Talk:TSLAQ

Statement of Neutrality and Non-involvement

I am the author of this entry and a recent newcomer to Wikipedia. Without needlessly exposing myself to the doxxing that I have witnessed in researching TSLAQ, I will openly state that I am NOT a member of TSLAQ and only a neutral reporter interested in researching crowdsourced activities against tech corporations. I plan on doing more entries about other "Q groups", such as the one for WeWork that existed prior to the WeWork IPO attempt. I will update my Wikipedia profile to reflect this truth and ask that Wikipedia Administrators remove the Neutrality complaint.

--QRep2020 (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same is true for me. I am interested in the phenomenon, and I think it deserves an entry.

--Licentiatus (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same is true for me. I believe that the page is sufficiently neutral with the last few minor edits I have made. I have also archived the current state of the article for reference for future modifications.

--Phyronian (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The archival link is superfluous since all versions of entries are saved here on Wikipedia, even the reverted and vandalized ones. Why not link to the wiki copy and allow users to stay on the website to read it?

QRep2020 (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree page needs to be neutral. I'm new to Wikipedia, so trying to learn about the right way to format for wikipedia. --- Tintdepotcom (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a biased one sided point of view. I just read up on NPV, as it stands TSLAQ is completely unbalanced and is a non-neutral article. It does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives. It represents a minority view of TSLAQ and cherry picks items out of the articles. I can not find anything from the first two references to justify the first 2 sentences. What I did find were many items deleted: so I have condensed some items #1 reference (The Times)

"TslaQ … means to Tesla short sellers… Tesla has reached a cliff in demand for its vehicles…its stock price will crash, creating a bonanza for investors who … have bet big that Tesla’s shares are grossly overvalued... a social media swarm, made up largely of anonymous contributors with made-up names and colorful avatars... network of Tesla skeptics who connect on Twitter through $TslaQ — Tesla’s stock symbol, followed by Q, a stock exchange notation for a company in bankruptcy. Which Tesla, to be clear, is not. What Tesla is, relatively speaking, is heavily shorted: ... has emerged as a crowd-sourced stock research platform. A major aim is to change the mind of Tesla stock bulls and the media. The research helps individual short sellers decide when to move in and out of the stock. But it’s clear from the posts that $TslaQ can be just as vitriolic as Tesla fans are adoring."...

“A lot of their premise is emotional,” he said. “They hate Musk. They think he’s a fraud; they think he’s a liar.”...

Most $TslaQ posters try to remain nameless" ^[1]

Taken from Ref 2; there was nothing I could find that your referenced, but I did find this: "A group of Tesla short sellers" ^[2]

In summary from the first 2 references: TSLAQ is made up of short sellers that are trying to profit off lowering the stock price. They share the following in common:

Hate for Elon Musk
Hate for Tesla
Profit of short selling TSLA stock
Want Tesla to go bankrupt (Q)
Spread rumors to bring down stock

This is neutral & unbiased from the referenced two articles Tintdepotcom (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section issues

The section added by Cihwcihw refers to a single article when it cites "many online blogs" and the article itself is from a source that was already included earlier in the entry as a source of criticism. The section also refers to discussion held by Tesla enthusiasts, who are clearly not independent and unbiased sources in this matter. Finally, references to one Gregory Lemelson are irrelevant as there is no recorded evidence of Lemelson interacting with TSLAQ and furthermore Lemelson's scheme involved Ligand Pharmaceuticals, not Tesla, Inc.

I am again removing the section for the above reasons.

--QRep2020 (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Cihwcihw: to participate in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for first attempt at reverting + Other notes

I am still new to Wikipedia and its tools, so I didn't get reverting done the first time I tried - apologies. Also, my thoughts in full for reverting the text are below:

Reverting to NicatronTg's version. As pointed out in an earlier undo that was subsequently ignored, the edits about a block list (1) don't entail TSLAQ is an "echo chamber", (2) misrepresent that a block list is somehow shared by TSLAQ as a whole instead of employed by some of its members, and (3) is original research and as such are not appropriate for this entry. Other edits, such as adding a label for the nonexistent Gossip category, including Tesla's mission statement - already available on the TESLA Wikipedia entry - in bold text and using negative words like "harm" fly in the face of the neutral tone standards and therefore are not appropriate either. Additionally, "seemingly intentionally" is a weasel word and doesn't belong in Wikipedia content. Finally, the Reference section currently features not only extraneous but also poorly structured items; for example "Machine Planet" isn't someone's name but rather their Twitter screen name and so shouldn't follow the "last name, first name" ordering. Please refrain from vandalizing and corrupting this entry any further.

Furthermore, I would like to preserve on the record here evidence of coordination behind today's acts of vandalism by linking to a quick album I constructed of Twitter screengrabs that implicate some of the brazen editing attempts: https://imgur.com/a/gjAUpyw. I will now ask that the entry be protected against future biased attacks.

QRep2020 (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good start

This seems to be a decent beginning. The relevance is obvious. Let’s hope for many high-quality contributions. --Licentiatus (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @QRep2020: I can explain why the block list is not any of the 3 things you said it is.

1) The block list is shared by the most prominent members of TSLAQ on twitter and is a widely adopted system. This effectively makes it an echo chamber because of the nature of twitter's block feature. It means that the faces of this group are immune to receiving criticism on their positions or statements, which by definition is an echo chamber.

2) Again, the prominent members of the TSLAQ group use the block list. Not every single member does, but that is an unreasonable bar to hold to a group as it means you could not make any generalizations without excluding some members. By following what the apparent majority of the group does, we can make general statements about how they operate, even if it isn't 100% perfect down to a given individual member's level.

3) I cited the source for the block list which is maintained by a member of the group. I don't see how this is original research as I'm directly quoting the author of the work I'm discussing.

"Harm" the stock is to make it go down, a fundamental property of short selling. It makes no sense to remove the term that accurately describes their actions. I guess you could replace it with lower or decrease if you want, but to remove this context entirely from the article I think is leaving out an important piece of information about TSLAQ

Agreed on the "seemingly intentionally", should just have said that they made false statements or future predictions. What is the proper citation structure for referencing a tweet?

Also, reference #6 links to a paywalled article, meaning no one has the ability to validate whether or not the statement which cites #6 as its reference is valid, this should be changed so #6 is referencing an article that is not behind a paywall or removing the statement which uses 6 for its conclusion.

--Phyronian (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As no one has retorted my explanation as to why I think the blocklist should be added to the article, I am going to re-add it. Phyronian (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian as other editors have removed the content previously, it's disputed, and should not be re-added without a reliable, independent source that supports the content. A link to a block list is not a source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd I have added a Cleantechnica article which documents a user on twitter getting added to the block list. Also, what would be a source for the block list besides the block list itself?

(Always add one more colon than the previous comment to keep indentations aligned properly) So I looked at the sources you added, Phyronian. I can see that you're tying together the tweet and the blocklist itself to draw a conclusion; that's original research, not appropriate for the article. The CleanTechnica article, written by an artist in the tone of a blog post, only supports that she believes TSLAQ has a block list. It doesn't support Prominent members of TSLAQ such as Lawrence Fossi, Jim Chanos, @TESLAcharts, @ElonBachman, and @RealDrCassowary are known to use the block list. So again, that's original research. Keep in mind that Wikipedia articles are not where you tell what you know about a subject; it's where we summarize what independent, reliable sources have said about something. Schazjmd (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd I'm not drawing conclusions from the sources. There IS a block list as I have cited, Members DO use it as the CleanTechnica article demonstrates. I already amended the list of people that can be confirmed to use it.

Phyronian, I don't see the names you've mentioned in the article anywhere in the CleanTechnica article. Edited to add: Please read WP:RS. These tweets you're adding are not reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd The CleanTechnica article cites twitter posts from @Paul91701736 (the guy that runs the block list and anyone he blocks gets added to the list) and @TESLAcharts stating that they have already or have intentions to block the account mentioned. I have also added references to tweets by @ElonBachman and @RealDrCassowary saying that they use the block list. All 4 of these people are in the list of key people in the article (I did add @Paul91701736 to it from his role in running the block list and its importance to the group). Phyronian (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, you don't get it. You're not assembling evidence to convince other people on a forum. You're writing an encyclopedia article. None of those tweets mean a thing. They are not reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd Are you saying Twitter posts by people in the TSLAQ group, a semi-anonymous group founded and active on Twitter, are not credible citations for an article about the group discussing the individuals? If so, we have to remove the Elon Musk tweet being cited earlier in the conversation, and there are thousands of other articles on wikipedia now that need their citations looked over because they reference tweets by individuals. Phyronian (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, it's covered in WP:RS, specifically the section User-generated content. In articles about notable people, when their social media accounts are verified, their content can be used to support articles in very specific instances, which are covered in the section Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Schazjmd (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try explaining a different way. The article TSLAQ is about what reliable, independent sources say about TSLAQ, not what TSLAQ says about itself or what you see members of TSLAQ doing or saying. Schazjmd (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd So you're saying that Ref 3, 7 8 10 and 11 which I just added, and 13 would have to be removed as they are tweets from people that do not have the verified check on Twitter. That's pretty ridiculous as this means the list of "key people" has a bunch of people which cannot be cited for anything in the article, as all of them post on twitter and none of them have the verified check on twitter. They should then be removed from the key people's list. Phyronian (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, that's possible. I haven't compared the list of key people to the good sources in the article, but if they're not named in the reliable sources, they should be removed from the infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd If that is done, it basically means there is almost no evidence or statements that can be made about the group as very few of its members have the verified check on twitter. Most of the prominent members of the group, the people viewed as the face of the group and why they are in the key people list, aren't verified on twitter. Phyronian (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, exactly. Let me repeat: The article TSLAQ is about what reliable, independent sources say about TSLAQ, not what TSLAQ says about itself or what you see members of TSLAQ doing or saying. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd So let me get this straight. It's not ok to reference tweets by prominent members of the group to support statements of their activities, but it is ok to reference an independent source's article on the group that adds the same tweets as evidence for similar statements? Phyronian (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, in an article by a reliable source (meaning, from a source that practices editorial control and fact checking), we use what the journalist writes to support facts and claims in our article. If that journalist includes information they get from twitter, we can attribute what they say. But we are not the journalists doing the investigation. (And as I said below about elektrek, I suspect CleanTechnica would also be a questionable source.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the "key people" section, listing only those individuals who figured prominently in the two good sources. (The 3rd source, in Bloomberg, doesn't mention TSLAQ so it's insufficient to include Einhorn as a "key person".) I've also removed the tweets and the unsupported content. Schazjmd (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd So the article doesn't need a source for statements it makes, only that the source is generally known to be reliable. I think that's a horrible standard of evidence. Also, according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, CleanTechnica has very high factual reporting rates. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/clean-technica/ Phyronian (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phyronian, I don't know where you're getting "the article doesn't need a source for statements it makes". This whole discussion has been about needing sources to support the content. Also, you might find this discussion about mediabiasfactcheck.com useful. Schazjmd (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd Your statement, "in an article by a reliable source (meaning, from a source that practices editorial control and fact checking), we use what the journalist writes to support facts and claims in our article", makes it sounds like that all that is required is that a source that is generally known for being reliable making statements, no requirement of evidence in the actual article. Also, I seriously doubt that Clean Technica would be considered a questionable source, as they cite their evidence in their articles, promote fact checking and make articles actively fact checking others, and don't rely on rumors or gossip to make their articles. Phyronian (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Statement of Neutrality

As per this Cleantechnica article, some TSLAQ people seem to be receiving funds to post negative comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintdepotcom (talk • contribs) 01:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s nonsense. --Licentiatus (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's own statements about getting donations from TSLAQ and being connected to them are nonsense? Phyronian (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The donations are being made in exchange for negative comments? --Licentiatus (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems coincidental that months before they were removed from the company they had received money from people claiming to be TSLAQ, and also saying that a reporter introduced them to TSLAQ and that they love that community, and shortly after not being with the company made negative statements about the company and its work conditions. You would think that if they had these negative work conditions and they had connections to TSLAQ and a reporter, that he would have shared this information at the time and we would have known about these alleged problems months before he actually did. Phyronian (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You would think" is not evidentiary, all of this amounts to circumstantial at best. Please stop using the TSLAQ Talk page for rumor-mongering.

QRep2020 (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of TSLAQ Community

=

The description of TSLAQ does not explain accurately why they formed? Hence, this article does not appear neutral. A few examples:

TSLAQ stands for "Tesla Bankruptcy" for a company that is not bankrupt. Why is there "Q" in the name for a company that is not bankrupt?
The group was (largely) formed by investors that are shorting the stock & trying to make money off it. The largest shorted stock of over $10 billion in 2019.

As per ^[3]: ^[4]

"They exchange research, news articles, and sometimes outlandish conspiracy theories about the company"
"A community known as $TSLAQ is betting on the company's death and have found much success in irritating the billionaire executive."
"That's no coincidence. Posts about Tesla blow other popular tech stocks out of the water... — Tesla gets roughly 20% more posts than other "FAANG" stocks "

If you want to be neutral, you must add the reasons why they formed: 1. (Highest "click rate" / "like" on twitter , 2. Seeking profit by shorting the stock 3. Q - Hope the company goes bankrupt so they can profit off it. 4. For how many years have they been claiming "Q"? Tintdepotcom (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Can you please point to where in the Wikipedia neutral tone policy it states that, in order for a description of something to be neutral, there is a necessary and sufficient reason for the said description to explain why that something exists? Furthermore, the entry already explains why TSLAQ exists: "[I]ndividuals critical of Elon Musk and aspects of Tesla, Inc. [...] organize on Twitter in order to share news, openly discuss matters concerning [Tesla] and [Tesla's] stock, and coordinate efforts."

The "criticism" about the name is irrelevant as names themselves don't have to impart true and descriptive content. For example, what does "tintdepotcom" mean? Nothing really as it is a malformed version of "TintDepot.com". Should you stop using it then? QRep2020 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name is very relevant & very descriptive:

TSLA = Tesla
Q = Bankruptcy
A group of "TSLAQ" are interested in Tesla going bankrupt

It is the hashtag of the group of "Tesla short sellers" trying to profit of the share price falling. It is literally "in the name." which people try to keep out of the article. Thus it is kept biased & unbalanced.

Tintdepotcom (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between TSLAQ and short sellers

Three of the strongest sources (LA Times, CNBC, and the Verge) talk about the relationship between TSLAQ and short sellers, yet the article doesn't address that at all. The article needs to better reflect the sources. Schazjmd (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added requested information. QRep2020 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 15:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles about the short sellers and Larry Fossi. As per ^[1], "One of Tesla's biggest anonymous trolls/ shorts has been doxxed as an investment manager heavily invested in the oil industry" where he would "attack anyone saying anything that could be perceived as positive on Tesla." And "he was holding a short position on Tesla and therefore, he benefits from the company's stock price going down." Tinting2020 (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tinting2020, I think electrek would be considered a questionable source. Try to find better sources. Schazjmd (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Tinting2020 (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ww.electrek.co/2018/07/24/tesla-troll-short-doxxed-oil-industry-musk-calls-boss/

Schazjmd Ok, thanks. Tinting2020 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QRep2020 May I ask why Martin Tripp was added to the list of "Key People"? I cannot find on his wiki page any reference to him being a part of TSLAQ, nor can I find him making any such statement. Phyronian (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-short-sellers-musk-20190408-story.html

[2] ttps://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/01/tesla-shorts-who-take-aerial-pictures-of-parking-lots-launch-web-site.html

[3] Business Insider

[4] ttps://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tesla-stock-price-twitter-musk-fans-bears-2019-4-1028119078

[5] ttps://ww.electrek.co/2018/07/24/tesla-troll-short-doxxed-oil-industry-musk-calls-boss/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]