Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

Please add Croatian (before or after Serbian) inventor, because he was partly Croatian. We all know his quote "Ponosim se srpskim rodom i hrvatskom domovinom" translated to English "I am proud with my Serbian origin (culture) and my Croatian homeland (country)" . Also he never lived in Serbia, He grow up in Croatia and later went to America. Regards, Source: https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datoteka:Telegram_Tesla_Macek_0108.JPG https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedija:Nacionalno_pripisivanje Korisnik 1112 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done - Perennial request that consensus has always rejected. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just want to mention that the scientist formulation should change when the discussion about Tesla's nationality is resolved. Tesla was Croatian-Hungarian citizen of Croatian-Slavonian local citizenship. Which of these two should be included in the discussed formulation should be decided. I invite everyone to take part in the above discussion. Asdisis (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
• There was no Croatian-Hungarian citizenship ever. Tesla was born in the Militärgrenz, an Austrian Empire province, therefore, he was, by his birth time and place, a citizen of the Austrian Empire. Later, after 1867., it is possible to talk only about Austro-Hungarian citizenship. Learn more from: Utjesenovich-Ostrozinski, O.M. Die Militärgrenz-Frage und der osterreichisch- ungarische constitutionalismus / O.M. Utjesenovich-Ostrozinski .— 2. Aufl. — : Geitler, 1869 .— Lang: ger --72.66.12.17 (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the above discussion and present your sources. I'm sorry but I can't read sources on German. One thing is sure, there was no Austro-Hungarian citizenship and you are the first one who claims that there is, so you should definitely present sources. I'm not against sources on other languages, but if you intend to use them, it would be helpful if you could quote the concrete statement, like I did in the above discussion.Asdisis (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• • When I wrote 'Austro-Hungarian citizenship' I meant Austrian or Hungarian citizenship. No need for any discussion. All attempts to croatize Tesla shall be rejected without any discussion. Certainly, Tesla was not Croatian-Hungarian citizen of Croatian-Slavonian local citizenship, for such citizenship never existed. Tesla's patent files, his US immigration records are showing that Tesla was an Austrian Empire citizen.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please join the above discussion with your sources. Asdisis (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• The 'quote' "Ponosim se srpskim rodom i hrvatskom domovinom" is a forgery coming into political propaganda after the Macek's death. Macek never ever mentioned any telegram sent to or received from Tesla.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I personally haven't seen and secondary sources that claim that. You should back up your claim with secondary sources. Anyways, Tesla himself said that he was born in Croatia in the letter he himself sent to New York Times. One thing is sure, Tesla thought of himself as a Serb, and thought that Croatia was his homeland. About the statement, it can be a forgery, but other Tesla's statements confirm that he thought that way, regardless of this statement. Asdisis (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Please, stop annoying us with nonsense. (I'm just repeating a claim written earlier.)--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just be very careful with your statements, regardless of your explanation, "Austro-Hungarian citizenship" not ever can be meant Austrian or Hungarian, since it is a common mistake by mostly the Anglo-Saxons. If you call something Austro-Hungarian, it is meant on the joint institutions or the Monarchy itself. So, pay high attention to the terminology, always use in similar case "Austrian or Hungarian", but never "Austro-Hungarian", it will be of course mistaken. If you have any source Croatian citizenship not existed for sure, please present it, the issue is still not resolved.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

• @KIENGIR: No matter what you wrote above, a non-existent notion (Croatian citizenship) does not need any source to be proven non-existent.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course it matters, be precise or do nothing. You consider it non-existent, I read all arguments pro and contra, it is still not totally clear. Soon we should ask really a Croatia Government Official (KIENGIR (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

Company link

please change ((Tesla (company)|Tesla)) to ((Tesla (Czechoslovak company)|Tesla))

•  Done Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Forgeries and misinterpretation of history on this talk page

I see that some Croats are talking about Croatia as something more than a (Hungarian) province within Austria-Hungary. Croatian citizenship!! Moreover, the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia - regardless what we see in the Tesla's pasport - was just a part of wishful thinking. For more details see

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary by A. J. P. Taylor

Page 209: In October, 1905 - at the very moment when Fejervary announced the policy of universal suffrage - Croat liberals met Croat representatives from Istria and Dalmatia at Rijeka (Fiume). The "Fiume resolutions" demanded the reunion of Dalmatia with Croatia and agreed to support Magyar opposition in return for fairer treatment of the Croats.

...

The "Fiume resolutions" did not threaten the existence of the Habsburg Monarchy, even by the most remote implication; they asked only for national freedoms enjoyed by most peoples of Austria, and even by the Croats in Istria and Dalmatia. The only "corporate" demand was not for a South Slav state, nor even for South Slav unity within the Empire: it merely asked for a Croatia enlarged by the reunion of Dalmatia, a demand which the Croats had made in 1867 and even before.

Page 269: The Croats claimed that Dalmatia belonged to the Croatian Crown and seats were reserved for the Dalmatian representatives in the Croatian Diet; in reality Dalmatia was part of constitutional Austria and was represented in the Reichsrat.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion about citizenship is opened above and you can join it with your sources. About the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, I do not think this is the place to discuss Croatia's position within Austro-Hungary. There is a separate article ( here Kingdom_of_Croatia-Slavonia), and you can start a discussion there. I will just state that the name "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia" was officially used, as we can see it stated on Tesla's passport, so your claim that "regardless what we see in the Tesla's pasport - was just a part of wishful thinking" if false. However, let's leave that to the separate discussion on the talk page of Kingdom_of_Croatia-Slavonia. Also, since I think your statement that "...some Croats are talking about Croatia..." is directed to me, I wish to state that I haven't stated my nationality, or ethnicity, and that I mind being "accused" of being a Croat, as if that is something wrong with that. The context of that statement is an ad-hominem attack, since I haven't stated my nationality, so please sustain yourself from ad-hominem attacks. Asdisis (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• • This user does not understand the basic notions he tried to elaborate. Tesla, by his birth was an Austrian citizen. All internal constitutional changes in Austria and later, Austria-Hungary, did not change his citizenship status ever. Particularly, abolishment of the Militaergrenz and its inclusion into Croatia, which was a Hungarian province, has nothing to do nor ever changed a citizenship status of any Austrian citizens in the Austro-Hungarian Empire later.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

My sources directly disprove your claims which are currently unfounded. In a good faith I suggest you find sources to confirm your claims. Asdisis (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• • • Your sources are just showing that you do not understand the basic notions you tried to elaborate.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah? Well, you know, that's just like, a, your opinion man. Asdisis (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that citizenship status could not be ever changed. I see impossible lands returned to Hungary with personal union would maintain Austrian citizenship in the future. It is impossible. However, really, a Official Croatian Military History institue should be asked, or national archives should be searched to really know what was that time in Croatia-Slavonia. Those sources not any case could be doubted. Any country decides on his own about citizenship (KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

All you show here is ignorance which does not qualify you to say anything. Tesla was by his birth an Austrian citizen. No proof that he ever was naturalized as a Hungarian, for only a documented naturalization of a person can be a proof of a changed citizenship. Croatian citizenship came into existence in 1992.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. See Wikipedia policy WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Naturalization as a process was not done as you suggest. I presented a whole source that deals with the question of naturalization. I agree, there isn't any evidence of Tesla went trough process of naturalization. However the Croatian-Hungarian citizenship was presumed for all people living in the lands of Hungarian crown. No one went trough the process of naturalization. From 1867 they were presumed to be Croatian-Hungarian citizens. I will include more quotes from the sources I presented that deal with that question extensively. Asdisis (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

->72.66.12.17, Ignorance? Qualification? :) You have no chance to compete, but let's count how many non-valid things you stated. Bob has right, your personal attacks has no sense, everyone can read who was ignorant or not. I never said he was naturalized Hungarian, moreover I stated totally the opposite. Do not teach me about Croatian citizenship, anyway you did not tell me anything new.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC))

Undeniable fact about Tesla's citizenship

From https://www.google.com/patents/US382279?dq=Nikola+Tesla&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DE5rVeTJE435yQSU4oOYAQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ

UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

NIKOLA TESLA, OF NEW YORK, N. Y., ASSIGNOR OF ONEHALF TO CHARLES F. PEOK, OF ENGLEWOOD, NEW JERSEY.

ELECTRO-MAGNETIC MOTOR.

SPECIFICATION forming part of Letters Patent No. 3232.279. dated May 1, 1888.

Application filed November 30, 1887. Serial No. 256,561. (No model.)

To all whom it may concern:

Be it known that I, NIKOLA TESLA, a subject of the Emperor of Austria, from Smiljan, Lika, border country of Austria-Hungary, now residing at New York, in the county and State of New York, have invented certain new and useful Improvements in Electrolriagnetic Motors, of which the following is a specification, reference being had to the drawings accompanying and forming a part of the same.

--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you join the above discussion, instead of creating all this new discussions. Unfortunately , US documents can not help us in our discussion since all people from Austro-Hungary were viewed by USA as Austrian citizens. That is what the sources tell us. Furthermore, this statement supports my sources. All people in Austria-Hungary were subjects of the emperor. Read the sources I presented, especially the quotations I drew from them. Asdisis (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your sources are not even sources. Even worse, none of them stated that Tesla was a Croatian Ban subject. So, what are you talking about?--72.66.12.17 (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I do not have further to answer to your personal claims that my sources are not credible. You had not presented a single valid argument regarding that matter. The claim that my sources do not talk specifically of Tesla stands, and thus I had constructed a base claim. Not only that but I intend to present further sources that tell how citizenship was determined. Also the source that says "According to the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise, the legislation on acquisition and loss of citizenship was common for all the lands of the Hungarian Crown while their execution was decentralized so the Croatian-Slavonian Ban had full executive powers in the matters of national citizenship" tells exactly that Tesla and every other Croatian-Hungarian citizen was a subject of Croatain Ban.Asdisis (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• • I told you that you do not understand what are you reading and trying to interpret. The " acquisition and loss of citizenship " is not applicable to an Austrian citizen even if he lived in Hungary. Croatia was just one of the Hungarian provinces. Tesla did not get his Austrian citizenship from Croatian Ban nor lost his Austrian citizenship ever.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not interpreting anything, you are dong that. The statement "The " acquisition and loss of citizenship " is not applicable to an Austrian citizen even if he lived in Hungary." isn't even your personal interpretation, but your made up claim. If you find a source that tells exactly that, then present it. Until then I do not see how your unfounded claims can have any weight to the presented sources. Asdisis (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the above is not my personal interpretation. It comes from Utjesenovich-Ostrozinski, O.M. Die Militärgrenz-Frage und der osterreichisch- ungarische constitutionalismus / O.M. Utjesenovich-Ostrozinski .— 2. Aufl. — : Geitler, 1869. You have to read more and understand more. Focusing on a number of very nationalistic sources, even not completely understanding them, leads you nowhere. I'll repeat: there was no national Croatian citizenship, for Croatia was just a Hungarian province, not a state. I'm out.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the quotation and a page number. Also a link to the source would be helpful. You made up so many claims that I simply can not believe in your word. I agree that there was no Croatian citizenship, neither I argued that there was. There was only one common national citizenship in all lands of Hungarian crown, called Hungarian in Hungary and Croatian-Hungarian outside Hungary. Also there existed a local Croatian-Slavonian citizenship. This is what the sources tell us. If you think that is wrong then ok. Present your sources. I think you went in a good way by stating that this source tells something, however a link to the content, and a page number and a quotation would be helpful. Again we can't just believe your word. Asdisis (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

72.66.12.17 -> "Croatia was just one of the Hungarian provinces." False, Hungary did not have "provinces". There was Kingdom of Hungary, and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and the personal union between them. Kingdom of Hungary regarded - as always in history - Croatia a state. Be more precise! (KIENGIR (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC))

This argument has been going on a long time, it fills the entire talk page. One side can end it by simply refusing to respond to the other side. Then the only person the other side has to argue with is himself.--Chetvorno^TALK 23:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis, you know that you have had my full support in the past and I support you now in regard to Tesla having local Croatian-Slavonian and/or Croatian-Hungarian citizenship, and you always present reliable sources. The anti-Croatia stance taken by the Serbian editors of this article is utterly disgusting. You are right, they just don't want to see the word 'Croatia' or 'Croatian' in the article. They are preventing the article from being truthful and encyclopedic and they should be ashamed of themselves. Michael Cambridge 00:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

• You do realize most of the people opposing are not Serbian, and probably don't give a toss about the petty nationalistic fight? Binksternet is pretty clearly American, for example. Oh, and it's an obvious lie to claim that everyone (or even anyone) is trying to censor Croatia from the article; that's blatantly not the case. I will continue to oppose any change to the status quo myself until we see reliable sources that are not being synthesized. This is yet to ever happen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not important who someone is, but only arguments and sources. I remember that user Director had tried to give himself some credibility by stating that he is Croatia and that we should believe him when he says something that is not supported by sources. I was strongly against that and I'm strongly against any ad-hominem attach. If someone is subjective, biased, or has a contempt I feel that should be stated and supported with arguments in the manner I did for FkpCascais. I would also like to state, based on the same principle that your statement that "Binksternet is pretty clearly American" would be subjective. I haven't looked who someone is not I had tried to use that in favor or against their case. That is a subjective thing to do. The fact that someone is American does not mean he is completely objective regarding this topic. Not that I'm saying anything about the mentioned used, but I'm talking in general. Asdisis (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis, I found another link that might be of some help. In the photo gallery there is a picture of what appears to be an excerpt from Nikola Tesla's bank account. When I put it through google translate it says- First Savings Bank of Croatia in Zagreb. At the bottom it says- Nikola Tesla unknown place of residence in America. Now surely Tesla would have had to have had some kind of Croatian citizenship in order to have a Croatian bank account at that time. Here is the link http://drzavno2012.pgsri.hr/zadatak1/zabok/galerija.html Worth investigating. Michael Cambridge 02:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Tesla had savings account in a bank in Zagreb. He must be Croatian then!!! Four generations in my family have savings account in UBS, that means we are all Swiss? I didn't even knew, I am yodeling already! FkpCascais (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC) PS: You claim not to speak Croatian, right? Can you tell me how do you use Google translate in a picture? I would like to know "Mr. Cambridge". FkpCascais (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Simply re-type the words into Google translate "Mr FkpCascais". I don't know what the law was when Tesla lived in Croatia but it could be possible that he needed to have some sort of Croatian citizenship or permit of residency to have a Croatian bank account. Perhaps that is something that Asdisis could research. Michael Cambridge 13:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

At the time of socialist Yugoslavia, you had to have local (Yugoslav) citizenship in order to have an account in some Yugoslav bank. But this is prior to that, either when Zagreb was within Austro-Hungary or within Kingdom of Yugoslavia (capitalism in both cases) when there were probably no restrictions of that kind in the banking system. FkpCascais (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Michael Cambridge thank you for this sources. I have looked for Tesla's naturalization papers and I couldn't find them anywhere(except ancestry.com where one needs to pay to see it). This is a great find. I have already investigated and proved that all people living in the lands of Hungarian crown outside Hungary had Croatian-Hungarian national citizenship and Croatian-Slavonian local citizenship. Notice the formulation "outside hungary". That is a claim that further supports my claim that Military zone was in the legal sense Croatia-Slavonia. I'm glad with this discussion, because I have set the direction to all objective people to investigate for sources. An objective person would agree that Tesla most certainly had mentioned citizenships, and participate in finding sources that would prove the claim according to wikipedia's rules. Also I proved one more important thing. If I find a source that says Tesla had those citizenships I mentioned no one can disprove those sources with the sources that Tesla had Austrian, or Hungarian citizenship. That is a great accomplish, since sources on this matter are obscure and even when they exist, they do not deal specifically with the question of Tesla's citizenship. This discussion made way so only one source is enough to prove my claim, of course if no sources that directly oppose that claim are presented. And I established that sources that mention Hungarian or Austrian citizenship do not oppose the sources that mention Croatian-Hungarian national citizenship. I also made a distinction in national and local citizenship. That is objectively a great accomplish. Also this discussion is a great experience for the discussion about Tesla's birthplace since I now can recognize original research. The claim that FkpCascais and many others used in the discussion about Tesla's birthplace was the Military zone was not Croatia, so Tesla could not be born in Croatia. I found now that that constitutes an original research, and this is great. That means I do not have to bother to investigate historical aspect Military zone and Croatia, because that would anyways be original research. I only have to do the same as in this discussion. Prove that sources that state Tesla was born in Austrian Empire do not negate that he was born in Croatia (Kingdom of Croatia). That is a claim that does not even have to be proved because I do not think that anyone will object that Kingdom of Croatia was part of Austrian empire. Also I'm glad that I can use people's own arguments in this discussion against them in the discussion about Tesla's birthplace. I will start that discussion after this RfC, within the next month. Asdisis (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Fact "A" (born in Austrian Empire Military Frontier) and fact "B" that the "Military zone (could be?) in the legal sense Croatia-Slavonia" is (as has been pointed out many times) WP:SYNTHESIS, A + B does not equal conclusion C (no matter what conclusion C is). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Most of the vast verbiage that has been wasted on this subject above is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. For the general claim the sources stand. We just need to find sources that will specify that claim to the individual person, Tesla in this case. The general claim brings the context and with the presence of the specific sources about Tesla the general claim is gives support to the specific claim. Imagine if the general claim says that all people in Austrain Empire had Austrain citizenship and we find sources that tell Tesla had Hungarian citizenship (for example). Then we would have inconsistent sources upon which we can't draw any conclusion. Is all sources, the general and the specific one say the same thing then they complement each other. I've studied logic and participated in many objective debates, and I haven't yet participated a debate as hard as this ones about Tesla here on wikipedia where it seems that too many people do not follow the common logic and common sense. I'm glad this arguments are documented and I look forward to study them in future. Also I have to mention one thing of utmost importance. The sources that deal with the general question of citizenship in Austro-Hungary must be used when evaluating a certain source. For instance in some source says Tesla had Austrian citizenship then we can not conclude anything from that, because we know from the sources that there existed Austrian citizenship common to all people living in Austro-Hungary, then 2 national citizenships Austrian and Hungarian(called Croatian-Hungarian in Croatia-Slavonia), and then local citizenships, for instance Croatian-Hungarian, Hungarian...I haven't gone so far to determine all local citizenships that existed. So the source stating just Austrian without any footnote or any further explanation can not be evaluated and nothing can be concluded upon it. We must find sources that deal exclusively on the question of Tesla's citizenship. So I think I accomplished something useful with my research. Asdisis (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

For once, we completely agree. This is an objective claim and I support such claims although your credibility is in my opinion long gone. Also your arguments from the previous discussion that Tesla was born in Military frontier(A) which was not part of Croatia(B) thus Tesla was not born in Croatia(A+B) constitute WP:SYNTHESIS. Now we have a problem, because that was the main argument in the previous discussion. Asdisis (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

When something is stated flat out in a reliable source it is not WP:SYNTHESIS. Whether it is right or wrong is another mater. In this case someone who is an equally reliable historian would have to write and publish an equally reliable source stating the opposite. We go from there in discussion, but you have to have that source first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are no much sources that deal with the question of Tesla's citizenship. I presented the ones I could find. If that isn't enough then be it. However I will demand that the present formulation is removed in the grounds that it is "stated flat out in a reliable source". Especially in this discussion continues in the same manner that everyone just opposes. I urge everyone to present sources of their own that will at least support the present formulation so the article does not contain a gap from Tesla's birthday to his naturalization by USA. I'm just presenting the sources I find, you may say anything you want about them. I may be wrong, but the claim that the present formulation has to be removed on the same grounds my sources are being rejected stands. So please let's stop fighting and present sources to resolve this question in the most objective way. If this question can not be resolved then by Chillum's suggestion, we will leave a gap. Asdisis (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis, for this I made an answer above (it is in the is it disruption? section). I have to repeat here: "For instance in some source says Tesla had Austrian citizenship then we can not conclude anything from that, because we know from the sources that there existed Austrian citizenship common to all people living in Austro-Hungary, then 2 national citizenships Austrian and Hungarian(called Croatian-Hungarian in Croatia-Slavonia), and then local citizenships, for instance Croatian-Hungarian, Hungarian.." -> the claim for a common Austrian citizenship to all people living in Austria-Hungary is false. See my arguments as mentioned above. It is your suggestion, but not any legal original document were presented about this, where all the subjects are mentioned. Please do not state it as fact, until proven - although I firmly think this to be impossible. More details in the "disruption" section.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC))

I can not present original documents. It's against Wikipedia's rules. I presented secondary sources that confirm my claim. Asdisis (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we misunderstand each other regarding original research, and original documents. I aswered above why your two secondary source cannot confirm your claim. So I meant, if we'll have a source that directly quotes from the original documents as it written and we have the full sentence and text, then we can see what is proves or not. Anyway, citing from an original document cannot harm any Wikipedia rule, since it is often used. We cannot judge this by two, a little bit obscure half-sentences. I hope you agree with that.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC))

Yes, but the sources I presented deal specifically ans extensively with the question of nationality. I presented several quotes not just one, and I noted to footnote to the original documents that is the ground to make those claim. Remember that I mentioned the law and the exact date it was established. The source then interprets that law and I quoted on it. You interpreted the law by yourself while I presented a source that interprets the law. You think the source interprets the law in the wrong way, but that is again original research. I'm moving this discussion to the my talk page, and If we come up with a conclusion or secondary sources we can present them here. Asdisis (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

Hi, I want to recommend my site about Nikola Tesla's life and work to the External links section: Nikola Tesla's life and work: http://www.teslabook.fw.hu/nikola%20tesla_2015_en.htm Warm regards: Istvan Kocsis

Stevelogy (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you. - MrX 23:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Greatly limiting the participants here

At Talk:Gamergate controversy the participation is strictly limited to users with more than 500 edits and more than 30 days of contributions. The limitation was set in place by the Arbitration Committee. If it were possible to enact that kind of limitation here, the number of nationality arguments would greatly diminish. Older, more experienced accounts which continued to beat the dead horse of nationality would not be stopped by the limitation, but they could be topic-banned if the disruption was bad enough. Binksternet (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that. Forgive me, those of you who are innocent, but there seem to be a lot of short-term single-issue editors such as 2600:387:5:804:0:0:0:7F (11 edits), Michael Cambridge (43 edits), and Jackiechan321 (68 edits), who popped up on this page right around the time when Asdisis was banned from editing. When he was banned, Asdisis was left the use of his personal Talk page, and has been using it to recruit and organize editors to continue his POVPUSHing campaign on this article. We need to remember that single-issue and advocacy editing are prohibited on Wikipedia. A restriction to editors with a minimum number of edits would cut back on the sock and meatpuppets. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is pretty obviously a no-brainer; it'll probably shut down most of the more disruptive conversations, at least. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry buddy. I have nothing to do with asdinisis. Your attempt to discredit me is pointless and pathetic. I have been on here longer than just recent and have contributed talk on other pages before comming here. Check my IP or whatever. Slandering those who you do not agree with is asinine. I hope this page gets reviewed. Jackiechan321 (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to my remark. Looking at your edits it doesn't look like you are at fault. I sincerely apologize. I didn't mean to slander you. I really have no preference in the debate; I have no connection to Serbia or Croatia. I just think something needs to be done to limit the endless debate, so that all of us can move on to more productive activities. Eleven years of futile argument over two words in the article is too much. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• That would be the best solution. Cause yesterday was Asdinsis, and he was not the first one, today is Cambridge, and tomorrow will be an army of who knows how many, cause unfortunately in Croatia there is a total hysteria that Tesla was born in their soil and thus means he is Croatian, so banning Asdinsis just means tomorrow we will have new users coming with same old questions "Isnt he Croatian?" and its a neverending story. If some established user gathers enough evidence for something to be changed regarding that issue, OK, but at least we will be saved from constant new threads from nationalists on the talk-page. Btw, I think someone should report Asdinsis for continuing the fight at the talk-page and Michael Cambridge for continuing the battle here. FkpCascais (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is merit to this idea, in conjunction with keeping nationalistic discussions on their own page. However, I would be concerned about keeping new editors and IP editors from requesting helpful edits. In the time that I've been watching this page (roughly three years) I have seen quite a few edit requests to correct grammar, spelling, citations and so on.- MrX 23:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's true. Perhaps there's something simpler we can do about limiting nationality questions. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • We could put a big banner at the top of the page, advising restricted editors who want to edit the article or Talk page to contact one of the unrestricted editors on his personal Talk page and ask for a proxy. We could even give a list of frequent editors as contacts - I would be happy to be one. Assuming no simpler way can be found to limit nationality wars, I think this idea should be explored. Looking at the archives, the sheer amount of editor time spent arguing over nationality is pretty staggering. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't just pop up on this page around the time Asdisis was banned, in fact I was involved in the discussion about Nikola Tesla's citizenship if you see the above text.

I am absolutely astounded that some editors will resort to bullying and intimidation tactics by threatening to ban certain editors who support Asdisis in his endeavour to make legitimate changes to the Nikola Tesla article. Bullying and intimidation is highly frowned upon where I come from. Banning new editors from discussing Nikola Tesla's citizenship/country of birth is an utterly deplorable act of censorship, equal to a crime against freedom of speech. There is no place for censorship on Wikipedia.Michael Cambridge 12:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

I thought you were a banned sokpuppet? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Michael Cambridge:, Asdinsis was blocked for not being here to write an encyclopedia, for being an single purpose account. I think you will find that is a common practice to block for people who come to Wikipedia only to push a specific view point. Your contributions are visible here to everybody: Special:Contributions/Michael Cambridge. So far it seems you are here only to push a specific view.

If people are acting resentful towards you it is because our goal is to create a neutral encyclopedia and people coming here with a specific point of view in mind and only work towards that view are disruptive to that goal of neutrality. Chillum 17:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think Michael Cambridge is a sock of Asdisis because their ability to use English is slightly different. With Asdisis gone, I think it has quieted down here so it doesn't seem appropriate to try to drive editors away. Seems like the most heat is currently being generated by this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at the 9 archives at the top of this Talk page. which largely consists of 11 years of continuous POVPUSHing ADVOCACY debate over the nationality question. I don't think you have to worry. The issue will heat up again. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We are not trying to drive editors away; as Chillum said we are trying to make sure that they are here to build an encyclopedia. POVPUSHing, single-issue and ADVOCACY editing are not just frowned on, they are prohibited on Wikipedia. The people who engage in these practices are not legitimate editors; they don't care about Wikipedia and are working against its values. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

You might try a nice cup of herbal tea. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should all discussions and proposals about Nikola Tesla's nationality, ethnicity and country of birth (broadly construed) be limited to the sub-page: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity?

• Support as proposer. This talk page has hosted perennial debates about Tesla's nationality for years. These discussion become very lengthy, contentious, and time consuming. A larger concern is that discussions about improving other aspects of the article are lost amid these mountains of texts. For example, this talk page at the time of posting this RfC, is well over 20,000 words. By limiting nationality discussions to a dedicated talk page, those who wish to continue debating it can, while those who wish to discuss article improvements can use the default talk page.- MrX 20:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A support to move the discussion to an obscure place from a person who refused to participate although I invited him in good faith several times because I know he strongly opposes, then when I opened the RfC objected to the point of misconduct is at least suspicious. Asdisis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything else to say to you. Down in the new thread you say Tesla has Hungarian-Croatian citizenship without any sources, just conspiracies of your own, you are totally out of control. Also, in all this time you still don't even know what the Military Frontier was, you still talk the nationalistic crap it was all Croatia, so discussing with you is useless. I really feel sorry this project allows you to do this madness for so long. PS: Please stop talking all the time about me, as you see, besides your possible sockpuppet Cambridge, anyone else disagrees with you, and no one here is anti-Croatian, people just see your syntheses and lack of sources, while I, besides that, see your final point, which is to add as much Croatia as possible to the article, so one more reason to disengage from this discussion with you, cause you don't have a case here. FkpCascais (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything else to say to you. This is how you do it if you do not have anything to say. Asdisis (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Yes, please.Constant314 (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Suppport. Yes, everyone knows he was really a Karaim!--Pharos (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I'd further suggest that past discussions on that topic on this page be moved to the sub-page. --Chetvorno^TALK 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: tying up this page with what looks like not very good faith requests gets us nowhere. People can discus this till the cows come home on the sub-page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Suppport if that does not mean the discussion are being moved from the place where all people can discuss them objectively to the obscure place where no one will see the discussion if it is opened. This request can be done both in good faith and otherwise. In good faith as explained above and with not so good intentions to limit all discussions to one place where people won't find them to participate. I can not know the motives of the all people who voted to supported this suggestions, but I'm sure FkpCascais had not done so in good faith. I have to note that I opened a discussion which was ignored by everyone (most notably FkpCascais ), although they expressed they disagree and although I invited them several times, until I opened a RfC. It is sad that there is no will to answer opened questions objectively, and the question of Tesla's citizenship is an opened question since the present formulation is completely unfounded in sources. I support this suggestion in good faith. Asdisis (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this suggestion if that means the discussion is being moved to the obscure place to hide it from other people in an effort to make them obscure and not relevant. Also if objective discussions are grouped together in the sub-page that is generally under bad name as full of nationalistic wars then that can have negative prejudice which may be intended by some people who expressed their contempt earlier. I oppose this suggestion in good faith. Asdisis (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support but please link to the discussion from other talk pages where this issue comes up. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. That would work, but we will still have a problem that people deliberately ignore the discussion until someone opened RfC which was the case we have not. Asdisis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support, obviously. That's what the page is for. I would also say that we should put a 6-month moratorium on any further requests, because I'm sure we're all sick of having our time wasted by nationalistic editors who are perfectly happy to synthesize sources. Oh, and Asdisis, stop accusing FkpCascais of acting in bad faith, when you're no better yourself - also, you can't oppose and support this request at the same time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It should be possible to open a discussion and present new sources. If we forbid that then in my opinion we are doing exactly against what Wikipedia stands for. Yes the discussions are hard, but nonetheless is is not the right way to forbid them. I've been working for many years to reinstate the discussion on Tesla's birthplace and I've been doing that objectively. I am investigating for sources and working to objectively present the case for another evaluation. People do not understand that the discussion is useless if we do not resolve the question. Yes, my suggestion can be rejected, but people will open new discussions because the question of Tesla's citizenship will remain an open one, since no one is trying to resolve it. Most of the people are trying to prevent me to resolve it, but notice that they are not presenting sources that would resolve the question. They just criticise and they do not participate the discussion. I am not accusing FkpCascais but his conduct. I supported my claim that his conduct is biased, subjective and with a strong contempt towards Croatia. In any normal debate I am allowed to criticise the wrong approach. I do not know If I'm allowed to do that according to wikipedia's rules, but that can be discussed I hope so. One thing is sure. Someone may be wrong but still discussing in good faith. Someone may be right but he may be discussing in bad faith. I disagree that I'm not better myself that the mentioned user. I haven't used personal insults, unless if you think that my statement that the mentioned user is biased when he says that Serbian or Croatian sources are by default not credible, then ok. But I think that statement would just point that you are also the one who is biased, so I hope you are not claiming that. I can I can't have two votes at the same time. By that act I showed that the suggested action can be purposed both in good faith and not in good faith. For instance when a user (most notably FkpCascais ) who so strongly disagrees with me to the point that he deliberately ignores the discussion I opened although I, in good faith invited him several times because I knew he strongly opposes, now votes to move the discussion on some obscure place where no one looks, I as an objective person must doubt his motives. Asdisis (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Also your allegation that I am a nationalistic editor earned you a report. I may be wrong, I may have synthesized sources but your allegation is false. I have done everything in good faith, and even if I'm wrong that does not mean I haven't participated in good faith. It simply means I'm wrong. I agreed that I may be wrong and went to further discuss the possibility of that. I constructed a base claim in a good faith to help the discussion. Furthermore I supported each and every claim with a source, and I have not cherry picked those source not someone accused me of that. You will be reported as soon as I remember and figure out how to do that. There you will have to explain your allegation. Asdisis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is really no need to hide anything and anyone who wants to get involved is free to do so. Oh, and Lukeno94 it would be nice if you stopped telling people what to do. Could you tell me who is synthesizing sources here because the ones that I have presented are certainly real and I'm sure the sources Asdisis has are real. Lukeno94 I sense you fear that Asdisis has found legitimate information you don't want the world to know about. I could be wrong. You tell me.--Michael Cambridge 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

• I'm a fucking Brit. You think it makes one iota of difference to me whether someone is Croatian, Serbian, Montenegrin or from the bloody Moon? It doesn't. If someone would present a case that was actually convincing for Tesla having a Croatian nationality, and not just being born in a town that in modern day times is in Croatia, then it would be worth considering. But that hasn't happened yet. There's a difference between sources being "real", and them actually being reliable and being unsynthesized. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's all try to avoid imputing bad motives in other editors and respect the spirit of WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Having problems controlling your emotions? What do you think, how do I feel after you had called me a nationalistic editor, after I spent several days investigating sources to support each and every of my claims? It seems that very little people appreciate when someone takes time to investigate sources. I will use this reaction of yours in my report. It shows that you have double standards. You had no problem calling me a nationalistic editor which is in the topic with high national tensions the words ad-hominem attack. I had not expressed a single emotion during this whole discussions and I had taken your insult the in the completely different way than you. Asdisis (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In response to the oppose, that itself is a personal attack, so I don't think criticizing Lukeno's reply to this as a personal attack is constructive. Epic Genius (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It is getting tiresome. I think {{Round in circles}} is ineffective, perhaps FAQ should be added.--Zoupan 03:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's tiresome. Imagine yourself on my place. I spent days investigating for sources and a lot of time writing this comments while I haven't seen any other editor even bothers to resolve the question of Tesla's citizenship (well the IP guy now showed some sources and I than him on objective approach). I do not understand how FAQ works on wikipedia, but we can not answered the question since this is an opened question. We should firstly resolve the question. Thus I do not think the "it's tiresome" argument is valid in an effort to forbid or hide the discussion from the public view. I see that no one thanked Michael Cambridge for the sources he presented, and I don't think anyone would look on some obscure place. No one would see that sources and the sources include some interesting documents, like Tesla's highschool diploma and his naturalization papers which I had been long looking for. Asdisis (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"forbid", "hide" and "obscure", clearly showing (tiresome) POV. It is a sub-page, and not a black hole. The question has long been answered. Read: "Serbian American" and "Born 10 July 1856 Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)". You need to accept this (deal with it), despite the fact that the "issue" is your account's lifework.--Zoupan 13:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The question about Tesla's birthplace was not answered and it is still an open question. As long as it is open, new discussions will be open. I don't know how else you define "no consensus", but to me "no consensus" means the question was not resolved. Asdisis (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Conceivably, because of limited viewership (with sensible editors staying away), an atypical "consensus" might be achieved on the subpage, resulting in high drama when the new "consensus" is brought here to be implemented. I'm in favor of putting a limit on nationality discussions, but the limit should be placed here, and watched here. I consider the subpage to be an archive of old nationality discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I know it is difficult to discuss on pages of high national tension but the only way to deal with this is to discuss objectively and present sources until some claims are established and founded in sources and objectivity. To forbid the discussions or to move them in an obscure place is not the way Wikipedia works. At least I expect so. Asdisis (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I understand your objection, but any edits to the subpage will show up on everyone's watchlist. We can put a note at the top of this Talk page that the subpage is about a controversial topic and should be monitored. I know I will keep an eye on it. Considering how boring and irrelevant most of the nationality debate is, anyone that ignores the subpage discussion would probably also ignore it on the main Talk page. So atypical consensus and "drama" when they try to change the article is probably inevitable. But when a change to the article is made people will rally round. I like your idea of putting a limit on nationality discussions, but I don't see how that could be done. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose to any further discussion about Tesla's ethnicity and citizenship. Allowing such 'discussion' is equal to allowing spamming and trolling. --65.220.39.79 (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be sustained if Wikipedia is North Korea's project. Asdisis (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is basically trolling. There is not a chance that such discussion won't happen in the future, because new editors will inevitably be asking these questions. Epic Genius (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Consolidating the topics about race and thnicity into one subpage makes it easier for readers to access, and it can be linked from the top in a {{FAQ}}. There are many conspiracy theories about Tesla's ethnicity, which can be dealt with at a subpage. Epic Genius (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable proposal for a perennial debate. Binksternet raises a legitimate issue, but something can probably be worked out. For example, that page could be used for discussion and debate, while any RFCs would take place on this page. Or RFCs could be announced on this page. It's not an insurmountable problem. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support I have been involved in discussions that dominate article talk pages before. It has always been helpful to make a sub page. You put a little banner at the top and everyone can see it. The discussion gets its own watch list and this page can be used for other parts of the article that would otherwise get drowned out. I think existing discussions should move there too. Chillum 01:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support Yes move it. This is taking up to much space on this page. Enough has been discussed on the matter. Leave it open on another page. Jackiechan321 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems there is an overwhelming majority agreeing on this. Would it be fine to move it then MrX? FkpCascais (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Since there is some legitimate dissent, I think we should wait until no one (new) has commented for at least a few days before requesting a close. At that point, someone not involved in the discussion should evaluate consensus and close the RfC.- MrX 21:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Since we seem unable to stop the torrent of Balkan nationalist drama, we can at least confine it to one location. bobrayner (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support the quarantine of nationalist drama surrounding Nikola Tesla. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like all the opinions are in and we have consensus, MrX. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: I made a request for a formal closure yesterday. Alternatively, we can informally close the RfC, if none of the opposers object. Excluding blocked accounts, that leaves Binksternet and Michael Cambridge.- MrX 19:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Leave it as it is. Let the world see the most heated debate about Nikola Tesla in all its absurdity. The block that was placed on Asdisis clearly demonstrates the farcical nature of this debate. I pity anyone who comes forward with evidence that is contrary to current consensus because chances are they will be blocked. Debate should be encouraged, not discouraged. Lay it all out in the open for the world to see. Michael Cambridge 10:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

Re "Let the world see the most heated debate about Nikola Tesla in all its absurdity." – But that's not the purpose of this talk page. You'll need a different argument than that to successfully advocate your position. It would need to be an argument of how such a debate improves the article. If the debate concerns material that can't be put in the article because it violates Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:NOR, what's the point of continuing the debate? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I made a suggestion in a Talk section below, Suggest using only reliable sources about Tesla, that I think would help avoid such future unproductive debates on other aspects of this article's topic. It got off on a side issue and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Bob K31416, very reliable sources were presented regarding Nikola Tesla's country of birth/homeland as being Croatia, but those sources were dismissed because of status quo bias, which leaves the article deficient in encyclopedic information. The article will never be complete unless both sides (Serbs and Croats) are appeased, and can reach a compromise with the wording being changed to- "Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian-American inventor." Michael Cambridge 10:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

I think those were reliable sources but they weren't about Tesla. They were about citizenship, Croatia, etc. What editors were trying to do was use those reliable sources that weren't about Tesla to draw conclusions about Tesla's citizenship, etc. This resulted in endless arguments because different editors were coming to different conclusions based on reliable sources that weren't about Tesla. Such conclusions are not allowed in Wikipedia articles according to the Wikipedia policy WP:NOR. One needs to have a reliable source that says, for example, that Tesla was a citizen of a certain country. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We have already come to a fairly clear consensus in this RFC(80%+ in favour of moving the discussions). While it is natural for those who did not come out on the side of consensus to continue to want what they want, we none the less have a clear path forward. Given the unambiguous majority we don't need an official closure.

I suggest we move the discussion to the subpage without further bureaucracy. Anyone who refuses to accept this consensus will have a difficult time justifying themselves to the community. Chillum 14:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tesla's citizenship from 1867 to 1891

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Tesla's citizenship from 1867 to 1891 per consensus. Esquivalience ^t 01:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know, but hear me out.

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Yes I know, but hear me out. per consensus. Esquivalience ^t 01:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

European historians: Croatia-Slavonia was a Hungarian province, there was no Croatian citizenship or nationality

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#European historians: Croatia-Slavonia was a Hungarian province, there was no Croatian citizenship or nationality per consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 04:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikola Tesla/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StudiesWorld (talk · contribs) 11:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(c) (original research)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Undetermined

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
This article is fully stable as it is not undergoing any major changes, edit wars, or content disputes	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images are used legally.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images are used appropriately with suitable captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has no notes here.

Discussion

• I am concerned that the nominator is a relatively inexperienced editor who, judging by his edit summary, has little idea of GA requirements and is not one of the main contributors to the article. Main contributors are supposed to be consulted before nominating according to the GA instructions (pinging User:MrX and User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr).

This article is especially problematic in that it has previously been subject to numerous edit wars (over Tesla's nationality for instance), insertion of pseudo-scientific poorly referenced or unreferenced claims about Tesla's abilities and inventions, and all kinds of conspiracy theories. In short, the name of Tesla has entered the realm of urban myth and it is very hard to keep this kind of thing out. It would be wise to consult the regular editors to check whether, in their opinion, there are any lingering issues of this sort. Also, someone needs to be willing to address any issues raised, the last GA simply died through lack of interest. SpinningSpark 23:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Inventor?

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Austro-Hungarian Inventor? per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus --Chetvorno^TALK 04:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggest using only reliable sources about Tesla

It seems that there has been an enormous amount of discussion here based on editors' own ideas about Tesla and sources not about Tesla. I think these enormous discussions could be considerably reduced if editors followed Wikipedia policy, e.g. WP:NOR, and used only reliable sources about Tesla for any proposed edits. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem with Tesla and RS is the vast majority of sources are unreliable. These include a whole series of biographies (including the first one by O'Neill) written by "journalists turned historians". "Journalists turned historians" are notoriously unreliable, they are not trained historians and they are focused towards creating an entertaining story rather than a factually accurate history. You actually have to use non-Tesla related sources to check their facts because the Tesla sources do not feature footnotes for fact checking and they even make stuff up (for example O'Neill directly quoted Tesla using the word "robot" 23 years before the word existed). A pretty strict adherence to WP:NOTRELIABLE would probably lead to the deletion of two thirds of this article so there is probably a sweet spot and non-Tesla related sources (such as the etymology of the word "robot") are going to be a part of it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, for what counts as a reliable source see WP:SOURCE.

Re your comment, "A pretty strict adherence to WP:NOTRELIABLE would probably lead to the deletion of two thirds of this article..." – Could you give an example of such material and its source in this article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

There are quite a few and I tend not to lead edits with talk page notices because of some actual trolling that happens when you do that (Tesla has his fans ;)). Some samples:

• The lead claim "physicist" should be deleted because the sources being used to support it (in this discussion) have poor reputation for checking the facts. In the article it is not sourced at all and not covered in the body.
• The (popular myth?) "Edison cheated Tesla out of $50,000" seems to be a creation of O'Neill, (O'Neill seems to base his work on Tesla's bio "My Inventions" where Tesla does not mention Edison and instead points to some unnamed "manager" of the Edison Machine Works, at that point probably Samuel Insull although it could also be Charles Batchelor). It is referenced to O'Neill, to Jill Jonnes who cites O'Neill, and to Cheney who seems to copy O'Neill directly (although Cheney added an "Edison yanking his shoes off the desk" action scene).
• The section "Directed-energy weapon" is primary sourced and sourced to Marc Seifer. Seifer would probably not pass a reliability test. If we use Wikipedia as a source (and I know we shouldn't) then the title "Directed-energy weapon" is wrong as well, Tesla's weapon was a kinetic weapon (shot slugs of platinum or mercury) and did not direct energy.

Not advocating that we do any of this but adherence to WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTRELIABLE would point to deletion or some major WP:YESPOV changes. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's discuss your first item first. It appears that you are referring to the use of the word "physicist" in the description of Tesla in the first sentence of the article.

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.

First off, the correct title of the Burgan source is Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer.[1] The History Channel source also refers to Tesla as an engineer and physicist. So in this one sentence we have have what appear to be two reliable sources that refer to Tesla as a physicist. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr, although I think a larger problem with the article is its omission of Tesla's shortcomings, and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT accorded some of his inventions. I'd suggest we don't get into whether he was a physicist, as that issue has been quite thoroughly debated on this page already. No one is suggesting changing the word. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't interested in opening a debate on "physicist". The question was are there examples of things in this article that would be deleted under WP:NOTRELIABLE or simple unreliability and we hit the problem again. The Burgan source has Tesla inventing the transformer for Westinghouse -> incorrect, that was invented an implemented by William Stanley Jr...... so we throw that source out. History Channel is also not a reliable source, it can not be verified (no footnotes). BBC ditto. So you can see how reliability goes down hill fast. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

(I appreciate that you recognize and are sticking to the topic of this section.)

Using specific parts of the Wikipedia policies WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTRELIABLE, how would you argue that the Burgan and History Channel sources are not reliable sources per Wikipedia policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that reliability is a sliding scale and that requires common sense assessments, looking at the one I can read, Burgan, it failed WP:NOTRELIABLE when it missed who invented the transformer. That gave it "a poor reputation for checking the facts". Other than being published and being third-party it meets none of the other requirements of WP:SOURCE - it has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and it is not an academic and peer-reviewed publication. Its actually a publication for young adults with no footnoting whatsoever. It falls into that vast majority of sources about Tesla that are unreliable. Tesla is a popular figure and that has generated large quantities of nearly fictional literature about his life and inventions. Special care are has to be taken with sources about him, especial paying attention to whether a source is really reliable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

In your message before the last one you wrote, "The Burgan source has Tesla inventing the transformer for Westinghouse -> incorrect" . And in your last message you wrote, "it missed who invented the transformer". Could you give the quote from the book? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Fountains of Bryn Mawr Looks like that you think that books and articles about Tesla are not reliable if they are not written according to the Wikipedia rules. Bear in mind that a great majority of academia (>75%) excludes Wikipedia as a valid reference especially in medicine, pharmacy, history.--65.220.39.74 (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a point that 65.220.39.74 is making is that Fountains of Bryn Mawr is trying to require that reliable sources follow WP:V and use inline citations, i.e. footnotes, for verification. It's not part of Wikipedia policy that reliable sources follow WP:V, just that Wikipedia editors follow that policy in editing Wikipedia. See WP:SOURCE and WP:NOTRELIABLE and note that nowhere do they require that reliable sources use footnotes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

What Fountains of Bryn Mawr said before and repeated above see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_8#Milutin.2C_Nikola.27s_father. He made a lot of damage to this article by his irrational refusal of the list of references stating that Milutin Tesla was a Serbian Orthodox Church priest.--65.220.39.74 (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It actually is Wikipedia policy that reliable sources follow references and footnoting per WP:SOURCE re:"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts". There is no other way to check that unless there are footnotes or references listed. If you look at a book like that you get 68 pages of sources and notes and written by a historian to boot. With Burgan we have "well, they used pretty fonts and lots of graphics".... and that's about it.

Burgan attributes the invention of the step-down transformer to Tesla on pages 48-49 re: "The distances Westinghouse imagined were still not possible with the system he used. But in New York, Nikola Tesla had the answer to Westinghouse's dreams. By early 1888 Tesla had built several AC motors, generators, and transformers. His transformers could either step down or step up (increase) the voltage as needed." That is incorrect. The whole basis of the Westinghouse system was a step-up/step-down transformer, that was invented for Westinghouse by William Stanley Jr. at the beginning of 1886 and had been implemented on over 70 municipal lighting systems before Westinghouse licensed his first Tesla patent two and a half years later. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the quote that you gave from WP:SOURCE, "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts" – Here's the rest of the sentence and the sentence after it.

"The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."

In this excerpt, "source" means the publisher of the work. (See the previous part of WP:SOURCE which says that source can mean publisher.) The "professional structure" it is referring to are the people who check the work. In the case of the Burgan book, it appears to have an established publisher, albeit one for juvenile literature, that would have a professional structure that checks the author's work, especially the title, "Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer". So the book satisfies this criterion for a reliable source. Additionally, books are assessed by librarians when they decide which ones to acquire. In this case, Burgan's book was acquired by at least 171 libraries.[2] So I think that the Burgan book is a reliable source for using the word "physicist", according to Wikipedia policy.

Regarding the excerpt from Burgan p. 49 that you gave, Burgan doesn't explicitly say that Tesla invented the transformer. I think your inference that he did is because that excerpt was taken out of context and Burgan was not as clear as he could have been. In the material that precedes it on pp. 47-48, Burgan mentions transformers and the Westinghouse company's AC system that was providing electricity to homes in 1886 that preceded Tesla's system of 1888. One can view pp. 47–49 by using this link [3] and then at the webpage clicking on "page >>". --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As I mentioned previously, in the subject sentence the other reliable source that supports the use of "physicist" is the article Nikola Telsa on the History Channel website, which is published by A&E Television Networks, a mainstream media company. See the quote box above. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, (and you can read it at WP:RS) reliability is a scale, not a claim, based on common sense and editorial judgment, and when a source makes unclear and/or not very accurate claims it slides down that scale. By not naming who invented transformers and stating Tesla's transformers were the answer to Westinghouses "distance" problem Burgan implies Tesla invented the solution (the transformer). Lack of clarity makes the source suspect.

Re: Burgan and "physicist" - If we following WP:SOURCES to the indicated guideline WP:RS we see the recommendation to use scholarly material. "scholarly" does have a definition (and it includes footnotes[4]). It is not inherited from a notable publisher, especially when we can not see a peer review process, we can not guess what we think the parent company might be doing along those lines. A Burgan based "physicist" claim would be removed per the guideline right above it, WP:BURDEN, because the citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article, there is no material in the book describing Tesla "clearly" as a physicist, its just in the title. Titles a notoriously unreliable and should probably not be used for any citation because they may not be written by the author at all. The claim is also directly contradicted by the Carlson source noted above (page 301) so should not be a direct statement (WP:YESPOV). Not to mention the claim in the Lead goes against WP:LEAD re: The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. There is no appropriate weight because the body does not describe this at all. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like we're not heading towards a meeting of the minds on the Burgan and History Channel sources or what Wikipedia policy says, so I'll move on to the other items that you brought up near the beginning. Keeping in mind how our previous discussion went, I'll try to keep this one short from my end.

• Your second item regarding Edison and the $50,000 didn't cite any reliable sources to support your opinions.

(This [5] might help part of what you were trying to say.)

• Your third item describing the sourcing in the death ray section didn't seem to be accurate.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The manager/Edison claim is not an opinion, it is a conflict between a primary source written by Tesla and a secondary source written after his death.

We can not draw any conclusion about a "directed-energy weapon" claim because it is referenced to patents and contemporaneous newspaper reports. The only true secondary source we have in the whole section is Marc J.Seifer, a so-so source, and he points out it was a weapon shooting particles, not a "particle beam". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• Re "The manager/Edison claim is not an opinion, it is a conflict between a primary source written by Tesla and a secondary source written after his death." – What are these sources you're referring to, and which one says which?
• Note that the section Directed-energy weapon started with, "Later in life, Tesla made claims ...". In other words, it's about Tesla's claims, and doesn't conclude that he had an actual weapon, if that's what you mean. (BTW, the sources from 1934 to 1940 look like secondary sources per WP:PSTS.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is with "directed-energy weapon", that is an actual device/concept that has no verifiable link with with what Tesla built. The use of the term is supported by newspaper clips that do not mention the term and examination of a primary source patent(that also does not mention the term).

Looking up the "Thomas Edison ripped off Tesla claim" we have Tesla not making the claim ("My Inventions"), Anomalistic History by Denman Collins page 75[6] noting the discrepancy in the record and looking on the popular "Edison ripped off Tesla" as more fable than an accurate account, and Empires Of Light by Jill Jonnes page 109[7] noting the story does not ring true. Somewhat touched on in the current edit but the discrepancies should be noted.

I would note that the change that would help fix all of this is to describe the who/what/when/where of Tesla instead of having direct statements about Tesla that are a tad on the dubious side.

Per how we should interpret WP:PSTS, that is pretty well described at the policy page so I won't be participating in further discussion in this thread. If there is need for clarification on some point it can always be brought up at that talk page. Also we have now had a second "Croatian warrior" jumping in - good reason, at least for me, to stop. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Oatmeal

Matthew Inman, the created of The Oatmeal is now also funding a documentary via crowdsourcing regarding the Tesla project he previously raised money for as mentioned earlier in the article.167.222.220.6 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Nikola Tesla. Is your comment intended to improve the article? If so, please explain further. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong book in cite

In the section Early years (1856–1885) there is the following ref for the first sentence.

<ref>{{harvnb|O'Neill|2007|p=369|ps=: "Tesla was born in the village of Smiljan near the town of Gospic, Austrian Empire, Croatian Krajina."}}</ref>

The page number 369 is incorrect since the book only has 336 pages.[8] Also, I wasn't able to find the quote in the given book. So this may be the wrong book but the correct page number and quote. Does anyone know what the correct book is? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We should see the best sources for it from the discussion Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity#RfC:_Should_Tesla.27s_birthplace_be_changed.3F. FkpCascais (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like MrX originally added the cite.[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why I used a Harvard citation, but here is where the quoted passage and page number come from: [10].- MrX 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's actually the back cover.- MrX 21:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That 2009 version of the book[11] was published through Lulu.com, a company for self-publishing. The author O'Neill died in 1953.[12] The back cover of that 2009 version [13] differs from the backcover of the 2007 version [14], which doesn't contain the needed information. In any case, we don't know who wrote the back cover. So I think that the 2009 version, and especially its back cover, can't be used as a reliable source. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense, although I'm pretty sure O'Neill is still a source for Tesla's birth in Smiljan. Of course, it's easily been 35 years since I read it, so don't take may word for it. - MrX 23:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's info for the Wikipedia sentence in the O'Neill 2007 reliable source on page 9 and page 12, but it doesn't quite cover it. (1) The Wikipedia sentence says Austrian Empire, whereas the book says "Austro-Hungarian Empire", and (2) the Wikipedia sentence says "modern-day Croatia" whereas the book says "now a part of Yugoslavia", since the book was originally published in 1944. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the book is very outdated. Obviously, per WP:BLUE we can state that Smiljan is in present day Croatia, and of course there are many other sources available.- MrX 00:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No objection here re Croatia. What do you think about the difference Austrian Empire vs Austro-Hungarian Empire? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-published author's citation

There's a citation to an article about Nikola Tesla written by a fantasy / erotica author who studies military history as a hobby, Christopher Eger, but has never had an independent publisher publish his work, from everything I can see; he's self-published, and posted this Tesla article on a website where anyone can post whatever they like. I've archived it just in case, but it seems pretty clear that this WP:SPS citation doesn't pass muster under WP:RS. As well, he's only writing about historical matters covered in books and articles by professional historians and academics, so I believe this should be replaceable in any case. I'll try to get to it, and in the meantime, if anyone want to beat me to it, please do! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

They Called Me Mad by John Monahan, was the closest I found. In the Matter of Nikola Tesla: A Romance of the Mind by Anthony Flacco also mentions crowd reaction. FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

Please change On 12 January 2000 to On 12 January 1943 in the section on Tesla's death. Rationale: Tesla did not remain unburied for 57 years. 50.178.138.216 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Donna Rae Swanson

Done Sorry about that, the 2000 was referring the number of people at Tesla's funeral, not the death date. I changed it to words to avoid confusion. (Funerals can be delayed, but half-a-century!?) Altamel (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2015

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked. I was reading some about Tesla-Macek Telegram and while I was reading the discussions I saw something interesting. An editor recently posted Tesla's diploma. Some already said that it is an interesting document and I think it should enter the article. I suggest we put it instead of baptismal record since there are already some images there, and since it is far more interesting to the readers to see how well Tesla did in school.

Also I would appreciate if someone more familiar could direct me to the right discussion where I can see the consensus about telegram removal. I saw telegram mentioned in several secondary sources, and the discussions I read were full of original research and invalid sources. Thank you. Detoner (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Detoner. You are autoconfirmed, so you should be able to edit semi-protected articles unless you are editing through Tor. I think the diploma is interesting, but the scan is of worse quality than the baptismal record, so perhaps you could add it as an external link at the end. There are several discussions about the Tesla-Macek telegram in the fifth archive of this talk page. From a casual glance, I don't see a particular consensus for including or excluding the telegram from the article, but I doubt reopening discussion on it will be productive. Debates about Tesla's nationality are unlikely to ever stop. Altamel (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Detoner (former IP2001), you say "I saw telegram mentioned in several secondary sources", can you point us which secondary sources are those? Scholar English-language ones? FkpCascais (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

Yes. Detoner (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you bring the links of those sources here then? FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

I wanted to establish a consensus since there are already many images, and I thought that the baptismal record is not as much interesting as Tesla's diploma. I will try to find a better image. Maybe the editor who posted it can help. Thank you for the discussion about the Telegram. I was under impression that it was removed from the article because it lacked sources. I know I saw someone saying it is removed because of that. The telegram is not very related to Tesla's nationality. It is simply just another document. It does not state anything about nationality. I came here to help with the question of Military Frontier since some users were making up certain claims that go against the sources, and while I was doing that I found out that the same goes for the telegram. I think I resolved the Military Froniter issue based on the sources and I think we won't have further discussions about Tesla's birthplace. He was born in Croatian Military Frontier, and the king himself had defined Military Frontier as formally Croatian land under separate administration. The readers can now read this article and if they want to find more about the whereabouts of Tesla's birthplace they can just follow the link. Detoner (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

All discussion relating to Tesla's nationality goes on the page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, see top of this page. If you want to continue this discussion, continue it there. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

This is not related to Tesla's nationality. This is a request to introduce Tesla's diploma to the article. Detoner (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why a telegram would add biographic value to this article, but if someone can present some reliable sources to establish that it does, then we can discuss adding it.- MrX 20:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

I think it's an interesting document, like all such Tesla's documents which are sparse. Also I don't think the article is think on space so a link couldn't be included. It doesn't have to be a picture, and there are already enough pictures. I would just like to establish that telegram as reliable, and whether is it enough to include it in the article is less important. Other user motivated me to investigate, because he used totally unreliable source to prove it is a forgery. I went to previous discussions and saw even worst situation. I don't know how that went unnoticed and how original research was considered a valid argument. Let's return to the topic of this request, and leave the telegram for another discussion. Maybe you could help to find a better image of Tesla's diploma. Detoner (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't help you find a better image, but it would easy to improve the one linked to. I think the best place for such a document image would be Category:Nikola Tesla.- MrX 21:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

Ok, it seems that there is no interest to include Tesla's diploma to the article, so I won't insist on it. I just thought it is more interesting than some other images since the readers could see Tesla's grades in school. Detoner (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

That is his final exam record. This is his high school matura (maturitätszeugnis) copy, and here is a duplicate of his high school certificate for 1872/3, issued in 1885.[15] Tzowu (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC) Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

Thank you. I just suggested it enters the article without making any edit. I left it to the people participating in this article. I personally do not understand that someone wouldn't find Tesla's grades interesting , but that's just me. I'm investigating on the telegram, and I've seen this in the previous discussions and I found it interesting and it seems no one else noticed it so I mentioned it here again. Detoner (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide those alleged secondary sources I asked you about above, please? FkpCascais (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I provided the link to Tesla's grades in a previous discussion. I think it would be better off to show it on the Croatian or Serbian Wikipedia pages for Nikola Tesla. I remember years ago there was a copy of Tesla's grades shown in the article but it was taken down, probably because it stated that the Croatian language was Tesla's mother tongue. Some editors didn't take too much of a liking to that. I wonder why?--Michael Cambridge 04:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

I am asking for the alleged secondary sources that deal with the telegram. Detoner made a statement that they exist, so I am asking him to provide them here or otherwise admit there are no sources. Making unfounded claims is disruptive. FkpCascais (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

This is not the discussion about the Telegram and I have no intent to digress. Detoner (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Nice excuse for not having to admit you said you have secondary sources but you don't. It just sounded nice and more convincing to say that you saw some, didn't it? FkpCascais (talk) 12:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.

Would you stop with the digression. It is being very disruptive. This is not the discussion about the telegram. I have no intention to post the sources here and start another pointless debate with you. Leave me alone and stop following me across other articles. Detoner (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Detoner is banned because he is a POV pusher and his comments should be disregarded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.104.83.208 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

...and so should yours. --Michael Cambridge 13:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

So why don't you just disregard them then? Chillum 13:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

whilst

"whilst" is not American English. It is an attempt at sounding sophisticated by using a novel, fad word associated with British English. It's twee, and silly and makes me cringe every time I read an American misusing it. Please purge it from this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.178.117 (talk) 09:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Methinks also it doth suck and twere far, far better confined to its natural milieu, faux 19th century novels written by puerile sophomore English majors at small pretentious New England girls schools, and Bulwar-Lytton Contest entries. --Chetvorno^TALK 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Tesla has nothing to do with Croatia

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Tesla has nothing to do with Croatia per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus

Tesla's father Serbian-Orthodox priest

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Tesla's father Serbian-Orthodox priest per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus

Anti-Semitism?

The only other discussion I saw about this was the usual Cheney quote a while back in the archive. Setting that aside, though, this seems to indicate he was. an analysis of these quotes here seems to be a bit more vague, while erring on the side of "likely." There's a lot of GHits to derivatives of these quotes as well, but they don't likely meet RS. As there are several sections in this article based on a single quote, are two disparate sources (Cheney and the first ref) and the analysis (third ref) enough to indicate that he was and put it into the article? MSJapan (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Serbian American

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Serbian American per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus --Chetvorno^TALK 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Nikola Tesla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120508181221/http://www.teslasociety.org:80/timeline.html to http://www.teslasociety.org/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120508181221/http://www.teslasociety.org:80/timeline.html to http://www.teslasociety.org/timeline.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120525133151/http://www.teslasociety.org:80/about.html to http://www.teslasociety.org/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120525133151/http://www.teslasociety.org:80/about.html to http://www.teslasociety.org/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120505004025/http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8047.htm to http://americanhistory.si.edu/archives/d8047.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100310123254/http://www.mcnikolatesla.hr:80/english.html to http://www.mcnikolatesla.hr/english.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070802213458/http://us.mfa.hr/Portals/US/Embassy%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Croatia%20(Weekly%20Bulletin%20-%20Vol.%203,%20Issue%2015).pdf to http://us.mfa.hr/Portals/US/Embassy%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Croatia%20(Weekly%20Bulletin%20-%20Vol.%203,%20Issue%2015).pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130512171438/http://www.teslasociety.org/niagarafalls.html to http://www.teslasociety.org/niagarafalls.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210193744/http://www.ieee.org:80/organizations/pes/public/2006/jan/peshistory.html to http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pes/public/2006/jan/peshistory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Interpretation of sources

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Interpretation of sources per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus - MrX 17:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a semi-protect here would be useful? Scr★pIron^IV 18:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty rare to protect a talk page, but if the disruption continues, yes we may have to. - MrX 18:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My real concern was the claim of "too many IP's to block" and the refactoring of others' comments - including changing your signature. Scr★pIron^IV 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This user has plenty of IPs, they forced semi protection at Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia not long ago. Chillum 18:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

Please add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph under "Working for Edison" section to reflect his first job under Edison and that it was the first ship ever to use Edison's lighting system (See the reference web site for source):

His first assignment was to repair the dynamos of the SS Oregon, the first ship ever to be equipped with Edison's new lighting system.

FROM:

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I am not convinced teslauniverse.com is a reliable source. For one, it was not the Oregon that was the first ship to have electric lighting, it was the Columbia. Cannolis (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Working for Edison

In 1882, Tesla began working for the Continental Edison Company in France, designing and making improvements to electrical equipment. In June 1884, he relocated to New York City where he was hired by Thomas Edison to work at his Edison Machine Works on Manhattan's lower east side. Tesla's work for Edison began with simple electrical engineering and quickly progressed to solving more difficult problems.>

TO:

Working for Edison

In 1882, Tesla began working for the Continental Edison Company in France, designing and making improvements to electrical equipment. In June 1884, he relocated to New York City where he was hired by Thomas Edison to work at his Edison Machine Works on Manhattan's lower east side. Tesla's work for Edison began with simple electrical engineering and quickly progressed to solving more difficult problems.> His first assignment was to repair the dynamos of the SS Oregon, the first ship ever to be equipped with Edison's new lighting system. Hoffman66 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015 per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus --Chetvorno^TALK 13:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Serbian American Inventor

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Not Serbian American Inventor per 16 June 2015 consensus --Chetvorno^TALK 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

How about a Global Tesla Rememberance day Jan.7th?

OK! An idea A DAY TO REMEBER TESLA HIS LIFE AND INVENTIONS And Influence on our modern world? Jan.7th GLOBAL TESLA DAY"? perhaps? I set up Global Energy Independence day Jul.10th (Teslas honored Birthday date!) in 2005! To remember Dr. Tesla and promote Alternative enrgy too! And while were taliking how about a Tesla Commorative Stamp? As Elvis pPresly has on the U.S.Postal Service ? One has to write the Stamp Advisory Commitee (see Googgle serch for address) To submit a suggestion for a commorative stamp! Know(was involbved in that too!) In 1982 there was a set of stamps horoing electrical pioneers TESLA was so honored at that time in a set of FOUR inventors But a Tesla Forever stamp well woukd be FOREVER ! Thanks remember Tesla On Jan.7th all! Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>04:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.135 (talk)

The Prestige?

why is there no mention about it at all? It is a very clear Portrayal of Tesla in modern media and culture.. a great one too. Please complete this section. I don't have to put a source link, its there, on an academy award nominated film.

please guys. or at least make the article for public editing so that we can complete it.

cheers2003:75:F6F:F590:89CC:DFE6:2A15:A3F1 (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2015

I noticed that after Tesla left the Edison Machine Company in New York there was a slight issue in dating (at least from my research). In the book 'Tesla' written by W. Bernard Carlson, he began his partnership with Robert Lane and Benjamin Vail in December of 1884, not 1886. This also would explain why there is a time period missing from 1884-1886 in your document along with why from 1886-1887 he had a rough period of his life digging ditches. It only makes sense that this information is false or was wrongly submitted. Thank you for reading my request. I hope this aids the accuracy of your article. ~ 68.5.255.176 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I believe the 1884 date might be an error or typo in the Carlson book. All source (including Carlson himself) have Tesla working for Edison until 1885, and Carlson also states that Tesla was approached by Vail & Lane after leaving Edison (p. 73). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2016

Tesla was born in Croatia :) SynysterCRO (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

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. it already says that in the article. Cannolis (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

In 1881, Tesla moved to Budapest to work under Ferenc Puskás at a telegraph company, the Budapest Telephone Exchange.

He worked under Tivadar Puskás, not Ferenc Puskás, see the following articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Pusk%C3%A1s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivadar_Pusk%C3%A1s Feherpolgar.pal (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

According to these sources, Tesla worked for the Puskás family: [16] [17]

This one says that Ferenc hired Tesla: [18] - MrX 23:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

Personal information of Nikola Tesla is not clearly titled like his engineering career is titled. Having a heading as personal information wouldbring this inline with other pages. EDIT: Maybe i was not clear, I'm talking about the personal information, mentioned in the profile infobox.It does not have a heading 117.241.67.46 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Section 8 Personal life has five sections and three subsections - I don't think it needs any further titling - Arjayay (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The top of an infobox does not have a header, since that information is standard in all infoboxes. The engineering header is used since it is specific information just for engineers. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 06:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Tesla's ethnicity, a proper discussion

Opened here.21:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.252.229 (talk)

Controlled by Morgan

The following website says that Morgan controlled Tesla to prevent him from passing on his dream of providing 'free energy' and if not for that we would not have a fossil-fuel economy today, which stopped progress. Then J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller and a number of others wouldn't have amassed extraordinary fortunes on the basis of that fossil fuel economy. Can it be mentioned?http://conspiracy-watch.org/nikola-tesla-was-ruined-by-elitists-then-murdered-to-stop-him-from-giving-free-energy-to-the-world/ Pepper9798 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

So we could have had safer wireless communication (computers, phones, & so much more) many years earlier, if Tesla had been super rich, instead of Morgan. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-rise-and-fall-of-nikola-tesla-and-his-tower-11074324/?no-ist Pepper9798 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a common myth that has been spread by Tesla cultists. Tesla was a charismatic, exceptional inventor and has attracted a following in many "alternative" fringe movements, particularly the "overunity" (perpetual motion) movement. The truth is more boring. There is no evidence from their correspondence or any other source that Morgan withdrew funding because he was afraid Tesla's system would produce free energy (and of course no evidence that Tesla could produce "free energy" without a source of power). Morgan had no interest in Tesla's unproven wireless power ideas. He had contracted with Tesla to build a transatlantic radio station to compete with Marconi, and Tesla was going over budget and producing no results. Your first reference, an essay on "Conspiracy Watch" website written by a pseudonym, is nowhere near a WP:reliable source. By the way, it also says Tesla was murdered by Nazi agents so Hitler could get his hands on Tesla's "miraculous secrets".

The truth about Tesla's contribution to radio is complicated. He invented an important piece of radio technology, but never believed radio waves could be used practically for communication. For the straight story, see Marincic, White, Nahin, p. 9-12, Cooper, and Carlson. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” So, yeah, you are wrong! Tesla was into 'fringe' [19] 178.222.115.85 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Tesla in folk costume

I think that it is likely that the man in the folk costume (Uploaded here) is not Tesla. Although a look-alike, Tesla has a more defined face, and not a protruding forehead. Look at the ears, nose and eyebrows. The photograph was given to engineer Slobodan Nikolić in Kruševac by "distant relatives of Tesla" (according to Nikolić).--Zoupan 14:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

But the article claims it is Tesla. FkpCascais (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but is it really?--Zoupan 17:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For time being all we have are claims of that being Tesla. Dont see a reason why would we discredit them. Why do you think it is not him? FkpCascais (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

They look like the same person to me. Different age, haircut but same person. HighInBC 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same person. "Different age" how? ca. 1880 and 1879 is not that different. Like I said, no protruding forehead, ears (lobules), nose (thinner noseridge, sloping infratip) and eyebrows (wider). I now noticed that the hair on the temple are off, hair endpoint ca. 1-2cm higher than eyebrows vs. at eyebrow level. Tesla has protruding cheeks. I assume this engineer Slobodan Nikolić sought attention for his little shop (a machine shop and rarity museum in one) and received it.--Zoupan 19:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, now that you mention it, the appearance isn't very similar to Tesla's image from that period. I personally don't think the source is very reliable. The word of that person who claims it's Tesla is equal in every regard to yours. I would like to see if any museum or other reliable institution has this image of Tesla. That person looks similar to Tesla from that angle, but from another angle he could be very different. A more detail look is needed. It would be helpful if someone here on Wikipedia has more experience to recognize people from pictures, since it's not so trivial job to do. People can look very different from different angles. Now that I think of it, I had wondered how different Tesla looks on that picture, but I never really doubted it's Tesla. 89.164.212.98 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A reverse image search on google shows only pages referring to Tesla. When I tell google to only show pages without the word Tesla I get far less relevant results and are mostly people using it as their personal icon and a bit of discussion about clothing. I don't see the differences being described with the noseridge or ears, the forehead looks the same. I see no reason to doubt this picture unless some sort of evidence can be brought that contradicts the source. We have to be careful not to engage in original research. HighInBC 18:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, we can't go into original research. But to be honest, the source of that picture isn't doing anything else. In my opinion the picture can stay, however it would be nice to find a more reliable source. It seems that this source had determined this is Tesla solely on looks after a considerable time had passed. A more scientific approach should have been taken to find the origin of this picture. 89.164.212.98 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The costume is a Mijak dress. There are no indications that Tesla had ties to Mijaks.--Zoupan 17:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if it is a mistake, it's a minor one. Not worth going into nationalistic discussions over it. 141.138.17.145 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

where is he from?

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

 – per notice at the top of this page.- MrX 14:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing against a consensus

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

 – per notice at the top of this page.--Chetvorno^TALK 20:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories about Tesla

As you know, it's a very popular conspiracy theory that Nikola Tesla invented "Free Energy". I looked through the Talk archive and saw it discussed a few times along with other conspiracy theories. I'm wondering why there is not a section on this. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There ought to be an entire article. Nikola Tesla conspiracy theories or some variant. 23 editor (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I found this article on WP but it doesn't mention Tesla: Free energy suppression conspiracy theory Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Things like this seem to make a big buzz on the internet but when you look at them more closely they turn out to be a mile wide and an inch deep, reliable source wise. So a start would be to list some real reliable sources on this being a conspiracy theory/phenomenon, more than just our OR of noticing it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Education and work in Europe

I added a bit to the Lead to say where he was born, educated and worked in Europe, based on the article.Parkwells (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've seen your edit. The reliable sources that support you edit are already known and provided here. If you want to discuss further go to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. It's a topic talk page about his nationality and ethnicity but people also transfer discussions about birthplace there. 213.202.69.227 (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was factually incorrect and awkwardly worded. It also introduced content into the lead that is not already mentioned in the article.- MrX 19:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Parkwells, you can start a discussion on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. I'll be glad to help.89.164.181.8 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

All of my additions were in fact taken from article content: his birthplace and early education in Croatia, higher education in Austria and auditing classes in Czechoslovakia, and his work in Hungary and Paris. I understand there is a huge battle going on at that other Talk page over nationality and birthplace, but my additions to the Lead are derived from the existing article - not introducing new material.Parkwells (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fix "factually incorrect" and then "awkwardly worded" can be easily fixed. You're welcome. 89.164.181.8 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

His early education was not in Croatia since Karlovac was outside Croatia, part of the Military Frontier, and as such his classes were in German, as mentioned in the article. Thus there is no place I believe that says his early education was in Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

See also section

The See Also section only references one individual, Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Another relevant addition is Chester Thordarson who is another contemporary of Tesla and Edison. Thordarson knew them both. He was an electrical inventor, worked with alternating currents, and is responsible for our modern power grid. He is just as relevant as Steinmetz.MeropeRiddle (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

per MOS:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. and should be limited to a reasonable number.". Chester Thordarson is not an immediate contemporary of Tesla (coming to prominence 16 years later) and is just one of hundreds of electrical innovators, so no real relationship, unless we start listing the hundreds of electrical innovators in the See also section. A better case could be made to remove Charles Proteus Steinmetz. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Edward Dean Adams

Edward Dean Adams NOT Richard Dean Adams209.6.121.112 (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done: indeed, see, for instance https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Dean_Adams_Power_Plant. - DVdm (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2016

Under Contents 10.1.5 (Legacy and honors/Things named after Tesla/Places) add new bullet with content: Nikola Tesla Boulevard, Hamilton, Ontario 1infiniteloop (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

 Done, see [20]. - DVdm (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2016

Please change the name of Ferenc Puskás to Tivadar Puskás! (for reference see the hungarian wikipedia page of Nikola Tesla) In 1881, Tesla moved to Budapest to work under Ferenc Puskás at a telegraph company, the Budapest Telephone Exchange. Upon arrival, Tesla realized that the company, then under construction, was not functional, so he worked as a draftsman in the Central Telegraph Office instead. Within a few months, the Budapest Telephone Exchange became functional, and Tesla was allocated the chief electrician position.[45] During his employment, Tesla made many improvements to the Central Station equipment and claimed to have perfected a telephone repeater or amplifier, which was never patented nor publicly described.[30]

2001:A61:4152:D201:1C8:4EAA:D82A:643 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Wonder how long that's been there. Favonian (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: On second thoughts, according to the Tivadar Puskás article, he had a brother named Ferenc (not the soccer player) who set up the exchange in Pest. Favonian (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Serbian inventor category

Fully aware of the shitstorm that happens whenever something related to nationality or ethnicity is brought up, I have to point out that having Nikola Tesla in categories such as "Serbian inventors", "Serbian physicists", "Serbian engineers" and "Serbian humanists" is inconsistent if not outright inaccurate. Those categories are apparently supposed to contain people from Serbia regardless of ethnicity rather than Serbs regardless of origin. We have Moša Pijade, a Jew, and Sinan Hasani, an Albanian, in "Serbian people of World War II", although they were not Serbs. We have Filip David, Oskar Davičo and David Albahari, Jews, under "Serbian novelists". Timothy John Byford, an Englishman, is under "Serbian writers". Muamer Zukorlić, a Bosniak, Ivana Dulić-Marković, a Croat, and Ismet Bey Kryeziu, an Albanian, are under "Serbian politicians". László Német, a Magyar, is under "Serbian clergy". Zvonko Bogdan, a Croat, is under "Serbian folk singers". There are many more examples. If the word Serbian is meant to indicate the country, then the categories in this article are blatantly misleading. If it is meant to indicate ethnicity, then the categories are misleading in all the cases I cited here. We cannot sit on two stools. Surtsicna (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree. We have Category:Jewish inventors, so why not have Category:Serb inventors?--Zoupan 19:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the proper place to discuss this is Category talk:Serbian inventors, Category talk:Serbian physicists, etc. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claim

The claim "where he was profoundly influenced by mathematics teacher Martin Sekulić.{{sfn|O'Neill|1944|p=32}}<ref name="teslauniverse2" />" is highly dubious.

The first reference says on page 33 (not 32):

The lasting favorable impression which Tesla carried away from karlovac concerned his professor of physics, a clever and original experimenter who amazed him with the fets he performed with laboratory apparatus

which is verified by Tesla's My Inventions

I had become intensely interested in electricity under the stimulating influence of my Professor of Physics, who was an ingenious man and often demonstrated the principles by apparatus of his own invention.

Neither Tesla nor O'Neill mentioned the professor's name.

From here

Subject	4. year 1869/70	5. year 1870/71	6. year 1871/72	7. year 1872/73	Graduation
Physics		Löffler, Kregez, or Sekulic	Löffler, Kregez, or Sekulic	Löffler, or Sekulic	Sekulic

is visible that three persons were teaching physics during Tesla's school years at the Gymnasium.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The second source seems to have changed url, now it is here, but that soource had already been tagged in the article as weak source. I googled it, for instance, "Nikola Tesla Sekulic", I noteced several places mention Sekulić influence on Tesla. Indeed, some results are mirrors of our article here, and some may also be influenced by it, specially many of the more recent entries. The others are for instance this article from 2009, which says:

"Later, Tesla moved to Karlovac to attend the Higher Real Gymnasium, near Zagreb. For this time, he lived with his aunt and her husband, who fed the growing boy sparingly. He studied languages and mathematics, and studied physics under Martin Sekulic, who demonstrated some of his inventions for his pupils. When he graduated, Tesla received notice from his father that he should not return to Gospić as there was an epidemic, but Tesla returned anyway"

This source says: "Once he began attending what was called “Higher Real Gymnasium”, he met a man by the name of Martin Sekulić, a man who would change the path of Nikola’s life forever." but the source isn't highly reliable.

At Google books we have also some results. I dare to say the expression "Sekulic influenced him" may come from "My Inventions Nikola Tesla's Autobiography". We may lack good sources for it. FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

That last source looks to be a tacked on condensed bio copied from Wikipedia (not part of Tesla's original autobiography). John J. O'Neill does not make this claim, W. Bernard Carlson does not repeat it either. It looks to me like this was manufactured by Wikipedia. Should be removed until someone can source it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The earliest iteration of this claim I can find is Wizard: The Life And Times Of Nikola Tesla by Marc Seifer[21] so it does predate Wikipedia. Seifer has a citation for the paragraph but it looks like it references My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla where Tesla only mentions "my Professor of Physics". The claims seem to very from "mathematics teacher" to "physics" teacher. Removing the claim until it can be verified one way or the other by RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Two issues in section: Middle years (1886–1899)

1. "He even lost control of the patents he had generated, since he had assigned them to the company in lieu of stock." So he owned patents but handed them over to the company instead of stock? Makes no sense. Could this be either rephrased or explained a bit better?

Makes perfect sense. His contract with Lane and Vail, like many modern tech employment contracts, gave the company ownership of his patents in exchange for stock in the company. Lane and Vail, the venture capitalists, would provide the capital to develop Tesla's inventions, making them all rich. Then, like many modern entrepreneurs, Tesla had a disagreement with his partners on the direction of the company. They decided not to develop Tesla's patents. The money men had controlling interest, so the inexperienced Tesla lost the rights to his inventions. This kind of deal is very familiar to anyone who knows anything about business startups, for example in Silicon Valley.--Chetvorno^TALK 03:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

2. "During this time, he questioned the value of his education." In the section about his earlier life, the article states that he dropped out of college because he spent all his time gambling instead of studying, and thus having learned nothing, was unprepared to take the final exams. The inconsistency should be explained and not just left open ended. Otherwise maybe adding 'bizarre statement' or something else to prompt the reader to understand this to be part of why people thought him 'mad'

Seems pretty clear in the context of the article's previous paragraphs about Tesla's treatment at the hands of cutthroat Gilded Age robber barons. Tesla went to work for Edison. He "...was offered the task of completely redesigning the Edison Company's direct current generators. According to Tesla, Edison remarked, "There's fifty thousand dollars in it for you—if you can do it." After months of work, Tesla fulfilled the task and inquired about payment. Edison, saying that he was only joking, replied, "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor."

Then he partnered with two businessmen "...who agreed to finance an electric lighting company in Tesla's name, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing.[55] The company installed electrical arc light-based illumination systems designed by Tesla." It is obvious that, whatever his college record, Tesla was a first rate, innovative young engineer who was in demand for his high tech inventions. From Tesla's viewpoint, the businessmen stole his patents: "They eventually forced Tesla out, leaving him penniless. He even lost control of the patents he had generated... He had to work at various electrical repair jobs and as a ditch digger for $2 per day." After these experiences, any sane person might question his choice of career.--Chetvorno^TALK 03:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Chetvorno^TALK, thank you for your explanation. I misunderstood and thought him bemoaning the poor education he received, forgetting that he spent his time gambling. You cleared things up for me - since he was questioning the point of pursuing this very field where those who succeed are hustled and pushed out penniless and left to work alongside uneducated manual laborers. Appreciate your time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Just following on, there are many aspects to it and if you ask real historians this was all about arc lights and the people who really ripped Tesla off (and it wasn't Edison). If there is a misunderstanding of this section (is there?) maybe business practices could be explained? If you start a business based on patents the banks will not finance you unless the patents involved are assigned to the corporate entity. This is normal back then and normal today. These companies were huge, no one had that much money, so you were always dealing with banks. If things look bad, the money interests will call the shots and someone may end up on the streets. Edison had the exact same thing happen to him.... he built a DC lighting company based on his incandescent light patent and then lost it all (including the patents) to the AC competition in 1892 when they took over the company. The financiers looked at the books, handed Edison Electric over to Thomson-Houston in a merger, threw out Thomas Edison's mangement, and formed GE. Edison was mad when it happened and Tesla was mad when it happened. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

False quote from fictious 1899 "interview" circulating - would a debunking of these be appropriate?

I have stumbled upon a quote which attributes "flat earth" views to Tesla. The quote may be related to or extracted from a fictious socalled "1899 interview" of Tesla by "John Smith". The quote is frequently reproduced in various places of dubious nature. Would it be appropriate to mention this here somewhere, with a short but thorough "debunking"? The quote is quite widespread, whereas its status as a hoax is harder to discover, so a mention here would probably serve as useful information. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikola Tesla/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 19:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A few things here and there, but overall in rather good shape.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some sources are tagged for replacement.
	2c. it contains no original research.	A couple of synth and CN tags remain
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's tool just finds common quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Mostly, but note the absence of in-text discussion of some of the awards which are attributed (by category) to Tesla
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Without even doing a complete readthrough, there's clearly room for more breakouts here. The tool cites 51k of readable prose, which is borderline WP:TOOBIG. I will be looking for material to break out as I review the article.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted. I like the balanced approach to Tesla's unsubstantiated claims.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit war noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	No issues found
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	We could even lose a few; there are almost too many images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Promoting per four solid weeks of rewrites and improvements. Article STILL isn't perfect... but perfection is not necessary for GA class.

First read through

Early Years

• Do we need quotes around the types of schooling?
• Do we need four separate citations that his father was an Orthodox priest?
• "After his father's death in 1879,[39] Tesla found a package of letters from his professors to his father, warning that unless he were removed from the school, Tesla would die through overwork. During his second year, Tesla came into conflict with Professor Poeschl over the Gramme dynamo, when Tesla suggested that commutators were not necessary." Since he entered school in 1875, these two statements appear to be out of chronological order without good explanation.
• "Tesla, you don't understand our American humor." I thought we avoided putting Wikilinks in direct quotes, and I'm not sure that American humor needs a wikilink in the first place.
  •  Done, fixed all above. Laurdecl ^talk 10:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Middle years

• "He even lost control of the patents he had generated, since he had assigned them to the company in lieu of stock." In exchange for stock, perhaps?
• One Citation Needed tag in war of currents needs to be resolved.
• The AIEE as predecessor of IEEE is mentioned twice, in "AC and the induction motor" and "American citizenship"
• "On 11 July 1934 the New York Herald Tribune published an article on Tesla, in which he recalled an event that would occasionally take place while experimenting with his single-electrode vacuum tubes; a minute particle would break off the cathode, pass out of the tube, and physically strike him. "Tesla said he could feel a sharp stinging pain where it entered his body, and again at the place where it passed out." In comparing these particles with the bits of metal projected by his "electric gun," Tesla said, "The particles in the beam of force ... will travel much faster than such particles ... and they will travel in concentrations."[105]" So... what's the point of this anecdote?
  •  Done, fixed the issues. I left the anecdote as it is though, I think it's there to illustrate the power of his supposed "electric gun". Laurdecl ^talk 01:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wardenclyffe

• Nothing sprung out at me on first pass.
  •  Done... Laurdecl ^talk 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Later Years

• Note the "synth" tag to be resolved.
  •  Done. Laurdecl ^talk 11:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• "In the fall of 1937, after midnight one night, Tesla left the Hotel New Yorker to make his regular commute to the cathedral and the library to feed the pigeons. While crossing a street a couple of blocks from the hotel, Tesla was unable to dodge a moving taxicab and was thrown heavily to the ground. Tesla's back was severely wrenched and three of his ribs were broken in the accident (the full extent of his injuries will never be known; Tesla refused to consult a doctor — an almost lifelong custom). Tesla didn't raise any question as to who was at fault and refused medical aid, only asking to be taken to his hotel via cab. Tesla was bedridden for some months and was unable to continue feeding pigeons from his window; soon, they failed to come. In early 1938, Tesla was able to get up. He at once resumed the pigeon-feeding walks on a much more limited scale, but frequently had a messenger act for him.[40]" Is the detail re: Pigeons really necessary in this anecdote?
  • It gives context to what he was doing when he was hit. I believe it shows his seclusion and how important the pigeons were to him. Laurdecl ^talk 02:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal life

• In which of his residences were the specific dinner arrangements relevant?

Relationships

• "Robert Underwood Johnson" is Wikilinked twice in two consecutive paragraphs.
  •  Fixed. Laurdecl ^talk 11:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

On society

• Citation Needed tag needs to be cleared.
  •  Done. Laurdecl ^talk 11:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Enterprises and organizations

• There are two bare EL's in there. Convert to references, please.
  •  Done. Laurdecl ^talk 11:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Holidays and events

• "Day of Nikola Tesla, Niagara Falls, 10 July." is neither Wikilinked nor cited.
  •  Fixed. Added a source. Laurdecl ^talk 11:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Plaques and Memorials

• "A monument to Tesla was established at Niagara Falls, New York. This monument portraying Tesla reading a set of notes was sculpted by Frano Kršinić. It was presented to the United States by Yugoslavia in 1976 and is an identical copy of the monument standing in front of the University of Belgrade Faculty of Electrical Engineering." Needs a reference.
  •  Done. Laurdecl ^talk 01:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Several are tagged with "better source needed", most obviously to Tesla Timeline entries.
  • I condensed the references, all of the "better source needed" were for Tesla Timeline. It's referenced 28 times, I'm not sure it can be easily replaced... Laurdecl ^talk 03:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Many references are very terse, lacking access dates, publishers, dates, and other niceties.
  • I'm not sure what I can do here, there are almost 300 references. Laurdecl ^talk 02:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Etc.

• Several of the award categories are not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • I'm not sure what you mean, page categories? Laurdecl ^talk 11:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "Grand Cross of the Order of the White Eagle" for instance, but there appear to be several. Jclemens (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
      • I found them mentioned in the article, in the awards section of the main infobox. Laurdecl ^talk 02:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Whew. That's a long article, and while the prose is quite good, overall, there still are more than a few things that need fixing. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments

In my opinion this GA review is premature owing to the great deal of work that the article needs.

• 1b layout of the article re: "Wireless Power" was one continual project but scattered in this article, there is no such thing as "Wardenclyffe years" - Wardenclyffe was over by 1904.

• 3b "summary style" seems to be a major fail, not only because of the excessive detail compared to the related articles but also because of considerable WP:CFORK. I, and I think other editors, have been cleaning up Nikola Tesla from the "periphery in", cleaning up claims/wording in the sub articles related to him. At this point there is considerable FORKing between this article and articles such as Wireless power transfer, Wardenclyffe Tower, Tesla coil, Tesla's oscillator.

• Tesla's biographical life after 1900 seems to be glossed over. This is the part of his life that included bankruptcy, odd behavior/delusional statements, and portrayals in the press that tended towards the negative.

• Aspects/claims about Tesla are presented out of context; for example after (1920?) Tesla held an annual catered "birthday party" for the press to try to drum up support for past or future inventions or to generally "set the record strait" about his life. Not mentioning this context gives us:
  • "Tesla invented a steam-powered mechanical oscillator—Tesla's oscillator. While experimenting with mechanical oscillators at his Houston Street lab, Tesla allegedly generated a resonance of several buildings. As the speed grew, it is said that the machine oscillated at the resonance frequency of his own building and, belatedly realizing the danger, he was forced to use a sledge hammer to terminate the experiment, just as the police arrived" (this article).

In context gives us:

• • In 1935 at his annual birthday party/press meeting a 79-year-old Tesla related a story where he claimed a version of his mechanical oscillator caused extreme vibrations in structures and even an earthquake in downtown New York City. (Tesla's oscillator).

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that input. You've identified one weak spot of the GA system--that an editor reviewing an article isn't necessarily in a position to evaluate the content sufficiency of the article. At the same time, "good" article status is intentionally lower than featured article quality. While there may be a lot of further work needed to get the article into featured shape, is it truly so far off from GA status that you do not believe it can be brought into alignment with the requirements in a timely manner? Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Although it doesn't really mean anything now, this article was a GA at one point. Laurdecl ^talk 07:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think if Wireless power was consolidated and explained to the average reader (readers have posted on the talk page that the use of the word "Wireless" makes no sense to them and they can not understand how is it different from "radio"), if statements about Tesla could be rooted back to a particular source re:WP:YESPOV #1 (gets tricky because that source is invariably Tesla himself), if Tesla's life after 1900 read a little bit less sanitized, and if the 29 paragraphs of personal description were trimmed back, then, yes, it would be a GA. Its a trim, organize, and synchronizing summary with sub-articles that may not be too difficult and could be done in a timely manner. I think the GA is a good idea and should go forward, I was mainly pointing out something that would probably come up in the review, that the noted need for 3b summary style "breakouts" would reveal that this article and its sub-articles were not in sync. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Super. Can you help prioritize problems? If you'd like to function as a co-reviewer, I'd welcome the help and be happy to share the credit, such as it is. Tesla is listed as a vital article, and as such, when I'm doing a GA review, I want to take as much time as is needed to get it RIGHT. For a level 3 vital article, that's often about a month. GA on some obscure topic without controversy can be "bling" for the editor working on it, but its real purpose is ideally to develop the editing skills needed to tackle the bigger, more controversy-strewn topics like this one. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll be glad to throw in edits. Did not think of being a reviewer since I am not independent, have a long edit history on this article. If its ok I'll just edit from the sidelines and not be a reviewer, if editing during the review wont throw you all off... don't want to make things harder. Most of what I see is just squaring up whats there already by putting things in order, synchronizing with sub articles, and throwing in WP:OBVIOUS such as where Tesla was, the fact that he was designing communication before radio, ionosphere and all that fun stuff, and other basic description. I think a first step would be creating rational section headings and just move material around to match them.... no deletion and a little WP:OBVIOUS addition to lead each section. I could try to put those up in a few days. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, to the extent that editing during a GA doesn't rise to the level of an edit war, it's not only permitted but welcome. I don't see that happening, and if the two of you want to continue focused, ongoing editing until all three of us are agreed that GA criteria are met, and met well enough for the importance of Tesla's stature (i.e., the fact we list this article as vital, I think that is entirely within the spirit of Wikipedia. Laurdecl, what do you think? Jclemens (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Did some edits to rearrange many years of well referenced but piecemeal edits into a coherent narrative. Finding a few omissions along the way (like, wow... we missed the Tesla coil). If this comes off as a little too much "swinging the meat axe" (good or bad connotations noted) let me know. WP:BOLD early?, giving time for editors look over everything and make further changes, or a slower approach?. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I think Fountains of Bryn Mawr has done a wonderful job cleaning this article up (although I think they broke a few refs), it looks much better now compared to when I nominated it. Laurdecl ^talk 03:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the ref breaking. Just added info on Tesla's time at Edison... which again... sorry... made the article a bit longer. I think key moments in Tesla's life like that need extra detail, partly because of WP:YESPOV, and partly because its a big part of the pop-culture views of him... needs explaining. Paring down other sections by WP:SUMMARY should counter-balance this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

...and I'm probably not going to get a chance to review this in any depth until Saturday afternoon U.S. time, so please continue breaking and fixing stuff in the mean time. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

In the beginning of the lead there are four (!) inline citations after "he was Serbian-American". I understand this is controversial but it seems more the result of content disputes/an attempt to further opinions than good style. Do we really need this? Laurdecl ^talk 05:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my thought, too. I'd rather let that over-citation stay than give anyone an excuse to resume an ownership war over Tesla's ethnicity. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Basic structure edits done (one my part... others may see more work to do). Avoided (or in some cases, rolled back) claims about Tesla or his inventions... edits followed more along the lines of "just the facts, mam". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

January 28th

Reviewing as promised. Wifi here is kinda sketchy, but I will at least be able to REVIEW the article today. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• "causing the company to lose contract bids" to lose bids for contracts?

 Done, by you. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Tesla had run-ins with the Edison company before not paying him bonuses he thought he should receive." Tesla had previous run-ins with the Edison company over unpaid bonuses he believed he had earned?

 Done, by you Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1888 Electrical World magazine editor Thomas Commerford Martin (a friend and publicist) arranged for Tesla to demonstrate his alternating current system" A friend of whom, Tesla, presumably? Then is he a general publicist or just Tesla's publicist? "a publicist who had befriended Tesla" perhaps?

 Done. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The timeline between AC and induction motor, which covers 1886-1897, is asynchronous and overlapping with the subsequent section, New York Laboratories, which covers 1889-1902. It's good that they're explicit, but either a strict chronological arrangement or a better tie-in might be more helpful...

Pinging Fountains of Bryn Mawr, who rearranged the sections. Maybe they were going for an timeline of his inventions, rather than a timeline of his life? Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm.... 89 Liberty Street was a "New York laboratory". There is actually no overlap, many sources note Tesla produced his motor patents, licensed them, did a little consulting in Pittsburgh, and was out of there in 1889 - on to pursue his further projects. But moving up the section heading "New York laboratories" may be a good idea. The "War of Currents", ""Tesla Polyphase System" and "Niagara and patents" are technically not a part of a Tesla timeline - they were things done by other people. It can be argued Tesla had no involvement in "War of Currents", but its a big part of his popular myth.... which gets into a "Tesla problem".... how do we cover myth? Should we cover a myth at all? - you can not place a myth in a timeline per WP:YESPOV. The other two items can be broken out and moved to their point in the "timeline". Asynchronous and overlapping material seems to be the nature of the beast since wireless lighting, wireless power, the Tesla Turbine, etc were long term projects so they don't fit a timeline format (at least I could find no way to merge them in). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thinking and working on a rearrangement along the lines of Laurdecl. I think the timeline can be put in sequence via subs called "Polyphase System and the Columbian Exposition", "Consulting on Niagara", "Patent buyout". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk)

• "Steam would be forced into the oscillator, and exit through a series of ports, pushing a piston up and down that was attached to an armature, causing it to vibrate up and down at high speed, producing electricity." Needs more clarity and readability, please.

 Done. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "By mid 1903 Morgan finally refused to advance additional funds." But Morgan had been denying funds for a while, hadn't he? What changed from the prior paragraphs?

 Removed it, I don't see the point of this sentence and there's no direct citation for it. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• The entire Wireless lawsuit section needs prose work: "followed by a reverse decision in favor of Marconi", "there are claims the high court was trying to nullify the World War I claim against the U.S. government by the Marconi Company via citing there were prior patents"

Took a pass at cleanup, removed last sentence since the references were weak. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• "was called in to analyze the Tesla items in OAP custody." Define OAP, please.

Apparently it means "Old Age Pensioner".... Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Patents needs some prose work as well.
• "He squished his toes one hundred times" Flexed his toes? Curled?

 Done, changed to curl. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Cite error with "LeeZhongHui"

 Removed the refs, I have no idea what they refer to. Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think any awards should be listed in the infobox without accompanying text.

I don't feel comfortable simply removing the awards, seeing as most of them have actually been given to him, according to sources. Perhaps I should add references to the infobox? Laurdecl ^talk 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I don't propose they be removed either! I think a paragraph or two detailing the awards and honors he DID get could go somewhere, possibly next to the discussion of the Nobel rumors? Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I added them in under the Nobel prize section. Laurdecl ^talk 08:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's a full run through. Structure and organization looks substantially improved. Jclemens (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this is now waiting on me, isn't it? Will try and get back to it tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep :), no problem. Laurdecl ^talk 06:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Third-party comments

Sorry for jumping in at the last minute, but I couldn't help but notice that the article has plenty of references attributed to Tesla Universe and works published by MyReportLinks.com Books. These aren't RS by any stretch of the imagination and should be culled, and if necessary, replaced, before the reviewer considers promotion. Also there is considerable inconsistency in the ref format—sfn vs. <ref> </ref/> (see Carlson, etc.) This ought to be consistent throughout. 23 editor (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done about TU. One reference to it is used more than twenty (!) times. I just don't have the time to find more sources for each of the statements. In most cases a TU reference has another, more reliable, source next to it. Converting reference format should be trivial. Laurdecl ^talk 06:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe reference formatting is any part of the GA criteria. It absolutely is at FA... but that's a different, stricter process. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the task may seem daunting at first, but it really shouldn't be too difficult. I've skimmed over the assertions it is used to source and virtually all can be found in Carlson, Seifer and Cheney's books, which are available on Google Books. Just enter the relevant keyword and the right page number should pop up. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes. If there is a more reliable source used to cite the same statement, just cull the TU ref. 23 editor (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm interested to why the article doesn't mention any dispute about Tesla's ethnicity/nationality? There are plenty of sources and evidences. I think this deserves to be mentioned. For instance, look at the sources in this discussion [22]. Not to mention that whole thread. 89.164.158.107 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Because Tesla was a Serb. Laurdecl ^talk 06:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you so sure, but you can't neglect other sources. There's obviously a dispute. I pointed to sources and I think the article should mention that dispute. May I ask you, which source made you convinced that Tesla is a Serb? As far as I know, not a single source which makes the claim is founded in any primary source. Yes there are many sources that claim he was a Serb, but that's as much worth as my word that he was a Hungarian, without any argument or primary source to base the claim. 89.164.132.23 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No, Asdisis. There isn't a dispute. There has never been a dispute. You've tried to force your fringe POV on this article since 2012. You failed. Not a single Tesla biographer supports your views. Get over yourself. Stop wasting your time. 23 editor (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I've put a link to 28 sources saying otherwise. None of the sources has any foundation in any claim. No primary sources exist that would back up any group of sources. If you are going to ignore this sources and arguments, that's your problem as an objective editor. There's obviously a dispute as no one has any primary source. Here's something from Director of Tesla Museum in Belgrade: "Vladimir Jelenković ..., had confirmed that the theories on Tesla's Romanian ethnicity are very often." [23]. 89.164.187.82 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Back to TU

I would recommend against summarily deleting ALL TeslaUniverse citations (I would just take out most of them;)). All sources have their failings but they are reliable in some form. TU does carry republished material, giving us a readable version on-line of a primary or secondary source that is not just "TU speaking". I restored this TU citation because it is a summary of a primary source and seems reliable. That same primary source is cited by a very reliable secondary source (Carlson) and it is nice to have the backup TU article to flesh it out. I would note there are worse sources (IMHO) than TU being used in the Tesla article such as teslasociety.com, teslasociety.org, and tfcbooks.com. Those are all fan sites and the factual errors they present can be doozies. tfcbooks.com is the best (or worse) of both worlds... the editor has a POV (and pushes them on Wikipedia) but the site also reprints primary sourced material, which can be useful (although it can also be replaced). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Can you guys ping me once you've hashed everything out to your mutual satisfaction? I like the progress so far... Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would use it as an absolute last resort. If a claim you wish to cite is located in a Tesla bio or some other reliable source (news article, etc.), then double- or triple-citing (and thereby including TU) is completely unjustified. Sometimes just one source is enough, especially if we are dealing with an uncontroversial claim. As far as I can tell, there is very little attributed to the TU timeline that can't be sourced using Carlson, Cheney or Seifer. On another note, the article has a widespread problem with WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources, published by Lulu and Authorhouse, among others. This issue hasn't been addressed at all, and it must be in order for the GA criteria pertaining to verifiability to be satisfied. I'll see what I can do over the next couples of days, but I'd like for other contributors to give me a hand in sifting the good sources from the junk ones. 23 editor (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I would agree (again) that we should use TU very little but it does have its uses. The "Tesla Timeline" is the worse because it has no citations. I cited TU above where it is a primary source confirmation and expansion on Carlson (because Carlson didn't give us dates). It gets trickier when claiming one source is better than another. The self published books, Cheney, Seifer, O'Neill (and a few others) are equally problematic in a GA because none of those people are historians and/or experts in engineering (most are journalists). They fall in the same boat as TU, good for an uncontroversial claim where they give you a citation you can follow but more problematic beyond that since their primary goal is write an entertaining tale. Carlson is probably the best source --> University of Virginia professor of professor of history, science, technology, and society... although he does seem to make the occasional mistake[24]. I just found out Thomas P. Hughes does as well[25]. Jonnes would be another good academic source. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

No source is perfect, obviously. I see nothing wrong with using journalists as sources, otherwise we might as well jettison the NYT, BBC, etc. The published sources you've mentioned all have extensive endnotes, which news articles typically don't. When it comes to referencing details from Tesla's life as opposed to his inventions, I fail to see why the authors would have to be engineers. In any case, both are infinitely more reliable than fanboy sites and self-published works. If no one is up for combing through the TU citations and replacing them with rs, I guess I'll have to do it myself. Give me a day or two. 23 editor (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Still agree with the TU cull. I have been doing minor my self as I work my way through section by section (slowly). Straight biographical work can be ref'ed to works by non-historians. We can check them and almost skip them because we can read their sources ---> Tesla (his bio and articles), Tesla as told to/or copied by O'Neill, primary source newspaper articles about Tesla, and patents. BBC, NYT, Smithsonian, and a whole slew of journalists turned "Tesla biographers", they can all be pretty awful when it comes to general historical context and technical stuff, its not their job know that stuff. But it probably doesn't matter because we do have Carlson, Jonnes, Hughes, Skrabec, Maury Klein, etc to rely on. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

February 11th re-review

• "His work in the formative years of electric-power development was involved in a corporate alternating current/direct current "War of Currents" as well as various patent battles." Awkward. His work during the formative years, maybe?
• "Tesla went on to pursue his ideas of wireless lighting and electricity distribution in his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs and made early (1893) pronouncements on the possibility of wireless communication with his devices. " 1) his ideas for wireless lighting, perhaps? 2) Couldn't this really be two sentences?
• "Tesla's father, in a moment of despair, promised to send him to the best engineering school if he recovered from the illness" Promised Nikola or promised God? The latter seems a reasonable reading, given that the elder Tesla was a priest.

I'm pretty sure he promised Tesla. Laurdecl ^talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Military Frontier is wikilinked twice in the Early Years section.
• "There he gained a great deal of practical experience in hands on electrical engineering." Seems a bit redundant. Do we need both "practical" and "hands on"?
• "The near collapse of Barings Bank in London triggered the financial panic of 1890, causing investors to call in their loans to the Westinghouse." to the Westinghouse corporation or to Westinghouse himself?
• "To fund his experiments he convinced John Jacob Astor IV to invested $100,000 to become a majority share holder in the Nikola Tesla Company, a company set up to further develop a variety of Tesla inventions and patents." Tense? This, too, might be OK as 2 sentences.
• Watch out for overlinking. "Lightning" and "power outage" seem not to really need them, among others.
• Thanks for integrating them into the text, but we still need citations for the list of Tesla's awards, please.

I'll get to it... Laurdecl ^talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• "There are a minimum of 278 patents[215] issued to Tesla in 26 countries that have been accounted for." There should be a finite number of known patents, rather than a minimum? Regardless "accounted for" is used twice in the paragraph.
• "Tesla claimed to never sleep more than two hours." ... per night?

Hah, imagine if he only slept two hours in his entire life. Laurdecl ^talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, I was thinking vs. "at a time". Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• "128 streets in Croatia had been named after Nikola Tesla as of November 2008, making him the eighth most common person eponym of streets in the country.[278]" Awkward. "making his name..." perhaps?

Ok, I'm going crosseyed. I want to commend everyone on their collaboration. Each time I go through this article it reads better. The only reason I keep finding things to nitpick on is the heroic level of ongoing editor investment in this article. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done, all of it. Laurdecl ^talk 05:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

And in light of all that you all have done for the article so far, I am compelled to recognize that it has met GA criteria. GA does not demand perfection, and there are still a lot of idisyncracies, sourcing that could be improved or made more consistent, and the like. You're a far piece from FA, but you've come so far in the past month that holding back GA at this point would simply be petty. Please, continue to collaboratively improve the work as you have been doing so far! Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)