Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Sexuality?

Is it safe to say that Tesla was an asexual due to his lack of interest in the subject, or the fact that he had no significant partners. Should it be mentioned in the article? Or should he be added to Category:Asexual people? I'm doing research on asexuality and so far he is one of the few famous people that fit the discription. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC))

If it is just your conclusion that he was "asexual" then it is original research and probably should not be included in the article, nor should he be put in the category merely on the inference of any Wikipedia editor. Perhaps he was just very careful not to be public in his "sexuality," whether it was with women, men, he was a gay jew or even a pigeon:"Yes, I loved that pigeon, I loved her as a man loves a woman, and she loved me.-Tesla". If his biographers or other reliable sources classify him as "asexual," then it could be included, preferably with inline citations to the page of the reliable source. Edison (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tesla had "interesting" friends " George Sylvester Vierick, Tesla Politics were?

Tesla best friend in his later years was the "poet" and Nazi spy! Geroge Sylvester Vireick, Did Tesla have any political views? Not mentioned in article. Thanks!Andreisme (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazism was well before Tesla's time, he probably just enjoyed the company of someone with news from the continent. Tesla did not have very strong political views and would have sold his inventions to whomever wanted to purchase them. He was only interested in funding and did not care where it came from or what it was used for because eventually whatever war was fought would end and his inventions would still be there. And since when was Viereck a spy? Zalgo 05:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heard Tesla "GAVE" away his A.C. Patents to save George Westinghouse,True?

Heard Tesla "gave" or "tore up" in some magazines His A.C. patents to save his frind George Westinghouse? Is this true will check article again. But ow does one without lawyers GIVE UP ROYALTIES?!!!P>S. see N.Y. Times article rcenetly May 5 2009 Re: the Tesla Lab Building Shreham, Long Island to be saved? Thanks! THE EDSON< THEEDSON1 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Westinghouse had a fine group of skilled lawyers, and all Tesla had to do to give away $12 million or so in royalties was sign the paper Westinghouse put in front of him. This saved Westinghouse from financial failure and made it possible for him to get Tesla's motors in general use. Tesla wanted people to benefit from his inventions, and he did not want the inventions of others to be the basis of the electric industry, since others had different AC electric motors (not as good as Tesla's at the time). Edison (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Known for"

The infobox currently claims he's "known for": Tesla coil, Tesla turbine, Teleforce, Tesla's oscillator, Tesla electric car, Tesla principle, Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Alternating current, Induction motor, Rotating magnetic field, Wireless technology, Particle beam weapon, Death ray, Terrestrial stationary waves, Bifilar coil, Telegeodynamics, Electrogravitics

I think this list is a little overly enthusiastic. Is he really known for this stuff by people who are not passionate Tesla fanatics? I would prune it to Tesla coil and Alternating Current. Can we prune it down? Tempshill (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "Tesla Car" is not something he did, so it would not seem to be "something he is known for." Some of the "known for" items sound like pseudoscience. The infobox should be things he is reliably sourced to. Edison (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Its called theory not pseudoscience. He had enough proof to confirm hypotheses. Oh wait.... EDISON, you bastard :/ Zalgo 05:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Heard TESLA BLUE PORTRAIT found?

Heard that the Tesla picture the famed Blue Potrait has been found in North Germany? Is this so? Thanks!THEEDSON1 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Tesla Communicating with Aliens.

At the beginning of his Radio Communications experiments. Tesla is said to have picked up unknown radio communications that he thought came from Space. The Article in Wikipedia doubted if he was receiving any signals at all. Marconi and other pioneers of Radio also picked up Radio signals which like Tesla they insisted were intelligent communications not normal static etc. There is nothing to support Teslas claim that the communications were of Alien origin. But if both he and Marconi and others at the beginning of Radio communication are receiving intelligent sounding signal messages we may conclude that radio was already being used, secretly it seems, by (most likely) humans for business or military reasons long before being revealed to the public. This has spectacular implications for our present understanding of late 19th history.Johnwrd (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you proposing the article say about it? What reliable sources do you have? This is all conjecture. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The signals Tesla and other scientists were picking up were cosmic rays later discovered to be emitted by stars and other bodies in outer space. This is explained in Cheney's biography and undoubtedly in many other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.244.214 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there ever been a US Tesla Postage Stamp?

Has there ever been a US Postage stamp to commorate Tesla?Thanks!THEEDSON1 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

THE SUPPOSSED "TESLA" CAR NOT MODERN DID IT EXSIT?

THERES WAS ACAR RUN ON "EARTH ENERGY" SUPPOSSELY A PIERCE ARROW IN BUFFLO N.Y. DID IT EVER EXSIST? THERE WERE NEWS STORIES OF THE TIME ABOUT THIS? THANKS!THEEDSON1 (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

SpinningSpark 22:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wondering if Tesla had what today is named OCD?

Didnt see in article.Tesla was certaianly compulsive in his manners. A sign of Obssive Comulsive Behavior?Thanks! SWORDINHAND (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim has been made Tesla had an earthquake making device!

In Teslas lab 1890s NYC he Tesla suppossely attyached a Harminic Gnerator to a iron couilmn in center of his Laboratory.The device vibtaed the column then building! Then the entire neighbohood ! No mention of this in article.PMThur.06180921stcentdecdedDatedThanks!SWORDINHAND (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Nikola Tesla is apparently starred at Google logo for today. Article should prob. be semi-protected from IP editing for one day, as massive nationalism-induced vandalism is already starting to occur. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

kind of the people like you right 66.245.102.130 (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Stay polite. SpinningSpark 21:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google Mention

As an addition to honours on July 10th 2009 Google commemorated Tesla's birthday.

The standard Google image was replaced with that of a Tesla Coil with arcs of electricity forming the two O's.

http://www.google.com/logos/tesla09.gif

Link is to the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devout Catalyst (talk • contribs) 08:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

and page is getting 76K hits an hour as a result.©Geni 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The featuring by Google is an important event in this history of this article; the image should be archived/displayed right here for posterity, if the rules permit. Where and how does one find how many hits the article is getting? I would think it would be more now than 76K an hour. -96.233.30.237 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Google image is most likely not free. :( Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely we could link to it though?? Matty2002 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

According to http://www.google.com/permissions/index.html we can use an unmodified screenshot of the home page. Matty2002 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a category for people or things celebrated by Google?Cyruskety (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 16:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why has Galileo Ferraris never been mentioned?

Considering that most of the books dealing with AC motors and rotating magnetic field refers to both Tesla and Ferraris as the main personalities involved in the development of the polyphase technology, it seems quite strange that the author has completely neglected the fundamental contributions given by the italian scientist. The speech: "In the same year, Tesla conceived the induction motor..." is not a rigorous description of the steps leading to the paternity of the idea. Did Tesla gain wide acceptance of his "conceived" discovery by the scientific/academic comunity in 1882 ? Despite Galileo Ferraris deliberately refused to patent his inventions he publicly demonstrated the working principle of the rotating magnetic field in the summer of 1885, three years before Tesla's AC motor patents; models of the AC motors used during the experiments performed in 1885 by Ferraris can be seen at IEN institute (Turin-Italy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.100.9.229 (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can easily update Galileo Ferraris' page with this information on his contributions to the development of polyphase systems. Please remember to source the material you do provide. --Xero (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Galileo Ferraris did his work independently of Tesla. BUT Tesla was the 1st to have developed it. Ferraris didn't deliberately refused to patent it, there was prior art of Tesla. This comes up again and again with Tesla. J. D. Redding 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The only prior art was that one of Galileo Ferraris. Ferraris pubblicly demonstrated first working AC motor in 1885, 3 years before Tesla patents but refused to patent it not because of Tesla's prior art ( what???) but because he thought that science and technology should be available for free to all the humankind.He was forced by his collaborator to publish its discovery in the magazine "Nuovo Cimento" in 1888. Ferraris was hailed as the father of poliphase technology in the Chicago congress on electricity in 1893. Tesla then took historically the priority on the discovery of AC motor just because was in the right place, in the right moment and surrounded by the right peolple without forgetting the massive efforts he produced to create a legend of himself, matter to which Ferraris was completely indifferent.--Magnagr (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"The Invention of Everything Else"

This is a novel written by Samanta Hunt , the novel is partly about Teslas last months. I cannot see it mentioned in this article. Yes it is fiction, but very much of the information about Tesla is fact and the novel should therefore be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.97.194.69 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There should be recognation of Tesla.A seperate article on Teslas early life?

There should be more recognation of Nikola Tesla.And perhaps another article on just the modern aspects of his inventions(such as the Particle Beam weapon that formed the basis for "Star Wars" research in the 19802 See "Tesla:Man Out of Time" Margaret Cheney.Thanks! Great article here !Decideddaydtaed July10,200921stCent.Dr.Edson Andre'Johnson D.D.ULCSWORDINHAND (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)NO MENTION EITHER OF TESLA DAY JUL 10TH NIKOLA TESLAS BIRTHDAY IN SERBIA AND CROATIA ANDHERE IN U.S. AS GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DAY DECIDED/DATED A.M. JULY11,2009 21STCENT.DR.EDSON ANDRE' JOHNSON D.D.ULC. ````

UFOs?

Don't think UFOs or conspiracy theories are worthy of mention in the lead. It's also original research as far as I can tell. 71.56.124.57 (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we not allowed to put "Serbian-American inventor" or "American inventor?"

I don't understand. Both are easily verified. Horvat Den (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a page devoted to discussing the ethnicity issue. SpinningSpark 11:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"American" is not an ethnicity. In other words, there is no debate about that. Bulldog123 18:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"American" is a person who considers himself/herself to be ethnically American (see American ethnicity). J. D. Redding 15:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

American people are not aliens for sure. Unless of course, the things we think are aliens think we are the aliens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.136.249 (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

See also

These need to be listed at the bottome in the see also ...

General

Electrical Experimenter, Tesla motor

People

Robert Underwood Johnson, John Hays Hammond, Jr., George Westinghouse, Stanford White, Hugo Gernsback, Michael Pupin, J. P. Morgan, Edwin Armstrong, Elihu Thomson

Other

Edward Dean Adams Station, polyphase system, Hertz, U.S. Navy

From:

• Seifer, M. J. (1998). Wizard: The life and times of Nikola Tesla : biography of a genius. New York: Citadel Press/Kensington Publishing.

J. D. Redding 15:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Great source material ! owevr maybe mention George Sylvester Vireick too? Teslas best freind in Teslas later years? Mr. Vierick was i nternesd as a German agent too! Thanks! ```` - unsigned comment by User:PINEAPPLEMAN 00:42, 18 July 2009

George Sylvester Viereck would be a good addition. J. D. Redding 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Teslas interest in poetry

Perhaps, a mention in article should be made of Nikola Tesla deep intrest in poetry?Thanks!PINEAPPLEMAN (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can you provide some sources about that? Abductive (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wikisource has some of the Tesla's translations of Serbo-Croatian poetry which were published in the Century Magazine, namely the works by Jovan Jovanović Zmaj. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical Inventions

I think this part of the article requires major improvement, especially note number 92 wich leads to a non-scientific text with no serious sources: we are in pure speculation. As far as I know, the only thing known for sure about Tesla's Flying Machine is the "Force Field Generator", wich has nothing to do with ion-propelled aircraft or antigravity and wich has been proven non-working numerous times. I really think note number 92 and every parts of the article related to it should be deleted because of the lack of verified sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.53.152 (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tesla radio inventions.Supreme court upholding Teslas Radio patents

Know a few months after Teslas death The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Teslas Radio patents over those of Marconi. No mention in article.Thanks!JANUSROMA (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Tesla radio Patents being upheld by Supreme Court

Know Dr. Teslas Radio patents were upheld over thoses of Marconi.Several months after Tesla death in 1943.No mention of this is artucle! Thanks!JANUSROMA (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A mention of his Colorado Springs ,Co, Laboratory

Perhaps a mention migh be made in article of Teslas Colorado Springs,Co, research lab. Where he may have demonstated wirelesss eletrical transmission in the late 1890s? Thanks!VICTORIANUS (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A question Re:Tesla and Edsion

Heard that the real problem besides the A.C. current Vs. Edisons D.C. current "war of the Currents" Was that Edsion refused Tesla a promised $50,000 Bonus for tesla improving Edsions dynamos with the quip "You dont undertstand American humor very well Mr. tesla"? Wondering if this has even been vrified? ThanksEv.PMaug13200921stcent Dated EAJ"X"EDSONNTESLATSWIFTSR (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Claim has it that Tesla invemnted flouescnet lights before the French?

Have seen wireless lit gas lights (Mark Twain? Samuel Clemens having hjis picture taken with one!)Neon like gases being excited by wireless eletyricmagnetic waves from a tesla Coil. yet, the french are given credit fot he first neon lights in1910.Perhaps a mention of Tesla Gas lights,even teslas work with X rays that grew from this? Thanks!IMPVictorianus (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please read the message on your talk page. SpinningSpark 08:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Beleive theres a Tesla medal or Award?

heard of a Tesla medal or an award Named after Tesla Cant find data Perhaps this coulkd be added to article? MnPnSoCalKid (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that Tesla identified or applied the magnetic rotating field before 1888

Historical proves that Tesla "identified" (weird verb, usually exploited by someone who want to prove something without evidence. Usually inventors just publish, create, patent...)are non existent. The fact is that Tesla spent most of its energies by trying to create a mith of himself through letters or memorials. He was simply obsessed not to be recognised as the first one having invented or applied or thought something......Tesla was aware that Ferraris had created induction motors in 1885,three years before him (1885 Ferraris's models still exist where are those created before 1888 by Tesla?), and just put about the history of the idea conceived in 1882. No priority on a discovery can be given to Tesla or to anyone else just refering to memorials based merely on owns testimonies without any rigorous evidence.--193.136.94.197 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Inventions in info box

The inventions in the infobox are miss-leading or just dead wrong. I removed Radio astronomy from the infobox "Inventions". There is no reliable source that states this, although many "Tesla" sources try to make this claim.

• Robotics and the electronic logic gate. Nither the Robot, nor Robotics articles mentions Tesla and logic gate list Tesla as just one of the people who worked in these devices, not the "inventor".
• Teleforce particle beam weapon, a.k.a the 'death ray'. Listing Tesla as the inventor of particle beam weapon is again misleading since that article states no schematics or prototype was ever found.

Wireless technology is also iffy since it only has one unreferenced Tesla claim in that article.

"Inventions" is going to have to be better defined or better referenced. 70.208.152.96 (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the infobox is just packed with BS such as Space data transmission systems linked to the highly dubious Teslascope. Rather than try to fish out what was add/changed I am simply reverting it to the 12:18, 15 August 2009 version before all the BS edits were added. Its called start over and try again. 70.208.152.96 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism in the article

Quote:"In 1898, a radio-controlled boat was demonstrated to the public during an electrical exhibition at Madison Square Garden. These devices had an innovative coherer and a series of electronic logic gates. Tesla called his boat a "teleautomaton" and said of it, "You see there the first of a race of robots, mechanical men which will do the laborious work of the human race"."

How could Tesla use the word "Robot" if referring to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot#Etymology the word wasn't even invented until 1920 ?

upd. “Telautomats will be ultimately produced, capable of acting as if possessed of their own intelligence, and their advent will create a revolution”. -Tesla, Nicola, in his book My Inventions, published in 1921

The quote is from writings of John J. O'Neill in his 1944 book Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla[1]. It is either a piece of late in life bombast by Tesla the showman quoted by O'Neill with the anachronism thrown in by Tesla, or just sloppy or even fictional writing by O'Neill. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

100 km north of Šibenik

I removed this conjecture from the article:

It is curious that Nikola Tesla, a pioneer of AC systems, was born approximately 100 km north of Šibenik where the first power plant in Croatia was constructed. It may be a coincidence that in May 1892, Tesla held a lecture on alternating systems in the City Hall of Zagreb (the capital of Croatia) at the time of the beginning of the preparations to construct the Jaruga I hydroelectric power plant.

It was supported by this reference: http://www.ieee.org/web/aboutus/history_center/conferences/che2007/prog_comm.html

I don't see the need for this kind of synthesis performed by anybody, wiki editor or Tesla expert. There are enough interesting facts about Tesla that we don't have to search around for bits and pieces to flesh out the article. Instead, we have so much information about him that we could do with a little trimming. This inessential coincidence and conjecture is something I think should not be present. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call, besides the obvious plagiarism, it is clearly just musing by the speaker. It would hardly have been notable even if Tesla had deliberately chosen the date of his lecture to coincide, and there is no evidence that he did. SpinningSpark 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this bit is being edit-warred back into the article. I am removing it again for the stated reasons. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hes real name was Nicolae Tesla and he wasn't born in Croatia, but in Romania. Just like all other eminent romanian scientists, Tesla got a wrong indentity (example: Henry Coanda, inventer of Coanda Effect and Jet airplains in 1910). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.94.30 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nauwabanism?

"Even in Tesla's time, some believed that he was actually an angelic being from Venus sent to Earth to reveal scientific knowledge to humanity. This belief is maintained in present times by followers of Nuwaubianism."

It is?--Thesniperremix (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No official or formal recognized education degree?

So, after reading many biographies, and also in this wiki article, what is very interesting, and maby should be more exposed as info on Tesla, is that he, at least officially, never finished any of those two colleges he studied in Prague and Graz, but always left before the end of course. Most important inventions he discovered only as technitian - it says in article he was "assistant engineer", but in english speaking world - isn't that just applied sub-graduate, and non-college degree? When all his works became so famous, only after that, various educational institutions and organisations rushed to award him with PhDs and other degrees. Until then, he was basically just working as some technitian or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.171.54 (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

External link

I explain lot of Tesla's works on my web pages. It has lot of technical information for recreate his work. But I don't know how to add link to protected page. If some admin think that it will be good to connect my page to Wikipedia, please help. I see lot of useful links, but I see lot of misunderstandings too.

• Nikola Tesla and My Thoughts Tesla combustion engine, Energy of space, Flying machine, Tesla's energy transmitter, Tesla's style windmill... —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrankoJermanis (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If the material can be reliably sourced, there is no reason it cannot be added directly to the article. If it cannot be sourced, it should be neither added nor linked. Either way, there is no justification to add a link. SpinningSpark 00:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Awkard

What's up with this line? " Immediately after the fire, Linde, in Germany, filed 'his' patent application for the exact same process, which recombined some of the heat energy produced in compression of the air, to drive the process, just as Tesla had done.[51]"

I don't know the validity of the insinuation but I think this could be phrased just a bit better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milsorgen (talk • contribs) 06:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Typo/nonstandard English: empounded

In the "Death" section, the word 'empounded' should be 'impounded', (or perhaps 'seized')

I can't find any credible references to 'empounded' as a form of 'impounded'.

I don't have any comment on what actually happened to Tesla's documents, this is a grammar note only.

Chriswatts (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Descendant of Tesla?

Seems like nonsense. No reliable source has him married to, or interested in, or having sex with a woman. His only reported "true love" was a pigeon. How could he therefore have a descendant, one Danijela Tesla, his supposed 18 year old great-great grandchild, per this reverted edit [[2]? If she is the great grandchild of Tesla's first cousin, she would be his first cousin four times removed, and not at all a descendant.Edison (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That whole article seems like an attempt to misuse Tesla's name to promote Serbian nationalism by twisting quotes and historical facts. Just looking at the main page of the hosting website you realize that you're dealing with a classical example of Serbian nationalist mythomania. Kosovo myth, denial of Srebrenica genocide...the only thing that is missing is a picture of vojvoda Šeki. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And on our huge surprice - you are a Croat? Please, leave political differences behind. This artical is about science.--79.101.13.223 (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please focus on the edits rather than the editors. El_C 12:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if the young lady were claimed to be a "relative of" rather than a "descendant of" Tesla, the relevance of her unfortunate experiences to the article seems scant and not appropriate to mention in an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

She could very easily be a cousin and it is never said anywhere that Tesla was ABSOLUTELY asexual, only that he claimed so in public. Jenga3 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, unfortunately there are no decendants of Nikola Tesla. Only few Teslas came alive from Croatia in WWII and in 1995. anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.67.57 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Such as so many others eugenists, Tesla hasn't any descendents at all.Agre22 (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Religious Stance

I noticed that under religious stance Tesla is listed as Serbian Orthodox, but in Prodigal Genius he is repeatedly stated to be an open atheist. I assume it's considered a reliable source since it is used in reference to his pigion obsession, so isn't it reasonable to also use it to identify his personal beliefs (or lack thereof).AlexanderCahan (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

People who say Tesla was Serbian Orthodox usually point to his father's deep involvement with that church. In all the Tesla biographies I've seen, no author suggests that Tesla was an atheist. Many suggest that his spiritual beliefs became more philosophical than faith-based, that he adopted a Goethean point of view about the cosmos. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was burried in religious ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.199.4 (talk • contribs)

The religious ceremony someone is buried with (or without) really doesn't say much about what they believed, per se. The person is already dead and therefore not participating in any way and it is out of their control (they're dead, after all!) and in the hands of family or possibly simply people in the location where they died. To put it more directly, plenty of atheists and agnostics have had religious funerals conducted in their name by family and far more people, probably, have had a religious funeral that implies beliefs differing from those they actually held; funerals are not a good indicator of the religious beliefs (if any) of the dead person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.192.175 (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

During his last decades of life, Tesla followed a region called eugenics. He was a knowed eugenist.Agre22 (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Eugenics is not a religion. --McGeddon (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think in Margaret Cheney's "Tesla: Man Out of Time" she mentions how Tesla thought people were simply "meat machines" and how this annoyed religious people. I can't be sure of the exact quote since I don't have the book in front of me, but I think this would shed some light on his religious stance. I can tell you for one he did not want to be a cleric in his fathers church, it says that right in his autobiography "My Inventions." But that doesn't necessarily mean he is an atheist, he could just have loved engineering and inventing. Spacew00t (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Did tesla ever express any particular political ideas?

Article did not mention Did Nikola tesla ever express any political ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NOVABAKUNINMOI (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tesla's political views had a name: eugenics. Agre22 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Serbian Cyrillic

Please add next to his name  : Никола Тесла —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.223.224 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why? Serbian wasn't always and indeed, isn't always written in the Cyrillic script, in fact those that do so are often making a political statement regarding their preferred alliance (with Russia rather than other neighbouring powers) more than anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.192.175 (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

political statement or not he was an ethnic serb his father was a serbian orthodox priest and he would have read cyrillic if his father had shown him a bible (do you get my point?)

on top of that why is the place of birth include "croatian military frontier" as "THE" military frontier (as it should be known) stretched from croatia to banat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.117.110 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

also before all the serbs in croatia were ethnically cleansed, serbs made up a majority in the area... dont think to call or even imply that he was a croat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.117.110 (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why we should add Serbian Cyrillic to the article. This article is not about showing Tesla to be more Serb than Croat, or vice versa. Take that battle somewhere else. Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont get it. If guy is ethic Serbian, why shouldn't you write his name on serbian cyrillic? He surley knew how to write cyrilic...I agree that latin is one of two letters officialy recognised in Serbia, but latin is been in serbia for about 50 years and cyrililc for about 1000 years. Plus his father and family was Serbian orthdox, so I'm sure that they have knew cyrillic. It's not politicxs it's history of language.--93.86.22.57 (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is about an inventor, not about the languages spoken in the area of his birth. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So? His is not as same writen as in latin... His birth certificate is writen in serbian cyrilic, that must mean something :\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.193.119 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, com' on, stop be naive... this article is about inventor... If you can put how Einstein is pronounce in German, no matter he was JEW. So put Serbian Cyrillic. Such great mind, a son of Serbian orthodox priest, deserves it! Don't make wikipedia less trustworthy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.218.237 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely embarrassing and ridiculous that an ethnic Serb, a man who was the son of a Serbian Orthodox priest is not allowed to have his name in Serbian Cyrillic. What type of justification is there for that? Every single Serbian has his name written in Serbian Cyrillic and Tesla should be no different. This absolutely must be added in or the article loses credibility. Whoever is refusing to prevent it from being added should stop with these primitive politics and step back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MK310 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it perfectly plain that Tesla's Serbian ethnicity is authentic, but there are many who seem gravely embarrassed by that fact and clearly wish to obscure it...! However, Serbian Cyrillic was the native language of his birth and the language of his parents - that cannot be denied. So, for goodness sake, stop squabbling...!! Let's apply some sound balance worthy of Wikipedia and finally acknowledge this towering figure - this remarkable Serb - as the technological genius he undoubtedly was...!!!

Vandalism?

|religion = Serbian Orthodox

that code was removed in an edit war. FC Toronto (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Tesla had just a religion: eugenics. Such as Francis Galton, he died without no descendents.Agre22 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Tesla's house and Serbian church

Can you mention that Croatian paramilitar forces had blown up Nikola Tesla birth house and Serbian orthodox church his father was priest at, in the 1990s. That is an important fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.240.211 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No evidence that Tesla identified rotating magnetic field in 1882

Please remove the statement: "In the same year, Tesla conceived the induction motor and began developing various devices that use rotating magnetic fields.....". There is no evidence that he conceived anything before 1888. Tesla invented the myth of his 1882 "conceived" discovery in his 1915 memoirs. Galileo Ferraris was the true inventor of AC motors!!!!!!--151.50.0.168 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Among Technophiles, Tesla In and Edison Out

This site: [Fox News ] shows that among technophiles, Tesla in and Edison out.Agre22 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there ever a recording of Tesla speaking?

Was there ever a voice recording or even a newsreel movie of Nikola tesla speaking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teslaedson (talk • contribs) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

He lived in the newsreel era, but I have never been able to find any mention of a recording of his voice. If there were we would link to it. Edison (talk) 03:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Tesla probable inspiration for Cthulhu Mythos deity Nyarlathothep?

"Will Murray has speculated that this dream image of Nyarlathotep may have been inspired by the inventor Nikola Tesla, whose well-attended lectures did involve extraordinary experiments with electrical apparatus and whom some saw as a sinister figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyarlathotep#Inspiration (Footnote 3: Will Murray, "Behind the Mask of Nyarlathotep", Lovecraft Studies No. 25 (Fall 1991); cited in Robert M. Price, The Nyarlathotep Cycle, p. 9.)64.193.69.169 (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of Tesla's Name?

I'm looking in several places and I see that his name is alternately spelled "Nikola" and Nikolai". What is the correct spelling? (I'm going to assume Nikola, BUT my teacher INSISTS that it is Nikolai.) 71.2.119.31 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Does your teacher have a reliable source? You can read Tesla's autobiography "My Inventions" on-line at the Internet Archive, where the title page gives his name as "Nikola". If you were having your autobiography printed, you'd have your name spelled correctly on the title page, wouldn't you? One thing Wikipedia teaches you is not to appeal to authority or to what "everyone knows", but to rely on actual identifiable sources. A cnversation killer, but the only way to run an encyclopedia written by annonymous people. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct spelling is "Nikola" because Serbs don't use name "Nikolai"- only Russians, Ukranians, Bulgarians etc. Same would be with Italian version of the name "Niccolò". Since he was a ethnic Serb i must say your teacher is wrong :) Jarovid (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

3 phase animation image broken

As viewed in the article, using both Firefox & Chrome on separate computers, the animation in the article is hosed. Clicking on the animation so that it loads in it's own page shows it fine though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:3phase-rmf-noadd-60f-airopt.gif 174.51.160.243 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Tesla was asexual and it's a fact

User http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DVdm deleted the revision I made. Just write on Google "Tesla asexual" or "Tesla asexuality" or "Tesla celibate" and you'll see it's a fact. There are no proves that he was ever part of any kind of sexual relationship and there are many proves about his asexuality. So I'll just keeping undo - ing the user's actions. Is that ok? --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that not being maried and never having been reported to have a sexual relationship is evidence for being asexual. Standard google is not a reliable source. With Google books I managed to find one source that talks about putative asexuality (click the link so see what that means). Going with this source we can safely report this putative asexuality in the text, but putting it the category looses the putative nature of the claim, and suggests a verifiable fact, which at this point it is not. If it is such a well known fact, then it should be easy to find a reliable source for it. I have reverted again. DVdm (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we are Prove No. 2 And another one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastko Pocesta (talk • contribs) 13:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources. These are blogs. Please check the policies. DVdm (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN)is quite a reliable source for me. It is their job to note all the famous asexuals in history. --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It might be reliable source for you, but it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Please DO have a close look at WP:RS. DVdm (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Read it while registering it Wikipedia, like the rest of guides and rules of Wikipedia. But what is then, a reliable source for you? --Rastko Pocesta (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is really simple actually. The first hit of this Google books search is a good example of a WIKI-reliable source for a brief remark in the article about Tesla's putative asexuality, but certainly not for categorising Tesla as a factual asexual person. Have a look at this source's description here, and again read WP:RS. DVdm (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, his sexuality is certainly not important here, whatever his personal choice was, it was not an important issue in his work. This is an encyclopedia, not a colection of all kind of informations... FkpCascais (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Tesla didn't invent the radio

Please remove the statement: "1943, the Supreme Court of the United States credited him as being the inventor of the radio...." The sentence doesn't credit Tesla of having invented the radio and the same sentence was not intended to decide who the real inventor of the radio was....Radio has many fathers but there is no single person who invented it. Marconi was the first scientist to make it works!!!--151.50.0.168 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done ScienceApologist (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I said, please add the statement: "Mr. Marconi is a donkey." --N. T. And it was deleted?! Who allow you to delete my comments?! This is one of the famous Tesla's quotes! Beside the freedom of speech of course. --Popski (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I'm almost certain Tesla did make such a comment, citations are still required and citations are always provided by the person making a claim. Now please try to play nice around here.BingoDingo (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation please? DMacks (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'm not your lackey. Dig for a citation yourself if you really have a need.. And please, next time at least ask me first if you can delete my comments. :| --Popski (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You have asked for others to make an addition to the article and DMacks appears to be kindly offering to do that when you could quite easily do it yourself, so I would ask who is using who as a lackey here. All he has asked is that you quite reasonably provide a citation before the article is amended so we can be sure of the facts. It is the responsibility of the provider to supply citations for any fact that is, or is likely to be challenged. Nobody is going to make edits like the one you propose without sources.

As for deleting your comment, you originally posted as an IP, with no citation and a negative apparently incivil comment. I am not surprised that was read as vandalism. You would have had it deleted for a second time by me if DMacks had not replied first. SpinningSpark 21:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Religion

I'd like to raise the issue of his religion. His father was a Serbian Orthodox priest, however he did very much "break all relations with his home and family" in 1876 if I'm not mistaken. The infobox currently states that he was Serbian Orthodox, and sources that with a dead link to a private website. Without a proper published source (and there are 258,000 of them on Google Books :), we definitely shouldn't make claims like that. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's remove religion from the infobox, especially as Tesla displayed little regard for religion during his adulthood. This means the Serbian Orthodox categories will be removed, too. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree. Unless we have a source in which he professes his religion. We always use self-identification as the rule here. Yworo (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cn in lede

There is nothing wrong with inline citations in the lede. Happens all the time. Editor Spinningspark -- you say that Tesla being one of the most important "players" is "beyond question". I am questioning it. I'm not questioning whether or not Tesla was an important player. My problem is with the word "most". It sounds as if it were written by an overzealous Tesla "fan", and I am challenging the NPOV of it. So please discuss it here and let's resolve this before reverting again. If a RS can be found that tells us that Tesla was a most important "player", then the claim can stand as is. If not, then the claim will be removed.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not making an argument against citations in the lede, my point was that inline citations are not necessary in the lede where it is a summary of cited material in the body of the article (and the lede is supposed to be a summary). Tesla is responsible for a.c. power distribution as used universally in the modern world - how can that not be "one of the most important contributions to the birth of commercial electricity"? Finding citations that apply superlatives to Tesla is almost too easy, this one [3] is already extensively cited in the article. This google search turns up quite a few more. You are treating this article as if it were a vanity piece on some obscure researcher rather than one of the leading inventors of modern times. SpinningSpark 06:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need for fact tags in the lead section to challenge information presented in the article body. There is also no doubt of Tesla's major importance in early commercial electricity. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm so very sorry. I don't mean to raise any "defense lines". I've been up against this since I first began teaching electronics back in '76. The texts from which I was instructing back then had very little info about Tesla, and one of my students was all "up in arms" about that. I pointed out to him that Tesla was well-treated by Encyclopedia Americana and several other reference works. And since then, Tesla fans have grown in number and have seen to it that his work is more and more well-treated. But this article appears to overcompensate just a bit. I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings or sensibilities, however this article reads right from the beginning as if an overzealous fan of Tesla wrote it. And Nikola Tesla deserves a more encyclopedic and less POV historical treatment.

Nikola Tesla was not "responsible for a.c. power distribution as used universally in the modern world", not singlehandedly, anyway. Westinghouse, et al. was responsible for bringing alternating current to the world, and also responsible for pulling Tesla away from Edison to help them do that. Tesla did some great things for that company, but Tesla was not really a "team player". The greatest baseball player in the world is nothing, nothing, without his team and the team effort. Tesla was very much the loner, the "lone wolf", and he paid dearly for this attitude and behavior in his later life. I sincerely believe that Nikola Tesla is one of the great inventors and practical scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries, and he deserves to be encyclopedically well-treated and described in the NPOV. To begin, since I consider the book cited above and pretty much all of the links in the Google search to be fan-tainted, it is probably best to get rid of weaselly words like "most", especially in the lede.

Specifically,

He was one of the most important contributors to the birth of commercial electricity, . . .

goes to the NPOV:

He was an important contributor to the birth of commercial electricity, . . .

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording is much better than your recent fact tagging. Go with it. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Binksternet, and I shall be glad to make the change as soon as Spinningspark and perhaps other editors weigh in.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While I don't have any particular problem with that proposal, I do have problems with Paine's approach here and will have a lot more to say on that user's talk page. SpinningSpark 14:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, editors, for I see now that I was wrong to ask for a citation where none was actually needed. Thank you, editors Binksternet and Spinningspark for helping me to see this. I do want to assure everybody that I had no "ulterior" motives when I first began this conversation. My only motive is to ensure that Tesla and his article are treated from a neutral point of view. I do not consider myself an "involved editor" as most of you seem to be. From time to time, though, I will come back to this article and try to be of service. Thank you again for putting up with me!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  14:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken reflist

Not sure how that edit broke the reflist. Editor Spinningspark, can you be more specific? I made that edit because I detected that an admin had reduced the Citation template so that the ISBN numbers don't autolink. They do, however, still link when placed in the ID command. See ongoing discussion at Template talk:Citation#ISBN Links.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. Could you possibly be refering to the previous two edits I made? I forgot to rm the test reflist that last time, so I quickly rm'd it on the next edit. Did you catch the article before I rm'd the test reflist? (That would have definitely broken the main reflist.)
PPS. Let's leave it as you reverted it, Spinningspark, due to Redrose64's comment here, okay?

"America" "American citizen"

May I suggest that the wording be changed to say that he became a US Citizen / worked in the USA, etc.? The current wording is ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reptileadventure (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Why is there no nationality listed in the lead sentence as required by the Manual of Style? I'd think that Austrian-American would be the correct choice, based on his original and naturalized citizenships. Yworo (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Austrian American? Arnold Schwarzenegger? :) Oh no, citizenship ≠ nationality. The person is an ethnic Serb from Croatia (which was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), he is an Croatian Serb. The ethnic group had some 600,000 members in Austria-Hungary. The most accurate, and probably best term we could possibly use would be "American Croatian Serb".

There is also the issue about him having considered himself a Yugoslav by nationality, particularly after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary in 1918 and the creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. We should also consider simply mentioning he is a South Slav. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but excluding Serb is not logic and out of question... FkpCascais (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please remember, this is not about ethnicity or what he considered himself. This is solely about what countries he was a citizen of. According to the article, he was born a citizen of the Austrian Empire and became an American citizen. It makes no mention of having been a citizen of any other country. AFAIK, neither Serbia not Croatia were independent countries of which he could have been a citizen before he moved to the US. That's why I suggested Austrian-American. The details of his birthplace and ethnicity are adequately explained in the second paragraph. Yworo (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Serbia was not an independent country? :) FkpCascais (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes, I mispoke. :-) I meant to say that his birthplace was not part of an independent Serbia or Croatia, it was in Austria-Hungary. This has to be one of the most difficult biographies to do according to the rules. Maybe having nothing in the lead sentence is the only thing preventing massive edit wars? Yworo (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed the massive edit wars between Serbs and Croats that has resulted in the article being in the state it is in. A partial record of the fun times had by all can be found at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, with the remainder couched in shouted edit summaries. I strongly recommend not changing it from its now-settled state. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, let's just leave it. This seems to be a special case. Forget I said anything. You have my permission to archive this thread right away. Yworo (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could have been worse. He could have been Scottish. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the article in the way it is now. It was just that having "alternatives" was a bad idea, I think. The only reason I said that it would not be logical to exclude "Serbian" is because he is one of the most proeminent Serbs, and the problem back than was that the diminute K.of Serbia had half of its population still living in territories belonging to the surownding Empires, that were mostly aspiring to join Serbia (later, Yugoslavia was created instead...). That is perhaps why despite having been born in Austria, and studied in Graz and Prague (both in A-H Empire), he is however more regarded as a Serbian, rather than Austrian scientist... Anyway, I didn´t even knew an edit-war was going on, and the current version, avoiding the nationality in the lede, looks fine, and a excellent solution for avoiding further problems. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I do consider Fkp's objections very legitimate, describing him as anything but a Serb is not correct at all. Here are my views on ethnicity and citizenship

• As for nationality, "Austrian American" is very misleading. "Austo-Hungarian American" is the only acceptable alternative if we want to simply mention what the country was that he came from/what two citizenships he held. However, by the time of his death Austria-Hungary was gone for 25 years. In the nationality parameter, I would simply place "Yugoslav American". (Fkp, be absolutely sure that I am not trying to hide the fact that this person was a Serb, its just that you cannot be a citizen of Serbia in 1943.)
• As for ethnicity, I really do think that's pretty obvious. This person was a member of the Croatian Serb ethnic subgroup of Serbian ethnicity, hence I'm thinking "Croatian Serb" or "American Croatian Serb". I think both are very reasonable, accurate, and acceptable to both sides.

For the record guys Fkp's a Serb and I'm a Croat, but I think you'll find we're both rather level-headed and that our first priority is improving the encyclopedia. I think I speak for Fkp as well when I say that edit-warring is farthest from our intentions here. :)
Fkp I want to be certain you are assured that I have no intention of starting a conflict over this of any kind. The person was a Croatian Serb without a shadow of historical doubt, which is probably one of the proudest things you'll hear from any Croatian Serb out there (apart from Rade Šerbedžija, of course ;)). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:MOSBIO? Yworo (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Me? FkpCascais (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to, Yworo? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the question was directed at DIREKTOR, because he made proposals that are clearly excluded by WP:MOSBIO. Yworo (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was BOLD and went through with some of the edits. If you feel anything is disputed, please revert that part and discuss. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh lordy, it will never end. Pretty soon we'll have the United Nations coming in again to separate the guys whose mustaches curl up at the ends from the guys whose mustaches curl down. They fought a series of wars over this and no-one not born in the area cares, nor can tell the difference. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the mouth-breathing corn farmer from Butt Creek, USA who watches Fox News and thinks the Earth is 4,000 years old probably has no idea that there is a difference between the Austrian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, or that there is a difference between saying someone's a Croat when he's a Serb or vice versa, or that Krajina Serbs are a specific sub-group of Serbs, etc. There are many terms for such an attitude, but I'm afraid they are not for Wikipedia use.

Now I understand you have no idea what separates different ethnic groups in the Balkans, and I admit and acknowledge that we are remarkably similar and should all probably be referred to as the same nation, but not knowing about something is not an excuse to dismiss it as irrelevant. We are basically all the same nation down here, but we cannot all be referred to as "Serbs" and we definitely cannot all be referred to as "Croats", so what would you call us? And don't say "Yugoslavs", since I hear only communists claim that :P.

In short, its complicated, its obscure, but complexity and ignorance of a matter is not an excuse to dismiss it as irrelevant. This is why enWiki is so international. If it is necessary to provide details about local matters, locals can help (just don't ask the nationalist locals for help cuz they'll just kill ya :D). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, I see you changed Tesla's "residence" from Austrian Empire to Austria Hungary. Wasn't Tesla born a resident of the Austrian Empire in 1856, and then he became a resident of Austria-Hungary in 1867? That is pretty much what the text says.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, while the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary are essentially the same country, its definitely preferable to use the term "Austria-Hungary" rather than "Austrian Empire" when referring to the post-1867 period. Tesla lived in his home country up until 1878, if I'm not mistaken, therefore up until 1878 his residence was Austria-Hungary. To list his residence locations so as to suggest he 'first lived in the Austrian Empire and then in Austria-Hungary is misleading imho - they are the same country. It would be like listing someone as having lived in the Third French Republic and then subsequently in the Fourth French Republic :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My main concern, here, is to not confuse the readers by saying one thing in one part of the article and then saying another thing in another part. If the ibox is changed, it is incumbent upon the editor making the changes to ensure that the rest of the article is consistent, yes?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In any text the Habsburg empire should be referred to as the "Austrian Empire" when the context of the text is pre-1867, when it is post-1867, it should be referred to as the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy or Austria-Hungary. All else is just plain wrong. Tesla was hence born in the "Austrian Empire", but by the time he left it was the "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your very brief explanation above might be an agreeable addition to near the beginning of the first section. What do you think?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's vitally important - thousands have died for it. That doesn't mean it's not ludicrous. At least the farmer from Butt Creek isn't fighting a war every few decades over which way the mustache curls. And I really hate seeing the utterly pointless dispute over which dictator ultimately collected the taxes in Tesla's birth village take up so much space and time. There's real problems to fix here, let's not re-fight the Balkan wars. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

LoL... I'll inform the Austrians that you consider Francis Joseph I, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary and King of Bohemia a "dictator". Just... just stop. :)

That farmer has been at war almost continuously since 1941 (1941-1945, 1950-1953, 1955-1975, 1990-1991, 2001-present; not counting minor interventions, that's just the big ones). Good thing he's at least fighting for money and world domination rather than national identity. The nations of ex-Yugoslavia fought among each-other twice: the civil war 1941-1945, and the Yugoslav Wars 1991-1995. I wouldn't be all that pretentious, think long and hard who gets to preach "peace and good will" here... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh! Ohhh! I can see Godwin's Law in 2 moves, maybe 1. Do you want to do it or shall I? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey you're the "dictator" guy, I'll leave it to you. Go ahead. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick a fork in this one, gents. It's done. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's just it. It's never done. We'll get this week settled down, then in a month or so a fresh pair will be back at it again. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's an ever-changing website. No version is ever completely "done". I just don't understand what you're all worked-up about? There wasn't even an argument... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such ethnicity as Croatian Serbs. It is just a figure of speech. Just like Croats form Serbia are not Serbian Croats. Croats they are, even if they have Serbian passport. Serbs from Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Romania, Hungaria... wherever they live... are colloquially called in all sort of names, but their ethnicity is Serbian. Please DIREKTOR, change back "Croatian Serb" to "Serb". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanplusequalsivan (talk • contribs) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, and I reverted as well the inclusion "Croatian Serb" because of two reasons: First one is because the term itself looks to make possible missleadings. The second is because, since direktors edits, we ended up having the word "Croatia" repeated 3 times in the same short sentence: "Born an ethnic Croatian Serb in the village of Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier in Austrian Empire (today's Croatia), he was a subject of the Austrian Empire by birth and later became an American citizen". Repetitive and inestetic? FkpCascais (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that the motivations behind the rewriting of a perfectly factual statement in the text are not grounded in subjective nationalist sentiment.

1. objection. Please elaborate how exactly is "Croatian Serb" (with wikilink) "misleading", as opposed to more accurate. Is the statement's veracity challenged? The format "adjective, ethnicity" is very standard in use across Wikipedia. That is to say, nobody could possibly conclude from "Croatian Serb" that Tesla was anything other than a Serb from Croatia. If the veracity of the statement itself is not challenged, this issue can probably be easily addressed by exploring whether the format "adjective, ethnicity" is used elsewhere, i.e. whether it is generally considered "misleading".

2. objection. This is a matter of personal impression, though I admit I myself thought the sentence sounds a little too... "croatianny", so I admit I pretty much expected this. :) We can perhaps resolve this and remain factual by agreeing on an alternate wording of the paragraph. We must however somehow mention that 1) he was born in the Croatian Military Frontier, 2) that this is a part of Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The way the sentence is built up is not one that is conducive to having the wikilink "Croatian Serbs". Instead of presenting Tesla as a member of that group, we present him as being born ethnically Serb and geopolitically Austrian, in an area once that now this. I think the version that has been on the page for many months is still quite suitable. Binksternet (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point... let me just briefly throw out one last suggestion: "Serb" --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't go along with that. It is not acceptable to use a pipe to hide a controversial link. That is deceiving the reader. If it is not acceptable to make the link with its target openly displayed, it is not acceptable (even less so) to hide it behind a pipe. SpinningSpark 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to this as well as the above. Firstly, it was my impression at the time that consensus on the issue had already been reached, therefore I believe I did nothing wrong in reverting one undiscussed edit that is contrary to it. Secondly, my above post on this talkpage is NOT an attempt to "deceive the reader" but a response to User:FkpCascais' objection that the word "Croatia(n)" is repeated too many times in the sentence. It goes without saying that I do not appreciate this aggressive attitude towards me displayed by some editors, in response to my genuine efforts to correct errors and improve the accuracy of this encyclopedia's coverage on the ethnic background of Nikola Tesla.

Nikola Tesla is, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, a Croatian Serb. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody could possibly ever challenge the veracity of that fact, and I am still struggling to understand why it cannot be included in the article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But direktor, it is not excluded, it has the category. I hope you were not refering to me when you mentioned "agressive attitude" because I beleave I was quite cool. Anyway, I agree that if you say in the text that he is "An ethnic Serb born in whatever Croatia..." ,specially when followed by "...(today Croatia)" just after it, it becomes obvious and unnecessary to say he is a Croatian Serb. For exemple, in my sports biographies, I do use somethimes those combinations (Bosnian Serb, Kosovar Albanian, etc) because those are short articles and when is written in that way it gives more information in a concise maner. But, on more elaborated articles, such as this one, the formula used "ethnic Serb, born in blablabla, today blabla... father blala..." is better, and your proposal becomes unecessary. You could use it in some other sentence, but, isn´t already clear that he is a Serb born in Croatia even without it? FkpCascais (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you Fkp, I see nothing wrong in your position here and your objections seem reasonable. Indeed, if the consensus is to leave out a wikilink to the Croatian Serbian ethnic group, I certainly won't make an issue out of it (though I don't fully understand the reasoning). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with the sentence structure. You can´t use both. Either you choose to have him as "Serb, born in Croatia", either you have only "Croatian Serb that did this or that...blabla". Both, as you edited ("Croatian Serb born in Croatia") are unecessary. That is why I said that if you really insist in using the Croatian Serb link, you have to do it somewhere else. I don´t opose the inclusion of the link, just not in that particular sentence. FkpCascais (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I acnowledge that, this is why I suggested we use "[[Serbs of Croatia|Serb]]", but apparently that would be "deceiving the reader". I suppose my evil plan to deceive the reader into thinking that a Croatian Serb is a Croatian Serb has been successfully thwarted, and by folks who have absolutely no idea about or insight into the Balkans and its ethnic diversity, I might add. But never mind... Franz Joseph I is a dictator, the Austrian Empire lasted up to 1878, and we in the Balkans are a bunch of primitives that regularly fight wars "every few decades". Anyone up for the next one? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Nikola Tesla Airport to the Legacy and honors section

I would like to note that in the section about Legacy and honors should be added that the biggest airport in Serbia, located near its capital Belgrade is named after Nikola Tesla, Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milikicn (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Laser Beam?

I've heard that Nikola Tesla was working on a machine that could create a laser or particle beam, when Thomas Edition hired men to burn down his house and workshop. - It's for the Lutz (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

External links in notes 53 and 54 are dead

I would mark them myself but I am unable to because I am a new editor. Joeygc (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

52 and 53?--54 is Norrie, H. S., "Induction Coils: How to make, use, and repair them". Norman H. Schneider, 1907, New York. 4th edition. with no link. I marked them. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 116.240.4.150, 1 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change 'Croatian Military Frontier' to 'Serbian Military Frontier (Srpska Krajina)' for Village of Smiljan was part of 'SERBIAN' Military Frontier or 'Srpska Krajina' at the time of Nikola Tesla's birth and NEVER 'Croatian' Military Frontier (as in your article); for the 'Military Frontier' you refer to was created by 'ETHNIC' Serbs who occupied the territory and NEVER by 'ethnic Croats' as in the time of 'Serbian' Military Frontier (Srpska Krajina) 'Croatia' did not exist (and if you 'knew' anything about history you would know that this is a FACT); I do not know who your sources are perhaps Croats from Zagreb Croatia presenting themselves as Serbian Society/Organisation?

Fact: 'Croatian State' existed as part of Axis Alliance with Germany and Italy between 1941-1945 and 'Croatian State' was again formed in 1990's with help from the Western Alliance but 'prior to 1941' Croatia NEVER existed as an 'independent state' and thus the region of 'Srpska Krajina' (or Serbian Military Frontier) was never 'populated' or 'occupied' by 'ethnic Croats' as the region of Srpska Krajina was NEVER part of Croatian LANDS (prior to 1941) for the Military Frontier you refer to was always Serbian LAND.

Wikipedia's 'history' is very 'coloured' and this intentional misrepresentation of Serbian lands as belonging to someone else (in this instance Croats) is not the first time that Wikipedia has tried to MISLEAD its readers and 'colour' human history with FALSE information. 116.240.4.150 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This page was protected due to the edit warring between Serbian and Croatian. Stickee (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done:. There was a large discussion about his nationality on this page here and the consensus was in favour of Croation. --Stickee (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Tesla's building destruction device based on resonance

The American citizenship section of the article contains the following claim:

... There, at one point while conducting mechanical resonance experiments with electro-mechanical oscillators, he generated a resonance in several surrounding buildings but, because of the frequencies involved, not his own building, causing complaints to the police. As the speed grew, he hit the resonant frequency of his own building and, belatedly realizing the danger, was forced to apply a sledgehammer to terminate the experiment, just as the police arrived.

It is likely that he made the claim but it is at least doubtful that it was a true claim. It is true that if a building acted like a constant frequency resonator that had an insignificant damping coefficient it would be possible to destroy a building with very little energy input, but are there any building like that? I doubt it and the experiments done on the Mythbusters television show of the plausibility of a Tesla style building destroyer suggested that it probably didn't work. (http://mythbustersresults.com/episode60. I think the article should state that Tesla made the claim and not that his claim war correct. It would be nice to find a credible statement by a structural engineer on the feasibility of the claim and reference that also. I didn't find one with a little internet searching but I suspect there is something relevant out there on this issue.
(Unsigned comment by editor Davefoc (talk) 21:33 9 July 2010)

Yes, Davefoc, I see your reasoning. I have upgraded the ref. citation to include a link to a page listed and other useful links. That citation seems to me to be a reliable source supporting a valid claim. We also find at WP:V that...

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. ”

Hope this helps.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but, IMHO, it doesn't go to what is the problem with the statement. The statement in the article presents it as a fact that Tesla was on the verge of destroying his own building with his resonance device until he stopped it with a sledge hammer. That is almost certainly false. People repeating Tesla's claims that this occurred is not providing a source that the claim is true. And given that the claim was specifically examined on Mythbusters and it was shown to be improbable and that there is a lack of any test data that suggested it was remotely possible and the fact, that just based on common sense understanding of the nature of damping and resonances it seems improbable, stating it as fact in this Wikipedia article is incorrect I believe.

Another issue is that even if it were true it doesn't seem like it belongs in a section titled American Citizenship.--Davefoc (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

While I was looking around the net for details on Tesla's earthquake machine I found that Wikipedia has an article about it. This is a link to the article: Tesla's_oscillator It seems like a link to this article might be included within the description of it in this article. Davefoc (talk) 07:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Good spot by Davefoc. I have rm'ed this paragraph here to talk. It has been noted before by another editor (and by me) that the reference "O'Neill, John J. (2006). Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla" has some pretty fanciful writing in it (see Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 3#Anachronism in the article) so it is hard to tell what is fact, what is fiction, and what is made up by Tesla. Some more refs need to be added that state this as a fact, or to say this is an apocryphal or semi-apocryphal story be Tesla. If this ever happened there should be more than one source on it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There, at one point while conducting mechanical resonance experiments with electro-mechanical oscillators, he generated a resonance in several surrounding buildings but, because of the frequencies involved, not his own building, causing complaints to the police. As the speed grew, he hit the resonant frequency of his own building and, belatedly realizing the danger, was forced to apply a sledgehammer to terminate the experiment, just as the police arrived.

Davefoc, I remember seeing the Mythbusters episode and being amazed at the fact that they proved it did work - it just took awhile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.110.242 (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this comes down to the meaning of "it did work". They built various oscillating devices and attached them to various items. What they found was that they could induce a high amplitude oscillation with a relatively small device that was oscillating at the resonant frequency of the object it was attached to. This was not surprising. They were not able to induce a destructive oscillation in any of their tests. Perhaps the most on-point test was when they attached an oscillator to a steel bridge. They induced an impressive oscillation but the amplitude peaked and continued operation of their device did not increase the oscillation. This was not surprising. Two things need to be true to destroy something with a resonant oscillator: The input power needs to exceed the rate of energy lost through damping and the resonant frequency of the object to be destroyed needs to remain in a mode that it isn't broken up by other effects. When the amplitude is small both of the factors can be small enough for the amplitude of the oscillation to increase via pumping by a resonant actuators. However above a certain amplitude these effects may become significant enough to prevent destruction. This seems to be what happened with the bridge. They induced a large oscillation but when the oscillation amplitude reached a certain point other factors became significant enough to prevent destruction. Link to a summary of Mythbuster episode that did experiments with bridge: http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/08/episode_60_earthquake_machine.html --Davefoc (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Given how many Tesla coils are out there, you'd think there would also be a large number of Tesla "oscillator" builders, as well. I can even think of a practical application - all those Las Vegas casinos that get knocked down and rebuilt every few years - would have to be cheaper to shake them down than blow them up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.18.184.134, 13 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change the second sentence in the second paragraph which begins:

"Because of his 1994 demonstration of wireless communication through radio and as the eventual victor in the "War of Currents",...".

The year should probably be 1894 instead of 1994. It is obviously just a typographical error.

99.18.184.134 (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. —fetch·comms 19:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lawals78, 30 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I had observed that Tesla had been mentioned in several areas of pop culture and just wanted to bring to light that he was portrayed by actor Jonathon Young in the SyFy™ television series, Sanctuary™. Not only is he portrayed as pompous and arrogant, but he is also a vampire due to certain dormant genetic factors that were activated when he came into contact with the source blood. More info can be found at the following site. http://sanctuary.wikia.com/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Lawals78 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See here. It is already mentioned. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 01:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Tajna Nikole Tesle (movie)

In 1980, Orson Welles produced a Yugoslav film named Tajna Nikole Tesle (The Secret of Nikola Tesla), in which Welles himself played the part of Tesla's patron, J.P. Morgan. The film was directed by Krsto Papić, and Nikola Tesla was portrayed by Petar Božović. Is not Orson Welles production, is Zagreb Film production. (I didn't find the edit command in the article) --AlexanderFreud (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Tesla's revolt to jewelry - pearl earrings in particular - is this information true?

In Personal Life section we can read "Tesla was physically revolted by jewelry, notably pearl earrings." Note 96 is the source of this claim but I have read this PDF document twice and there was no obvious statement about pearl earrings (only rounded objects). I would like to find another source to back this theory up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theasix (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see:

Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions. : Walking Lion Press, 2006. 11-12. Print
States that Tesla had a violent aversion to women's earrings and independently of that, "The sight of a pearl would almost give me a fit." So not necessarily pearl earrings, although I would imagine pearl earrings would have elicited a compounded reaction from Tesla. The passage also states that Tesla found other jewelry, such as bracelets, to be generally pleasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.39.188 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dilts modeling Tesla's Strategies

I was surprised not to find any reference to the fact that Robert Dilts modeled Tesla and published it in one of his "Strategies of Genius" volumes. Right now I don't know anymore which one. May be worth mentioning though. I'd like to read other people's thoughts on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.16.165 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and Honours

I've made this to replace the Legacy and Honours section, not including the monuments section. The change would save the page around eight five bytes with out getting rid of any major information. Since it would be a major change, I thought I'd bring it up before doing any major changes to the section. Albacore (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it since there have been no objections in around a week and a half. Albacore (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Istro-Romanul "Nicolae Teslea"

The info I wanted to post is Here > http://www.istro-romanian.net/articles/art990111.html and I can't copy it.

You can see what's Here > http://ro.altermedia.info/stiintatehnologie/nicolae-tesla-sau-un-roman-venit-din-alt-spaiu-i_3263.html too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvianDement91 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

scholarly papers to use

As the link was just removed, thought I'd mention these papers that may be helpful in the article.

• Nikola Tesla and the Electrical Signals of Planetary Origin, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D., International Tesla Conference, "Tesla, III Millennium," Belgrade, Yugoslavia. 1996. 82 pp. Illustrated.
• Nikola Tesla and the Diameter of the Earth: A Discussion of One of the Many Modes of Operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996. 30 pp. Illustrated.
• The Schumann Cavity, J. J. Thomson's Spherical Resonators and the Gateway to Modern Physics, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996. 77 pp. Illustrated.
• Nikola Tesla, Lightning Observations, and Stationary Waves, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1994. 44 pp. Illustrated.
• Atmospheric Fields, Tesla's Receivers and Regenerative Detectors, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and A. H. Aidinejad, Ph.D. 1994. 44 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Radar Stealth, the Torsion Tensor, and the "Philadelphia Experiment, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D., 1994. 94 pp. Illustrated.
• Dr. Mahlon Loomis: Terra Alta's Neglected Discoverer of RF Communication, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum et al. 1992. 69 pp. Illustrated.
• Some Thoughts on Tesla’s Death Beam, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D. and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D. 1992. 32 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla and the Magnifying Transmitter: A Popular Study for Engineers, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 57 pp. Illustrated.
• Fire Balls, Fractals and Colorado Springs: A Rediscovery of Tesla’s RF Techniques, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 36 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla Coils: 1890-1990—100 Years of Cavity Resonator Development, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 27 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla Coils: An RF Power Processing Tutorial for Engineers, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1988. 88 pp. Illustrated.
• Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils, by J. F. Corum, Ph.D. and K. L. Corum. 1987. 150 pp. Profusely illustrated. Paperback.
• A Technical Analysis of the Extra Coil as a Slow Wave Helical Resonator, by J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum. 1986. 24 pp. Illustrated.
• Critical Speculations Concerning Tesla’s Invention and Applications of Single Electrode X-Ray Directed Discharges for Power Processing and Terrestrial Resonances, by J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum. 1986. 22 pp. Illustrated

from: http://www.arcsandsparks.com/teslapage.html --J. D. Redding 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would one assume these papers by Tesla fans count as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? Published by some university press or academic publisher? Published in respected and refereed scientific journals? Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who the Corum are? That they are published by the IEEE?

Edison, please do some research before you ask things. Want me to Google "J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum IEEE" for ya?

James F. Corum, Ph.D., is a senior member of the IEEE and is listed in Who's Who in Engineering, Leading Consultants in High Technology, American Men and Women of Science, and more than a dozen other professional and biographical dictionaries in the US and Europe. Formerly a Senior Scientist at Battelle (Columbus, OH), he is now Chief Scientist at the Institute for Software Research, Inc. Other positions include time spent as Chief Scientist at Science Applications Research Associates (Huntington Beach, CA), and 17 years as a tenured college professor. Dr. Corum is a member of the American Geophysical Union, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and a Life Member of the Quarter Century Wireless Association. He is also a former Chairman of the West Virginia Subsection of the IEEE, a former Secretary of the DARPA National Panel of Radar Experts on Ultra-Wideband Radar, and was cited by the U.S. Office of The Secretary of Defense as "A National Treasure." Additionally, Dr. Corum has a broad range of professional experience in Relativistic Electrodynamics, General Relativity, Applied Electromagnetics, Antennas, High-Voltage RF Engineering, and Radio Wave Propagation from 7 Hz. (Schumann Resonances) through 18 GHz. (Radio Astronomy). He is the inventor of Contrawound Toroidal Helix Antenna technology and was an invited guest of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow. His RF research has been recognized by prestigious scientific organizations and professional societies around the world, and his many achievements include numerous awards and the publication of 100 technical papers, 7 books, and 5 patents.

Kenneth L. Corum is listed in American Men and Women in Science and is the recipient of many industrial awards. He is the author of more than 60 technical papers and 6 books.

--J. D. Redding 07:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take everything written by someone with impressive credentials as a reliable source. See WP:RS rather than waving credentials. Were the papers published in refereed, peer reviewed and respected scientific journals? Were they published in books from university presses or other respected publishing houses with a reputation for accuracy, or are they self published original research by fans of Tesla? Most of the writings you listed lack evidence they were "reliable published sources" as required by WP:RS rather than self-published or unpublished manuscripts, which should not be cited as references. Please provide full bibliographic information as to where these writings by the Corums et al were published. Edison (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm no. Scholarship.

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) ... knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.

You list a bunch of short monographs which are for sale for $28 or so each by the authors. You are still doing handwaving and trying to change the subject rather than providing the requested information. Please provide full bibliographic information as to where these writings by the Corums et al were published. What publisher? The authors? Were they in physics journals, or just selfpublished works and presentations to the Tesla Society. How rigorous is that society in its refereeing of papers? Is it biased toward anything which promotes Tesla? Edison (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Doth protest too much.

Do it when they are added.

Tesla Society has intellectual rigour concerning Tesla. I would guess you never heard of them. Their publications are in most scientific libraries.--J. D. Redding 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are still engaging in handwaving. Are you really claiming that "most scientific libraries" have paid the Corums $28 for each of these brief monographs? Looking at the first one, "Nikola Tesla and the electrical signals of planetary origin", I see that per Worldcat, only Texas Tech has it in their library. It is a "spiral bound photocopy" per Worldcat, hardly an academic press imprint or the equivalent, which was presented to the Tesla Society in 1996. Is this more than a walled garden of papers presented by fans, to fans? Looking at the second, "Nikola Tesla and the diameter of the earth : a discussion of one of the many modes of operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower," World cat shows only one library holding it, again Texas Tech. Looking at "Vacuum tube Tesla coils" I see the same library and three others. This does not make for much confidence that we can accept every such writing as a reliable source to verify claims, and your claim of "most scientific libraries" holding them is shown to be very questionable. Edison (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No ...

I stated that the Tesla Society! Their publications are in the libraries ... Sheesh! You can spin this discussion how you like it ... but it's not very helpful. Seems to me that your judgement on the situation is questionable, as you cannot understand what I said.

As to the Corums, you may find Google Scholar helpful.

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [ps., Oh yea, try Google books too.]

So you still engage in hand waving, adding foot stomping and personal attacks. No demonstration that these papers by fans of Tesla (I certainly consider myself one such) should be considered reliable sources. Edison (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not "fans of Tesla" in a derogatory sense. They are scholars of Tesla.--J. D. Redding 07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the Corums couldn't get any scholarly buy-off on these writings, they fail our purposes. I, too, would like to know which imprint the books have been published on; to know whether the books are self-published without peer review. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Buy off? Out of print books 'fail our purposes'? What are you talking about? If we can get it through a library, no need to buy it. You can buy them, if you want.

I hope you are 'not' implying that their works need a publisher to pay them for their work to be used for our purposes.

Lets take one written by the corums [not in the list though] ... 'A Physical Interpretation of the Colorado Springs Data'

You have to get : Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium held at Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America, August 9-12, 1984: celebrating a century of electrical progress

You can get this in a library. You may have to travel to go read it, but you can get it.

As to the list, none of it is self-serving. The above list are papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community and are regarded as reliable. Scholarly dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. These are available at scientific libraries. Such as the California Institute of Technology or Texas Tech University or Linda Hall Library or ... other scientific libraies.

What is the cause of the reasonable doubt as to their authenticity? --J. D. Redding 07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed implying that a paid publisher is required for our purposes; I hold that a scholarly imprint, one that conducts a thorough peer review, is the best scholarly source. Otherwise, the scholar is riding his or her own laurels into obscurity, publishing screeds which do not reflect the standards of scholarly research. You list CIT, TTU, LHL but which ones go with which Corum writings? Your lack of specificity is astonishing. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously stating that monographs and other scholarly publication cannot be used in Wikipedia?

And, as I stated above, "Do it when they are added". Though, your lack of reasonable doubt is astonishing.

I do agree that scholarly imprint, one that conducts a thorough peer review, are good scholarly sources. But they are NOT the only ones available for use. --J. D. Redding 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

These monographs are not cited by scholars. Not a scholarly source. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. --J. D. Redding 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to equate someone's photocopied personal publication with a dissertation, which had to be approved by a doctoral committee at an accredited university. And someone writing a paper and presenting it at a meeting devoted to extolling the virtues of a bygone inventor is hardly evidence of the "scholarly vetting" you claim. You may "regard them as reliable," but to satisfy WP:RS we need evidence that the scientific community, outside the group of Tesla Scholars, regard them as reliable. Edison (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop. Wait. Think what you said, "Tesla Scholars". There are probably a handful of them around. The Corums are. Along with Seifer, O'Neill, Valone, and a few others. These are the references that are and need to be in the article. They pass WP:RS.

I don't think you have read on the subject of this article.

--J. D. Redding 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks and concentrate on the reliability of the sources. The "Tesla Society" website looks like it is devoted to unabashed promotion of Tesla. The publications you listed are not inherently "reliable sources" by Wikipedia standards. for the reasons cited. What I do like are the historical publications available at the Tesla Society website, by Tesla and others. The website is a very convenient way to access these valuable historic publications. Edison (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1st, When did I personally attack you? I don't think you have read on the subject. Have you read any books on Tesla? Have you read Seifer or O'Neill? If you have, I do apologize.

You cannot do original research [ala., primary sources]. That only leave scholars on Tesla.

The publications are "reliable sources". Information from Tesla Scholars are "reliable sources".

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 06:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very mistaken. It is not "original research" to cite scholarly papers which are so old as to be in public domain. Please go and re-read WP:OR before you cite it again. Your repeated complaints that I have "not read on the subject" are certainly ad hominem attacks. Certainly I have read many papers by Tesla, and all the major books on Tesla. I have spent many pleasant hours in university libraries reading about Tesla and other early electrical experimenters, in truly scholarly publications, and not just self-published works by latter-day fans of Tesla. I have cited schoilarly works about Tesla in Wikipedia edits. I accept your proffered apology. Edison (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Or you would have know of the Corums. --J. D. Redding 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [PS., Valone's book and Seifer's book references him ... sorry, doesn't pass the smell test]

Amid the personal attacks, the message is consistent: the monographs published by the Corums are not useful sources for us if they have not been peer-reviewed and printed by an academic publisher. There is a wealth of fine sources for this article to draw from, and no need to fish around at the periphery. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Tesla really "tear up" his AC power patents to help his firend George Westinghouse?

Heard the story that Nikola Tesla tore up his AC power patnets etc for his Freind American inventor George Westinghouse! How could he do this? There must have been some lawyer(s) legal requirements involved even in those days to give up ones patents contractsVICTORMOI (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read something similar also. The story is that Tesla, basically out of loyalty to his old benefactor and partner, gave up his rights to highly valuable patents to help save Westinghouse from financial ruin. So what's the truth here? Did Tesla actually give up the rights to the patents? Did he receive something significant in return? Was his action significant enough that it played an important role in saving Westinghouse?--Davefoc (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Davefoc, this was during the economic bust after the gilded age, IIRC. Westinghouse's financial backers were nervous about the contracts. And remember Edison and GE was on the attack against Westinghouse's company. As I remember the story, Tesla did this for his good friend Westinghouse, who gave Tesla the opportunity to develop AC systems. --J. D. Redding 06:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The PBS site has a good video on this. It's apocrypha, IIRC. There is a mention of the contract in the Westinghouse archive, but nothing concrete. I'll see if I can get the link. --J. D. Redding 06:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not on the site. http://www.pbs.org/tesla/index.html ... you'll have to buy the video or catch it on a US local PBS station [if they air it]. --J. D. Redding 06:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tesla's contract with Westinghouse would have given him a set sum per horsepower of AC motors installed using his patent. The value for the remaining life of the patent was several million dollars.By the time the patents expired in 1905 induction motors in the US were producing 7 million horsepower, which would have yielded $17.5 million in royalties had not Tesla waived the payments to help Westinghouse. This is per O'Neil(page 79, but he says it was $1 per hp) and per Jonnes "Empires of light" page 354. It is in Cheney, with made-up dialogue, page 73. It is in an IEEE publication by Rockman, where it says Tesla accepted a one-time payment of $216,600 in lieu of all payment due him in the future. Westinghouse was able to avoid bankruptcy because of this concession by Tesla of royalties. Tesla got to see his AC motor technology put to wide use and was thus a benefactor of the public. Westinghouse paid some of Tesla's bills but altogether gave him a pittance comparede to his gift to them. So much for the "aprochral" label. Edison (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is NO record of such a contract to begin with. There is no record of it in the Westinghouse Archive! 'Watch the video. It is apocrypha. --J. D. Redding 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [PS. ... wouldn't a company keep records of such a deal? it's called contracts ... and both parties keep a copy; the funny line in the book you cite is "though no records of it were kept". Ha! funny ... I believe the Westinghouse Corporation was a better business than that ... there is a mention of a possible contract in minutes of a meeting, but no real record.]

So if a document was lost in 120 years, or if someone at Westinghouse "tidied up" by removing an embarrassing document, then Tesla never had any expectation of making a dime from turning his induction motor patent over to Westinghouse? Wasn't he smarter than that? Many books have described the abandonment of royalty payments due Tesla from Westinghouse as a condition of the financiers not forcing Westinghouse into bankruptcy. Not every record of every business matter is still in the files for us to examine 120 years later. There is also no record in any Edison papers that Tesla was promised the $50,000 bonus for making improvements to the Edison dynamos or motors, and I have found no description or record or patent showing what those improvements were. Sounds pretty "apocryphal" as well though it was only $50,000 and not $17,000,000. Edison (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Both cases are conjecture [due to the physical records]. And the second one is more possessing the character of apocrypha than the previous; especially since Tesla and Westinghouse were 'friends' ... Edison and Tesla were 'enemies'. Scholars have looked at the Westinghouse documents, and have stated that they deem it as such [note, i'd recommend that people see the interviews of the scholars in the PBS documentary]. Various versions of the story about Tesla and Westinghouse [like by Marc J. Seifer, Page 59, or the one you posted] are usually fuzzy and amorphous on the subject. Tesla stated the other (edison) situation [IIRC, it's in "Nikola Said" [1938] ... I'd recommend the version of John T. Ratzlaff ... I'll try to check].

It seems "though no records of it were kept" of a contract being signed. Maybe promises were made here, too, and Tesla [upon George asking him to] never presued it. Or he tore up a real contract. Too bad there isn't a historical primary documents somewhere that exists about it.--J. D. Redding 02:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the PBS video suggest that the story was true but couldn't prove it? The actual contract wouldn't need to be available today to make at least a good guess about the reliability of the story. If one could trace Tesla's income from the patent and see the royalty payments stop after the alleged meeting between him and Westinghouse that would be an indication that there was some truth to it and if one could find evidence of this one time payment to Tesla that would be another piece of evidence for the reliability of the story. Today, there would be nothing ambiguous about this story. The assignment of patents are carefully controlled documents by stake holders in the patents and transferring the right from a patent holder to an assignee would never be done based on a verbal agreement. It is hard to believe that this was actually done in this case even though it was obviously long ago. --Davefoc (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if you had Tesla's bank book sitting in front of you, it's no good here on Wikipedia because it's a primary source. Surely some Tesla biographer has mentioned this relationship between T and W. Perhaps Tesla thought Westinghouse's company was so fragile that a one-time payment was a better bet than an uncertain stream of royalties. This might have been a good business decision at the time, though Tesla was never renowned for his money-management abilities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

Personally, I thought the 1890 picture was a nicer one for the lede; less cluttered. SpinningSpark 08:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tesla and Twain

One line states that Twain and Tesla became friends and then states: "They spent a lot of time in his lab and elsewhere," but with no citation that would support the amount of time spent in the lab, or what is meant by "elsewhere."

It seems to be an insinuation about sexual orientation that should be removed unless there is cited evidence to support the statement. The fact that Tesla was known to have been celibate should not be viewed as an open-door to drop subversive insinuations about his life. The reality is, some people go through life as asexuals - not really caring either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no connotations. Tesla was known to have been celibate. Elsewhere were social events. They were friends. [facepalm] --J. D. Redding 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Without any citations, then it does have connotations 24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Ummm ... no. People hang out with friends all the time, and it doesn't mean they have sex with them. --J. D. Redding 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, yes. The statement has no citation and is undefined. It is within the same context as the reference to him being celibate. The fact that people hang-out together is generic. The line serves no purpose, because it has already been stated that Tesla and Twain were friends, so, what is the purpose of stating that "they spent time in the lab and elsewhere?" If they were good friends, it would go without saying that they were in each others company at social events.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Jan 7th 1943 Tesla died NYC What was the cause?

Has anyone sen the Death Certificate for Nikola Tesla died New Yorker hotel Jan 7th 1943 Just wondering. he was past 80 was it a heart attack,stroke or??/ TESLAEDSON123 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Purple-plates, 21 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} request to paste link to page

Purple-plates (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. What link is it that you want to add? You need to include it here, and then we can determine if it should be added. You may want to take a look at WP:EL first to see if the site your thinking of meets our guidelines on acceptable external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

The following should be removed:

He lit electric lamps wirelessly at both of the New York locations, providing evidence for the potential of wireless power transmission.[54]

[54] Krumme, Katherine (2000) (pdf). Mark Twain and Nikola Tesla: Thunder and Lightning. University of California, Berkeley. (www.nuc.berkeley.edu/dept/Courses/E-24/E-24Projects/Krumme1.pdf)

That article provides no support for the proposition. Itzeug (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The funeral

The funeral Tesla's ashes [4] is performed in October 2011 at the Temple of Saint Sava in Belgrade.[5]--Свифт (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The later Years

in that section it says "In 1917, the facility was seized and torn down by the Marines, because it was suspected that it could be used by German spies" but yet it fails to mention this was eventually seized for a debt from the original land owner and thus his property then the govt blew it up. I knew something fishy was wrong with that sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 21:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal Life POV/wording issue

"Nevertheless, Tesla displayed the occasional cruel streak; he openly expressed his disgust for overweight people, once firing a secretary because of her weight.[94] He was quick to criticize others' clothing as well, on several occasions directing a subordinate to go home and change her dress.[21]"

The word "cruel" doesn't really belong anywhere in there because what is cruel is subjective, and thus shouldn't really be applied to social issues...especially since what is socially acceptable changes over time. Having a disgust for overweight people isn't cruel, nor is firing someone for being fat or dressing poorly necessarily cruel(depends heavily on the circumstances and what you consider acceptable). The sentence is too openly condemning.

"Tesla could be harsh at times" is perhaps a better wording, or replacing cruel with harsh. "Cruel" implies an intent to inflict suffering, or take joy in the suffering of others. I get the impression that Tesla didn't literally enjoy causing fat people distress, just that he had disdain for them and took proper dressing attire seriously. I'll go ahead and change it for now, but if someone can improve the wording further, feel free to. BeardedScholar (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Member of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

There is a category, but this is a significant thing. Shouldn't it be added to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.243.120 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Literary works by Tesla?

Maybe we should add a section about the books and articles that he wrote? Anyway, here is a link to an article he wrote which was published in v.60 (1900 May-Oct) of The Century Magazine, starting at p. 175: The Problem of Increasing Human Energy. I have added this link to the external links section too. --Kri (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes agreed, I am surprised that it is not here already for someone of such importance and such a mature article. Much better to have a section on his works than bury it in external links. Does anybody have a list? SpinningSpark 05:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. But someone will have to help me here; I don't know much at all about the works Tesla has written; I only know of three of them, but he has probably written much more than that. I can start a small new section but someone will have to fill it out more. --Kri (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now added a short section about his literary works, although I have no idea if the few examples I have given is a good representative set of all the works he has written or not, or if they should be reordered in order for the most important work to come first. In fact, I haven't read anything written by him. --Kri (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The "large number" claim is not justified if you have not actually found a large number, or have a source that says there is a large number. SpinningSpark 19:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So, now it's just a number. --Kri (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect , expand

"Tesla knew, from Lord Kelvin's discoveries, that more heat is absorbed by liquefied air when it is re-gasified and used to drive something, than is required by theory; in other words, that the liquefaction process is somewhat anomalous or 'over unity'"

This isn't actually overunity though. What is the correct explanation, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.72.228 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It means "was" required by theory at the time (1902 by the ref). See Enthalpy of vaporization for more info on why you have to dump "extra" energy into a liquid to make gas.214.4.238.180 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Tesla Generator?

Do we have an actual source for the claim that Tesla invented an overunity generator? I am, as you might imagine, skeptical, and the citation is of an article about Lord Kelvin that doesn't really support the overunity bit: "The mechanical principle by which we obtain liquid air - that a compressed gas expanding freely, without doing work, cools slightly more than the theory demands - is a discovery Kelvin made in conjunction with his friend Joule." This doesn't imply that you can get infinite free energy from the process.

Also, Lord Kelvin was famous for helping to develop the idea of conservation of energy, so he definitely didn't believe you could get free energy, either.

One other thing: THIS is not a reliable source. Just saying. 71.184.246.254 (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 211.30.172.34, 17 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Why stressing so much "ethnic Serb", he was born in Croatia as his parents were. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.9.221 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest changing "Born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan..." to "Tesla was an ethnic Serb born in the village of Smiljan..." as it reads more naturally.

211.30.172.34 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. This line is fine the way it is and is actually an example of how the article should be cleaned up to eliminate over usage of "Tesla" instead of "he" or other equally useful alternatives.Daffydavid (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If the request was due to it not being a full sentence, I fixed that. If it was a style issue, I agree with Daffydavid, it's fine as is. Thank you for the catch anon. — Bility (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the bizarre section about how Edison scammed Tesla out of payment for project

I'm referring to the section that talks about how Edison promised Tesla $50,000 (over $1million after inflation for 2007) to work on a project, and then later told him he was lying, and all the other bizarre things similar or related on this page. Their sources point to humor centered books that focus on 'fun facts', and those books do not have sources on their information as well. When I tried Googling to see if I could find any other mention of this information, nothing even similar was found. This is probably some BS information? this is the first time I've done anything on wiki except lurking, so I am not that experienced with the required standards of sources, but check them out yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.46 (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any shortage of book sources to verify this. Try this search. SpinningSpark 11:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

edit: also, I noticed if you search for "tesla" it redirects to the disambiguation page (which it should), but when you serach for "telsa", it redirects to Nikola Tesla. Inconsistent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.46 (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Smiljan is not part of Gospić

"Born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan (now part of Gospić)"

Smiljan is 6 kilometers out of Gospić. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.75.36 (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Administratively Smiljan is one of a number of villages which belong to the City of Gospić even though it is 6 km away from Gospić proper. [6] Timbouctou (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about Teslas REAL birthdate?

I once coressponded with the late great promoter of Tesla. Dr.leland Anderson He told me that Nikola Teslas REAL birthdate(because of the Calender in use in that area of the then Austro-Hungarian Empire Smiljan,Croatia. Was 7 to 10 day AFTER July 10th 1856! The Julian Calender was in use in that area at the time. Anyone know about this? Thanks!JOHNSONCLEMENSVIREICKEDSON (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Serb or Serbian?

Was Tesla born to "Serbian" parents, or "Serb" parents? The article says Serbian parents. Can anybody help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.32.176 (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tesla himself said very emphatically that he was a Serbian and proud of it, but also proud and happy to have been born in Croatia. He did not understand the need for the two to be separate. These facts are found in Margaret Cheney's extensive and comprehensive biography Tesla: Man Out of Time, 1981. I rest my case for the need of Cheney as a fully articluated citation and not just "Cheney 2001". The biographical work by Cheney et al. is a separate work.75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I see Cheney is properly cited ... but it seems no one editing this article has properly read her biography.75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Cheney got a bit of short shrift

"Because of his 1894 demonstration of wireless communication through radio ... " and "Tesla demonstrated wireless energy transfer to power electronic devices as early as 1893 ... " in the intro are marked as 'citation needed'.

These facts are easily located in Margaret Cheney's 1981 biography, Tesla: Man Out of Time. But I only see a reference to "Cheney, 2001" and the work by Cheney, Uth and Glenn.

The article is clearly locked - can someone allow the original Margaret Cheney biography as citations for the abovementioned?75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: OK, I see, after some unnecessarily tough searching, Margaret Cheney's book is cited. Why then are the statements that are easily verified in her work flagged as 'citation needed'?

Also, I see a few 'citation needed' flags on writings that are mere opinion. The idea that Tesla ripped up a contract because it could ruin Westinghouse is unfounded and ridiculous. The statement remains but is flagged 'citation needed'.

What is needed is to delete these statements. The article is sloppy enough in that sense right now.75.21.113.40 (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Colour photographs

I think we should have a discussion on the propriety of using photoshopped colour images, especially as the file descriptions do not make clear that they have been touched-up. SpinningSpark 12:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the quality of the images, but I think that the image descriptions should indeed explicitly mention the used technique. But...

• Did Tesla have indeed blue eyes? (Here we go!)

DVdm (talk) 12:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally, we shouldn't use faked pictures. It's OK for Ted Turner to colorize movies to sell more soap, but we're supposedly in the facts business, not the entertainment business. Unless picture faking is part of the story, somehow, such as, for instance, the multiple exposure of Tesla with the arc discharges. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If there was an authentic contemporary color image of Tesla, that would be a reasonable thing - but colorized "works of art" aren't the way to illustrate a factual article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It could indeed be argued that colouring pictures is school book original research. I notice that you put the original B&W's back in place. This is probably what we should do — unless of course we allow someone to go about photoshopping every B&W picture in the encyclopedia... - DVdm (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Pillory me if you like - I enjoyed the colour. I loved the way it brought out his eyes (which were bluish grey like mine, according to Cheney). Perhaps it is wise to stick to original photos but if something like that coloured one was available, I don't see why it cannot be put into the article! Is there proof the editor(s) who inserted it are the ones that coloured it?Djathinkimacowboy 02:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Attempting to make Tesla's Birthplace make more sense

Tesla's birthplace, as described in the article ("Early years"), follows no logical order. I've attempted to correct this by ordering it "village,town,province,nation". Someone keeps undoing this. Their reasoning being that "This issue has been discussed endlessly on the talk page. If you'd like to take it up again there, please do so, but don't expect people to accept your unilateral changes"

I fail to see where this "has been discussed endlessly on the talk page" unless there is another talk page I am unaware of. Secondly, if it has been "discussed endlessly", it doesn't mean it is correct.

Anyway, I have taken the advice and moved the issue here. Can someone explain to me why the sentence "Tesla was born to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, near the town of Gospić, in the Croatian Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire (part of modern-day Croatia)." is incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.124.211.48 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a little note about your phrase "unless there is another talk page I am unaware of". Most active talk pages are regularly archived. In the shaded area on top of the page you find links to the archives. There's also a search box. Try typing the keyword birthplace and hitting the Search archives button. Happy reading! - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And just another little note to say that I personally like and agree with the sentence, "Tesla was born to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, near the town of Gospić, in the Croatian Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire (part of modern-day Croatia)." With one bit of hesitation: isn't that in modern day Bosnia?Djathinkimacowboy 02:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Would it have hurt you to click through Smiljan and see where it is? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that hurts me aside from being attacked (I'm NOT accusing you) is when I am misread. I was ASKING whether it was modern-day Bosnia because that is what I have heard. Since I'm not able to edit anything and have no intention to do so, why should I look it up? Djathinkimacowboy 18:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

origins

This stuff:

His paternal origin is thought to be either of one of the local Serb clans in the Tara valley or from the Herzegovinian noble Pavle Orlović. referenced to Obrad Mićov Samardžić, "Porijeklo Samardžića i ostalih bratstava roda Orlovića", Mostar 1992.ISBN 86-82271-53-2. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); templatestyles stripmarker in |author= at position 95 (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

His mother, Đuka, daughter of a Serbian Orthodox Church priest, came from a family domiciled in Lika and Banija, but with deeper origins to Kosovo. (unreferenced)

...looks like typical soapbox material. Pavle Orlović, at least the person described at the linked article, died in 1389. Going that far back looks ridiculous and I wouldn't be surprised if it was WP:SYNTH - someone should check what that book actually says about Tesla and if it's a reliable source as such. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the book was authored by Obrad Mićov Samardžić, a Mostar-based ethnologist, and talks about the origin of some 300 families called "Samardžić" in the region, some of whom seem to stem from the medieval nobleman Pavle Orlović. The argument to link him to Tesla seems quite weak, and it doesn't seem very relevant for his biography. Timbouctou (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

AGREED. Djathinkimacowboy 16:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Radio

Under "Wardenclyffe years" it says "In 1904, the US Patent Office reversed its decision and awarded Guglielmo Marconi the patent for radio, and Tesla began his fight to re-acquire the radio patent."....And in 1943 the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision again giving Tesla the patent. Shouldn't this be included? BlueDarkPepper (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheney can be cited. Do it, you are welcome! It is a fact and it is verifiable by a source already used in this article. Djathinkimacowboy 20:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The articles is locked for me, so you will have to do the edit please. Thanks. BlueDarkPepper (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Researched and added with citation. There are countless sources, so this one ought to do the trick. Djathinkimacowboy 23:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead photo's date

Wait a moment! That photo is certainly not from 1890. It may be nitpicking, but I'm positive it's later. In any case, it's by Sarony, Tesla's favourite photographer. I will see if I can determine the correct approximate date, because 1890 is simply too early. Judging by his appearance and the photo itself, I'd guess it is ca. 1910-1913. Djathinkimacowboy 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow.. that's quite precise. You can estimate a person's age to within three years based on a photograph? From the 19th century? :)

Seriously though, in the 1890s Tesla would have been around 40 years old (34-44). I'd say, if anything, that the date is too late rather than too early, he looks rather young. Before you make any changes please present a source. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow yourself. No, I can do no such thing. Merely stating the date is probably wrong; then again, I may very well be wrong. I don't think I am. I've seen dozens of photos of Tesla. And as I have told you before, DIREKTOR, I hardly need lecturing from you about such things. Djathinkimacowboy 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheney states that photo was taken at ae. 37 and is by Sarony. It makes the date of the photo 1893. Truth has met us halfway, DIREKTOR. However, I see now that no one is even bothering consulting Cheney, yet they want to edit the article! Djathinkimacowboy 07:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The caption has been changed by me to reflect the facts. Djathinkimacowboy 07:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The facts did not "meet us half-way". I was right, since the photo did indeed originate in the "1890s", as the caption read and I maintained, and you were wrong by a clear 20 years. You considered that thing in the infobox to be a photograph of a 60 year old man, rather than a 37 year old. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Very gratifying to see the date and information regarding the photo has been corrected. It is so good to see what is genuine and not try to guess. Djathinkimacowboy 20:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody was "guessing". The person who uploaded the photo clearly explained it dates from the 1890s. The previous label was perfectly correct, this one is simply more accurate, which is good of course, but not particularly gratifying. You should not imply other Wikipedians made any sort of mistake when there was none to speak of. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Assume good faith. And DIREKTOR, I was not implying anything as you well know. All you like to do is hang about and cause trouble when others make mistakes. I made a mistake, I corrected it, I am sorry about it and that is all so much more than YOU will ever do! Djathinkimacowboy 09:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, now I may be beating a dead horse here, but my objection was not that you made a mistake, or that you did not admit it: it was your position that you didn't make a mistake, but that someone else did and you "corrected" it (you seem not to have understood that the caption read "1890s" and not "1890"). (For the record, I did not write the image caption.)

User:Djathinkimacowboy, your hostile behavior, possibly precipitated through contacts with users I had previously had disputes with, could in my view easily warrant sanctions. Your numerous, unprovoked posts to various admins, containing defamatory, misleading accusations, condescending comments, as well as direct insults(!), are another aspect of your behavior that, topped with the above outburst, constitute a serious and obvious breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no hostility on my part and you know it. You are at your old behaviours again and I congratulate you that you can get a totally uninvolved party to come defend you. You cause trouble, you offend and attack with tremendous hostility, then threaten to "report" editors. As far as I am concerned, this ends now. Djathinkimacowboy 19:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

 Warning Let's stop going this unhelpful direction and call cease-fire. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

AGREED, with my apologies and my thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Died penniless because...?

I have reverted this edit twice[7][8] because it is making a claim "Tesla died penniless because his patents were stolen by Guglielmo Marconi and Thomas Edison" in the lead that is not supported by mainstream references (in fact I can find no support at all for the claim in the references provided). This analysis has to have multiple main stream sources stating flat out "Tesla died penniless because....". It also should be covered extensively in the article for it to show up in the lead (the article right now seems to contain no information on Tesla's financial state at his death, let alone the cause of that state). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• Agree - for the reasons stated and for the lack of overall significance to Tesla's notability. He's not notable because he died penniless, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Rklawton (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Agree The Marconi statement is partially correct, but Marconi ignored his patent for radio rather than "stealing it" which would imply getting him to sign over rights to it or something similar. George Westinghouse did gain about 6 million dollars from Tesla by getting him to abandon claims for royalties due him for the induction motor, which certainly helped to impoverish him. I can't find patents which Thomas Edison "stole" from him, unless the claim refers to the dubious claim of a promised $50,000 bonus not delivered for unknown and undocumented improvements to DC motors or generators in the 1880's. Edison (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It's fine, I won't revert this edit again. It is an overstatement that he died penniless BECAUSE of anything Marconi/Edison/Westinghouse did, but they and others took advantage of his work without fairly compensating him and that is an important and well-documented fact.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The edits bring up a problem with the article. The intro states "died penniless" but the body of the article contains no such statement or description of Tesla's finances. The article needs to follow the lead or the lead needs to follow the article. "tesla died in poverty" brings up allot of support[9] but I don't see anything yet I would call WP:RS (stuff written about Tesla is problematic that way). One analysis says this is more mystique than factual[10]. Probably need to be stated or covered in some way because it is either a common fact or a common myth about Tesla, article should cover either. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheney clearly and conclusively reports that Tesla was "poor" when he died; this "penniless" business comes from the transcripts of Tesla's deposition about not being able to pay his hotel bill, from sometime around 1938 (I think). We should stay away from anything except a general statement to the effect that he did not really have a lot of money. Djathinkimacowboy 23:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Although I notice there is a perfectly good reference for the use of the adjective "penniless", I reworded it because it is in the lead. Maybe someone can come put it in the section dealing with Tesla's final years. Djathinkimacowboy 04:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

http://www.teslamotors.com/ 77.121.35.178 (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Obvious spam link - See wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Galileo Ferraris invented induction motors not Tesla

Ferraris gave public demonstration of induction motors in 1885, well before Tesla's patents. Ferarris never wanted to patent his inventions. This is not a sufficient justification to give to Tesla the priority of the idea. William Stanley, one of America's earliest AC pioneers and a colleague of Tesla at Westinghouse, stated: "I myself have seen the original motors, models, and drawings made by Ferraris in 1885, have personally talked with the men who saw these models in operation and heard Ferraris explain them at that date" and " All foreign scientific publications speak of the Ferraris motor, the Ferraris principle and the Ferraris system, for he invented , constructed, and described his work several years before Mr. Tesla claims to have devised it"Magnagr (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but...Ferraris seemingly didn't think his idea was any practical use (didn't he think AC polyphase motors inherently could only have very low efficiency?). Tesla at least got his motors patented. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas P. Hughes' book Networks of Power [11] discusses this on pages 117-118. Lots of people were experimenting with polyphase systems; Tesla filed a patent before Ferraris gave his lecture, but no-one can substantiate Tesla's claim to have had the idea in 1882. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can expect from an inventor to imagine also the potential future applications of his discoveries. Ferraris discovered the rotating magnetic field and applied it by creating working induction motors in 1885. The core principle on which induction motors work was unveiled and all other significant improvemnents can be appreciated but can only considered as "evolutions" of the original idea. Michael Dolivo-Dobrowolsky, the engineer who created the modern induction motors, said: "I kissed Ferraris's hand from afar for the nice idea and decided to investigate the matter intensively and to build a small test motor as soon as possible..."

I'm wondering why he didn't want to kiss Tesla's hand.... It's quite strange that Ferraris is not mentioned at all in Tesla's biography considering that induction motor is the main invention attributed (wrongly to my opinion) to Tesla. Magnagr (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have a wp:reliable source backing these claims, we could add something to the article. Without such source I'm afraid this subject is highly off-topic here. See the wp:talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note the dates:

http://books.google.it/books?id=CxQdC6xPFSwC&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=GALILEO+FERRARIS+AC+MOTOR+INVENTION&source=web&ots=jjeS-hcv2T&sig=cYbNfNNeVwvMIhR-JCP8uReedRU&hl=it&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.it/books?id=thOPkFjrj5MC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=GALILEO+FERRARIS+AC+MOTOR+INVENTION&source=bl&ots=JfhNaIOhPN&sig=12kH6oCGTCFALCo6w38fL1cmunE&hl=it&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=GALILEO%20FERRARIS%20AC%20MOTOR%20INVENTION&f=false

http://profiles.incredible-people.com/galileo-ferraris/

http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2007/sep/peshistory.html

http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/Volta%20and%20the%20History%20of%20Electricity/V%26H%20Sect3/V%26H%20309-315.pdf

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/204963/Galileo-Ferraris

http://www.ph.unito.it/fisicatouk.html

A good site showing how Tesla managed to get all the merits for the invention:

http://edisontechcenter.org/GalileoFerraris.html#whoInvented

Other interesting sites in italian:

http://www.torinoscienza.it/accademia/personaggi/galileo_ferraris_20123

http://www.museodifisica.unito.it/?storia=2

http://www.euresis.org/Public/EditorUpload/Documents/mc2/mc2_23/MC2_2303DPPLeschi13A9C8.pdf

http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/galileo-ferraris/

In portuguese

http://paginas.fe.up.pt/histel/GalFerraris.pdf

Magnagr (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. You've got some work ahead of you :-) - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy to work, but I warn you that inevitably I have to modify some previous passages of the article. Considering previous experiences in other wiki article involving Tesla where I was subject to block by different authors not happy with mine interpretation of facts, no matter how well sourced mine contributions were. I wouldn't see my work wasted...Magnagr (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

As long as you keep the relevant policies in mind (wp:V, wp:RS, wp:NOR, wp:NPOV, wp:CONSENSUS), and everyone works along the lines of wp:BRD, no work should be wasted. - DVdm (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Tesla not understood? Is he a mystery?

Well I think the questions of Tesla's background - he was AMERICAN - as well as his birth and derivation, are clear enough for a real researcher to easily determine. Margaret Cheney's biography is crystal clear, as are all other proper sources. I do not wish to be accused of reigniting some argument about his birthplace.

As for edits and sources, I made it clear that I would not monkey with this article at all. I kept that promise the whole time it was unprotected, and I can't see that anyone tried vandalising it. Djathinkimacowboy 03:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry: one more thought I had is that Tesla may certainly be remembered and celebrated for a million things, a million times more important than his darned ethnic background! Perhaps some intelligent reflection before heated edits regarding his ethnicity? That is why this article is protected. Not only Serbians and Croatians but everyone is locked out now. Djathinkimacowboy 03:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about debating his birthplace, it's about having all the facts to see how the course of his life came to be. In the article it first mentions that Tesla's father was an Orthodox priest, then goes on to say Tesla attended the Higher Real Gymnasium in Karlovac, some distance from Gospić which is in the Lika region. These two facts have seemingly little connection except for a couple of other facts. First, Lika (and the town of Gospić) where a part of the Croatian Military Frontier. The town of Karlovac was purpose built as a military outpost in the long battle against the Ottoman Empire and was the administrative center of the Military Frontier. As the administrative center, it also became the seat of an eparchy of the Serbian Orthdox Church, the Eparchy of upper Karlovac, which covers the Lika region. Tesla's father, as an Orthodox priest, would have been familiar with Karlovac and probably would have had contacts there so it is no surprise Tesla attended school there as opposed to, say, Zagreb for example. People editing out things like Croatian Military Frontier or jumbling up his birthplace to make it sound somehow less Croatian and more Austrian only serves to make Tesla's biography patchy, not to mention what it does to the history of the Serbs of Croatia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadoma (talk • contribs) 06:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Since I see clearly what you mean, isn't it a good idea if we stick to pure fact about Tesla's journey through life, and then perhaps emphasize a link so people can see for themselves why there is all this fuss?

As you can see, I just got a pointed little reply for simply asking whether it is in modern-day Bosnia. I don't think anyone understands that region very well. What I do know is what Tesla said and thought about the issue.

I agree the article does not emphasize what Tesla said and thought. It should, since Cheney clarifies it beautifully and precisely. Djathinkimacowboy 18:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Now that I look at a modern map, I see things that clarify a lot. But it also put me in memory of childhood.

Lots of "Serbo-Croatians" live here especially in my neighborhood. There is even a Serbo-Croatian Club. When I was a younger man, all the way back to childhood, people called the countries "Yugoslavia".

All the families I knew came here when Tesla came here. So if you asked, "Where did your people come from?" they'd say, "Yugoslavia". If you asked them, "Well, what are your people?" they'd say "Serbo-Croatian." If you asked about their SURNAME, then they would either say it was "Serbian" or "Croatian".

I had a "Serbo-Croatian teacher. I asked him what separates these people if they are the same people? He told me, "Well, Croatians use the Russian alphabet to write, and we don't." So he was a Serb - but he never said he was a Serb or Serbian, he always said "Yugoslavian" and if we pressed him he'd say "Serbo-Croatian".

Editors here are too young to recall any of this, but Tesla seems to have been like that too. He could just as easily have been taken for a Montenegrin, as Cheney says in her biography.

Does this help anyone? It helped me just to recall what they used to say round here. Djathinkimacowboy 19:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tread lightly because of WP:NOTAFORUM... but, it should be noted that there is reasonably little ambiguity over the mainstream interpretation of Tesla's ethnic and national positions in the former Yugoslavia, and then there's a smattering of fringe interpretations that manifest themselves through obviously slanted edits. For example, there's a consensus on his Serb ethnicity, but then there's also people who claim he was a Croat, and people who examine his family's roots all the way down to the Battle of Kosovo. The mainstream consensus is that both of those sets of people basically have way too much free time that would be better spent doing something productive, to put it mildly. So, let's get back to the basics - cite reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic, and all will be well. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Tesla's case is quite simple really - he was an ethnic Serb from what is today Croatia. At the time of his birth Croatia (and its region known at the time as "Military Frontier") was part of the Austrian Empire (later Austria-Hungary). He certainly considered himself a Serb, but politically he supported the Yugoslav pan-Slavic movement which posited that all South Slavic people should be united, and he maintained friendships with other prominent proponents of the Yugoslav idea like Ivan Meštrović. In one widely quoted statement he said he was equally proud of his "Serb heritage and Croatian homeland", in another he praised scientific achievements of Ruđer Bošković and called him his "compatriot", and in another (when he tried to sell the idea of building an electric street lighting system to Zagreb authorities) he said that "as a citizen of this country" he felt "obliged to help the city of Zagreb in any way". So he knew perfectly well who he was and where he came from, and he had clearly defined (albeit somewhat utopian) political views on the matter. He despised local nationalisms, and if he was alive today he'd be the first one appalled by the various slanted interpretations regarding his origin. Timbouctou (talk) 00:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, both editors. I am glad you responded. I was in fact trying to illustrate what you have both stated. Too much is being made of Tesla's background. It is at the expense of the rest of the article. My thanks. Djathinkimacowboy 16:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Get used to it. It's an ethnic pride thing (they don't have much else to brag about), so this will remain a lightning rod for the next hundred years or more. Rklawton (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? I ought to report your insults to entire nations and regions of Europe outright. Your comments are extremely inappropriate, please apologize. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As people pointed out, its all actually quite simple. It only gets a bit complicated when people try to understand the immensely confusing political entities of the Austrian Empire. I'll try to clarify.

• Birthplace
  • Tesla was born in the Austrian Empire, specifically, its territory known as the Croatian Military Frontier. The Croatian Military Frontier, despite its name, was NOT a part of the tiny Kingdom of Croatia, which was another subject territory of the Austrian Empire. (The Croatian Military Frontier was named that way because it was formed 300 years back out parts of the territory of the Kingdom of Croatia).
  • By the time Tesla was 11, the Austrian Empire was reorganized as Austria-Hungary. As part of these reforms, his Croatian Military Frontier was abolished and merged with the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Slavonia (all provinces of the same state) into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (again, these are all internal provinces of Austria Hungary).
  • In 1918 the area became part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. As of 1945, the area is part of Croatia (within the Yugoslav federation until 1991).
• Citizenship
  • Tesla was a subject of the Austrian Empire for the first eleven years of his life (1856-1867). Afterwards he was a subject of Austria-Hungary (the same country, just reorganized and renamed). In 1891 he became an American citizen.
    (I'm not sure whether Tesla actually renounced his Austro-Hungarian citizenship, or whether that was required at the time. If he did not do so, in 1918 his other citizenship would have been transferred to the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, making him a Yugoslav subject in addition to an American citizen.)
• Ethnicity.
  • Tesla would have considered himself Serbian by ethnicity, and he is considered to be an ethnic Serb by virtually all modern scholars (and he was, don't mistake me). It is important to note, though, that as far as the lands of Austria-Hungary were concerned, the Serbian (and Croatian) ethnicities were not officially distinguished or even recognized all the way until 1945. In the very old-fashioned institutions of Austria-Hungary, who's greatest threat was disintegration along many ethnic lines, ethnicities were not officially recognized or even recorded in censuses. After 1918, in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, all peoples of modern-day ex-Yugoslavia were considered to be one nation, the "Serbian-Croatian-Slovene People", and after 1929, this cumbersome term was replaced with "Yugoslav People".

As for whether Tesla was "American", the answer is "yes, by citizenship after 1891". But he was also "Serbian", or "Yugoslav" after 1918, by ethnicity. During his lifetime, he would have been known as Yugoslav American. In modern terms he is Serbian American. It certainly would not do to call him "American" without clarification, simply because of his citizenship. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; hence the lock on the article. Djathinkimacowboy 16:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

!!! Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Have a look at the Intelligent design or Occupy Wall Street articles, just for starters, and get off your high horse. According to Gallup, 40% of Americans (the majority!) believe they were magically poofed into existence [12]. Judging by Tesla, you'd be better off if we all started packing our bags. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

By "poofed" into existence from nothing, do you mean "the Big Bang" or Genesis? They're both pretty poofy. Rklawton (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Tesla was a Serb. His father was an Orthodox priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Belgrade-Serbia, are the remains of Nikola Tesla ... the main international airport in Belgrade called Nikola Tesla, the largest power plant in Serbia has a name TENT (Thermal Power Plant Nikola Tesla), has several monuments dedicated to Nikola Tesla, the main streets of Belgrade and other cities are named Nikola Tesla, many colleges and schools in Serbia have a name Nikola Tesla, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.39.120 (talk) 02:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Judging by your block history for edit warring, herr DIREKTOR, I can see why you'd be offended. Rather than your offense, though, I'd rather see your behavior change. Rklawton (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reported [13]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please, please! Don't start anything here again ... hasn't there been enough trouble here? Djathinkimacowboy —Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

@Djathinkimacowboy. Please stop playing the "peacemaker" - this entire thread of yours seems to have been posted for no other reason than to satisfy your need to criticize various Balkan nations.

@Rklawton. This is somewhat off-topic, but you appear to be fundamentally misinformed as to the subject of the Big Bang theory. It is a common misconception, but the Big Bang theory merely explains the early development of the universe, not its creation. So there is no "poofing" into existence involved there - its just about the expansion of the universe, basically. Due to a lack of available data, we do not have a widely accepted theory on the universe coming into being. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Some big bang theories include a singularity (poof) and some do not. Those who do not subscribe to the singularity model claim they just don't know how it started - except that they're sure it wasn't God, though their only explanation for why it isn't God is that they "don't like it." At any rate, it doesn't matter what side anyone takes, it's all very silly. Rklawton (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've responded on your talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have criticised no one. You're crossing the line DIREKTOR. Djathinkimacowboy —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

For future reference, please limit discussion to specific improvement of this article. Wikipedia is not a forum, and posting threads essentially just to vaguely complain about an ethnic conflict or an article protection is not constructive. I've added a template. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"For future reference, please limit discussion to specific improvement of this article. Wikipedia is not a forum, and posting threads essentially just to vaguely complain about an ethnic conflict or an article protection is not constructive."

See this, everyone. Great advice. Since I have complied all along, I have no reason to feel I should change anything. Do any of you? Nikola Tesla deserves our deepest and finest attention for WHAT HE DID. Djathinkimacowboy 04:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• american?lol..tesla was a european, slav/south-slav and not "american"..american = pure amerindians only.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.118.102.58 (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Tesla's origins

I was just wondering if there is any chance someone could add some stuff about Tesla’s family origins. There had been many studies done in recent years about it and some of the best scholars in genealogy just came out with interesting results.

• Ilija Peko Pelicic in his book “The Zeta Documents” writes “Dr. Pero Soc, scientist had brought to our attention that Tesla originates from the region of Zeta or Doclea (Duklja) from the family of Komnens.”

• State Archives of Serbia also has the document in Andrija Luburic Collection, Box 1, Document no. 31 which says: “In 1911 The American Srbobran [the oldest Serbian newspaper in the U.S. published bilingually since 1906] had published the ad in which Tesla asks anyone from his fraternity known as Komnenovics from the Banjani [clan in Montenegro], to contact him and share any information he [or she] might have.”

• Historian Bozidar Kljajevic, one of the greatest genealogical experts in the Balkans also claims that his research shows that the Tesla family originates from Old Herzegovina [present day western part of Montenegro] and that his paternal line goes all the way to the flag carrier of the Serbian Prince Lazar Hrebeljanovic, whose name was Pavle Orlovic, a legendary hero of the 1389 Kosovo Battle. The Teslas originate from the Old Herzegovina fraternity Komnenovics which moved from the village Carade [on the Golija Mountain in today’s Montenegro] and settled all over Montenegro and Herzegovina. One family subgroup left to Zeta or Doclea (Duklja) and then later moved to Gruza in central Serbia, while the other went to Lika and Bosnia. The subgroup that came to Lika is Nikola Tesla’s family. The Komnenovic fraternity is amongst the oldest in the Banjani clan and they all originate from Komnen Bajica who was descendant of the old Orlovic family from Ibar Kolasin in Kosovo, so the Tesla family are in fact descendants of brothers of the legendary flag carrier Pavle Orlovic who died in the Kosovo Battle.

Please let me know if there is anyone interested in posting this. Thank you!

Ref:

1. Ilija-Peko J.Pelicic, Zapisi o Zeti, (Golubovci, Montenegro: Sabor Zete, 1987), 97.
2. Andrija Luburic Collection, Box 1, Folder 31, "Nikola Tesla," Archives of Serbia.
3. Vecernje Novosti, "I Tesla od Komnena?" April, 19, 2006, 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppetrovich4 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Teslas Death, Reports that he was being "cultavated" by Spies from Axis and USSR?

First Tesla Died Jan 7th 1943 and beleive this wasnt discovered for a day or two? Couldnt find mention in Tesla Article? 2. In FBI NYC Office file, suppossely Tesla was visted last by a "Mr.Spienel"? Reported to be a Soviet spy after Teslas so called "Death Ray" plans. As well as Geroge Sylvester Vierick a known Nazi .A German spy in america before World War 1.Any verification of Esponiage agents from Germany, Soviet Union activly intrested in Teslas Particle Beam, Death ray? Thanks!ANDREISEDSON (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Teslascope to this article

A "merge to" tag was placed on the Teslascope article (by another user), to merge that article into this one. Here's the discussion for it.

• Oppose - This article is already quite lengthy, and adding more information to it will just make it bulkier and more difficult to find information. Additionally, the Teslascope article is well established, comprehensive and well-referenced. Thus, the Teslascope exists as a very reasonable type of content fork. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Northamerica1000's comment, but I think that a short wikilinked (and sourced) mention would be welcome in this article. It would also de-orphanise ^{(new word?)} the Teslascope article. Perhaps we could take the first sourced sentence of the lead of Teslascope and copy in here somewhere? - DVdm (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Struck part of previous comment. Article is mentioned and wikilinked here. I have removed the obsolete orphan tag at Teslascope. - DVdm (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

A number of the sources cited here, especially in the "death" section, do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy.

Specifically William R. Lyne, Pentagon Aliens, is cited numerous times. This book is published by "Creatopia Productions," which is clearly a vanity press by Lyne. The book itself seems highly unreliable from its Amazon description (basic thesis: UFOs were created from the Pentagon by pirating Tesla technology).

Until this gets fixed — as in, the lines referencing this source are removed or replaced with reliable sources that say the same thing — the tag should remain.

The Lomas source mentioned above falls in the same category. In general I think this article needs someone to go over the sources very carefully and get rid of the obvious crackpot stuff. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to delete and mention the talk page in your edit summary. If someone thinks something should be kept because they have an alternative but reliable source, or if they think the old source is reliable after all, they can come to the talk page and discuss. - DVdm (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tried a little cleanup just of the "Directed-energy weapon" section along these lines and... wow... all I am seeing is bad. All the major claims are single source (Marc J. Seifer).... and almost all the rest are WP:OR, citations/observations of primary source source newspaper clips, some presented as fact. Conflicting primary (Dr. John G. Trump) and secondary (^ O'Neill, John J.. "Tesla Tries To Prevent World War II (unpublished Chapter 34 of Prodigal Genius)". PBS.) sources about this being more of a nebulous concept in Tesla's mind are totally ignored. Chasing it down also shows how the above mentioned Lyne source is used in a POVPUSH: it is used tit-for-tat re: Trump, engaging in the dispute instead of describing the dispute (WP:NPOV - Impartial tone). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Add ((Dubious|Unreliable sources)) tag. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Tesla's philosophy?

Removed this paragraph because it is original research derived from a primary source. Tesla does not state this was "One of his main philosophical beliefs", it is two different paragraphs merged (about his search for an idea and his Mom's philosophy respectively), and it is an autobiography - a reliable source about Tesla would have to make these observations about his philosophy. Any interpretation that this was one of Tesla's "main philosophical beliefs" needs a secondary source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tesla and Maglev

In this documentary on 5:30 minut [14] i noticed an Tesla experiment with electromagnetic fields and levitation of aluminium objects. Did this tehnology use Maglev today?--Свифт (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Curator in the documentary claims that trains use that technology, including and the Tesla′s linear induction motor.--Свифт (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this youtube clip qualifies as a reliable source, and I don't know whether you used it to make these edits. As these edits are entirely unsourced, I have removed them. Please find some detailed reliable sources for this. - DVdm (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Remote Controle

At the beginning of the article is written: "He was an important contributor to the birth of commercial electricity, and is best known for developing the modern alternating current (AC) electrical supply system. His many revolutionary developments in the field of electromagnetism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were based on the theories of electromagnetic technology discovered by Michael Faraday."

What is commercial electricity?

What is electromagnetism?

People who read this do not understand because it is general.

Thus, it is important that its inventions are at the very beginning of this article

For example, I wrote “Tesla laid the foundation for remote control, when in New York City on 1898 demonstrated the ability to control on wireless way mechanical devices (model boat in the pool) “

In article the remote control is written about Tesla's contribution!

As you see I'm not using the source youtub!--Свифт (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything you want to add to the article should be verifiable (see wp:V), and when challenged, needs sources to back it up. Also note that what might be written in article Remote control about Tesla, is irrelevant, since Wikipidedia is not a reliable source for itself — see wp:CIRCULAR. So, if you want to add something about remote controls in this article, you need to provide a proper source. - DVdm (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for Tesla's contribution for the foundation remote control or not [15] ?--Свифт (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

What does it say about Tesla? - DVdm (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He is the pioneer or founder, he is the first in this tehnology [16]-- Свифт (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where on this particular page is it written that "Tesla is the first in this technology"? Can you cite the sentence? Do you see where we are going? If not, please have a look at the policies wp:SYNTH and wp:NOR. - DVdm (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I just want to write this: "Tesla laid the foundation for remote control, when in New York City on 1898 demonstrated the ability to control on wireless way mechanical devices (model boat in the pool)." Another sources [17] [18] [19]

I do not want to write: He is the first!--Свифт (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's about what's already on the article Remote control. The first source (A. Marincic) seems OK. The third source could go along with it, but the second could be problematic. Anyway, two sources will do. It's also better not to point to the google patent page as there seems to be no direct support for this addition. So, go ahead! - DVdm (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.--Свифт (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the wording about Tesla "laid the foundation for remote control[1] and robotics" since it is not an important summary of Tesla's life that he made a wireless controlled boat (he made allot of things, please also see WP:LEAD). Also the wording is incorrect, it doesn't seem to be reliably sourced, and little WP:PEACOCK-y. Tesla demonstrated "wireless control", not the first remote control... wired remote control was already being demonstrated in torpedoes by 1891[20]. In the linked article Robotics there is nothing about Tesla "laying the foundation" for anything, he is pretty much a trivial mention. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. Agreed. - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Public of demonstrated the ability to control mechanical way on wireless devices (model boat in the pool) in New York City on 1898 is very important, because it is an example of earliest radio transmission, wireless remote controle and robotics (remote controle + vehicles; an today example Foster-Miller TALON)

Sources for robotics [21][22][23][24][25][26]

In article the robot is written about Tesla's contribution!--Свифт (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is not that Tesla did not do this (he did and it is already stated in the article). The problem is WP:V, WP:LEAD, and WP:PEACOCK - "laid the foundation" is un-referenced puffery and singling one area of invention/investigation (out of hundreds listed?) to be in the lead falls well outside the guideline of "summary". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. We can change "laid the foundation" in "the earliest or pioneering work". Source [27] Computational Principles of Mobile Robotics, Gregory Dudek and Michael Jenkin, Cembrigde University Press 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-87157-0: "Autonomous vehicles built by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s are probably the earliest electrical mobile robots." Same [28]. I think it must be on the top of article: "Tesla was public of demonstrated the possibilities to control on wireless way mechanical devices (model boat in the pool) in New York City on 1898 who was pioneering (the earliest) practical work wireless remote controle and robotics."--Свифт (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The first radio patent and the radio-controlled boat are already mentioned in the article. Providing more detail would put wp:UNDUE weight on the matter and could bring the article out of balance. - DVdm (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A simple mention in the body of the article (not the lead) still seems appropriate. Of the sources Свифт provided (some are unreadable/in Russian) the word "probably" comes up allot (I can now see why since "remote control" predates Tesla, he only added "wireless") and one source[29] says flat out this was not a robot. Just looking through the books written on robotics that come up in Google books[30] brings up either no mention of Tesla or a trivial mention, nothing to support "earliest or pioneering work". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Niagara Falls

Also, I think that must be write "He was a key figure in building the first hydroelectricity plant at Niagara Falls."--Свифт (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you can provide a hard source of similar quality that supports that. - DVdm (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if "key figures" never actually show up at the site till years after first power, and instead of participating in the debate between compressed air, DC, single-phase AC and polyphase AC, spend their time making big sparks in Colorado. Once Westinghouse paid Tesla for his patents, he lost all interest in anything as mundane as sending electricity over mere *wires*. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We have articles on wiki Ames Hydroelectric Generating Plant and War of Currents. Sources [31] [32]--Свифт (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)