ford article would certainly focus more on them because the reliable coverage would focus more on them. Nobody has the issues that Tesla does, but at the same time nobody has the valuation that Tesla does... These "the lack of a public relations department, and controversial statements from Musk including overpromising on the company's driving assist technology and product release timelines." for example only currently apply to Tesla... All the other majors have public relations departments and professional non-founder executives. If you want to talk non-majors you mentioned Rivian but not Nikola Corporation which goes into greater detail about company controversies than this article does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you for finding that link to Nikola corp. I am still training on spotting issues with articles etc. I appreciate the clarification. SnoozerMan (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Really? Did you thoroughly check? I found this one in just 5 seconds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota#Controversies 2001:A61:34C1:9201:A85C:E1DC:129F:CE92 (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

He said "However I have been unable to find a controversies paragraph in the lead of any other car manufacturer page" (my underlining).

What you found was a controversies section - not in the lead section.  Stepho  talk  10:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Which might be because Tesla is a controversial car maker with an even more controversial CEO, none of which can be said for any other manufacturer. This IS part of this companies identity and IMHO bears encyclopedic relevance. 2001:A61:34C1:9201:A85C:E1DC:129F:CE92 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that SnoozerMan said "It seems that the political stance of a certain founder at Tesla has caused a biased article.". Obviously this refers to Elon Musk, but Musk is not a founder of Tesla. He merely bought the company, but due to a strange settlement between the actual founders and Tesla Inc. Musk is allowed to call himself a founder, but that does not mean he is one. 2001:A61:34E7:7001:FDA7:5777:8424:6F83 (talk) 01:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

"let's dismiss the entire argument because this guy referred to someone as a founder when they actually just bought the company decades ago" bruh SnoozerMan (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@SnoozerMan made a very valid point and was quickly dismissed because you disagree with his politics.

RIP Wikipedia. All objectivity is lost. Baseballdude (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Your level of indentation implies that you are responding to my comment. Dismissed? When? Politics? Nobody mentioned politics. Snoozerman started a discussion. I contributed to the discussion with some counterpoints. Snoozerman made some more perfectly valid points. And then we just kind of forgot about it without resolving anything. All quite civilised until your "contribution". For what it's worth, I'm not particularity pro or con but I do like to explore both sides of the story. Not sure how you can call that not being objective.

Now, would you like to make a real contribution to the discussion? Bring up some points for or against and we can talk like civilised people.  Stepho  talk  03:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Friendly reminder: You are coping 77.69.101.169 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

unlike TSLA investors, who are unlikely to be coping after losing 45% of stock value in 90 days. 2603:800C:1500:2181:5C92:213F:ABED:8679 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed @SnoozerMan. This site is run by activists who have no regard for the truth, but instead their own moral superiority and false virtue. Their logic works like this:

You say the sky is blue, and they reply, “that depends.”

You say something walks like a duck, talks like a duck, quacks like a duck; they insist it’s a squirrel.

You say Wikipedia, or an article therein, is biased, and they ask for proof. (*Eye rolls*) You provide them a source (as in here: https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased), and they will simply discredit it as a non-reputable source or discount the article’s premise because it does not fit with their fringe narrative. You give them another source, and they will say it only tangentially addresses the issue. But, of course, a source on the other side of the political spectrum will be considered perfectly credible and not to be questioned.

To put it bleakly: you can never win.

It’s a sad reality for encyclopedic publishing, which is supposed to be biased and neutral. But yellow journalism is the only way their unpopular ideas can be projected onto others which otherwise would have no place in our society. In a practical sense, moderators know articles like this one are biased, but they will never admit this where their logic does not stand up to scrutiny and when they are able to exert power over others they otherwise would not be able to in the real world outside of a computer screen. Moreseter (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That Manhattan reference was an interesting read. It's conclusion was that there was a "mild to moderate" bias. Considering that any group of people will show biases and self-interest and that politics is a touchy subject at the best of times, "mild to moderate" is actually quite good. Also curious that several Australian prime ministers were shown as both left and right wing leaning - eg Australian Prime Ministers Howard and Gillard were right learning with negative sentiments while John Howard and Julia Gillard were left leaning with positive sentiment. Personally I put that down to right wing tending to favour business causes (make the economy good but the little people will feel the hurt) and the left wing tending to favour humanitarian causes (the economy tanks but people are treated better until the money runs out). So the right wing gets the hate comments while the left wing will tend to get the feel-good sentiments - human nature. But that's just my armchair philosophising and I don't have a problem if I understood it wrong.

More to the point, what concrete points do you want changed? Be specific. We may not solve everything in one go but we can at least pick one point and find some common ground.  Stepho  talk  09:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Strong words from someone with an experience dating back to... the 26th of March 2025... 2001:A61:34C1:9201:A85C:E1DC:129F:CE92 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Any thoughts on my reply? Moreseter (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Moreseter: Considering that your reply was a generic complaint against Wikipedia and that I asked you for a concrete specific point for this article to be improved, the ball is now in your court.  Stepho  talk  00:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Umm. I think plenty of others on this talk page have done that already. Moreseter (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, so far your entire contribution can be summarised as saying "WP sucks". If you want change then you need to talk details.  Stepho  talk  11:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

"make the economy good but the little people will feel the hurt" In Greece, the traditional phrasing for that kind of policy is “ Όταν οι αριθμοί ευημερούν, οι άνθρωποι υποφέρουν ”. It translates to "When the numbers prosper, the people suffer". It was originally a 1960s political phrase by Georgios Papandreou, implying that "balanced budgets" and "high productivity" translate to poor living standards for the majority of the population, and great income inequality. See the following text: https://www.in.gr/2021/09/13/apopsi/na-min-eyimeroun-mono-oi-arithmoi-alla-kai-oi-anthropoi/ Dimadick (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Missing: Eighth recall of the Cybertruck

Currently, the Cybertruck is in it's eight factory recall (entire production), due to parts simply falling off the vehicle on the highway, posing serious risks to other drivers. The fault is that large metal pieces were glued (!) using the wrong glue... 2001:A61:3433:4A01:F9FB:F353:AA2E:CA9E (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

More appropriate at Tesla Cybertruck.  Stepho  talk  13:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

But IMHO definitely worth a sentence of mentioning in the paragraph about the Cybertruck here, if the negative receiption by the media was worth mentioning, severe (!) product quality issues producing severe risks to other motorists on highways should be. IMHO. 2001:A61:34C1:9201:A85C:E1DC:129F:CE92 (talk) 10:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Missing: Class action lawsuit on odometer manipulation to avoid warranty obligations

Hinton v. Tesla, Inc. et al. FILED: FEBRUARY 7, 2025 A class action lawsuit has been filed alleging that Tesla has manipulated odometer measures to avoid mileage-capped warranty coverages. https://www.classaction.org/news/tesla-lawsuit-alleges-automaker-manipulates-odometer-readings-to-avoid-warranty-obligations https://www.classaction.org/media/hinton-v-tesla-inc-et-al.pdf 173.22.149.179 (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Vehicle sales

In the third Paragraph, the article makes no mention of the fact that Model Y sales volume during the first half of Calendar Year 2025 has been materially reduced on their absolute number one best-selling model by the planned change-over to a "refreshed" Model Y - Project Code Named "Juniper" - and gradual ramp-up of the revised production processes at all Model Y Factories and that there is no consensus as to how much of the sales decline is due to reduced factory output or Elon's Federal Government activities. Please make an update to reflect these points. Thank You. 46.110.119.123 (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

References

new sales figures Germany 1st Jan.-30 April 2025

Federal Motor Transport Authority: Neuzulassungen von Personenkraftwagen insgesamt im Jahresverlauf 2025 sowie mit Elektro: in the first 4 months of 2025, 158,503 brand new Electric cars got their Vehicle licence ('Erstzulassung') in Germany (42.8 % more than in the first 4 months of 2024, when 111,005 got their licence).

5,820 of them were Teslas.

1st Jan.-30 April 2024, 14,705 brand new Teslas got their Vehicle licence: minus 60,4 %.

1st Jan.-30 April 2024: 14.705 of 111,005 Electric cars = 13.25 % market share

1st Jan.-30 April 2024: 5,820 of 158,503 Electric cars = 3.67 % market share 62.143.250.202 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tesla Roadster Sport insignia (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed merging the articles 2025 Tesla vandalism and Tesla Takedown. Please see Talk:2025 Tesla vandalism#Merge proposal. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tesla Roadster Sport insignia (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

RoboTaxi

Since Teslas Robotaxi service launches in Austin in June, shouldn't we create a section and start tracking how the service is received https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-06-02/tesla-s-robotaxi-faces-key-month-of-testing-and-rollout JamieBrown2011 (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Great idea! QRep2020 (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Tesla Diner & Drive-In

I just created Tesla Diner & Drive-In. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section should list all of the major issues covered in Criticism of Tesla, Inc.--right now it reads as a watered down list of the most mundane criticism. Fraud allegations (regarding SolarCity, "full self-driving"), gaming government subsidies, safety issues, toxic community and cult of personality surrounding Elon, chronic pattern of noncompliance with environmental regulations, etc... these are all important, well-documented points of criticism that deserve mention in this section of the article. Stonkaments (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the purpose of Criticism of Tesla, Inc. to go into great detail about Tesla's many shortcomings. The criticism section of the Tesla, Inc. article should summarise that in a single, short paragraph - listing only a couple of general categories (without details) and perhaps list examples of the 2 biggest criticisms (without details). If editors see a few criticisms listed as anything more than a title, many will feel compelled to expand the list and this section will become a duplicate of Criticism of Tesla, Inc. . Keep it short!  Stepho  talk  04:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Q4 2024 delivery data inconsistency

Hello,

I noticed that the figure **495,570** in the Q4 2024 deliveries table seems to represent total vehicle deliveries for all Tesla models combined, but it is currently shown under "Model 3 and Y" deliveries.

According to Tesla’s official Investor Relations data, the combined deliveries for Model 3 and Model Y in Q4 2024 are about **471,930**, not 495,570. The number 495,570 reflects all Tesla models including Model S and Model X.

This could be misleading and should be clarified or corrected to accurately represent the data.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.117.39 (talk) 08:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)