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) so 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)

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)

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)

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)

---

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"

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

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 info (that I added) is neutral & unbiased from the referenced two articles Tintdepotcom (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Since nobody has disputed the above facts taken from the first two references of LA Times & Business Insider, I have added the information to explain the Origins of the group. Tinting2020 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If someone could help on best way to format references for me, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Tinting2020 (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting because the article doesn't detail the formation of TSLAQ, only some of the events that inspired some early members. Saying TSLAQ hates Elon Musk is not a conclusion for one to draw in a Wikipedia entry, nor does the article provide evidence of emotional state of TSLAQ members. Saying users are "fabricating" their names on Twitter is irrelevant as the entry already establishes the tendency for anonymity. Paints shorting, a perfectly legal and often employed financial strategy, as a negative act with tone and word usage. Finally, Schazjw argue very thoroughly about why the block list reference is unwarranted on this very page. QRep2020 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm going to remove the reference to the blocklist per Schazjmd's argument, which I agreed with since the beginning but grew tired of arguing. Thank you, Schazjmd. QRep2020 (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

"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)

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 :

• "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)

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)

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)

Is there any cause now for maintaining the non-neutrality tag? QRep2020 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A request for consensus on the non-neutrality tag was asked above on February 2nd and a consensus (of one) was reached. There is no cause for adding the tag again without discussing the matter further. QRep2020 (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

One person is not a consensus. It is interesting how you somehow believe that your edits and reverts can be made to the article without first discussing, but you demand others first discuss before making any changes. The article was and remains non-neutral and the tag will remain on the article until it becomes neutral. Iamchinahand (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing on Wikipedia:Consensus that says a consensus has a minimum number of participants. Additionally, I raised the issue on this very page several times, as apparent from the log. Tangentially, I ask that you stop attacking me personally and focus on the content. QRep2020 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have never and will never attack you personally. I am only trying to make sure that the content that you include on Wikipedia is neutral and that you are not advocating (intentionally or unintentionally). Consensus, by definition, is a group. Consensus_decision-making Iamchinahand (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You have attacked me several times. Please don't do it again; there is no cause to even refer to individual users unless defensively. Additionally, truth by definition is tautological and therefore has no import here. What does have import is precedence and codification and there is nothing in the Wikipedia policy about number of participants needed to reach a consensus. QRep2020 (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt attacked - I assure you that no harm was intended. I am only trying to fix a problem and I can be direct at times. I will try to be more sensitive.Iamchinahand (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus only lasts until someone challenges it. This article is too new and has had too many major changes in that short period of time for there to be "long-standing" consensus on anything. An editor has raised concerns with WP:NPOV and brought the discussion to the Talk page, so it's appropriate for the tag to remain on the article while discussion continues. Schazjmd (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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

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

There are many articles about the short sellers and Larry Fossi. As per , "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)

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)

References

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

I propose changing the first line to more accurately reflect group according to the sources as follows - "TSLAQ is a loosely-collected group of largely anonymous[1] Tesla stock short sellers critical of Elon Musk and aspects of Tesla, Inc. who primarily organize on Twitter[2] and Reddit[3] in order to share news, openly discuss matters concerning the company and its stock, and coordinate efforts.[4]"Iamchinahand (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That change in effect removes information from the article verified by the Bloomberg article and by the Niedermeyer book, i.e. that the group does not consist solely of short-sellers. It is more accurate the way it is written currently. QRep2020 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I've updated the article to more accurately describe the group and include both the majority description ("group of short sellers") and the minority description ("group of short sellers and other individuals") as per article references. If you believe that this description is inaccurate in any way please let me know. Thank you. Iamchinahand (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

Apologies, I thought it was the listed Linette Lopez article on the Martin Tripp page that had it, but it was actually a different Lopez article that mentioned how Tripp's tweets in question used the #TSLAQ hashtag: https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-whistleblower-martin-tripp-tweets-images-information-2018-8#hmmm-tsla-commented-several-times-that-all-their-scrapwaste-is-being-stored-in-climate-controlled-warehousescould-this-be-true-let-these-pics-speak-for-themselves-hundreds-of-trailers-at-the-new-parking-lot-at-gf1-3. I don't believe I can add references to the Infobox though, so I am going to update the Martin Tripp Wikipedia page with this reference. Thanks for pointing this out. QRep2020 (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-neutrality tag

Is it safe for me to now remove the non-neutrality tag? What material I added that was deemed inappropriate has been excised and the user that added the tag, Cihwcihw, has contributed nothing to the article beyond accusations. I don't believe there are any other outstanding issues regarding the content, which has been reviewed by 24 editors. QRep2020 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

No. This article is still very biased and is not neutral at all. See the statements that I added earlier.

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 Tinting2020 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

  You are an exception as you've repeatedly vandalized the TSLAQ page and clearly harbor your own hatred. QRep2020 (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  QRep2020 As per our editors, let's work at creating a balanced article. Thank you.Tinting2020 (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

  I wanted to follow up on this - are there any remaining issues or complaints regarding neutrality? It seems like recent edits have addressed all of the earlier criticism, highlighting the fact the group is mostly short sellers who stand to profit if Tesla goes bankrupt, are highly critical of Tesla and Elon Musk, etc. Stonkaments (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Activities by Group Controversy

QRep2020 The sources I cited by name reference TSLAQ, and they also reference members of TSLAQ that are in the "Key People" list on the wiki article. They also interview members of TSLAQ, which is where the quotes for what they claim against Elon and Tesla come from. The block list which was discussed earlier was revised to say what it currently says, and with the reference it has. Schazjmd made the edit, and I have accepted it. Your removal of both of these pieces of the article without any discussion in Talk and making blatantly false statements about the contents of the edits demonstrate an apparent bias or lack of integrity on your part. Phyronian (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave the block list be for now because the argument is deep in another section on this page, but the Activities of the Group section fails to appreciate a few fundamental facts, which are that not all shortsellers of Tesla are TSLAQ, not all TSLAQ are shortsellers, and that Einhorn and Chanos are not operating as members of TSLAQ when they perform their fiduciary duties. On the latter statement, Chanos has never been recorded by a third party as saying anything about TSLAQ in terms of his investments nor in pledging membership to it; Einhorn had gestured at TSLAQ but, same thing, hasn't beem recorded mentioning it in terms or investing or in terms of membership. While TSLAQ likely venerates both, they are not members. When I listed Einhorn as a key person, I meant in the entry, which accounts for one his "gestures" as I put it.

An article about Tesla short sellers or "Tesla bears" is not about TSLAQ.

I am removing the section yet again because of these facts. QRep2020 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QRep2020 Again, you can't just remove stuff that we are discussing over. I don't understand why you are making blatantly false statements about the section. It explicitly states that not all members of TSLAQ are short-sellers. The Bloomberg quotes are from the Bloomberg source, which are detailing the majority actions and positions that they find TSLAQ to have, which is a relevant piece of information to include. I can remove the singular piece of information in the section that references Einhorn, but nothing else in the section is referencing things that Chanos says or believes. I will be re-addding this section to the article until we resolve this discussion. Phyronian (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I will let Schazjmd speak for themselves, but that doesn't look like a discussion. It was Schazjmd, who clearly has a long and illustrious career on Wikipedia, explaining to you how this website operates.

What you just described about your Bloomberg reference, etc. is relevant if you want to make an entry about what Tesla bears do as a group. Have at it. If users want to understand what short sellers do as a group, they can read the short_(finance) entry. This is the TSLAQ entry, which is very specific and about the loose collective of anti-Tesla Twitter users and what they do collectively. QRep2020 (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QRep2020 You are trying to control this article with your opinion and taking "your facts" & leaving out the rest. It is hypercritical for you to use CleanTechnica reference (#4) when it suites your narrative "The group has been the subject of ridicule by clean energy information websites" then claim the source can't be used for other sources. We should revisit your use of "CleanTechnica" and probably remove that statement. Tinting2020 (talk) 15:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QRep2020 No, it's relevant if you want to write an article about TSLAQ because the bloomberg article is discussing TSLAQ, and names the group in the article. In fact, it names TSLAQ 22 times in the article. Phyronian (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Both articles linked in that section are referencing TSLAQ and TSLAQ members. There are also people named that are in the "Key People" section. They are 100% valid for this article and are discussing the topic. I removed the article talking about Einhorn as he has not stated whether or not he is a part of TSLAQ, but the remaining information is valid and relevant to the topic. Phyronian (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the last thing I see Schazjmd say about the block list: "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)" This response is an argument for not including the block list and its references. Including a link to the list itself is also not a valid reference as it is not an independent third party work.

I don't see this edit you're referring to in the history of the entry, please single it out. QRep2020 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QRep2020 Schazjmd was the one who removed the CleanTechnica source from the article and was the one who amended the wording of it to say what it currently says (that version). He never says that the current version should be removed or that its source is invalid. Therefor, the current version is valid and should not be removed. Phyronian (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe this section can be integrated into the existing intro paragraph as follows:

(0) The very name of the section is a bit of a catch-all and doesn't help to form anything like a coherent theme to the section beyond a collection of descriptions derived from articles either verbatim or close to it. There is a section already that serves as generalized space, the intro paragraph.

(1) The first part, "The group was (largely) formed by investors & anonymous contributors which share an aversion to Tesla" basically reiterates what is said in the first paragraph of the entry and is not needed.

(2) The part about some being short sellers was at one point in the introduction until it was removed, so why not just bring that back instead?

(3) The facts about Tesla's stock, which are more about Tesla than about TSLAQ, arguably belong in Tesla, Inc. instead.

(4) The first bulleted quotation basically says what is already said in the intro paragraph too aside from the "outlandish conspiracies" part, which I believe can be stated in a less off-putting fashion - see #8 below.

(5) With the second quotation, by putting a statement about how some are short sellers that would do the same work as saying that some want to see the death of the company, while the point about irritating Musk successfully is sort of captured by the statement about Tesla officials engaging TSLAQ members. That said, I could see the latter statement being included in the intro somehow as well.

(6) "And as per the LA Times members believe Tesla is a fraudulent company which stock will "crash" goes along with the possible "some are short sellers" statement quite well too so why not make that happen in the intro as well.

(7) However, the "main goal" statement is incorrect as the article reads "a major aim of the group is ..." and the article does not say anything about it being self-reported or inferred.

(8) Finally, perhaps after the previous propose statements in the intro about short selling and believing the stock will crash, a single statement could be formed from the two bulleted claims, perhaps as "TSLAQ members claim that Tesla has reached a cliff in demand sales and Tesla is distorting its sales numbers of cars."

QRep2020 (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The items that were put in there are from articles cited & uses their type of language. Trying to "white wash" what is in the articles to suit the narrative does not work. The activities of the group are very important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinting2020 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How is it white-washing? And please stop accusing me of promoting a "narrative"; the section reiterates points that are already addressed or were addressed in a more concise form previously, that's my point. Please give as much attention to my response as I gave to the section. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Tinting2020, can you please respond? QRep2020 (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Despite no one responding to my response, I am only going to change the title of the section for now. Since the subject-matter isn't concerning activities but beliefs, so "Beliefs" is a better suited section title. QRep2020 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not edit war on this or any other article. The two users who have spent today reverting one another on this article have both been blocked for 31 hours. Should edit-warring resume then the article may be protected and/or lengthier blocks will be imposed. Thanks, Fish+Karate 14:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

QRep2020 and Phyronian, you're learning a lesson that many of us learn when we first start editing. Believing that your edit is "correct" is irrelevent; edit warring will get you blocked. (My lesson was when an IP editor kept changing Small Business Saturday to say that it is held on the Sabbath, which of course I kept reverting, until I reported the IP editor for edit warring and we were both immediately blocked. Even though I was certain I was "right", we were both warring.) Look, you're both engaged on the Talk page, which is a really good thing. But the Talk page is for discussing, back and forth, until editors reach a consensus. It's not a noticeboard of one-way communication where you draw your line then rush off to make the edits you want.

You're both paying attention now to what sources say, which is also a good thing. Another important aspect to that is WP:DUE, which I hope you'll both take the time to read.

This article has multiple points where the involved editors disagree. Discuss each of them individually on the Talk page (not via article changes and edit summaries) to work out what should be included. And, (I'm pinging Tinting2020 as well here), give everyone time to engage; don't just post, wait a few hours, then make your change. There is no deadline.

All three of you are new editors working on the same contentious article. This can be a great educational experience for all of you. Read the five pillars of Wikipedia and keep them in mind as you all work together to write this article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. QRep2020 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the information & guidance. Sorry about my prior errors last week. Tinting2020 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Block list discussion

Starting a thread regarding the mention of the block list. Block lists are commonly used on Twitter. What is the point of mentioning it in the article? Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd If we are including that the group "primarily organize on Twitter", it is an important fact that the group (some of the most active in the group) utilize this tool & share the block list among themselves to keep out other points of view. Tinting2020 (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tinting2020, why is it an important fact that they use that tool? ("To keep out other points of view" is not a conclusion that I've seen in the sources that mention it.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd As per ref 4, Confessions of a Twitter TSLAQ troll, "I had an endless supply of TSLAQ guys attacking every word, sometimes in very nasty and personal ways. Not much later, it suddenly stopped. I had been added to a list of pro-Tesla accounts for automatic blocking. But I was still curious. Why would people act like that? I couldn’t really learn more because of the blocks."

This demonstrates how part of the TSLAQ community works buy using the blocking tool. It effects what is seen on twitter. Tinting2020 (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

When author entered TSLAQ community, she writes "activated some party of my brain that I wasn't used to using. There's this cheap thrill reward center that lights up - I'm not sure how else to describe it." ... " I was surprised to find that when I was in 'troll mode' that facts didn't matter." ... "As far as the nasty, unhinged end of $TSLAQ goes, I get it now. It's just cheap entertainment for those guys... I could see how someone would get 'suck in.'"Tinting2020 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Tinting2020, the question is driving at why is it important to record this fact about (some of) the Twitter userbase given how block lists are prevalent in any and probably all userbases that experience antagonism (brought on by their own doing or otherwise). It isn't like Twitter hides or disapproves of them: https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/advanced-twitter-block-options. QRep2020 (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Qrep2020, To ignore the constant battles that are happening on twitter between the two groups would be a disservice of information. Since we need to utilize referenced articles & books, my prior comment reflects what is happening in the group. Also, as I mentioned below in the Niedermeyer book comment, "where they fight & battle in their twitter war," reflects the hostility between the two groups is important information. Thanks. Tinting2020 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If you want to talk about how the groups are "warring", that's fine as long as the language is neutral. That said, a block list is not a tactic of "battle" but an approach of disengagement though so I don't see how citing one helps the other. Why not drop this again unremarkable fact that some use a block list and stick to talking about the interactions of the groups at large? QRep2020 (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Qrep2020 As per my "battle" comment, I was trying to tone down the quote from Niedermey's book where he uses the word "ware" and states, "On Twitter, the war between Tesla’s believers & the $TSLAQ skeptics raged on" . Those are his words and his strong language. BTW, have you seen the language on twitter? It's brutal and ugly between Q and non Q. B. The block list creates an echo chamber where the rhetoric gets worse and worse (as per your troll article that you cite.) I'm using cited articles for the language and it's important. thanks.Tinting2020 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

But if one group at large is ignoring the other, as some editors on this page contend, then they aren't warring. Right? If TSLAQ aren't using thr block list at large, then there's no contradiction but the block list is no longer a remarkable fact about the group. Which is it? QRep2020 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The block list is the very opposite of warfare, it’s avoidance of conflict by design. Labeling it as „warring“ is therefore misleading at best. --Licentiatus (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do we stand? I believe Licentiatus and I both think the blocklist is not relevant; it looks like Schazjmd agrees. There are two semi-active editors that believe otherwise. Is this a case of majority consensus? Can I remove the reference and not worry about a meanspirited undo? QRep2020 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(Moving latest comment to end of section) The point of the block list is it represents the primary to the mode of operation of TSLAQ, by blocking anyone posting positive opinions. As a group, TSLAQ tries to create the illusion they have a strong voice of shared opinions, and that they are in possession of the truth about Tesla or Elon Musk, and not just *some* opinions amongst others. Having a blocklist creates the impression that TSLAQ has irrefutable opinions about Tesla to bypassers. This is *Extremely Dangerous* and can be potentially damaging to people interacting with TSLAQ, as this echo chamber can perpetuate false news, damaging opinions, skewed facts. It's irresponsible not to state this practice for a group operating in public. Therefore I will add this information to the wiki page. Popcatalin81 (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

talk:Popcatalin81 The discussion belongs here, not at the top of the section. The matter, as you can see, has been discussed at length. Since this is the third time you've attempted to make this identical change to the Wikipedia entry despite two editors' objections, I am adding a warning to your User profile. QRep2020 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Popcatalin81, articles should summarize what reliable, secondary sources have said about a subject. If you have a reliable source that discusses TSLAQ's blocklist, please share it with us. If you're just adding information based on the fact that you "know" there's a blocklist, that's original research which has no place in the article. Wikipedia's job is not to Right Great Wrongs. Schazjmd (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Twitter Activity of Groups

Since the group primary organize on Twitter, how do we can cite some of the activity? An editor has used prior screen shots posted of twitter activity; so let's put more sources to try to get a feel for the group to understand. https://twitter.com/BarkMSmeagol/status/1204283569742348288. In this TeslaCharts says, “If I got kidnapped at gunpoint, I would die honorably before posting this bullsh#t” concerning Lin Wood who said that “Musk spoke the truth”. Another post: https://twitter.com/BarkMSmeagol/status/1204258016045875201 speigel shows the use of guns about Linwood's wife being held hostage. Another picture has a user profile "Elon in a criminal" with him in jail stripes. Since I am blocked by Q users, I can't get direct access. And Teslacharts retweeted this https://twitter.com/BarkMSmeagol/status/1203912486140776449 about enraging Musk by mocking him.

This goes back to "the echo chamber" referenced by the Q group using the block list. Twitter's algorithms "Activated some part of my brain that I wasn’t used to using. There’s this cheap thrill reward center that lights up — I’m not sure how else to describe it." taken from the "Troll article" that is cited. Maybe we should create a section to discuss what is going on with the group in twitter? Tinting2020 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see these discussions occurring. I just want to point out that "what is going on with the group in twitter" is only appropriate to include when it's been covered by independent reliable sources. Don't edge into original research. Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I used the screenshots on the Talk Page to prove a point about *ahem* editors coordinating efforts to push non-neutral content onto this page. You can't use that to justify posting any random tweet on the actual Wikipedia page. Please appreciate the difference. Furthermore, the Activity of Group section is under contention - yes, by me - so why are talking about adding to it? Please give my points the attention they deserve. QRep2020 (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The majority of Q group's activity is on twitter & their actions are attacks where they predict the demise of the company, the "demand cliff", stock price decline & the bankruptcy (Q) of Tesla. In 2015 Spiegel predicted Tesla stock price will fall to the $30s by 2017 and Tesla will be bankrupt by 2019 or 2029. As noted in this article: [1]

How do we best reflect the countless predictions of bankruptcy over the past 5+ years? And the countless attacks on Elon, attacks on Tesla & wrong predictions? Tinting2020 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We summarize what reliable sources have said about TSLAQ. If they haven't written about their predictions or attacks, it doesn't go in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional source

There's a book that mentions TSLAQ, Ludicrous: the unvarnished story of Tesla Motors, that might also be useful for the article. I initially suspected vanity publishing, but the book's been covered by Arstechnica and LA Times, and mentioned in Publishers Weekly, so probably reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I was meaning to check it out and will. QRep2020 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Trying to digest where the group is referenced, I propose that the following be added:

• $TSLAQ and Tesla’s supporters hold very strong opinions where they fight & battle it on in twitter wars. Tinting2020 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

External Links section?

After doing some more research, it appears that tslaq.org is not the "official" website for TSLAQ - there isn't one really. However, it is one of the two TSLAQ websites written about, with the second one being elonmusk.today elonmusk.today which was featured in Einhorn's letter and at https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/26/1561534366000/The-curious-blocking-of-elonmusk-today/. And of course, the real website where TSLAQ congregates is at the $tslaq hashtag on Twitter. All of this is to say that I now believe this entry would be better served to remove the Website from the Infobox and instead place links to TSLAQ.org, the Twitter hashtag, and maybe elonmusk.today in a to-be created External Links section. Appreciate any remarks. QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Considering the nature of this "organization", I'd put an external link to TSLAQ hashtag on Twitter. I wouldn't include tslaq.org or elonmusk.today. Neither fit the guidelines for what can be linked. They don't contain useful information about TSLAQ, those seem to be their "working" docs (or claims of "evidence") in pursuing their aims. Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Wikipedia won't let me publish it! Apparently because TSLAQ uses a $-hashtag instead of a #-hashtag, there's no URL to use other than one with 'twitter.com/search/' and apparently Twitter search URLs are blacklisted by Wikipedia. Ummm, help, Schazjmd?QRep2020 (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Aha, I didn't realize, I'd never tried putting a link to a twitter hashtag before. No problem, there's no requirement to provide external links. Schazjmd (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Documentary reference

Added reference to a documentary profiling TSLAQ which includes interviews with 3 out of the 4 individuals listed as Key people on entry. Reference also specifies tslaq.org as an "official website" for the group. QRep2020 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Edward Niedermeyer Book Reference - Fails WP:IIS - Remove From Article

According to WP:IIS, "an independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective."

According to Tesla (See https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt), Mr. Niedermeyer fabricated false damaging news about Tesla and ran a blog called "Tesla Death Watch".

$TSLAQ advocated for Mr. Niedermeyer on its website here - https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/

Mr. Niedermeyer clearly has vested interest in this topic. The conflict of interest is indisputable and I don't think anyone would contest that this author doesn't cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.

Since this is an anonymous group, we can not know for sure, but it seems that Mr. Niedermeyer is closely tied to or even a member of this group of Tesla stock short sellers. He certainly appears to fit the mold. Let's remove the reference and all related content from this article. Iamchinahand (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. Ed Niedermeyer is an expert in the field and the attack on his credibility by Tesla is unsubstantiated. Besides, Tesla.com cannot be used here for argumentative purposes as it is the product of a vested party. Furthermore, using weasel words like "seems" do not make your case any stronger. The book should remain as a source. QRep2020 (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That is absurd - the only group that claims Tesla's account is unsubstantiated is $TSLAQ in the link I posted above and you are certainly not making your case that Mr. Niedermeyer isn't connected to $TSLAQ. Anyone with common sense that reads Mr. Niedermeyer's Twitter posts can see that the majority of his posts are anti-Tesla and anti-Elon Musk (exactly the same as $TSLAQ). He frequently retweets $TSLAQ posts as well. See https://www.twitter.com/Tweetermeyer

We need to be exceptionally cautious here because the article is about an anonymous group and can easily be manipulated. Wikipedia editors should not be forced to become private investigators. Iamchinahand (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

You can't make your case with Twitter and Tesla.com links; if you read this Talk page you'll see that others have tried before and were rebuked and rightfully so. Only third party reliable sources. Besides, if you look closely at https://www.twitter.com/Tweetermeyer there isn't a single instance of that account using the TSLAQ cashtag. QRep2020 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can agree on disagreeing. How about we get a 3rd opinion so we can see what someone else thinks? Iamchinahand (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

We already have a third at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TSLAQ#Additional_source. The consensus is that it stays. QRep2020 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Niedermeyer book is only used to source a single statement that is attributed to the book author (not stated in wikivoice); WP:IIS (which is a non-vetted supplement, not a policy or guideline) does caution that Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. Independent does not mean nonpartisan. Lacking a credible claim that the author is a "member" of TSLAQ, speculation by editors isn't useful.

I believe that Tesla.com can be cited and attributed if that site makes a claim about TSLAQ, however their statement about Niedermeyer is specific to safety claims with the Model S suspension so is of no relevance to this article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A user is not only using the source as a (very predominant) single statement in the article, but also using the source as his sole basis for claiming that $TSLAQ is more than just a group of short-sellers. Every other source in the article talks about $TSLAQ as "group of short-sellers". This has a very huge impact on the article and the perception of the group by making it seem that the group is respectably in it for a greater cause than money, which no other source claims. User:Schazjmd You mention that Tesla.com can be cited. Tesla's statement on their website is as follows (https://www.tesla.com/blog/grain-of-salt):

″Finally, it is worth noting that the blogger who fabricated this issue, which then caused negative and incorrect news to be written about Tesla by reputable institutions, is Edward Niedermeyer. This is the same gentle soul who previously wrote a blog titled “Tesla Death Watch,” which starting on May 19, 2008 was counting the days until Tesla’s death. It has now been 2,944 days. We just checked our pulse and, much to his chagrin, appear to be alive. It is probably wise to take Mr. Niedermeyer’s words with at least a small grain of salt.″

$TSLAQ then advocates for Edward Niedermeyer as follows (https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/):

″What was Elon Musk’s response? He viciously smeared Ed’s good name in a Tesla blog by accusing him of fabricating the story for financial gain. If Elon Musk had any evidence to back up his smear, we’d have seen it by now, no? "

On top of that, Ed Niedermeyer's Twitter feed is nearly all Anti-Tesla and Anti-Elon Musk. His most recent Tweet (https://twitter.com/Tweetermeyer/status/1247623480658423808) is:

"If Tesla fans got half as mad about the company's persistent quality problems as they do about people sharing reports of said problems online, they'd have whipped Tesla into fighting shape years ago."

How can Ed Niedermeyer possibly be considered an independendent, reliable source for an anonymous group of short-sellers that is Anti-Elon Musk and Anti-Tesla?

Again, I don't think Wikipedia editors should have to be private investigators.Iamchinahand (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Iamchinahand, I agree that editors shouldn't have to be private investigators, but that appears to be the role you've chosen. Tesla.com's statement about the blogger is clearly about the fabricated issue (safety claims about suspension), and then saying he has a blog. So? You following tweets back and forth to develop a story isn't accomplishing anything.

I don't see anywhere on the Talk page where Niedermeyer is being used to argue against TSLAQ being described as short-sellers. If you notice earlier on the Talk page, I say 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. The emphasis on short-selling was in the article at one time, I haven't followed what happened since.

Just to be clear, I think the whole subject of the article is boring. I have no interest whatsoever in Tesla, TSLAQ, short-selling, or anything else involved here; I got involved by trying to get several new editors to approach this as an encyclopedia article. That is my only interest at this point. I dumped a bunch of reliable sources in the AFD nomination. Both of you should be examining those and discussing how to make the article properly reflect the sources - not how to make a point one way or the other on the subject itself. I am going to unwatch this article. I hope you will both discuss and collaborate like encyclopedia editors. Good luck. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. A user wrote the following in the TSLAQ AfD

"You have this backwards: The group has a subset of short-sellers, yes, but there are members of TSLAQ that don't short the stock. The quotation from Ed Niedermeyer at the beginning of the existing article relates this. And there are likely members of TSLAQ who don't use the hashtag." Iamchinahand (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The book is not the only source that explains how the group is larger than the subset of short-sellers, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-01-22/the-tesla-tslaq-skeptics-who-bet-against-elon-musk does as well. Regardless, the book should stay a source as a consensus was reached, and thanks to Schazjmd for all of the discussion and contributions! QRep2020 (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The other user made no argument in his comments that the source is acceptable, but rather opined that the source's contribution to the article is minimal. I disagree with this opinion. There is no consensus here. Furthermore, an independent third party would need to decide when consensus is reached if there is an ongoing dispute, not an user actively involved on one side of a two party dispute. Iamchinahand (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

An argument was made about the Tesla blog post not being evidentiary and the user made the initial argument for inclusion months ago on this very page which was pointed out already. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean a consensus wasn't reached. QRep2020 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's address TSLAQ advocating for this one particular author on it's own website (https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/). On top of my other arguments above, how can we expect the author to write with an 'uninterested' perspective about a group of his personal advocates?Iamchinahand (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

QRep2020, Schazjmd I've added this to the Dispute Resolution Notice Board https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#TSLAQ

I have gone ahead and removed the referenced content as we wait to hear the results from the DisputeIamchinahand (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not how this works. The reference is legitimate until otherwise stated. It goes back. QRep2020 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to file this as a RfC on the Reliable Sources noitceboard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard Stonkaments (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to note that WP:SOURCETYPES says, in part: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject...Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." So even if you're alleging the book and/or author are biased, that is not enough to conclude that it is unreliable. In the specific context of the Fossi doxxing story related to the founding and motivations of TSLAQ, it certainly seems reliable. Stonkaments (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Stonkaments, it is the crux of the discussion here despite others' lamentations. Also, I'd like to point out to Iamchinahand that the dispute resolution you applied for does not "issue binding decisions" and again a consensus (not unanimous agreement but rough consensus) has been reached already, so I'm at a loss what the expectation is. QRep2020 (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there any other disputed sources in the article? Or is it now safe to remove the template message about relying on sources too closely associated with the subject, as it seems consensus has been reached that the Niedermeyer book is indeed a valid source? Stonkaments (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. QRep2020 (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Support removal of article level tags. Springee (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed content about David Einhorn being TSLAQ member.

The references do not indicate that he is a member of TSLAQ as was also pointed out here - Talk:TSLAQ#Activities_by_Group_ControversyIamchinahand (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

After further reviewing the references, there is no mention of David Einhorn citing a TSLAQ website, so David Einhorn content has been removed from the article.Iamchinahand (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not the sole editor working on this article and significant changes need to be discussed before being implemented. If you make another change without bringing it up first, I will revert the change. Now, first, what is your argument for removing the Einhorn references? QRep2020 (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not threaten me. You may not revert changes I've made unless it is for valid reasons. Your personal approval is not required before making valid edits to this article or any other article on Wikipedia. If you or any other editor would like to discuss edits that I've made to the article, the Talk page is the place for it. The Einhorn content had no relevance to the subject of this article. If you believe it does and can explain, please let me know and I'd be glad to add it back it as appropriate. Iamchinahand (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Einorn was mentioned as a prominent Tesla short seller in an article by the Financial Times referencing TSLAQ Stonkaments (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

First, I would like to welcome you to Wikipedia. Einhorn being mentioned in an article that also mentions TSLAQ does not make him a member of the group that is the subject of this article, as was discussed here Talk:TSLAQ#Activities_by_Group_Controversy. Iamchinahand (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, welcome. Can you produce the relevant excerpts from text of the article so we can evaluate it for possible inclusion? Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Most shorted stock in 2020

I propose to remove the following line in the article - "Tesla is currently the most shorted stock in 2020, with over $14.3 billion in shorted share value at its peak." What is the relevance of this outdated and inaccurate line to the subject of the article? Iamchinahand (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems relevant to me, as short-sellers are listed as a notable part of the TSLAQ group, and that line provides detail on the scope of short-sellers' bets that the Tesla stock price will be lower in the future.Stonkaments (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I left the line in and just made a minor adjustment for historical accuracy. I also added how short-sellers lost $5 billion in a two day period using the same rationale as your argument above. Iamchinahand (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Removed the short sellers addition. "[U]sing the same rationale as your argument above" isn't an argument - give us an argument please. QRep2020 (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Dude, what don't you understand? The way this works is you do something "bold" and if it is too bold it gets reverted and discussed. Your asking for an edit war. QRep2020 (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking for an edit war. I am only trying to fix the article and you are getting overly aggressive. If you believe the line about short sellers losing $5 billion is inappropriate, please explain why right here on the Talk page. If it is a valid reason, I will remove it. Iamchinahand (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

You are not the arbiter of what goes on this article. You an editor just like the rest of us. Follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The text with your introduction now reads as follows: "Some members short Tesla stock as they believe it will lower in value in the future; Tesla was the most shorted stock in the US in January 2020, with over $14.3 billion in shorted share value at its peak. In February 2020, Tesla short sellers lost more than $5 billion in a two-day period." The "Tesla was the most shorted stock in the US in January 2020..." reflects the fact that short-sellers, including TSLAQ members, are very "attracted" to $TSLA as established earlier in the section and earlier in the article. In other words, they believe the stock will crash. Your fact statement is about how short-sellers are performing in 2020, which has nothing to do with their beliefs. Your inclusion is not relevant to the subject matter of the section and therefore should be removed. QRep2020 (talk) 08:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I am following the rules and, again, I ask you to please stop harassing me. Iamchinahand (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Be so kind as to address my above argument then. Thanks. QRep2020 (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you accidently put your additional comment above mine. Sure, I will address is. You are claiming that "Tesla was the most shorted stock in the US in January 2020..." is okay because somehow this is associated with their belief. The line "In February 2020, Tesla short sellers lost more than $5 billion in a two-day period" shows that their belief was wrong. Iamchinahand (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident, it was an addition. Regardless, above you clearly indicated that the purpose of the statement is to be an evaluation their beliefs. You are not supposed to draw such evaluative conclusions, only report the evaluative conclusions in reliable third party texts. No original research is to be included in Wikipedia articles as has been recounted again and again on this Talk page. If you can find a text from a reliable source - Cleantechnica and Electrek are not reliable - that evaluates the beliefs of TSLAQ members regarding short positions in light of the fact that you referenced, then you might have a case for inclusion, though I will argue against that as well. First things first though: Where is your reference for the evaluation? QRep2020 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see source of citation - you can find the relevant information. - https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/tesla-shorts-lost-billions-in-two-days-as-elon-musks-net-worth-climbed.html Iamchinahand (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say the TSLAQ members who short the stock were "wrong" in their beliefs as you put it? QRep2020 (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how the $5 billion loss figure over an arbitrary two-day period is meaningful or relevant. There have been many times in recent years where billions have been both gained and lost shorting Tesla stock. I agree with removing that line. Stonkaments (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the meaningfulness or relevancy of temporarily being the most shorted stock for a period any different than the notable achievement of losing $5 billion? Iamchinahand (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Please state your claim for why it is meaningful or relevant. Stonkaments (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

This article has some problems with accuracy and I am still going through it for more. For example, one line was previously written as follows: "Tesla officials such as CEO Elon Musk have actively engaged prominent members.", citing one short tweet from Elon Musk. I have corrected it and it now accurately reflects the reference as follows "Elon Musk had once tweeted with a prominent member."

• Please explain how changing 'has' to 'had once' is somehow more accurate. The latter is more precise perhaps but frankly awkward while the former is accurate and implies the element of deliberation. The point of the inclusion is that Elon Musk communicated with a TSLAQ member and has engaged TSLAQ (with a rhetorical question); the former wordage does that while the latter does next to nothing. It should remain as it was and you shouldn't have nixed my revision until the matter was deliberated. QRep2020 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure, I'd be glad to explain. The definition of accuracy is "the quality or state of being correct or precise". As you noted, using "had once" is more precise, hence more accurate. There is nothing awkward at all about using "had once". "Actively engaged prominent members" is not a proper representation of one short Tweet to one member with no further communication, therefore it is inaccurate. Furthermore, "Tesla officials such as CEO Elon Musk", written in plural form, is inaccurate when the reference is one Tweet from Elon Musk. There is no need for me to discuss with you a change that you made to incorrectly alter my valid edit. Please stop threatening and harassing me. I am only trying to fix the article and I will continue to do so. Iamchinahand (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Accuracy is not the same thing as precision. Sure, much like with jealousy and envy, they are invoked interchangeably in colloquial conversation, but when it comes to sophisticated discussion there is a distinction. With that in mind, please redraw your argument. QRep2020 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
      • I did not argue that accuracy is the same as precision and I know that they are not the same. Iamchinahand (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

        You literally said "definition of accuracy is "the quality or state of being correct or precise"" and then said, incorrectly, "more precise, hence more accurate". They are different things with different criteria and since your argument is premised on that mistake, drawing your conclusion from that premise cannot be true. Restate your argument please. QRep2020 (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

        • https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/accuracy Iamchinahand (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
          • I explained this already. Here's some more websites to help you understand this basic distinction used throughout the Sciences: https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/world-ocean/map-distortion/practices-science-precision-vs-accuracy, http://webphysics.iupui.edu/NH/Projects/TEAMS%5B2%5D/err6.htm, https://www.exactmetrology.com/information/educational/precision-vs-accuracy

• Added content related to Hothi case to improve neutrality and accuracy. Iamchinahand (talk) 10:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Tightened language, add quotation marks. QRep2020 (talk) 12:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

New "History" section for background facts?

I added a line to the "Beliefs" section detailing the list of lawsuits and controversies involving Tesla, but I'm wondering if that would be better suited for a new section called "History" or "Background" or something similar? I'm thinking there is enough well-sourced documentation of certain events that belongs in a new section, because "Beliefs" doesn't give enough weight to the facts established, such as:

• Musk's $420 "funding secure" settlement, his tweets around burning short-sellers
• Calls for investigation into Tesla for deceptive marketing of its "Autopilot" technology, with multiple NTSB crash investigations finding Autopilot at fault
• Ongoing litigation surrounding the SolarCity acquisition, allegations of insider-dealing and defrauding investors
• Martin Tripp's whistle-blower lawsuit
• Air quality compliance violations at the paint shop in Tesla's Fremont factory
• Tesla failing to meet the jobs requirements for its New York factory

And I'm also proposing renaming the "Beliefs" section to "Claims" or "Arguments" or similar, to more accurately reflect the content of the section. Stonkaments (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Interesting proposal; what about 'Motivations' as the new section title as it is the name used at Open-source-software movement? Second. QRep2020 (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice, 'Motivations' seems good. I'll try to write it up with sources this weekend. Stonkaments (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I added the Motivations sections. The Beliefs section seemed redundant now, so I removed that section and combined everything into the Motivations section. Let me know what you think! Stonkaments (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks great to me. I added some additional textual linkage to ground ideas expressed by TSLAQ members in third-party reliable source material. QRep2020 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Intro Wording

My edits to the intro paragraph were undone with no further comment or justification. In order to avoid another edit war, I want to discuss and seek additional opinion on the edits I proposed:

1. Calling TSLAQ a "loosely-connected group" is strange and unclear wording, so I suggest calling it "an informal group" instead

2. "short-sellers and other individuals who are outspoken critics of Tesla, Inc. and its current CEO, Elon Musk" seems more clear to me than "short-sellers and other individuals critical of Elon Musk and aspects of Tesla."

3. "to share news, research, and analysis about the company and to coordinate efforts" seems more clear to me than "in order to share news, openly discuss matters concerning the company and its stock, and coordinate efforts"

Thoughts?

Stonkaments (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Your original edit removed "short-sellers" from the first line group description and included other non-intro edits that I disagree with. Now that "short-sellers" is back in the first line, it looks better. I completely agree that your other changes to the intro line are written well and look cleaner now than it was before. Iamchinahand (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think its important to keep reference to the Tesla stock in (3) because news, research and analysis of the stock can be different from news, research, and analysis of the company. I made a change that I hope is agreeable. Additionally, with (1), 'informal' might imply that the group doesn't take itself seriously while it does, e.g. rallying around Hothi to generate all that money for his trial. I can't think of a better word right now though and will return to the subject later. QRep2020 (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds good :) Maybe the word 'informal' is unnecessary and could simply be removed? I also can't think of a better word right now. Stonkaments (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think I remember where I got the inspiration for the wording: "[A] loose collective of critics, sceptics and short sellers who often tweet using the TSLAQ hashtag" from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/identify-bots-if-you-want-to-fix-twitter-advises-elon-musk/articleshow/73346886.cms. I'll change it to "loose collective", thanks for the contributions so far! QRep2020 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Should read: ...and researchers who openly criticize Tesla, Inc. and attack its CEO, Elon Musk.[3]

What is the purpose of the phrase "... and its CURRENT CEO, Elon Musk.?" Although Tesla in its original startup form did not contain Musk, Musk has been the only CEO since going public in 2010. The whole context of this article is the attempted manipulation of the stock price of a publicly traded company. In its entire history as a publicly traded company, Tesla has had exactly one CEO. The whole controversy about Tesla would be different or possibly non-existent absent Musk. In an article about Facebook, would it not be extraneous to say, Facebook, and its current CEO, Mark Zuckerberg? The age of fable (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Attack" is a non-neutral term and therefore does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I honestly do not understand the issue with describing Musk as the current CEO of Tesla. QRep2020 (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There has been one and only one CEO of Tesla with respect to the public company Tesla, Inc. In fact the company's name before Musk changed it was Tesla Motors (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tesla,_Inc.). There must be an honest lack of understanding operating here. How much time have you spent reading the cross-platform vilification, cloaked by an array of pseudonyms, of Musk by TESLAQ ringleader Larry Fossi? What I don't understand is why the single word "attack", negated the core logic of the edit, as justified above. The main thrust of the justification was ignored and not addressed. Instead a single word black-balled the entire edit. Just to reinforce: Gates was Microsoft. Jobs was Apple. Zuckerberg is Facebook. Bezos is Amazon. Musk is Tesla. This article pertains to technology growth investing. You have to know the founder to understand the investment risk, especially in its early explosive growth phase. Therefore to reverse the ascending stock price, it's important to cast doubt on its foundational leader. The age of fable (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

The policy being followed is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. Please stop making changes until after the discussion. QRep2020 (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Sieg Heil! I will just note that from the document you cited: "This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy." And there is no evidence that you considered my argument. No discussion was given, other than the initial black-balling of the change because of the word "attack," but that word was removed. Why do you own this wikipedia article? That's an honest question. There is a lot of bullying on Wikipedia by people who don't even produce good grammar, because they have narrow knowledge of the technical intricacies of Wikipedia, but little broad knowledge. They find many facts controversial because they lack knowledge. The age of fable (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite implying that I am a Nazi, I made your suggested edit as a token of good faith. Now, will you make one yourself and apologize? QRep2020 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edit. I do apologize for implying the ultimate bad name to you. To show repentance, I will resume contributing to the Wikipedia foundation, which I had vowed never again to do. Right after the election I will resume. We are fighting a battle against what I consider a "very-right-wing" president, so please understand, nerves are raw. The age of fable (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

See? Something we can agree about. :) QRep2020 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

POV in "Musk's Unfulfilled Promises"

• COI disclosure: I am both a Tesla car owner and a TSLA (long) investor. I think the latter constitutes a COI, so I'm going to refrain from directly editing the article myself. Arathald (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• This whole section reeks of POV. One of the sources is elonmusk.today, which is in no way a reliable source, the section says 'Musk has made numerous recorded "pie-in-the sky" promises about Tesla that have failed to come true', which is blatand editorializing, and most of the bullet points are WP:OR. For example, the first bullet point cites a tweet about Tesla never needing another funding round and pairs it with a claim that Tesla is cash flow negative, using a 2+ year old article as its source. (1) Did Tesla have another funding round? (2) Even if it did, sourcing that in conjunction with the original tweet and using it to claim a lie is a very clear example of WP:OR. Frankly, I don't think it would be terribly hard to find criticisms about slipped dates and undelivered promises in reliable secondary sources. This section needs to be cleaned up.

  Feel free to propose specific updates here on the Talk page. Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  I've thought about what I want to propose since especially considering my COI I wanted something better than "remove this section entirely". However, every single bullet point is textbook WP:SYNTH: it cites a promise made and then offers a different citation to data or another tweet purporting to show the promise being broken. I really honestly don't see a way of rewriting this in a way that's in line with Wikipedia's policies. Even the title of the section is pretty blatant POV - just imagine if any politician's page had section entitled "<Politician>'s Unfulfilled Promises". That said, despite my COI, I'm not in the "Elon/Tesla can do no wrong" camp, and more importantly, my participation here is first and foremost as an editor. So while I'd have zero issue with a section on criticisms that's well sourced from reliable secondary sources, I also don't believe I need to be in the position of sourcing and proposing a different set of criticisms in order to call out SYNTH. Thus, I propose that this section be removed in its entirety (though it may be replaced by similar content without the same issues). Arathald (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  The "conclusion" is stated by plenty of the cited sources, so no it is not a case of WP:SYNTH. QRep2020 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Removing Certain Facts Threatens Neutral Point of View

I had noticed that the Martin Tripp section on this page had not been updated to reflect information on the settlement of the case. I cited an article from The Verge mentioning that the case was settled with an agreement that Tripp would pay Tesla $400,000 and would admit that his legal defense had been funded be Cable Car Capital (which Tripp had previously denied). However, edits were quickly and repeatedly made to remove some details about the settlement: specifically that Cable Car Capital had been funding Martin Tripp's legal defense. The Verge (and other publications covering the case) mentioned this because it was one of the key terms of the settlement agreement. For QRep2020 to repeatedly remove this detail because they are trying "to steer this page away from the characterization" that "TSLAQ is a group of short sellers" (as QRep2020 mentioned on their talk page) represents editors pushing their point of view rather than allowing a neutral point of view with all relevant facts. As such I have serious concerns about whether this article represents a neutral point of view, and whether there is a conflict of interest among the authors that is motivating them to aggressively police what facts are shared about the topic in question.

If there is a good reason why part of the settlement agreement discussed in the cited article should not be mentioned on this page, please help me understand why. I'm concerned that this page is being policed by interested parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihwcihw (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In case you missed it, note that the paragraph in question already says the lawsuit was "funded by members of TSLAQ including Cable Car Capital". Why should that information be repeated a second time? Maybe the wording can be improved for clarity, something like the lawsuit was "funded by Cable Car Capital, a Tesla short seller."

By the way, this seems like a minor content dispute that we can easily resolve, not a reason to flag the whole article for NPOV? Stonkaments (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, since the edits are there now - even though they aren't even supported by the provided source material - how is the article's neutrality in question? Removing template. QRep2020 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Stonkaments. I agree that the issue of whether or not to list the terms of Martin Tripp's settlement is a minor content dispute. However I think it's symptomatic of a larger issue of neutrality that I've seen bubble up in a few ways. On the whole, I get the sense that the page is promoting TSLAQ rather than talking about the organization from an objective and neutral point of view. The page seems to be policed aggressively to hide certain points of view. Furthermore, some of the editors seem to be editing multiple pages about Tesla short sellers in this way to conceal certain information, and appear to be in contact with the subjects of the page. Out of utmost caution for the integrity of Wikipedia I think it's important to discuss these issues and flag the article for NPOV until we can say with complete confidence that the page represents as much of an objective and neutral point of view on the topic as possible, with no major facts or events omitted to try and promote one side of a controversial issue.

Returning to the minor content dispute with Tripp's settlement, the edit was not undone for being repetitive. The change note said: "Please explain on Talk:TSLAQ why this edit is relevant before attempting again". That's why I came to the talk page to explain this issue. I think that it would be helpful for readers to understand the full terms of the settlement. If the case is being discussed, the complete facts of how it ended should be shared. Specifically, the settlement involved 1) A payment of $400,000 from Martin Tripp to Tesla 2) Tripp would not contest Tesla's claims that he stole trade secrets 3) Tripp would acknowledge that his counterclaims were funded by a short-seller of Tesla stock. guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJg4IO5cLRE4ClyjV7YlKsijgvyOpKd6ZPMNHpEPdSjXsKHb3Xw1lqlt4z12_23EAcV0KU_yaqggXVdtHnLBye6HC-k14yB7cP1M8gQTDjpBEZAOG_GDzfGPxYIz8azp6cU2W4VUIzYJSthN3Asvy3qTHu4O4nNwckI9nLh-73aJ Another Source I didn't even mention number 2, but those were the terms as well as a few other minor procedural things like agreeing not to contest future issues with jurisdiction. If the article were to take a neutral point of view and list all three major terms of the settlement, the reader would be more informed of how the case turned out, with the most up to date information. Prior to my edits, there was no information about the conclusion of the case at all. Cihwcihw (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit says "funded by members of TSLAQ including Cable Car Capital." Where is that in the article you cited? QRep2020 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi QRep2020. Please do not remove the NPOV message until conditions to do so are met, as the notice clearly states. Specifically: 1) Until there is consensus on the talk page 2) It is unclear what the neutrality issue is 3) The discussion has become dormant. None of those conditions have been met yet, and the discussion concerns your aggressive editing behavior to align this article with your personal point of view. Therefore your removing it prematurely is inappropriate. You are welcome to open your own blog or website or write a book to share your personal point of view, but Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view.

The current text of the Martin Tripp section states "On December 1, 2020 the case was finally settled when Martin Tripp agreed to pay $400,000 in damages to Tesla.". I suggest we amend it as follows to include all major points of the settlement: "On December 1, 2020 the case was finally settled when Martin Tripp agreed to pay $400,000 in damages to Tesla, not contest Tesla's claim that he stole trade secrets, and acknowledge that his counterclaims were funded by Cable Car Capital, a short seller of Tesla stock". The following article can be cited. Does anyone have any objections to listing all major terms of the settlement as such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cihwcihw (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the article currently reads "After Tesla filed a lawsuit against Martin Tripp for trade secrets and computer crimes violations, Tripp engaged in a countersuit with Tesla over the whistleblowing incident as a whole, which was funded by members of TSLAQ including Cable Car Capital." This is silly. QRep2020 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed the inaccurate reference to Cable Car Company being a part of TSLAQ. QRep2020 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

This was resolved, in case anyone did not notice. QRep2020 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the most hilarious WP:COI article I've read

How has this article survived for so long? The fact this article is so badly astroturfed by POV pushers with obvious WP:COI, that it's a clear cut case of WP:ADVOCACY, made by multiple WP:SPA and bordering on WP:OWN. The subject has been featured on a number of RS, but always in connection with Tesla (obviously), at most, parts of this article could be merged with List of lawsuits and controversies of Tesla, Inc., but then the section titled "Musk's unfulfilled promises" is just hilariously bad, citing Twitter usernames as notable statements (???), a lot of the sources in the list don't even mention TSLAQ, so this list is just randomly put together shady business practices by Tesla/Musk with no connection whatsoever with the subject of the article.

The section on the Martin Tripp whistleblower case says he posted leaks under the TSLAQ hashtag, but the article this is sourced to [2], doesn't even mention TSLAQ, there's not even mentions of him being "a member" or anything, only a few embedded tweets with the hashtag (the inclusion in this article is then a clear case of WP:OR), the Bloomberg article also doesn't mention the hashtag nor his participation in it. [3]

There's one statement that says "...and TSLAQ has surfaced videos of apparent Autopilot malfunctions leading to collisions" sourced by "News18", with the website being completely broken, and again TSLAQ only being "mentioned" by the embedded tweet.

Researching this topic, I found there's hilariously no mention of Tesla short-sellers loosing a record $40 billion in 2020 alone [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

Is this article supposed to be a collection of everything bad with Tesla? Then its place would be Criticism of Tesla, Inc. or similar. For now, I'm placing a WP:NPOV tag, until these issues are resolved. Loganmac (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article a little closer because clearly there are tons of references that discuss TSLAQ and its members levying these claims. The News18 website worked fine the last time I checked, so I will look into that one.

As for Marty Tripp, the very article contains the text of his tweets and you can see "#TSLAQ" used.

Furthermore, plenty of editors who have taken issue with this article in the past have since contributed to what it is now, so this "COI" complaint is spurious. QRep2020 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The News18 URL works and it clearly contains the tweet that used the TSLAQ cashtag. What is at issue here then? QRep2020 (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The site being broken for me is the least of its problems. You can see TSLAQ in the embedded tweets, but judging the notability is original research unless the author of the reliable source (I'm not aware of News18 being that) mentions the connection. This would be akin to WP:EDITORIALIZE and WP:SYNTH, for example, I can look around for any news article on short-selling and Tesla, and connect it on my own to TSLAQ, when the author never had that intention. Your claim about "plenty of editors contributing" is bogus, as you can see [9] 52.2% of edits (character count) to this article have been made by User:Stonkaments and 39.1% by User:QRep2020, around 20 editors haven't even reached 10% of the character count. These two authors have countless edits on Tesla, Inc., Elon Musk, History of Tesla, Inc., SolarCity, etc. And while this isn't explicitly forbidden, these two authors have in the past coordinated to participate in common articles and in dispute discussion Loganmac (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Loganmac, thanks for starting this discussion—I hope we can all work together to improve the article. First I would just like to clarify a few things.

I'm sure we can all agree that early versions of this article[10][11] needed a lot of work. When I first started editing this article I was still fairly new to Wikipedia, so I sought the advice of many other more experienced editors, including QRep2020. I didn't "coordinate" with them in any way. For example, you accused me of coordinating with them in a content dispute discussion, when in fact I simply notified all of the editors involved[12][13][14][15] in the relevant discussion.

Also, can you clarify as to which editors specifically you are making claims of "obvious WP:COI" and WP:SPA? I'm unsure if those comments were directed at me, but I certainly don't appreciate being accused of having a conflict of interest, nor being a single-purpose account. Furthermore, if you believe there is an WP:APPARENTCOI, that issue should be addressed on the user's talk page, not here (per WP:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest).

As for the article itself, it sounds like your main concern is that you don't see a clear connection to TSLAQ for much of the content you've highlighted, is that right? I respectfully disagree; I think the details included in the article are directly relevant to TSLAQ and are supported by reliable sources. You also mentioned Tesla short-sellers' record losses, and I agree that information belongs in the article as well. Stonkaments (talk) 02:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Though I mourn the loss of well-written print, are we at peace with the article after Dlthewave's edits? QRep2020 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think most of the remaining content is relevant to the topic, but it's written in a way that focuses on Tesla's shortcomings rather then TSLAQ itself. It would be fairly simple to rewrite (and retitle) the Motivations section to highlight TSLAQ's activities. –dlthewave ☎ 02:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to integrate this topic into a criticism of Tesla type article? I'm not a fan of "criticism of" articles but between the Tslaq specific content and the various things like Tesla's questionable actions and optimistic promises I think the content is DUE for include but the question is where. Springee (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  You know what, I was thinking something very similar myself: Move some of the more "general" stuff that got on the page into something for general criticism. I think the remaining stuff that is very TSLAQ-oriented can stay as is. Will probably start something my sandbox. Good thinking as always, Springee! QRep2020 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  In your sandbox is a good place to start. I would recommend getting suggestions from others so you have some level of consensus before starting. As I alluded to, "criticism of..." articles are generally not the best way to handle things. Springee (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  I had the same thought, and started a draft here: Draft:Criticism_of_Tesla. So far I've just copied over the content that was removed from TSLAQ. All editors are welcome to help improve and expand it, thanks. Stonkaments (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Moved more content over to draft article. How is this looking now? QRep2020 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

  Does anyone object to the removal of the non-neutrality template now that the more general content has been excised? QRep2020 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

COI tag (April 2022)

The main editor, User:QRep2020, has been suspected of having a conflict of interest at WP:COIN. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of a COIN against me that has not ended already. If you are referring to the one last year, that ended with no consensus - therefore, the suspicion is unsubstantiated. More importantly, the COI template guide reads, "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning." (emphasis added) QRep2020 (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Tripp whistleblower case section

I recently deleted the section Tripp whistleblower case, under the guide of WP:UNDUE. Only one source mentioned "TSLAQ," which was not mentioned by the author of the article, but rather was solely from Tripp's three tweets. With no other mention at all to the subject, it makes zero sense to include this content except for the sole purpose of criticizing Tesla and Musk. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ed Niedermeyer's quote

Ed Niedermeyer's quote about the beginnings of TSLAQ and Montana Skeptic is on Page 107 of Ludicrous. I had the original citation in there but someone removed it and I guessed I missed it: Niedermeyer, Edward (August 20, 2019). Ludicrous : the unvarnished story of Tesla Motors. Dallas, TX. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-948836-32-6. OCLC 1089841254.

That page also refers to the aerial and land photography stuff. If someone thinks I am capable about lying about a source that happens to not be digital, I will find a way to post a link to the section.

Maybe refer to the history next time. QRep2020 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm able to confirm the content via Google Books preview, though it doesn't include page numbers. The Mitchell LA Times piece in the article already lends some weight to the doxxing moment (though it doesn't explicitly call it a catalyst) and backs up the 'Shorty Air Force' stuff. I think PerpetuityGrat was right to challenge the unsourced material in the lead. PG, any objections to restoring similar content, with citations, in the body of the article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I can take a picture of the page if it really matters. QRep2020 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Hothi case details

There have been claims that the details cited in the Hothi case subsection do not belong there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&oldid=1090498414 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&oldid=1083968726 . I disagree. The articles of the Hothi case do not need to directly reference TSLAQ as it is established by the previous content that he is a member of TSLAQ and the highlighted activities are clearly instances of TSLAQ activities. And for the record, I did not introduce these details originally: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&oldid=942591509 QRep2020 (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any retorts here. Re-adding. QRep2020 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

More blanket reverts by QRep2020

In support of the Wikipedia community's commitment to accuracy, I have attempted a few edits. Note that unlike the opinion pieces cited by QRep2020, all of my citations are from reputable neutral sources. I request careful and fair fact-checking of my sources when considering inclusion of my edits as well as those of others. I believe Tesla's extraordinary success belies the opinions of QRep2020 and the rest of the TSLAQ community.

I should be quite obvious that QRep2020 is not neutral as others have observed. This is evidenced by citations that are opinion pieces and representation of TSLAQ opinions as fact rather than refering to these opinions as opinions.

The edits that were undeservedly reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1158130071

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TSLAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1158128532

I am relatively new to Wikipedia as an editor, and I welcome any general or specific advice. In particular how to deal with editors that delete content simply because they disagree despite clear evidence. Seehart (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

What do you propose to be changed? QRep2020 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked the first diff. Neither the LA Times source nor the Vanity Fair source is an opinion piece. It would help if you could be more specific about your concerns. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)