![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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" [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:
This info (that I added) is neutral & unbiased from the referenced two articles Tintdepotcom ( talk) 23:50, 6 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
QRep2020 ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The description of TSLAQ does not explain accurately why they formed? Hence, this article does not appear neutral. A few examples:
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The references do not indicate that he is a member of TSLAQ as was also pointed out here - Talk:TSLAQ#Activities_by_Group_Controversy Iamchinahand ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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."
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
There have been claims that the details cited in the Hothi case subsection do not belong there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=TSLAQ&oldid=1090498414 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=TSLAQ&oldid=942591509 QRep2020 ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
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/?title=TSLAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1158130071
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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" [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:
This info (that I added) is neutral & unbiased from the referenced two articles Tintdepotcom ( talk) 23:50, 6 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
QRep2020 ( talk) 16:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
The description of TSLAQ does not explain accurately why they formed? Hence, this article does not appear neutral. A few examples:
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The references do not indicate that he is a member of TSLAQ as was also pointed out here - Talk:TSLAQ#Activities_by_Group_Controversy Iamchinahand ( talk) 09:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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."
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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 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)
There have been claims that the details cited in the Hothi case subsection do not belong there: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=TSLAQ&oldid=1090498414 and https://en.wikipedia.org/?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/?title=TSLAQ&oldid=942591509 QRep2020 ( talk) 00:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
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/?title=TSLAQ&diff=prev&oldid=1158130071
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)