Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Bold edit in the lead without consensus or prior discussion

After several long years of debating, with a number of editors involved, a stable version of the lead was reached. Now we have a new wave of POV pushing in the lead which labels Tesla as Croatian-American (and he was not born in Croatia). Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Then fix it. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I went with undo and started a discussion on the TP. Do help if you can. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus against mine edit?

@Sadko: Nikola Tesla is Croatian-American and this is proven with more RS sources. There is consensus against mine edit? What I have to do? Find fifty more sources? There is no reason for RV.Mikola22 (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There is none. You ignored discussions and work of people who worked on the article before you. Take a look at the Archive and for once try to understand how Wikipedia works - Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22: The issue of Tesla's nationality has been argued continuously on these pages for 12 years. The arguments grew so nasty that in a 16 June 2015 RfC consensus all discussion of Tesla's nationality or ethnicity was moved to a new Talk page, Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, as it says at the top of the page, so that the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopedia. The current wording is the result of an RfC 5 July 2014. It was challenged and confirmed by another RfC 12 December 2018 by a margin of 6 editors to 1 so it has broad consensus support. Before changing any of the wording relating to Tesla's nationality or ethnicity, you need to get consensus on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Bogus template

Someone has stuck on a template saying this article is to be edited in British English. O really? Can someone please take this absurd template off this page, as it is some dank Wikimagic beyond my powers to fix. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

About etnicity

I would add that he was Croatian-Serbian-American scientist because he was born in Croatia and he said:"I am proud of my Serbian etnicity and my Croatian homeland." Dragstar123 (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please look through the archives, this has been discussed a Billion times. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a good place to start Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity/Archive_11 - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dragstar123: I agree with FlightTime, and all discussion of Tesla's nationality/ethnicity must be done on Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity; see note at top of page. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@FlightTime: Doesn't the archive bot thingie do it automatically? --Chetvorno^TALK 21:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: Sorry, do what ? - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Automatically archive the page when it gets to a certain length/number of threads. Most archived pages seem to do that. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: yes, it is done automatically by the bot, but sometimes discussions get so long (and the bot won't break a thread) and the page gets too long. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, ok. It would be fine with me if you want to archive the page. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Problem with sh

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Problem with sh

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:58, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Ethnicity in lead

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Coronary Thrombosis

Nikola Tesla died of Coronary thrombosis. Very disapointed that I cannot edit this for the better but maybe someone can ? Dizdop (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Coronary thrombosis is already covered, if you think it should be changed to something else please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Expansions on Tesla coil

Reverted this edit for many reasons:

• This article is a biography, not a list of Tesla inventions. We should explain what Tesla did in chronological context.
• Edit removed the RS reference and text as to what a Tesla coil is and what Tesla did.
• Per WP:JARGON, write one level down (current version does that), add a brief background section with "main" tags pointing to the full treatment (current version does that).
• If the use of a Tesla coil as a resonant transformer is important in Tesla's biographical timeline it should be explained somewhere in context in this article. The article may need that, it may not, but the work has to be put in, don't just add big words. Old versions of this article were full of unexplained big words, need to avoid that.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Integrated it in, found better ref. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Vanjagenije (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox ---> Serbian Orthodox

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Eastern Orthodox ---> Serbian Orthodox

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus.--Chetvorno^TALK 16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Vanjagenije (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

He was a Croatian and Serbian inventor who moved to USA. He wasn't Serbo American inventor. 151.252.225.248 (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the entry at WP:LAME and then realise that this has been discussed to death and consensus reached on the matter and that this requests warrants no further action... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

There is speculation that Nikola Tesla came from Morovlach descent, is like to put that in. 2600:1702:280:4BE0:8170:F988:ED30:CBB4 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't do unsourced speculations. El_C 19:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

There is speculation that Nikola Tesla came from Morovlach descent, is like to put that in. 2600:1702:280:4BE0:55D:6D10:42CF:13F (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We don't deal in speculation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity in lead

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Ethnicity in lead 2

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

nikola tesla is not serbian american he is just serbian can you please change that . Jelena peric 1 (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the entry at WP:LAME and then realise that this has been discussed to death and consensus reached on the matter (as per the notice on top of the talk page) and that this request warrants no further action... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Hi Nikola Tesla is Croatian and Serbian not Serbian can you correct that pleas?? 93.141.36.65 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Please read the note at the top of this page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

He was not serbian but Albanian and there are photos of him in old Albanian clothes. If you dont belive me write on google Nikola Tesla Albanian and you will be convinced that he was Albanian 185.171.63.150 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Go look at WP:LAME Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

"his own biography..." = autobiography

"own biography" needs to be replaced by "autobiography". The reason should be self evident!

(Odd oversight: the word "autobiography" is used several times elsewhere in the article...)

To wit: In his own biography, Tesla stated the manager of the Edison Machine Works offered a $50,000 bonus to design "twenty-four different types of standard machines"

68.111.65.87 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Notrium (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Niagra Falls statue picture

Should we change the image of Telsa's statue at Niagara Falls at the bottom of the article to one that shows the front of the statue? (There are several to choose from.) I would have just changed it myself, but I thought that some might prefer an image with the waterfall in the background to illustrate its location like the one that's there now, even though such an image doesn't provide the best view of the statue. CaptainBillyCatPants (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Kenneth Swezey

The description of Swezey as a science fiction writer appears to be inaccurate; he has no publications listed at isfdb.org, and this page only mentions science writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be a newspaper / magazine columnist, early on working for the New York Sun and contributing general and electronics based articles to Radio World (age 18), Boys' Life, Popular Science, etc. Post war selling books that seem to be comps of his articles [1]. Also bio here. So probably "journalist" at that point in his life but not seeing "science fiction". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut "science-fiction" since doing that doesn't require any additional sourcing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

Nikola Tesla was Serbian not American 78.94.244.2 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Nikola Tesla article itself. Please place requests for comment or debates about Tesla's ethnicity on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Questions concerning his nationality, ethnicity, and/or birthplace should also be asked on the sub-talkpage. - MrX 🖋 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

"GPU" and "microarchitecture" in "Legacy and honors" should have links

I think that the words "GPU" and "microarchitecture" should have links referencing Graphics processing unit and Microarchitecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmatthy (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably not per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It should not be written as jargon though. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2020

Nikola Tesla is a croatian and serbian Lunixbruh6445 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Is Nikola Tesla Serbian or Croatian?

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § Is Nikola Tesla Serbian or Croatian?

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Vanjagenije (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Tesla was a Serbian ingeener, not Serian-American 185.238.122.124 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the notices at the top. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

New letter by Tesla

Editors may be interested to read this letter by Tesla, which could be of use for unnecessary debates about his origin which might reemerge. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Users pushing a POV will likely have some objections (either WP:PRIMARY or WP:BIASEDSOURCE, whether there is any merit or not to such objections) 'cause the source is a Serbian newspaper. Maybe it would be better if we could know where the original letter comes from? I have this from an English language source that refers to some other letters which are from the Tesla museum in Belgrade. This (undoubtedly neutral) source also describes Tesla's ethnic origin as follows: "An ethnic Serb born in 1856 in the Austrian Empire in present-day Croatia" Other neutral sources such as DW (here) refer to Tesla as "an ethnic Serb who spent most of his life abroad, after being born in the Austrian Empire in a small village in what is now Croatia.". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Add Nikola Tesla to the category "People associated with electricity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_electricity) Killer08932 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vivekananda

The account of Vivekananda meeting does not occur in any of Tesla's own writing. The event is mentioned only in a letter by Vivekananda addressed to a not-so-famous New York resident named E. T. Sturdy. And the source of the claim is Subhash Kak ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

This has many sources that predate Kak[2][3][4] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

All sources are based on the letter[by Vivekananda] I mentioned above. Remove that part. One of the sources you gave clearly says “Unfortunately, there is no record of this meeting” [5] ChandlerMinh (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The source you cited here specifically cites a letter by Tesla saying he wished to meet Vivekananda "again". So they met at least once, your source says maybe 3 times. The “Unfortunately, there is no record of this meeting” was a forth meeting they planed that may have never happened. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Any sane person would ideally prefer to quote Tesla’s own writing. Again, the letter claimed to be from Tesla to Vivekananda exist only in Paranjape’s book on Vivekananda—published in India. I can’t find it on any of Tesla’s own works that says they met and “the two talked about how the inventor's ideas on energy seemed to match up with Vedantic cosmology”. See, the last part is very critical, because none of the sources you said mentions that Tesla said his idea on energy match up with Vedantic cosmology, other than quoting the letter by Vivekananda himself. I am from, India these such claims are being used to promote pseudoscience here. Kak is someone who claims that Tesla was trying to prove mass-energy equivalence, which he also said is the one that match up with Vedantic cosmology, whilst the fact remains that Tesla has barely anything to do with E=mc². Kak is also someone who claimed Indians knew speed of light thousand years ago. Kak also claims that “In a posthumously published article called Man’s Greatest Achievement, which was written in 1907, Tesla wrote about the use of akasha and prana”. Why doesn’t this posthumously published article exist in the List of Nikola Tesla writings. Either add Man’s Greatest Achievement in List of Nikola Tesla writings with source or Rephrase and Remove Kak as a source in Nikola Tesla. ChandlerMinh (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

We actually don't base article content on Tesla's own primary source writings, we cite reliable secondary sources which, again, predate Kak on this, and are not all "Indian". We can only note what they say, we can't fix the world of pseudoscience. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflict with Prof

Fountains of Bryn Mawr changed general statement about conflict (documented in Tesla's autobiography) on 8/2/2021 and then deleted his own change claiming this fact is not relevant (10/2/2021). Conflict is relevant because it shows Tesla's deep understanding of the technology at an early stage of his university studies and that he had the courage to dispute over the topic even with his prof.--Josephine1915 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conflict is relevant because it shows Tesla's deep understanding of the technology at an early stage of his university studies". And there is the problem, its your original thought derived from a primary source. And the section in the book is about a priority claim to the invention of the induction motor. Its out of context in the article section (section is not about the induction motor). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

* Describes Tesla’s first contact with new apparatuses (historic newspaper source retrieved from the newspaper archives of the Austrian National Library (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, ONB). Newspaper is dated from May 1892 (approx. 20 years prior to Tesla’s autobiography) and states: “…Von 1876 bis 1880 beschäftigte er sich hier vorwiegend mit Mathematik und Physik und lernte unter Regierungsrath Professor Jakob Pöschl im physikalischen Laboratorium der Technischen Hochschule, damals im Joanneum, zum erstenmale elektrische Maschinen und Apparate kennen…“ * Tesla’s experiences with different professors at the university comes in the chapter of his autobiography “My late endeavors – the discovery of the rotating magnetic field” almost right after the passage with his school experiences (see my last point pls.). He gives some detailed information of the professors and how they influenced him “My first year’s showing had won me the appreciation and friendship of several professors. Among these were Prof. Rogner,…; Prof. Poeschl,….and Dr. Alle…” He then briefly describes the personality of all three of them followed by the experiment with the Gramme dynamo and then the dispute. Then “For a time I wavered imprest by the professor’s authority, but soon became convinced I was right and undertook the task with all the fire…All my remaining term in Gratz was passed in intense but fruitless efforts of this kind,…” So Tesla describes how he got some glimpses but could not really see a proper solution yet. * During the demonstration of the newly arrived Gramme machine, Tesla saw room for improvement despite the fact that he was a young student. Those facts underline the moments of his innovative mind and might be relevant in the bio of an important inventor. Why deprive the public of such facts? * How come it is spoken of the induction motor at this point – there is no such mention in the sentence that was removed. * Now cited clearly (though I didn’t write that sentence at first). * Argument with primary source doesn’t hold against other info in the Tesla article related to his early years because most of that is generated from his autobiography (even if sources state differently e.g. the quote with regard to his school experiences “… made him want "to know more of this wonderful force".[30]” which originally derives from his autobiography as well) --Josephine1915 (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It is funny how every little detail (up to the influence of Twain's books) is kept but the important ones for the actual development are not. What is more relevant for an encyclopedic entry about an inventor?! That is how one writes history, isn't it?!--Josephine1915 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's how a historian writes history. We are not historians. We don't interpret primary sources. We also can't state them as fact in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV. I have actually re-inserted some of this based on what secondary sources say about it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no interpretation of any kind in that sentence that was removed, it was stating pure facts according to sources given - just the explanation of relevance was an interpretation. I can and will not comment on the new sentence as I do not know that source. As with regard to my former comment I tried to deliver that independant source that was asked for. Not more and not less and the last point of my very long comment at 19:27 is still true for many parts of the Tesla article.--Josephine1915 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

i agree Cale565 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder In Later Years

I believe that the Obsessive Compulsive tendencies of Nikola Tesla starting around 1917 deserve at least a paragraph of attention, as they played a significant role in the later years of his life. His behaviors seem to be documented on other sites: "Tesla had obsessive compulsive disorder, which compelled him to do things in threes, including only inhabiting a hotel room that was divisible by the number three. He had an obsession with pigeons and an aversion to women wearing earrings, contributing to his reputation as eccentric." (1);

"It’s reported that Tesla started showing symptoms of OCD around 1917 when he became obsessed with the number three. When taking his daily swim at the public pool, he always swam 33 laps, but if he lost count he said he couldn’t leave, and instead had to start over from zero. He often had an urge to circle a city block three times before entering a building. When leaving a building he had to turn right only, and walk around the entire block before becoming “free” and being able to leave... He also became obsessed with germs, he polished every dining implement he used to perfection, demanded three folded cloth napkins beside his plate at every meal using 18 napkins. He also stayed in a hotel room with a number divisible by three (he lived the last ten years of his life in suite 3327 on the 33rd floor of the New Yorker Hotel). He considered jewelry revolting and especially hated pearl earrings." (2);

"By 1912, Tesla began to withdraw from that doubting world. He was clearly showing signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and was potentially a high-functioning autistic. He became obsessed with cleanliness and fixated on the number three; he began shaking hands with people and washing his hands—all done in sets of three. He had to have 18 napkins on his table during meals, and would count his steps whenever he walked anywhere. He claimed to have an abnormal sensitivity to sounds, as well as an acute sense of sight, and he later wrote that he had “a violent aversion against the earrings of women,” and “the sight of a pearl would almost give me a fit.”" (3)

The International OCD foundation also mentions that he had what would be considered today to be "severe OCD", although they offer no additional facts.

(1) https://www.aaas.org/brilliant-and-tortured-world-nikola-tesla (2) https://www.ocduk.org/ocd/history-of-ocd/nikola-tesla/ (3) https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-rise-and-fall-of-nikola-tesla-and-his-tower-11074324/

--BazingaResearcher (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The sources are not very good, same old rehashing/echo chamber of Tesla lore. Only one of those sources sites a reliable source (Margaret Cheney), so we could probably go to that and add maybe a sentence, but they are still guessing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@BazingaResearcher: Yeah, your first two sources, the AAAS and OCDUK, repeat a bunch of ridiculous bogus claims circulating on fanboy websites that Tesla was involved in the invention of lasers, radar, fluorescent lights, spark plug, electron microscope and microwave oven. These are thoroughly debunked, raising the question of whether these authors were equally careless in researching Tesla's OCD. If better sources were found, biographers such as Carlson, I would be fine with adding a short account. This OCD stuff seems to be widely repeated, I wonder what the primary sources are. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I can look around some for better/more accurate information. --BazingaResearcher (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Spoken Wikipedia Article

I just wanted to inform everyone that I am in the process of recording this article. Thanks! Camshaft64 (Talk | Contributions) 17:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention this earlier, but I have finished the recording. Camshaft64 (Talk | Contributions) 20:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla Technical Museum in Zagreb

Zagreb Technical Museum has an permanent exhibition dedicated to Nikola Tesla and was renamed The Nikola Tesla Technical Museum in 2015. Could it be added to the Places named after Tesla? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Museum,_Zagreb 95.168.116.118 (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Its a Wikipedia article so yeah, should go under "Places". Needs a page move to Nikola Tesla Technical Museum, its current title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding the original autobiography articles ("My Inventions" by Nikola Tesla) from the Electrical Experimenter magazine?

Hello,

The original 1919 articles of the autobiography : "My Inventions" by Nikola Tesla are available at the Internet Archive (Electrical Experimenter issue date, starting page) :

I. My early life (Feb 1919, p696) https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_02/page/n17/mode/2up

II. My first efforts in invention (Mar 1919, p776) https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_03/page/n17/mode/2up

III. My later endeavors : The discovery of the rotating magnetic field (Apr 1919, p864) https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_04/page/n17/mode/2up

IV. The discovery of the tesla coil and transformer (May 1919, p16) https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_05/page/n17/mode/2up

V. The magnifying transmitter (Jun 1919, p112) https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_06/page/n17/mode/2up

VI. The Art of Telautomatics (Oct 1919, p506) https://archive.org/details/nikola-tesla-telautomatics-remote-control

(Announcing the Tesla's articles to come - Jan 1919, p614 https://archive.org/details/Electrical_Experimenter_1919_01/page/n15/mode/2up)

Reading fully these articles may not be as easy as the already available transcripts, but they include some photos and diagrams.

Feel free to add them if needed. Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

False quote/reference

Here we can read that Nikola's mother's father was a Serbian Orthodox Church minister, not "... whose father was also an Eastern Orthodox Church priest,". This misnomer for Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria-Hungary was enforced by Roman Catholic Church.--77.46.214.187 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done Not a relevant difference AFAICS; also the source you give is written by an author on whom I can't find anything and is published by a publisher who doesn't seem to have much of a reputation for anything (much less "a reputation for reliability and fact-checking", as required per WP:RS), specialises in "independent authors" (per their own website). Therefore, the book doesn't look like a reliable source to me anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This response to my comment came from a person who apparently has no knowledge about the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austiria-Hungary. I did not give any source, I just pointed at the source ALREADY USED in the article and warned readers about the false quote: the source says "Serbian Orthodox Church" and the text supported by the source claims "Eastern Orthodox Church".--77.46.214.187 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The Serbian Orthodox Church is part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the source you give (O'Neil, 2006) is not currently used in the article to support this fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, (O'Neil 1944) IS USED in this article 22 times and it is the same book as its 2006 reprint. In Austria-Hungary the misnomer for the Serbian Orthodox Church WAS Eastern Orthodox Church enforced by the Roman Catholic Church. Please, educate yourself.--77.46.214.187 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: The reference used here is clear: "His father, like her husband. was a minister of the Serbian Orthodox Church." If we dig it deeper, Djuka's father, Nikola's mother was a minister of the Church in Bosnia in the times when Bosnia was under Turks.--77.46.214.187 (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Was Tesla a scientist?

(thread moved by Chetvorno from User talk:Chetvorno/Archive 4#Please ask for guidance as of general interest to article)

In article Nikola Tesla , I made some mistakes, thank for your revert! I have a question about that, Tesla is not physicist, Why he belongs to WikiProject Physics? Because he used to still contributes in the field of physics? MoJieCPD (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

The only place on that page that I see his name is the article Nikola Tesla is in the list of Good articles. This is just an award for well-written articles. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 19:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

oh, I mean in talk page, here "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects", "WikiProject Physics / Biographies / History (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)". It belongs to Physics. I don't understand. MoJieCPD (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support Tesla being in the physics wikiproject. You are right he was not a physicist, but much of his work is of interest to physicists – he has added to the body of knowledge. To give you a more general answer, any random person can add any article to any wikiproject. More often than not, these are not members of the project, but editors looking for articles not in any project and then putting them in one or more. Ocassionally, a project member will remove an unsuitable article, but the truth is that most wikiprojects are moribund and not actively maintaining articles. Even wikiprojects which are active don't pay much attention to this. SpinningSpark 19:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I disagree. Tesla is a cult figure, with an echo chamber of dozens of fanboy websites [6], [7] which spread wildly false claims of his accomplishments. (some are debunked here) People who get their information from these sites can be excused for putting him in the physics wikiproject, but he doesn't belong there. The truth is Tesla was an exceptionally gifted, creative engineer and inventor, but not a scientist. He didn't do any scientific research, or publish in physics journals. He didn't add to the body of knowledge - he didn't discover any new physical principles. He liked to pontificate in the lay press about revolutionary physics theories, but these were in the realm of pseudoscience, like antigravity. His scientific thinking was mired in 19th century concepts like ether, he never accepted the electron or relativity, and believed erroneously that radio transmission was due to ground currents. Part of the problem is that several of his early biographies Seifer and O'Neill were written by credulous fans who accepted everything he said at face value. These may call Tesla a scientist. More objective bios like Carlson don't. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should just look at whether he has published any relevant papers, there are also no relevant restrictions on this for physicists.
• I think Tesla belonged to the category of experimental physicists, who did experiments and analysed them and eventually applied them to practical problems, and he also worked in the field of electromagnetic fields, which belong to the field of physics.
• I am concerned that you always bring up some of Tesla's wrong research. Yes, maybe some of Tesla's research was wrong, but he still researched and contributed to the field and we should not judge him as a figure in the field based on what he did right or wrong, just like a singer whose songs may not be well received, but that does not negate him as a singer. MoJieCPD (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Chetvorno, your reply to me is a classic study in strawman argument. Right at the start of my post I said "You are right he was not a physicist...". You have robustly shown me wrong by demonstrating that he was not a scientist. You have burnt the strawman to a cinder, but the issue here is not whether or not he was a scientist but whether or not his article belongs under the watch of WikiProject Physics. Putting his article there is not making a claim about him. It is merely the WikiProject stating that it has an interest in the article. No one, so far, seems to have asked them what they think but judging by how often Tesla comes up in discussion in their talk archives I'm guessing what the answer will be. Tesla's work on three phase and the Tesla coil, for instance, are certainly of interest to the project. You claim he added nothing to the body of knowledge, but I think his work on wireless power transmission was unique. True, it's impractical, but working on it adds to the "body of knowledge". Most real scientists, even those with Wikipedia articles, have not "discover[d] any new physical principles." Indeed, I suspect most of them spend their entire careers adding reagents to masses of test tubes and end up achieving nothing at all. Drug companies employ hordes of them and most projects go nowhere. And you want to point me to a debunking site that cites half a dozen Wikipedia articles in its sources? As an experienced editor you should know better than that....and from the Edison Center? Edison? Tesla's arch rival?

And of all the many Wikiprojects his article belongs to, why pick on this one? Vegetarianism for instance. Tesla is not a figure in the vegetarianism movement, he wrote nothing significant on it as far as I know, or campaigned for it. He merely was a vegetarian. I have no idea what his connection to robotics is. Perhaps he's there through work on remote control, but robots by definition act, at least to some degree, autonomously. Also dubious are WikiProjects Skepticism and the proliferation of geographic WikiProjects. There's more in the article about Tesla feeding birds, than any of these things, but he's not in WikiProject Birds. He lived a lot in hotels, but he's not in WikiProject Hotels. Frnakly, most projects are not doing anything useful in building the encyclopaedia. Adding them has become just another tick box exercise. SpinningSpark 08:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, you did say he wasn't a physicist, didn't mean to beat on a strawman. My mistake, my remarks should have been addressed to MoJieCPD, I didn't know how much he knew about Tesla's history. This thread started when he put the word "physicist" in the intro, and I reverted him, and he asked why Tesla was in Wikiproject Physics. I wanted to be sure he understood why I reverted his edit, that I wasn't just being capricious. A while ago we had a big edit war on this page over whether Tesla should be characterized as a "physicist" in the intro. We just got it out not long ago, and frankly my main concern is not to have that word in the intro again. I feel Tesla shouldn't be called a physicist. I don't much care whether he is in the Wikiproject. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, many physicists work their whole lives without discovering any new principles, but at least they are "doing" physics. Tesla wasn't. First, Tesla's work was always directed toward some practical application, not scientific knowledge. Second, he didn't do much "research", either pure or applied. He apparently did not accept the most basic principle of science: confirming theory by experiment. He claimed to be able to visualize a device and understand how it worked in his mind, so he didn't need to do experiments. This was his undoing. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand why you reverted my edit.
• I went through the history and couldn't find the edit war you mentioned, can you help point it out?
• I will do more research on this issue and come back to discuss it with you later, meanwhile, thank you very much for your replies！ MoJieCPD (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This came up before (it may have been here?) re: is adding a Wikipedia project heading to a talk page a POV statement? The consensus was "yeah, it kinda is". The entire Tesla fan world calls Tesla a scientist or physicist but the one authoritative book by a historian and engineer (Carlson) says in no way was Tesla any kind of scientist. That puts us up against WP:YESPOV re: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." (actually its worse than that because Carlson is not being contradicted by any comparable reliable source). Is a Wikipedia project banner a "direct statement"? I guess that would be one for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. I think things like three phase and the Tesla coil are better served by adding those to WP:WikiProject Physics than Tesla himself. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The way I look at is this: who is best placed to weed out the Tesla fanboy nonsense from this article? The physics Wikiproject or the vegetarianism Wikiproject? SpinningSpark 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Certainly can't argue with you there. WikiProject Skepticism could also be helpful. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@MoJieCPD: I may have been exaggerating by calling it an edit war. I'm not sure when the word 'physicist' was added to the introduction, but it was debated here: Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_5#Infobox scientist? and here: Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_9#Suggest using only reliable sources about Tesla, the big one was here: Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_8#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_10_March_2015. It was removed 13 Sept 2018: Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_10#Tesla_was_a_physicist?. I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr above, the most reliable sources make clear he was not a physicist, so even if other sources call him one, it comes under WP:YESPOV and should not be in the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. MoJieCPD (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

teslauniverse.com

This doesn't quite strike me as WP:RS appropriate for an encyclopedia article. https://teslauniverse.com/about clearly says it's a fan site, a blog, so we have 23 citations to a violation of WP:SPS/WP:UGC on a matter where there really must be better sources out there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

There are more than that, ref #26 alone has 23 cites. There is also #50 (2 cites), #97, #210. This site is definitely SPS by Cameron Price, but I'm not seeing any evidence of it being UGC. So it boils down to what we think of Price as an expert source. That could only rest on his participation in Discovery Channel's "Tesla's Death Ray: A Murder Declassified" and similar TV appearances. These don't strike me as counting as "previously published" for our purposes per SPS. The program panders to sensationalism much in the way that TV ghost and other supernatural "investigations" do. That's not a scholarly work so I'd say Price is an SPS fail. That's not to say that the information is wrong so I don't think wholesale deletion is called for. I presume that it's been used so extensively because it's easily accessible. Books one has to go to the library to get. SpinningSpark 15:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This came up during GA review. teslauniverse.com has allot of teslamyth/fanboy bunk but it also contains links to primary sources and relatively RS summaries of primary sources. Following reliable secondary sources with primary sources at teslaunivers[8] seems ok. TU is not a reliable secondary source so probably need to check out the rest and see how they are being used. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any links to other sources in the timeline (#26). It's like an essay of some random person on the Internet, just in a prettier form. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

high school language

RandomCanadian that edit you reverted was quite suspicious harking back to references accessed in 2010 (?!), but the gist of it the claim that Tesla didn't just learn German in high school doesn't seem to be false. That's probably why folks keep coming back to it. A Croatian professor who was an early website enthusiast Darko Žubrinić has long published a copy of the Nikola Tesla Maturitäts-Zeugnis (Matura certification, high school diploma) from 1873 at [9] / [10] that shows both German and Croatian. This was actually mentioned in /Archive 9 once upon a time (but was then crossed out, I don't quite see why, that would take more history spelunking to figure out). Essentially, the article currently mentions various minutia about Tesla's early years, so it doesn't really make much sense for it to also specifically harp on how he was only taught German when that doesn't seem to be actually accurate. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joy: If it is "minutia" (and even more if it is only mentioned in a few sources), then it would make more sense to remove it (along with other non-essential trivial details), since WP is an encyclopedia, a "summary of knowledge" and not a "compilation of minutia". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, all of the various minutia that has no obvious relevance to the biography should be dropped. There's some really odd stuff in there, like the death of a sibling when Tesla was 5... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This all has the whiff of Righting Great Wrongs about it. The certificate proves nothing about the language the school taught it. French is also given a mark on the certificate, but that does not mean the school taught in French, only that French was taught as a language. British schools also teach French (allegedly – hard to find a Brit who can actually speak it) but we don't claim that British schools teach in French. Of course they don't, they teach in English. When authoritative reliable sources start saying he was taught in Croatian, then it can be added, but not now on the basis of ambiguous primary-source evidence. SpinningSpark 08:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the certificate literally says in German that there were two languages and religon as subjects, I don't know exactly what you mean about French. Who ever mentioned French? What great wrongs are you righting there in turn? :) On the matter of authoritative reliable sources, the matter of which languages were taught in schools in Croatia at the time is well researched because it was a political hot topic throughout that century. The anonymous edit that prompted this discussion was including a link to a history of the specific school in an archive for whatever reason, but there's a current article at the school site describing this at [11] which goes into some detail on that time period, and it's also general knowledge that 1861 was the year when Croatian started to be taught in Croatian schools alongside German and Latin, as a quick google found me half a dozen secondary sources discussing various aspects of that, unrelated to that specific school website. It should be noted that this discussion is amusingly enough entirely orthogonal to the Serbian vs. Croatian soap opera since the late 19th century was pretty much the pinnacle of Serbo-Croatian linguistic unity :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The posts were clearly struck because they were contributed by a banned user. Incidentally, in my browser a formatting problem caused far more of that page to be struck than was intended. I've fixed it now. SpinningSpark 08:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Just one last point, if the school really was dual language, then the certificate would be expected to be dual language. But it is not, it is in German throughout. SpinningSpark 09:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "school was dual language"? The only thing I said above was that it doesn't seem to be factually accurate that Tesla only learned German in school, I didn't make any sort of other claims like that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Joy, I know you were pointing out that he was not only taught German, but that is not the claim made in the edit that was reverted. The edit stated that "the classes were held in Croatian", replacing "the classes were held in German". That is, the claim being made is that teaching in the school was conducted in Croatian. That is what I was responding to. Being taught Croatian is very different from being taught in Croatian. It's on a par with being taught French. SpinningSpark 23:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's quite possible that e.g. science-related subjects were being taught in German indeed. I reviewed again what I had found earlier, and will note these sentences at the Gymnasium's current history page:

Školske godine 1852./53. u sva četiri razreda upisalo se samo 36 učenika. [...] Ukidanjem Bachova apsolutizma hrvatske školske vlasti naredile su da se odmah uklone učitelji koji nisu znali hrvatski jezik i da se umjesto razredne organizira predmetna nastava.

translated: In the school year of 1852/53, only 36 pupils enrolled in all four classes. [...] With the end of Bach's absolutism, Croatian school authorities ordered the immediate removal of teachers who could not speak Croatian and that the classes were organized by subject instead of by class.

So, this primary source is telling us that this school was made very explicitly not monolingual German before Tesla was even born. In addition to that, there's historically been a fair bit of chatter about how Martin Sekulić was the science teacher in the school whose efforts at the time were likely an influence on science students such as Tesla. I think we would benefit from a secondary source with more than a cursory mention of the topic here. It seems like this part of the biography is a bit heavy on random factoids but a bit light on actual meaning. For example, it would be nice to inform the readers if e.g. Tesla benefited from his knowledge of German so that he could later go to study in Graz, or maybe to read relevant German-language scientific papers, or something of the sort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that quite verifies the claim, at least not directly. As you say, a secondary source is needed. We can't be sure that the primary source is not injecting some kind of bias, especially in that part of the world. SpinningSpark 16:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

If primary source was injecting some kind of bias it wouldn't state in the next section that the sister school in close by city continued using German as primary language until 1868 even though Croatian education board ordered Karlovac Gymnasium that all teachers not speaking Croatian to be removed back in 1859. In any case - this is the primary source, not sure what's the issue here?Slaven0 (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that it is a primary source from 1852 (before Tesla was even born), and any link with this article is a textbook case of original interpretation (which is explicitly prohibited, for good reasons, by WP:NOR). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"So, this primary source" is the point at which I stopped reading. WP:NOR explicitly prohibits interpretation of primary sources. Since this source does not mention Tesla, and is from quite a few years before him, any inclusion of it would also be WP:SYNTH (even if it were not a primary source). The only acceptable use, on Wikipedia, of primary sources, is for undisputed statements which are obvious to anybody reading the source (for ex., using a letter written by Tesla to support "Tesla wrote a letter to X, in which he ..."), and which usually should also be put in context with secondary sources (since not all primary sources are relevant for an encyclopedic summary, so of course only those that get explicit mention as being noteworthy or particularly important in secondary sources should be used). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I can't say much other than that you stopped reading way too early, as because the sentence is currently cited to a book attributed literally to the topic of the article itself. *facepalm* Thankfully, it's also cited to a 2021 book by Stephen Budiansky, but its title indicates it's about Kurt Gödel? And the quote we have appears not to go into any amount of detail? I'd have to read more context to actually be comfortable with saying that we've honored the spirit and letter of our verifiability policy here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joy: Hi Joy, I was the one making the "suspicious edit" and don't see anything suspicious about it except for the fact that it was reverted the minute I made it. How does one check if the edit is good or not in one minute? Especially since language was not the only thing changed. Also, subsequent discussion on my talk page was just abandoned by RandomCanadian although(I believe) I made some sound arguments. Does anyone care to comment on that? Especially since I see here that issue brought up here by RandomCanadian concerning source used is different from the issue he had with it on my talk page and which was debunked there. In any case, I would like to add again my other edits - replacement of Military Frontier with Croatian Military Frontier since that's the one Tesla lived in, and addition of "modern day Croatia" to the beginning of the article as it appears in other places in the article as well. Slaven0 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason I did not rebut your arguments on your talk page was because 1) I didn't notice them and 2) your comment doesn't address my concerns (you replaced sources that you objected to because their authors were "Serbian" [from the Nikola Tesla Museum, which at least is a specialist resource.]; with sources whose authors were "Croatian" [the school's website, ...] - the cognitive dissonance required to find the first objectionable on neutrality grounds, and then replace it with the second, is beyond me. As for "Born and raised in the Austrian Empire", adding "(modern-day Croatia)" would be inaccurate, as the rest of the sentence clarifies: "Tesla studied engineering and physics in the 1870s without receiving a degree" - this was in Graz, which, however you cut it up, is not in Croatia, modern/historic/military frontier/whatever. As for adding "Croatian" in front of "Military Frontier" in the following sentence: Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia), that would be redundant writing, as "Croatia" is already present in the sentence (thus making no ambiguity possible). You could argue for changing the target of the piped link, which would make sense in this case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's strange, you noticed all my other replies until the one that debunks your claim of "talking about itself"... In the edit summary I wrote this: "added "modern day Croatia"(important info for people wishing to visit his birthplace) and corrected mistakes in the "early years" section(please double check actual historical data before using Serbian authors as reference). After abolishment of Bach's absolutism in 1860 Croatian was used in schools(as described in the short history of Tesla's high school)". I specifically explain the historical context of the change and just make a passing reference that historical data should be checked before using Serbian authors as reference. Why? Because we had a war in which that area was occupied by the Serbs based on a Serbian claim it's Serbian. But anyway, if Croatian sources are questionable, then Serbian are even more so since it's not the Croatians claiming that a person born, raised and educated in Serbia is a Croatian-American, but vice versa. True or not? If we were to follow that logic then Ivo Andrić would be described as Croatian author, and Ayn Rand could be Israeli-American one. Mind you, I'm not discussing Tesla's ethnicity or nationality here, I'm just saying Serbian authors are a questionable source, and if one of the oldest Croatian public institution talking about it's history(not Nikola Tesla) is considered questionable source then all of those references by any of the Croatian or Serbian sources should be erased. As for Military Frontier... (for the 4th time) "modern day Croatia" and "Croatian Military Frontier" are two separate, not interconnected statements and pieces of information. Military Frontier consisted of: Croatian Military Frontier(now Croatia), Slavonian Military Frontier(now Croatia) and Banat Military Frontier(now Serbia, Hungary and Romania). Nikola Tesla was born, raised and educated in Croatian Military Frontier. As for what you said above - that a sentence saying where someone is born and raised(Smiljan&Karlovac, Croatia) is clarified by the sentence where someone went to university(Graz, Austria), well, I'm just mind boggled right now.... Slaven0 (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Slaven0: The issue with primary sources is that Wikipedia content cannot be based on them, we require secondary sources, see WP:PSTS. Also Wikipedia editors are not allowed to draw conclusions from sources, like what languages Tesla studied in from a document from his school; this is called WP:SYNTHESIS. Also Tesla's nationality and ethnicity is a very sensitive issue on this article, and discussion of it is not allowed on this page, due to endless disruptive arguments by Serb and Croat nationalists. Any discussion of these subjects must be conducted on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, not here, se the BIG RED BANNER at the top of this page. You need to get prior consensus before any change to the ethnicity or nationality wording. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I made no such change. As for sources... Wikipedia also requires for the sources not to be questionable. Check my reply to RandomCanadian above this one regarding that. Slaven0 (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

So sources from Serbian authors are questionable but sources from Croatian authors are not? As I said, I can't figure out how you get to justify that much cognitive dissonance; but it confirms what Chet said, that this is really just the usual nationalistic stuff which goes on the subpage. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

??? Did you read anything I wrote? Slaven0 (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable source in your post, and the only claim that did not need a reliable source was the one where you discuss the questionability of sources based on author's nationality (which is a matter of sourcing and not of content). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit I made contained several changes and the only one anyone except you questions is the language one. For language change I provided two sources. First source, the history book that talks about time following Bach's Absolutism period and introduction of Croatian language as primary language in schools you discounted as "me replacing Serbian author with Croatian one" without you checking the historical timeline I actually pointed to in summary. Second source, Gymnasium's history page you discounted as "talking about itself"(which is a false classification) and I don't think it can be classified as primary source as well(argument others pointed out). You did this only after I questioned possibility of you checking the edits in 30 seconds that passed between my edit and your reversal, which is basically vandalism. In any case, if none of you accept references I provided then language should remain an open question, but rest of the changes I should be allowed to make. Slaven0 (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND - being quick to judge, when one knows what to look for, is certainly easy to explain. Your other changes are still verbose and unnecessary. The rest of your argument is still WP:SYNTH ("checking the historical timeline"). I'm done here. If you have further questions about the school's website, or you dispute my assessment of it as "not a good source for controversial stuff", then the proper venue is WP:RSN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If you knew what to look for it wouldn't take you 4 days of changing (wrong)reasons for your reversal, would it? As I said I am not going to push for change of language, but the rest of my changes make the article more accurate and informative which is in line with Wikipedia purpose and you failed to make any sense whatsoever with your explanations why they are unnecessary. As I said, Military Frontier is an area that comprises of 4 different countries and consisted of 3 different parts - fact you did not know about or even bothered to check after I pointed it out to you. Also, fact that Tesla was born on the territory of modern day Croatia is something already accepted in this article so obviously you're the only admin who considers it unnecessary.Slaven0 (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What I consider it is redundant, specifically because it is already pointed out multiple times. As for the (fundamentally wrong) rest, I have no further interest with engaging with you, so I'll kindly abscond without further commentary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Make up your mind already, is it "redundant" or "inaccurate" like you previously stated:"As for "Born and raised in the Austrian Empire", adding "(modern-day Croatia)" would be inaccurate, as the rest of the sentence clarifies: "Tesla studied engineering and physics in the 1870s without receiving a degree"??? In which parallel universe does a statement where someone went to university clarifies where he was born and raised?? You're making less sense with each comment because now even the FACT that Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier is ″fundamentally wrong". What's fundamentally wrong about it? Slaven0 (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hyperlink Region

Hello, I recently changed the hyperlinks for Austrian Empire that link directly to the Empire to link to the region in the Empire that he was born in. Ex: Austrian Empire.

This was reverted, I did so because in the Wikipedia Manual for Linking it states this:

For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. For example, avoid Buffalo, New York or Sydney, New South Wales; instead use Buffalo, New York or Sydney, New South Wales.

I thought this applied to the part of the articlce that says Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia)....

Was I wrong to do so? I thought it followed the style that Wikipedia is in but I must be wrong. Just curious as to why I was. ProperAndPolite (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

There's also WP:SURPRISE. A reader clicking on "Austrian Empire" will expect to arrive at a page about said empire, or at the very least one which contains a readily associable element (so, for example, linking [[French Fifth Republic|France]] - in a context where the distinction is relevant - would be logical. Linking [[Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)|Austrian Empire]], not quite so). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for correcting me. I still think it might be beneficial to include information or a hyperlink about Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) since that is the area he was born in. I will perhaps brainstorm a way to implement that and propose it here. ProperAndPolite (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It already links to Military Frontier (which is even more precise than "Kingdom of Croatia") in the first sentence of the biography section. I don't see what would be gained by adding a less-precise link. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Right, I see what you mean, it wouldn't make sense to be less-precise when we can be more precise. How about we add a hyperlink to Croatian Military Frontier somewhere as well then? ProperAndPolite (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

GA?

This was listed in 2006, and has since seen a fair bit of change. There's a lot of sentences that are unreferenced, though, so I'm not sure it meets WP:GACR. Does anyone care to fix it up, or should we put it up for WP:GAR? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It was actually only a GA for two years and then got de-listed (for good reason). It went back to GA after 2017 after a major revamp/review[12]. There have not been allot of changes since then although I have been running into a bit of (sometimes contradictory) fanboy/boilerplate mythology[13]. Don't know if there is a general change of opinion on the article since 2017, but could always be looked at. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I must have misread the list of milestones. Regardless, the diff from the GA in 2017 still seems quite substantial. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

typo

Hello, there is a small typo which I cannot correct, the article being protected. In the following phrase :

Tesla may have inadvertently captured an X-ray image—predating, by a few weeks, Wilhelm Röntgen's December 1895 announcement of the discovery of X-rays when he tried to photograph Mark Twain illuminated by a Geissler tube, an earlier type of gas discharge tube. The only thing captured in the image was the metal locking screw on the camera lens.[131]

between X-rays and when, a hyphen should be added, like this:

Tesla may have inadvertently captured an X-ray image — predating, by a few weeks, Wilhelm Röntgen's December 1895 announcement of the discovery of X-rays — when he tried to photograph Mark Twain illuminated by a Geissler tube, an earlier type of gas discharge tube. The only thing captured in the image was the metal locking screw on the camera lens.[131] 194.39.218.10 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads-up! Wham2001 (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Antagonism Towards Einstein

Just watched a video from an academic who claimed that the antagonism towards Einstein was more "open" than what this Article seems to indicate. One, he called Einstein a "fuzzy-haired crackpot" and two he wrote a (presumably negative) poem about Einstein. Came here to see if the text of the poem was included in this Article. The Lede says Tesla "wrote poems" but that's it. Occurs to me that the Article would be dramatically "punched up" if these two interesting facts could be verified, and then included. Going to look for sources to find out if they actually happened, but posting this for posterity in case I fail. Maybe someone else knows this, has a source, and could include this interesting aspect of Tesla.107.195.106.201 (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nsalluce.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

Add the following:

In Ontario, Canada, the provincial legislature proclaimed July 10th as an annual recognition of his birth. Source: 99.240.117.4 (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Request to make edits

Please please I will beg please open edit so we can type other information about Nikola Tesla. I will beg 😭 2409:4071:E8E:AE29:A2F5:7F9F:FBA9:F04E (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected and can only be edited by users with Wikipedia accounts that are over 4 days old or have 10 edits. You can sign up for an account here

If you give the exact text in the article you want to change, and the exact text of the information you want to add below, with reliable sources supporting it, an editor will evaluate it and add it if they feel it is a good addition

--Chetvorno^TALK 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2022

Nikola Tesla was Croatian inventor, not Serbian Dorian Mihajlovic (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox death place

An edit summary pointed me to the instructions of Template:Infobox person, saying Omit unnecessary or redundant details. New York City, U.S. Yet, this omits the useful detail that it was in Manhattan as opposed to the other five boroughs. Also, MOS:OVERLINK, which is policy, says don't link NYC because it's a common term. Too common to list without the borough, IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Template instructions are "city"... which Manhattan is not.. Also changing the location description is not fixing overlinking. Per OVERLINK, New York City is not in a context where it would already be clear. Should also be noted that MOS are not policy - minor point. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A guideline, yes, I misspoke. Unlinking NYC fixes overlinking. NYC is so known that there is no context where it should be linked. Manhattan is larger population-wise than all other cities except for LA, Chicago, and Houston. This "city, state" guidance, which is not at the level of a Wikipedia guideline, does not fit for NYC. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

"Omit unnecessary or redundant details" should be considered jointly with the advice of Wikipedia:The Pope is Catholic (and then the example of Paris is also enlightening). Anyways, listing in which country it is shouldn't be controversial, even if it's obvious, and even if the reader knows it, and it is also commonly done almost on every biography, so this is a case where they template description gives bad (or at least incomplete) advice. Agree with Mobushgu that given the size of New York, being more specific probably doesn't hurt in this case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that we should not overlink in the body of the text, because for things that most people are familiar with, there really is no need for links and it creates a better reading environment. However, in the template, I think links should be made. The template is where the information is gathered, and many people want to get the main information directly here, and for those who don't know NYC, they can access the relevant pages more easily and directly. But, this topic has so many implications that this is just my opinion.
• I agree with New York City or New York, it is easy to understand for Americans and non-Americans alike. MoJieCPD (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  The fact is that those who do want more information can just follow the very logical link chain Manhattan -> New York (the link is literally in the very first sentence). This would also be consistent with established practice as described by WP:SOB; For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. For example, avoid Buffalo, New York, United States or Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; instead use Buffalo, New York, United States or Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like "New York City, U.S." is where we are at (at least there is no consensus to change it). Actually we should be at "New York City, New York, U.S." (one previous edit) but I don't see anyone there. Please note: MOS:OVERLINK doesn't extend to infoboxes (see MOS:REPEATLINK, next section). "New York City, U.S." falls under "helpful for readers" and "New York City" is going to be more commonly known for the same general readers than "Manhattan". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

OVERLINK applies everywhere, and REPEATLINK deals specifically with the issue of the same link being repeated within an article (which is sometimes acceptable), not the issue of multiple different consecutive links. WP:SOB does not have any such provision limiting its scope (not that I care for legalistic interpretations of which guideline to apply), and in fact gives very much as an example (quoted above) the kind of thing that you'd usually see in an infobox... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the argument of not linking New York City because it's "so known to everyone", but then linking Belgrade and Serbia just below, is amerocentric. Citing MOS:REPEATLINK: "it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes". Why is there a discussion on this anyway, why can't there be a link to all places in the infobox? Not every reader, of many from Serbia and neighbouring places, is from the West and necessarily knows about NYC. -Vipz (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with. MoJieCPD (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I absolutely agree its americentric and should be adjusted accordingly. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

164.116.126.161 (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

can i edit

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Schools named after N.Tesla

There are a lot of schools I know of that are named after N.Tesla in Serbia. I would guess that there must be a number of schools like this in Croatia as well as other former Yugoslav republics, since N.T. was one of our (yugo?) greatest scientists. Should we list all of these? Also, Belgrade international airport is named after Nikola Tesla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.194.66 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

In general, such entries need to be notable, i.e. have their own Wikipedia article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

And this article already has far too many non-notable items in the Things named after Tesla section. Streets and intersection names? It needs to be cut way back. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic article worth reading

This was a fantastic article that pays a tribute to a legend. I very much enjoyed reading it. I made a few improvements to text and layout. For the most part I do not see what more can be done to improve it.

ICE77 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Celibacy / virginity

@Vipz: The article itself states (and is sourced): "Tesla was a lifelong bachelor, who had once explained that his chastity was very helpful to his scientific abilities." The BBC says he was celibate.[14] So Category:Reputed virgins is appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Tesla's family roots?

I removed this section to talk because it seems to be very WP:OFFTOPIC (and its a little plagiarized). Wikipedia biographies just don't seem to go into detail much beyond parents so my first though was that this should be boiled down but (once you get rid of the aunts and uncles) it gets into WP:PROPORTION problems re: what are we trying to say and is it verifiable? eg. "Tesla came from a military family" or "had a military background"? ... well no, Tesla's father was non-military, maybe even an objector. Even though this may be verifiable and impartial, it seems disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic and I can really see no reason for a detailed description in a biography that has nothing to do with the subjects notability. Anyway, kicked it here to talk for discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, not notable. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

Change:

There was even a "war of currents" propaganda campaign going on with Edison Electric trying to claim their direct current system was better and safer

to:

There was even a "war of currents" propaganda campaign going on with Edison Electric claiming their direct current system was better and safer Rundleson Gubberts (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Edison's claims of the superiority of direct current were largely erroneous, but the word 'claim' does not imply truth.  Done --Chetvorno^TALK 22:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

In Text it says Eastern Orthodox Church which is not accurate

While on the stamp in his baptism document it states Serbian Orthodox Church.. to which clergy his father belonged.. could that please be corrected.. as Eastern Orthodox is pretty generic 173.66.204.212 (talk) 04:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

The current wording was discussed and decided by an RfC 4 August 2014. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Bro that decision was so weird, you should have kept it as Eastern Orthodox Church, cos he was a preacher, not an inventor.

§ᚡᚥᚦᐄᑏᑌᑚ@ 2400:EC40:1019:F700:14:E8DB:6085:CDA1 (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

73.128.27.166 (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla did not contribute to AC he is the founder of AC get it right!

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Tesla was not the founder (inventor) of AC. From Alternating_current#History we have Hippolyte Pixii in 1832. Tesla then later expanded the field massively (esp his induction motor in 1987 based on principles he thought of in 1982).  Stepho  talk  23:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

73.128.27.166 The repeated claim that Tesla "founded" AC power transmission really shows a lazy unwillingness to consult any reliable sources. A prerequisite for AC power was the alternating current generator, invented by Hippolyte Pixii and practical versions invented by Lord Kelvin and Sebastian Ferranti. The real founders of AC power were the inventors of the modern power transformer, Károly Zipernowsky, Ottó Bláthy and Miksa Déri. The only thing Tesla can be given credit for is multiphase power transmission and the induction motor. Tesla fanboy sites are not a good place to get your information. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

“Personal life and character” section, “Relationships” subsection, paragraph 3:

Change “Tesla later wrote an article titled ‘Man's Greatest Achievenment’” to “Tesla later wrote an article titled ‘Man's Greatest Achievement’”

TLDR: “Achievement” is spelled wrong in the published version copied above. 100.19.74.193 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should Tesla’s remarks be judged as pseudoscience?

According to the references in the section Nikola_Tesla#On_experimental_and_theoretical_physics, and according to current definitions of science and pseudoscience, this person should be judged as a pseudoscientific physicists.

This is also related to page Theoretical_physics#Examples_2. 王韋中 (talk) 08:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Tesla's views on atoms and relativity certainly differ from the view common in 2023. But remember that these were ideas on the cutting edge of science for his day, were not always believed by many other scientists and took a few decades for consensus to form after proof by experimentation over a long period. Contrast this to Isaac Newton, who believed that it was possible to turn lead into gold - see Isaac Newton#Alchemy. Don't be too hasty to judge them by today's standards.  Stepho  talk  10:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be fine if there were no sufficient experiments. However, in fact, both subatomic particles and the theory of relativity had quite sufficient experiments at that time, but Tesla still insisted on his own opinion. This cannot be used as a defense. Isaac Newton in his later years was certainly a pseudoscientist. Isaac Newton's early identity as a scientist does not conflict with his later identity as a pseudoscientist. 王韋中 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Do any sources refer to him as engaging in pseudoscience? If not, then saying so is WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to remind you of the source of reference for Nikola_Tesla#On_experimental_and_theoretical_physics.

"http://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/articles-interviews/tesla-79-promises-to-transmit-force-new-york-times-july-11-1935/"

He claimed that his own experiments measured cosmic rays from Arcturus traveling at fifty times the speed of light.

He said the subjects perfection by him of "an apparatus by which mechanical energy can be transmitted to any part of the terrestrial globe."

He said it will furnish a certain divining rod for locating ore deposits of any kind under the surface of the earth.

Aren’t these pseudosciences?

Please explain.王韋中 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring this into the article without waiting for a discussion has resulted in a 60 hour block for violating WP:3RR. I am personally not knowledgeable of the technology, just the wiki policies like WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You are evading the problem. 118.169.8.104 (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You are literally evading the block. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What about reference "http://teslaresearch.jimdofree.com/articles-interviews/tesla-79-promises-to-transmit-force-new-york-times-july-11-1935/"?

"an apparatus by which mechanical energy can be transmitted to any part of the terrestrial globe"

"furnish a certain divining rod for locating ore deposits of any kind under the surface of the earth"

Aren’t these pseudosciences? 118.169.8.104 (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Death ray vs Teleforce

Both are listed as his intentions, but to my knowledge, Tesla only proposed a teleforce. 2604:F880:0:A2:BC32:70D1:9324:6AFB (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per linked article, same thing, Death ray deleted. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

 – Vanjagenije (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Grammar correction needed

He then gaining practical experience in the early 1880s

gained not gaining Nogoodkris (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Anybody is allowed to edit any article. We encourage you to make the fix.  Stepho  talk  03:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: Unfortunately, your first statement is not always true, because this article is semi-protected and the requesting editor has only 6 edits. In any case, I've made the fix. Left guide (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Point taken.  Stepho  talk  04:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Anything I could have done to facilitate the change? Smooth the process? Nogoodkris (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

All good. Once you have some more edits on normal articles then the system will let you edit all articles.  Stepho  talk  21:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

Nikola Tesla was expelled from college, because his ideas were not supported by the professors of the college. 2406:B400:72:8045:284B:449A:57E7:1A92 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe not. You need supporting references. The article already states that in his early college years 'received a letter of commendation from the dean of the technical faculty to his father, which stated, "Your son is a star of first rank."' And the article already has one plausible answer (with a reference) of gambling and womanising. Also common to geniuses is that they get bored with the standard course study, get more motivated by other studies and fail the courses by not handing in the required work.  Stepho  talk  03:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Austrian Empire was in Serbia?

Please take your concerns to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 11:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

top of the talk page notices

We're up to 3 notices essentially about the same subject. As the requests despite them have continued, their extra volume has probably been ineffective. Whoever is going to heed these warnings doesn't need it to be repeated. Whoever is not, will not care for the repetition either. Does anyone mind if we merge these into a single notice? --Joy (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done—Alalch E. 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I also moved it down for the same reason. If someone ignores the glaring red color, it doesn't matter if it sticks out like that or not. --Joy (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. —Alalch E. 17:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. That really cleans up the page. Alalch E., hope you don't mind, I tweaked the wording a little. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Thanks. —Alalch E. 17:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)