Jump to content

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Nikola Tesla

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KslotteBot (talk | contribs) at 15:50, 4 September 2010 (Aan template: dropping type=content, since the parameter has been deprecated, using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 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[1] , 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)

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.

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)

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.

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[2]

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)

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_invention_of_everything_else
  2. ^ Burgan, Michael (2009). Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer (Signature Lives). Signature Lives. pp. [ http://books.google.com/books?id=PW06qF-dj2IC&pg=PA29 29]. ISBN 0-7565-4086-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_3&oldid=382886926"