Talk:Donut Lab

Overly detailed

@Revirvlkodlaku: could you break down your edit into parts? The article is very short, the reader is better served with the details of Verge Motorcycles' financial situation and so on. The edit was generally constructive and definitely improved the article, I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. I'd like to keep the background information about Verge's financials, founders, the number of motorcycles manufactured, uncovered details of the lack of development of the battery, software development, and other activities. This gives the reader a much more complete picture of the company, and the article is pretty short as it is, so it's not a long read. EV stuff (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @EV stuff, unless you were thinking of a revert, I'm not sure what "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" has to do with anything. Anyway, my position is that including non-notable and unlinked names (founders, etc.) as well as the company's out-of-date financials and production numbers is not desirable nor beneficial to anyone. Can you explain, rather, why you think those details I removed should be kept? Please remember that WP:ONUS applies here as much as anywhere else. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow, I should have checked mainspace first. You went ahead and reverted all my work! That's really shitty, my friend, and my attitude is no longer as affable as it was before. You'll need to properly justify any content you wish to restore to the article before going ahead and doing so unilaterally. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, I'm coming in as someone who wasn't part of this particular dispute but has edited the page before and noticed the edits going on.

While I believe the rewriting of the introduction is quite good, and a lot of work you did to simply condense or remove redundant points is certainly necessary, you unilaterally removed information that I believe should remain on the article, including:

1. Founding investors (doesn't become outdated, is relevant to the company)
2. Number of delivered motorcycles (Updated numbers exist, could have been cited instead of removing the fact entirely: https://thepack.news/whistleblower-questions-donut-labs-battery-promises-as-verge-motorcycles-deliveries-slip/)
3. All references to their past profitability (And yes, updated numbers, as far as public records are capable of providing at the moment, do exist here, too: https://ariregister.rik.ee/eng/company/16535648/file/9013336696), as well as their prior funding, ongoing funding model, and audit issues (all of which are relevant to the reputability and state of the company)
4. An entire product of the business (DonutOS)
5. The history of the solid-state battery's controversy, which then covers up their repeated actions and makes a chain of (alleged) repeated lies and deception look like "they made a claim at one point, it was wrong, the end", which I believe makes the issue seem less intentional or ongoing than it truly was
6. Claims made by Donut Lab regarding exceedingly optimistic ROI to small investors
7. Details regarding why the battery does not meet the expectations set by Donut Lab

I think it was perfectly reasonable for @EV stuff to revert the edit and then start a dialog after, given you removed the majority of the article in one fell swoop, and only justified the change by saying it's non-essential, technical, or overly detailed, while removing such a big swath of information with such broad claims, that I initially saw it and assumed it was vandalism.

I propose that your introduction changes be kept, as well as changes that condensed content that was duplicated or otherwise redundant, and that wording improvements be kept, but I believe the other information should be restored. It can be rewritten/condensed for clarity, updated to more recent information (e.g. on the financials and number of units in production/shipped), or moved around for readability, but I don't think completely deleting the majority of this article is justifiable whatsoever, given we do have the information available to keep things more up to date, readable, and relevant without just flat out removing it.

To me, this seems like a pretty rash decision. MovedRemote (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did, I tried to incorporate the introduction improvements while keeping all the info you mentioned. Sad that this had turned into a revert war. EV stuff (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: if we're throwing around initialisms, WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it got reverted. You shouldn't revert-war it. But I'm not here to wikilawyer, I'm here to improve the article, and removing huge swaths of pertinent information is not an improvement. The changes to the lead were, it's unfortunate you reverted. EV stuff (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@MovedRemote, thanks for your input. I disagree with most of your points, however, as I consider the bulk of the content you suggest restoring as overly technical and detailed for an encyclopedic article of this type. Let me provide a few details:

1. The founding investors in question are non-notable, so I see no strong reason to include their names.
2. We are talking about the number of motorcycles delivered by Verge, and while DL is obviously a spin-off of that company, this article is not primarily about Verge, so I think that is extraneous detail.
3. ditto above.
4. Doesn't seem all that important—should we list all the products made by the company? This is not the purpose of WP. I'm willing to budge on this though.
5. Again, how much more details are required for an encyclopedia entry? I think the controversy is summarized in a sufficient manner, give or take.
6. ditto above—details.
7. I suppose more could be added here, while being cautious not to make it too technical. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Pardon? "Willing to budge"? There's consensus here for the version before your revert. This article is not yours to be willing to budge over. EV stuff (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

1. The founding investors are also primarily those who work for the company, or had a major role, and some are more notable. (e.g. Henri Vähäkainu actually has a Wikipedia article under his pseudonym, it just wasn't linked) It would make more sense to include them and state their job titles or influence, rather than remove them outright.

2. The article might not primarily be about Verge in name, but Verge is heavily connected to Donut Lab (shares branding for motor name, first company to get to use Donut battery, originally the same company, spun off but has direct business relationship and shares co-founder of Donut Lab Tuomo Lehtimäki as CEO), and doesn't have its own Wikipedia article. If you think the content isn't relevant enough to Donut Lab, then I'd recommend you request a page be created for Verge, and if it's deemed notable enough in its own right, the information simply be moved there rather than removed entirely.

3. Also same as above, I think their finances are again still very relevant given how closely tied the companies are.

4. Why not include a product of theirs? Just because something isn't currently widely used or known about doesn't mean it's not relevant to the company and its claims or operations.

5. Details such as Donut Lab's repeated claims even after criticism, changing or adding new claims, etc, are all highly relevant for people who want to understand how the controversy took shape. Again, it's one thing if someone just says something false once, it's another if they display a continued pattern of misleading behavior, and it's especially of note if they do so against mounting demonstrable evidence to the contrary, as it displays their willingness to lie, the ways they seem to operate, etc

6. It's an entirely separate claim from the battery's capabilities. They were claiming high ROI that wasn't feasible for the company to hit. As an example, if a ponzi scheme sold a product with false advertising, and also claimed that you could make 100% ROI in a month, would it make sense to remove the entire portion regarding the earnings claim just because the false advertising happened to get more media attention? Of course not, both misleading claims deserve attention.

7. There's a degree to which it could be simplified, sure, but it will always be, to an extent, technical, because it is a technical claim. The proper way to make it both understandable by those with less technical knowledge, and informational for those who have or want more, is to have a more basic claim at the top (e.g. the claim that the battery is consistent with Si-Gr anode and Li-NMC cathode that's in the article), and more technical details below for those who want to read further (which are what you removed) MovedRemote (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@EV stuff, two out of three is not a consensus, and if all you're going to do is make belligerent comments, then please go somewhere else, as you are not advancing this discussion. I will not be responding to you further unless your input is constructive and relevant to this content dispute. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@MovedRemote, it seems our opinions on this matter are in direct opposition, and I'm not sure what a compromise would look like. Would you care to rewrite the content that you're proposing be re-added, and we can then adjust it until we are both happy enough with the result? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

You are doing WP:BRD wrong. You made a bold edit, it got reverted, you re-added it despite an ongoing discussion, and now you want the editors supporting the consensus to make you happy enough to allow them to revert your edit. EV stuff (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@EV stuff, WP:BRD is optional, WP:ONUS is not. If you continue to revert instead of engaging in good-faith dialogue, your disruptiveness will be reported to administrators. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

BRD is not optional. While the page itself is not part of Wikipedia guidelines or policies, BRD is part of WP:EPTALK and you certainly can't revert against consensus, which existed by editing for the version before your edit and now exists in the talk page. EV stuff (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, but I'm not inclined to rewrite the majority of the article just because you thought it wasn't necessary to include to begin with. At the end of the day, you don't seem to be disputing the wording or phrasing. You're just disputing the inclusion at all of (mostly just putting this here as a summary for anyone else reading, since I assume you know what you removed): the names of the founders and investors, most information about their sister company Verge Motorcycles including their financials, founder, and funding, the history of the battery testing, DonutOS, the CEO's claims on how the battery would be tested and statements from the media about the information release strategy, another statement from the media including alleged misleading financial statements to investors, and details about why exactly the battery was determined to contain lithium, all while removing 12 sources and not including them anywhere else in the article where they were still relevant.

I also want to remind you that WP:NOCON explicitly states that a resolution without consensus should result in the original material being retained rather than allowing the content to be removed, and so far, you haven't even attempted WP:PRESERVE whatsoever. Simply deleting content you feel might not be as relevant to a given article, or might be out of date, is not preferable to updating sources and claims, and, for example, requesting that Verge Motorcycles have a page created to move the information from this page to.

I'm inclined to simply submit a request for dispute resolution, because all you've done here is come in, delete half the article, immediately state that we must do the work to fit your personal vision for the article, then after every attempt to convince you that any possible amount of the information you deleted is relevant, you simply state that we're in "direct opposition" and ask me to rewrite the giant swath of the article you deleted... presumably without the information you claim you're in "direct opposition" to including, which then defeats the purpose.

Ideally, we could have followed the suggestion in WP:DISPUTE to do gradual editing from the original source material, which would have resulted in updated information, more links to people you claim aren't relevant, the potential splitting off of Verge-related information into another article, etc, but unfortunately you haven't indicated good faith in my eyes whatsoever, and it consistently appears as though you only wish to strongarm the consensus process into only including the very little information you want left in the article.

I've tried to be reasonable in this process, provide my reasoning, explain exactly why each individual piece of content should be restored, and even offer specific suggestions for how we could indeed remove some information without removing context just for readability's sake, but you simply don't seem to care.

I don't say this to be rude, or as an attack on your character, but it does not seem like you are willing to accept any possible resolution other than you deciding that the only information that belongs in the article is the half you didn't delete.

Personally, I believe we should simply request dispute resolution, and see what comes of that, because as you said, it does seem we are in direct opposition on this one. MovedRemote (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@MovedRemote, you do not appear to be arguing in good faith, which is a disappointment, since I saw you as a voice of sobriety in this dispute, compared to, ahem, others. Firstly, you're making this about me, for some reason, when really, it's a content dispute, and it should be debated as such, without recourse to comments such as "just because you thought it wasn't necessary..."

Based on my experience, it isn't standard to list a company's financials, funding, and other technical details. If I'm mistaken, then of course, I won't stand on this point. In my view, the article, as an overview of the topic, covers all the points you mention in a sufficiently summary manner, without going into too much detail. What exactly is wrong with that?

Why should I request that Verge Motorcycles have a separate page? So that it can then become cluttered with excessive technical detail?

I never stated that anyone should do any work on my behalf—what is this bs?! I also didn't "simply state that we're in 'direct opposition'"—I explained my position first before making that comment. This is another instance of your disingenuousness. In fact, "gradual editing", as you call it, would have been a great solution, had you suggested it. It seems you would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than to find a compromise that satisfies our currently contradictory positions, and if that's the case, I refuse to engage with you further. Go ahead, request dispute resolution. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

> you're making this about me, for some reason

I'm discussing your actions insofar as they are necessary to explain my point. You deleted the content. You continually reverted any attempt to bring it back pending consensus. You claimed my opinion (most of the information should remain, is necessary, but could be reworded or moved) was in direct opposition to your opinion (the information isn't necessary at all).

I'm pointing out that you are currently the only person advocating to keep this content out, refuse to allow it in, and have taken the nuclear option of wiping out half the article before even attempting a discussion on the Talk page first. I would hardly call that unjustified.

My intent was absolutely not to insult your character and try to use that as a sole justification for restoring the content, and I apologize if it came off that way. I'm just trying to explain why your actions don't give me confidence that suggesting a rewrite would change anything.

> comments such as "just because you thought it wasn't necessary..."

Yes, I don't believe that because you think the information is unnecessary, I should be the one that has to rewrite the majority of the entire article. Again, I don't believe that deleting content first and trying consensus after is a smart move at this sort of scale, when the result is that someone else has to rewrite most of the content all over again.

> Based on my experience, it isn't standard to list a company's financials, funding, and other technical details.

I've seen it numerous times, I figured it made sense. (especially so for Donut Lab, given many of the individuals who invested also work for them. I would rewrite that section to re-add it with context regarding their job roles, but for reasons I'll explain later I'll try to justify why I didn't offer that previously)

For examples, see: Google#Early years (named initial investor, additional investors, and venture capital), Facebook#History (initial investment from friend, share purchases later on, valuation, etc), Avast#History (venture capital raising, buyouts, pay of CEO, etc), Waymo (Funding rounds, estimated R&D spending, stock ownership, cost of components, etc)

> In my view, the article, as an overview of the topic, covers all the points you mention in a sufficiently summary manner, without going into too much detail. What exactly is wrong with that?

It's simple and provides a broad overview, but it also skips what I believe is important information. I won't repeat myself all over again, but I do believe that founding investors, software products, statements made to media, deceptive statements made to investors, etc is important to include. It's a good overview in its current state, but I believe it was better before most of the article was removed.

> Why should I request that Verge Motorcycles have a separate page? So that it can then become cluttered with excessive technical detail?

So details regarding the company can be made available (e.g. founding, claims about performance, product line, total number of units produced/shipped), that might not be directly related to Donut Lab, assuming you do believe that content shouldn't be directly part of the Donut Lab article. It keeps it out of the way for people solely interested in Donut Lab's affairs, but is still available if people want to know about Verge's. I think that's fair?

> I also didn't "simply state that we're in 'direct opposition'"—I explained my position first before making that comment.

I didn't intend for that to come off as though you hadn't said anything prior, my apologies, that was absolutely not my intent.

> In fact, "gradual editing", as you call it, would have been a great solution, had you suggested it.

The fact you immediately reverted any attempt to restore the original content, even when it was being improved afterwards, demonstrated to me that you probably wouldn't be on board with that, because it seemed like you were dead set on just keeping those claims out of the article at all costs. If that's not your position, please do clarify, because I'm happy to actually participate in rewriting and re-adding content at that point.

Another reason I said I wasn't inclined to rewrite the statements after you suggested attempting that, was because your position seemed to be "this information does not belong, and is just not necessary" and not "this could use rewording/improvement/condensing."

I hope you can forgive me for not wanting to rewrite a claim if it's assumed your position from the get go is that the claim should not exist in any wording in the first place. Again, if that's not your position, please tell me, I'm not out here to just be angry and not do anything of substance.

> It seems you would rather resort to ad hominem attacks than to find a compromise that satisfies our currently contradictory positions

I want a compromise, but as I've said already, your activity at the time just didn't seem conducive to one ever forming unless that compromise was agreeing wholly with your original edit. If any attempt at improvement is reverted, the only other person trying to counter the edit is told you won't respond to them after they try to dispute your reasoning, and every attempt I made to try and justify keeping the information in is essentially met with a "I still think it shouldn't be in there"... do I really have any other option other than to think you would never actually compromise?

> Go ahead, request dispute resolution

I'll hold off for now until you respond to this, I'd like to make sure I didn't just misunderstand your intentions or assume unwillingness where it doesn't exist. Again, I want to improve this article, I'm happy to rewrite content if your problem is less with the inclusion of the fact entirely and more with the method of inclusion, and there's some content I'm willing to omit if it seems reasonable to. Just let me know. MovedRemote (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@MovedRemote, thank you, I appreciate the measured response. As an explanation for my actions, let me start by mentioning that two things were happening at once, and thus, my intention for either/both may have become conflated: On the one hand, EV stuff seemed hellbent on reverting an edit I had spent over an hour on, and I wasn't having it, as it seemed perfunctory, even a little underhanded, especially considering that no prior discussion had taken place. This user seems to have walked away from the discussion now, which is fine by me, as they were adding nothing constructive to it, IMO. Then, you came in with a much more sober response, and I was certainly inclined to discuss the improvement of the article with you and to reach a workable compromise, except that what I heard you say was basically "the content you removed is valuable and should remain", whereas I was saying the opposite. I was lazy, however, and I didn't spend sufficient time providing reasons why I disagreed with you. Ultimately, there isn't that much more for me to add on that point, since I basically think the content is superflous, it's overly detailed/technical, and it doesn't add much value to the average reader.

To be clear, I'm not dead set on anything at this point, but I don't think the article was better prior to my (admittedly heavy-handed) intervention—it was grammatically imperfect, the sections were messy, some of the content was repetitive, and the lede included excessive detail. I'm on board with the project of working toward a compromise, particularly in figuring out what should or should not be included on this page. I do think that "this information does not belong and is just not necessary", though I'm happy to condense it, if it turns out that I'm mistaken about its value.

As a clarificatory note, I told EV stuff I wouldn't respond to them if they persisted in their belligerence instead of contributing constructive input; I didn't simply state that I would stop responding. This is an important distinction, and reproducing my words without the appropriate content is misleading—please be careful not to do this, as it dilutes the appearance of good faith on your part. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I haven't walked away, and BRD is not optional; while the BRD page is not a policy or guideline page, the relevant policy is WP:EDITCONSENSUS. "If your first edit is reverted, try to come up with a compromise solution that addresses the other editor's concerns. If you can't, or if you do and your second edit is reverted, discuss the dispute on the talk page." You made an edit, it got reverted, there is consensus on the talk page against the edit, and yet you continue to revert to your version. You call pointing this out "belligerence", but those are the facts. EV stuff (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Why did you move the discussion to my talk page when there is already a discussion here? Please keep it in one place so everybody can follow along. You made an edit, it was reverted, and consensus is for the prior version. You keep reverting to your version, which you should not do. EV stuff (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@EV stuff, you are welcome to contribute CONSTRUCTIVELY to this discussion and to help improve this page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, that's perfectly understandable.

Currently I don't have much time to rewrite a lot of content, but I'll try to suggest some additions/rewrites soon when I've got the time to sit down and think about it for a bit! MovedRemote (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Constructive comments

Since this discussion is not about a contributor's behavior but about the improvement of the article Donut Lab, here's a technology company good article as a template:

• NuScale Power (22, 18 October 2015 Good Article revision)

Let's take a look at the contents:

Lead:

• company type
• headquarters
• services or products provided
• commercial availability
• founding
• funding
• investors
• financial hardships
• future plans
• description of technology
• expected specifications of product

Body:

• founding
• predecessors
• funding rounds
• financials
• amount of funding raised
• funding issues
• legal issues
• lengthy coverage of product

A little less similar but still technology-related, here's a defence and aerospace company article that can be used as a template, although its coverage is far more extensive than what's available about Donut Lab:

• BAE Systems (21:07, 13 October 2007 Featured Article revision)

Let's take a look at the contents:

Lead:

• company type
• headquarters
• subsidiaries
• founding
• funding
• predecessors
• shareholders

• services or products provided
• allegations against the company

Body:

• founding
• predecessors
• thorough description of predecessors
• founders
• restructuring
• mergers, demergers
• shareholding
• products
• major projects
• areas of operation
• business structure
• corporate goverance
• financial information
• criticism

Admittedly this is a far larger company than Donut Lab, and Donut Lab is more like NuScale Power. Let's have a look at one more featured-article quality technology company article:

• Icos (13:03, 8 September 2009 Featured Article revision)

Lead:

• company type
• size
• acquisition
• founding
• founder
• predecessors
• products
• sales
• acquisition
• layoffs

Body:

• founding
• list of founders and their previous involvement in similar companies
• goal of company
• name
• shareholders, investors
• headquarters
• fundraising
• leadership
• products
• legal issues
• marketing
• other products
• list of other products
• manufacturing
• acquisition
• controversy

Another large company, and I'm not proposing the Donut Lab article should be this lengthy, but it does show what topics are considered worthy of inclusion in a featured article.

Seeing these two featured-article quality article and one good-article quality article, and seeing the editing consensus before the large deletion of information in the article, and the discussion consensus between editors with the exception of the editor who deleted the information, it's pretty clear that there is consensus generally in Wikipedia for the inclusion of the above topics, and specifically by the editors of Donut Lab with the exception of a single editor.

Now, let's be constructive and make Donut Lab a featured-article-quality article by including the above topics, and adjusting the length of the article and sections in accordance to the amount of good quality reliable sources available about Donut Lab. EV stuff (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on CleanTechnica and Electrek

CleanTechnica and Electrek are hobbyist websites. There's no reason to dedicate an entire paragraph to their articles when far more serious publications--Battery Technology, Automotive World, Heise, Interesting Engineering, Electronic Design, science.org--get a sentence or two. EV stuff (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me, can you please explain why that justifies removing all of the relevant information?

You removed everything about the newer test results, and claims both in favor of (severely lacking in this article, imo not great for NPOV), and to the contrary of Donut Lab's. If you want to give more weight to those sources, go for it, but don't revert when not necessary, or do a full reversion when a partial one could suffice.

I'm happy to help integrate these other sources into the article or shift the weight away from CleanTechnica or Electrek, but both are already notable sources, have their own Wikipedia articles (only some of the sources you mentioned do), and are presenting opinions that are either not stated in those other sources, or is the same as those other sources. (You also deleted two citations I had added to both Automotive World and Battery Technology, which made similar but less comprehensive claims)

If your problem is with the weight, I'm happy to revert back to the original edit, then change the wording to be more neutral in its attribution (e.g. "multiple industry news/commentary sources have claimed this is not proof of solid-state, for XYZ reasons"), does that sound fine to you? I'd rather not have just wasted an hour of my time pulling sources and constantly rewriting a section with updated information just to have it fully reverted. MovedRemote (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the information, it just doesn't justify two paragraphs. You have one sentence saying "twenty researchers and experts say it's a standard lithium battery", it's undue weight to give CleanTechnica and Electrek each a whole paragraph when they're low-quality (but valid, generally reliable) sources. EV stuff (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

On second reading of the CleanTechnica paragraph, it's entirely undue weight to give their journalist's opinion an entire paragraph when they add no information at all. EV stuff (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I still don't understand though, do you just have a problem with their particular claims being made available in the article? As in, do you just want the previous statement with general consensus from experts, but not the actual reasons why they think so based on the newer test data?

The only reason I added this information to begin with was because someone came in and tried to completely replace the existing text, believing these new tests were proof of solid-state, so I feel it's reasonable to want to specifically include those tests and responses to prevent such a misunderstanding.

If you just want me to heavily condense it into more of a simple single-line statement about how additional tests were done, but industry outlets still remain skeptical and claim it still doesn't prove it's solid-state, that's fine by me. I'm just not entirely sure if that's what you're going for here. MovedRemote (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Let's separate Electrek and CleanTechnica discussion:

• Electrek: Discussing nail penetration test and bipolar design. I've condensed the information to two sentences, it's more tests that fail to prove anything, like many of the previous tests. It's undue weight to give them their own paragraph, but it's alright to mention in passing in a single sentence or two.
• CleanTechnica: Says nothing. No reason to give it an entire paragraph or even a single sentence. "CleanTechnica, who are not battery experts and have no information beyond what's presented to the experts, say the battery is solid-state." This is false balance.

EV stuff (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, your edit works for me. MovedRemote (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Why was the source for the Intertek nail penetration and bipolar test removed. Who is saying this: "Later tests such as a nail penetration test again could not differentiate the tested pouch cells from lithium-ion batteries. Journalists noted that Donut Lab was conflating "bipolar" with "solid-state" in its tests." where is the source? You can't just say something without a reference. The referenced article is talking about an Energy density test by VTT, but the text mentions a nail penetration test. ~2026-50863-82 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The claim is in the cited article, search for the text "Donut Lab’s cleanest new argument is that Intertek confirmed a bipolar internal structure" and you'll find the following relevant context.

Within that paragraph, they even explicitly state "The jump from “bipolar” to “therefore solid-state” is Donut Lab’s inference"

Please read sources before disputing the information they supposedly don't include. MovedRemote (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Well that doesn't say that the cell couldn't be differentiated from lithium ion batteries, it just says that donut lab jumped to the conclusion of bipolar meaning solid state, this is was exactly my point. Who are the experts claiming that the bipolar test is just a lithium ion battery? You are just like Donut Lab jumping to conclusions here and I also don't get why the other references was removed. Electrek is as EV stuff clearly stated just a hobbyist website, there should be much more reliable sources on this available on this subject and someone claiming that the test are irrelevant is just expressing an opinion. This shouldn't be based on opinions, but on fact and no matter how irrelevant someone find the tests, they still happened and should be included in more detail. ~2026-50863-82 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Alright, seems reasonable to remove that part of the sentence. I think the entire Electrek sentence and article are superfluous. "Who are the experts claiming that the bipolar test is just a lithium ion battery?" Several doctors, professors, and battery experts cited in the article. EV stuff (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

yes this is better ~2026-50863-82 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The experts:

• Dr Euan McTurk - Electric Classic Cars and Plug Life Television, via YouTube
• "Markus Gehring, a battery materials specialist at PEM Motion [...] says the scant data make Donut’s product look like a pretty conventional lithium-ion battery, containing a cathode based on lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide and a graphite-silicon anode." - science.org
• "The latest investigation reviewed data from those tests and spoke with over 20 battery experts. The report says every expert agreed: the tested cell acts like a lithium-ion battery." - interestingengineering.com
• 15 are anonymous, but five were willing to identify: "Julian Xanau from the Franhoffer Research Institute, Tom Bicha, CEO of Leona, Dr. Yuo Hesca from the Senyoki University of Applied Sciences, and Dr. Yohim San from the Justice Leberg University" - Ziroth, via YouTube

We don't need a journalist's opinion. It would be undue emphasis. EV stuff (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)