Talk:Nikola Tesla

Citizenship

I kindly ask the help of an advanced Croatian history expert and/or a Nikola Tesla biography specialist. The infobox information is surely incorrect, since Austro-Hungarian citizenship did not exist (for details check Austrian Empire/The Status of the Kingdom of Hungary section). Since it was true also before and after the Austro-Hungarian compromise, at the same time Kingdom of Croatia were also legally part of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen, also before and after - of course since 1868 as Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Literally with some legal conditions like personal-union, etc., part of Kingdom of Hungary (although before the compromise, regardless of the legal status, it was directly controlled from Vienna, but this was also true for Royal Hungary, regardless it was legally a Regnum Independens, it is common if the crown is held by a King from a different house, but it never meant to consider the Austrian Empire as one state, but a type of conglomeration of states with a common King)

It's a bit hard to visualize this, since I want to reflect it the time when Tesla was born. I am also aware not all former states/regions "conquered" by the Austrian Empire had the status as a separate state in the Habsburg Crownlands, like Kingdom of Hungary had. So I want to know exactly - not just by the prediction where Tesla was born/lived - what citizenships he had or did he resigned any citizenship before acquiring the American one.

Please someone tell if Kingdom of Croatia had a similar status by citizenship like Hungary in 1856...or if not and we assume between the time he was born and after acquiring the U.S. citizenship, and assuming he did not change citizenship on his own will, then he was a Hungarian citizen (if we regard the legal hereditary status) or an Austrian citizen (if regardless of the legal status of Kingdom of Croatia as part the Lands of the crown of St. Stephen, Hungarian citizenship was not applied there for any reason) this period.

I'd say the infobox's citizenship section just enlisting some empires/states Tesla stayed, and in reality it does not tell us anything about his former citizenships, even if we ignore the date of birth and death, we only know about the date of the compromise and the abolishment of AH.

Please someone make it clear, because he surely wasn't a Austro-Hungarian citizen,such did not exist. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

If you look at the third paragraph at Austria-Hungary#Structure and name, you might reasonably conclude that his citizenship was Hungarian between 1867 and 1891. But according to this he could have also chosen to be Austrian. Meanwhile, I will simply remove that content from the infobox, and it can remain a mystery until we have a conclusive source that explicitly states what his citizenship was during that time.- MrX 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I found several reliable, primary sources.

1. Tesla held Austrian citizenship when he was naturalized as a US citizen. (Source: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Soundex Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 1792-1906 (M1674); Microfilm Serial: M1674; Microfilm Roll: 268; Roll Description : T-236; T-360; Ancestry.com. U.S. Naturalization Record Indexes, 1791-1992 (Indexed in World Archives Project)).
2. His passport application in 1891 lists his birthplace as Austria (Source: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; Passport Applications, 1795-1905; Collection Number: ARC Identifier 566612 / MLR Number A1 508; NARA Series: M1372; Roll #: 378; Volume : Roll 378 - 14 Jul 1891-31 Jul 1891; Ancestry.com. U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925).
3. In his petition for Naturalization in 1889, he renounces his allegiance to Austria. (Source:Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York (700-702); Ancestry.com. New York, Naturalization Petitions, 1794-1906; Original data: Petitions for Naturalization, 1793-1906. ARC ID: 5324244. Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Record Group 85. National Archives at New York City, New York, U.S.A.)- MrX 03:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this information are a huge step forward, and it's almost very sure from his birth until 1891 he was an Austrian citizen. If someone knows did he earlier resign/acquire any citizenship, please share and also I'd like to hear a Croatia expert between 1856-1867 what citizenship the people in Kingdom of Croatia had. If we have all this missing information, the infobox's citizenship section should be changed in a way not the corresponding country names are listed (it might change meanwhile the citizenship remains), but like i.e. Austrian (?-29 July 1891), American (30 July 1891 – 7 January 1943)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

I'm involved in other discussions during which i stumbled across information that can help this discussion. I think that people living in Military frontier had Austrian citizenship. According to Vasilije Krestic, those people, after the abolishment of Military frontier became Croatian citizens. I think that its worth investigating that way because after 1881. Military frontier was completely abolished and was returned to Croatia. If I find some valid sources I will post them here. For now, I just wanted to give a pointer to anyone involved in this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet, from his letter to The New York Times in 1934,[1], it's quite clear that Tesla himself thought: "I was born in Croatia." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's own opinion regarding his homeland

Apart and regardless of the ongoing discussion about his place of birth, Tesla's own opinion that Croatia is his homeland should be explicitly stated in the article. I will just briefly repeat Tesla's own statement: "I was born in Croatia". [2]. Also, his other statement from 1892. : "I see it as my duty, as a son of my homeland, to help the City of Zagreb in every way by advice and deed" , May, 24, 1892. , Zagreb [3] In my opinion, the context of the whole article somewhat diminishes Croatia, while Croatia is a big part of Tesla's life. Croatia is mentioned only 2 times as Tesla's birthplace, in a misleading phrase and below the picture of his birth house. That does not reflects the importance Croatia had as Tesla's homeland. I think that Croatia should be mentioned in the very beginning of the article, and the whole context of the article should reflect Croatia's importance in Tesla's life. Asdisis (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are presenting primary sources and interpenetrating them as Tesla's views. You should try referencing to a secondary source. Several books, including I think Cheney, cover this topic. Also see: WP:PSTS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

From wikipedia: "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

As it is said: "...primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation...". This source is primary but it is containing a direct quotation from Tesla himself. Quotation which reflects his own opinion. The source is valid. The interpretation is clear and understandable.Asdisis (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought the letter itself was the primary source and the published version a secondary one. But what does Cheney say? Does she discount the clear statement in that 1934 letter? I agree that Tesla's views about his nationality may have changed or matured. But I'm still unsure how much "interpretation" is required to understand that letter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted above by User:Asdisis above, Margaret Cheney (2001) says: "Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia..." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, please note that we are discussing about Tesla's personal opinion, and not the geopolitical situation. I clearly stated that this discussion is a separate one. The quote from Margaret Cheney (2001) does not tell anything about Tesla's personal opinion. The only needed source to establish Tesla's own opinion are Tesla's own words. I presented the only needed source. This shouldn't became a continuation of the above discussion about the place of his birth. Asdisis (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I accept that Cheney might have separate and disparate views, between her understanding of the location of Tesla's birthplace and her understanding of Tesla's own view. (But I think that's unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A view that that this "reflects (Tesla's) own opinion" is an opinion (of an editor). Tesla did not say he was Croatian, he said "I was born in Croatia". And taking just two primary sources when there are many secondary sources is WP:CHERRY. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (WP:PSTS). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So it seems we need to look to Cheney, then. But I don't see any editorial influence, by NYT, in printing a letter that says "I was born in Croatia". Do you think, FoBM, that Tesla saw himself as a Croatian? I would have thought you;d have a better idea than most of us here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that absolutely isn't the case. You have completely misunderstood the topic. I refer you to again read the topic of this discussion and the Wikipedia guideline I copied here. First of all, we are not discussing weather Tesla is Croatian. I agree, that would be an editors interpretation of presented quote. Tesla's quote was not analyzed, synthesized or interpreted. Asdisis (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

hmmm you copied an essay, not a policy, please refer to the policy I cited. Interpretation of what goes into an article is the domain of secondary sources, not talk page opinion. I am saying read all of the reliable sources on the topic to see if this is even mentioned and give the best interpretation of those secondary sources. We actually do not need to debate primary sources, we have secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, what do they say? You have probably read most, if not all, of them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have skimmed through material on this topic but it wouldn't be my place to flesh it out (I am not making the proposal). This interpertation seems to show a Tesla who didn't care if there was a "Croatia", he just wanted his homeland unified. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you paste the quote here, I do not understand what you are referencing. Thanks. Asdisis (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My bad, Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, page 303, page on that search page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, again I do not see what you are referencing. Could you please paste the quote and the source here. Asdisis (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, page 303

• The deepening political turmoil in Europe in the mid- 1930s did not spare Yugoslavia. The Serbian ruler, King Alexander, who had established a Yugoslavian dictatorship following a move toward separatism by Croatia, was assassinated at Marseille in 1934 by a Croat terrorist. Tesla promptly wrote to The New York Times in defense of the "martyred" monarch. Seeking to minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats, he described King Alexander as "a heroic figure of imposing stature, both the Washington and Lincoln of the Yugoslavs ... a wise and patriotic leader who suffered martyrdom." ............ Alexander was succeeded by his son, the young King Peter II, under the regency of Prince Paul. Tesla accordingly transferred his loyalty to the boy king, who would grow up prematurely in a world aflame.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a valid source. This references the article Tesla wrote, that I referenced. I agree with this interpretation of the whole article. Tesla does minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats. However, that interpretation does not tell us anything about the question relevant to this discussion. Although Tesla minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats, he does clearly state that he was born in Croatia, which reflects his opinion that his homeland is Croatia. The source gave the basic interpretation of the whole article Tesla wrote, it did not tell anything about Tesla's opinion that Croatia is his homeland. I don't think that this general interpretation can help us in this discussion. Again, thank you for the valid source. Also, note that this source explicitly said that Tesla was born in Croatia : "Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia...". This is consistent with both the above discussion and with Tesla's personal opinion. Asdisis (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat. Primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. This is the case here. If you find any other source relevant to this discussion be free to post it here. Until then, I conclude. Asdisis (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, it appears you are trying to directly equate "homeland" with "birth place". They're often not directly the same in English. Homeland carries notes of allegiance, heritage, and familial historic ties (fatherland). It says far more than just "birth place". For instance, I doubt that senator John McCain would refer to Panama as his homeland just because he was born there (maybe "birth land"). He very strongly self-identifies with the United States. So your "born in" reference can not be used to support a "homeland" phrase in the article. Then your other reference looks like your own personal interpretation into English, where you have Tesla saying he is a son of his homeland. Even if this was a professional interpreter, we have to keep in mind that all cross-lingual interpretations are rough approximations at best. We would have to balance that approximate interpretation against many more detailed references that contradict it, like this one that explains Tesla's father was a minister in the Serbian Orthodox Church; the family "tenaciously" observed Serb ethnic traditions, and lived as "transplants" in Croatia.1, along with Fountains quoted reference above, and many other similar references. Then another concern would be that Tesla, in that "homeland" quote, could have very well been referring to the wider Serbia + Croatia combined; there is no evidence we can use that he meant Croatia only. There is really no doubt that it would be unencyclopedic and personal, original research for our article to make Croatian homeland claims. Instead we have to just stick with what the majority of the best sources say. If they say "birth place", then we say "birth place"; and not try to twist it into the similar "homeland" and get bogged down in the cross-cultural competition for Tesla as a native son. --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that modern day Croatians are much readier to champion Tesla as a national hero, than he was himself to espouse that country as his only true "fatherland"? I'm begining to think, from what FoBM tells us, that he was more committed to the cause of freedom from foreign domination than to the cause of any individual nationalist agenda. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is based on the first quote. Tesla himself stated he was born in Croatia, he lived his early life in Croatia. That makes Croatia his homeland, according to his opinion. His other quote just confirms it. I agree that the relevance of the other quote can be debated. However it is not questionable that Tesla is referencing Croatia as his homeland in that statement since the quote was made in 1892. This is a long time before Yugoslavia, so your claim has no sense. The quote was made during the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. [4]. The context of that statement is clear. Furthermore, his own statement from the time of Yugoslavia , 1934. clearly distinguishes Croatia as a place of his birth although the quote was made years after Yugoslavia was established. Your objections are based on your interpretation, while my claim is based directly on Tesla's statement. Also, note that i haven't yet made any request for editing. I just presented a valuable and reliable information which should be included in the article. Asdisis (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please reread, lol. As I said, "born in" does NOT equal "homeland", especially in the context of a "transplanted minority" with different ethnic traditions than the Croats.1 If your source says "born in", then why can't we just also say "born in"? Why do you want to twist it into "homeland"? What is your motivation for making this subtle, but very important change away from what the reference actually says?--Tom Hulse (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, read again my previous answer to you. Asdisis (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla may have said Croatia as his birthplace in that interview simply because he was a Yugoslavist, an apologist at that time of the liberation of South-Slavic territories under AUstro-Hungary and their union with Serbia. So a person whith his beleafs would certainly prefer to say Croatia than Austria in a casual interview. But that is so very far from making an entire phantasy of how that means he is a Croat, Croatia is his homeland, etc. Also, from the source provded by Tom Hulse, you can clarly see that Tesla defended the Serbian King and not the Croatian nationalists that assasinated him. ~This discussion is going nowhere as Asdinsis wants to add something to the text which is not at all backed by any source. FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have seen enough to decide it's "an entire phantasy". It looks a little more equivocal to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation does not follow Tesla's statement. Without any source to confirm your interpretation Tesla's statement should be written into article. Note that we are not arguing that Croatia is Tesla's homeland, but that Tesla himself considered Croatia to be his homeland. He was born and lived in Croatia all his early life (that is again Tesla's opinion). Both, during Austro-Hungary, and Yugoslavia Tesla mentions Croatia as his homeland. The fact that he himself considered that he was born in Croatia makes Croatia his homeland, because he also spent his early life there. Thus in this case "born in" equals "homeland". His earlier statement confirms that. There is nothing to debate about Tesla's own opinion, because he clearly stated that opinion himself. Previously presented source does not tell us anything useful to this discussion. I will make the necessary request in a few days so there's plenty time to find further sources.Asdisis (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You have 2 sources, none of which says anything what you claim they say, and you are trying to maximally twist them in order to fit your pretended interpretation. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, exactly. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Both statements were made by Tesla himself. I did not twist anything. I haven't made any interpretations. I only used words Tesla himself used. Yes, I identified birth place and homeland. This is because Tesla himself used the term "homeland", and because the reasoning explained earlier. To repeat the reasoning, he was born and lived his whole early life in Croatia. Just to note that in 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was established. When Tesla was 12 years old, the age people start to associate themselves with some entity. Maybe you can see now why Tesla associated himself with Croatia, because he lived in Croatia. I'm sorry to say, but your objection are irrational. To say it this way, Tesla's connection to Croatia should not be hidden. It must be mentioned in the article. Asdisis (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to say Tesla was born in Croatia, since that political entity did not exist at the time. Tesla's cultural heritage was primarily Serbian, not Croatian, so the attempt to push Croatia to the forefront is not neutral. Tesla wished for unification of Serbs and Croats, as he felt connected to both. He was not a nationalist for either side. This Wikipedia biography is not going to be the place for nationalism. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, read the topic of this discussion again. You completely missed the point. Asdisis (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, so "that political entity did not exist at the time"? I think Josip Jelačić might have disagreed with you. You're suggesting that Croatia was somehow wiped off the map after the Illyrian movement? But I tend to agree with you that Tesla was not a "nationalist" as most people might understand it. He became a US citizen at age 35, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no real suggestion on specific changes to the article, so this discussion isn't particularly useful. We used to have a paragraph that explained the relations between Tesla and his origins through a handful of references to what Tesla did or said about it, and how it was interpreted afterwards, but Fountains completely removed it a year ago because the paragraph was rather imperfect. This clearly did not make the issue go away, so we should definitely restore something about it. I searched Google Books looking for specific secondary-source information about the issue, and found a few tidbits: this mention of how Serbs and Croats both took Tesla worship to more or less embarrassing levels, and this biography that uses Tesla as an example of using not Austrian or Yugoslav but Serbian origin, but has no problem stating Smiljan, Croatia to be his birthplace. Even combined with the info from the removed edit, this is still all on the level of a footnote, but in a 137KB article, we have no major reason to omit that footnote. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see how anything you said has to do with this discussion. Neither of the sources deal with Tesla's personal opinion about his homeland. There is a clear distinction between Serbians and Croatians on the one side, and Serbia and Croatia on the other side. Many Serbs lived in Croatia. Many Serbs live in Croatia today. To all of them Croatia is their homeland, not Serbia. This is an answer to your confusion with the 2nd source you presented. I agree it would be useful to find secondary sources to confirm Tesla's own statements. However if they are not found or presented in the reasonable time span editing should be done on the presented sources. If other sources are found later, a new request can be made. Asdisis (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did make a proposal for a specific change, to quote the 1934 NYT letter, but consensus suggests this would be WP:UNDUE. I think adding a footnote or paragraph(s), as you suggest, would be a very useful compromise and might also satisfy Asdisis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a consensus. But it is hard to do that when the other side diminishes valid sources, and yet it did not present any other sources to support their claim. Yes, it should be reflected in the article and from the context it should be clear that Tesla, although of Serbian origins, has Croatia as his homeland, as do many Serbs had and have, even today. Tesla lived in Croatia all of his early life (that is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). My suggestion is that the sentence: "Tesla himself considered Croatia to be his homeland" should enter the article. Furthermore the context must reflect the importance Croatia had to Tesla. Also, if someone of you could help me, and point to the reason Tesla's telegram got removed from the article. I'm not quite familiar with how the things work around here. Thanks.Asdisis (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, it is obvious that English is not your first language, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you should not so boldly ignore clear explanations from native speakers about the subtleties of our words. You refuse to give up your silly insistence that "homeland" = "born in" in this context. Here is more proof: what is the reason you are arguing so passionately that we must say homeland instead of "born in"? If they are really the same, then you honestly wouldn't care. But there is something about that homeland word you really want, isn't there? You want it because it brings more honor to Croatia than merely "born in", and that would be fine if the sources actually said that. Examine your heart. If you are honest, you will see that your desire to use "homeland" is actually proof these words are different and can't be interchanged at random.

On your second source, the one using the word "homeland", it does not matter which countries existed then or which one(s) of them you hope he was talking about. We just have no way to be sure which entity(s) or areas he was talking about, especially as a transplanted minority with different ethnic traditions than the Croats. Any supposition on your part is original research. That ref can not be used in any way to support the statement that he viewed Croatia as his homeland (in fact, even your arguments on this ref prove that you realize that "homeland" is whatever each of us personally wants to think it is, not just where someone else says we were born). You said we haven't used sources (I didn't think we had to since they all agree), but here are some that all say "born in" instead of "homeland", including the last in Tesla's own words: 12345 Notice how the first ref very neutrally discusses how both the Serbs and Croats claim him for a native son, without taking sides. This is encyclopedic, neutral, informative, follows what our references say, and is a good example for our article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I already explained why the term homeland has to be used. It is the term Tesla himself used. It reflects Tesla's connection to Croatia. Term, born in does not reflect Tesla's connection in an adequate way. For instance many people who were born outside USA, and immigrated at their young age consider USA as their homeland because they grew up there. The term homeland reflects Tesla's feelings towards Croatia. Homeland is not a place where someone was born, its a place where someone spend the early years of his life and a place to which he associated. A place someone considers to be a part of. I see you understood exactly. In your words "it brings more honor to Croatia than merely 'born in'". I have explained it in my own words above. So to repeat, Tesla used the exact term himself, that is why i think it is important to use the same term. In the second source I presented, Tesla thinks of Croatia, there's no other entity he could think of. I agree it would be a leap to conclude that by itself. However, the first statement, made in Yugoslavia clearly state Croatia as a place of his birth. Also i would like to mention his telegram , which i have not been mentioning so far because it got removed from the article, and i haven't yet found out why. It will be mentioned in the request which will follow this discussion. I haven't made any original research. I presented primary sources. To repeat : "Primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.". This is the case here. So to be clear. Homeland is an entity where someone established himself as a person. For Tesla that is Croatia.

Again, I repeat, none of the sources you presented fit to this discussion. The do not deal with Tesla's personal opinion. They do not tell anything about which entity Tesla considered to be his homeland. Please join with those sources the above discussion about the place of Tesla's birth. This sources are valuable to that discussion as they further support already presented sources. Thanks. Asdisis (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you now agree that "homeland" can have a different meaning than "born in". All 5 sources are directly relevant because they show how reliable sources describe his birthplace. None, including your two, say that his homeland was Croatia. You need to use your opinion to make that jump. Only 1 source even mentions "homeland", but let's be clear that it does NOT say it is Croatia. It is your opinion only that he must have meant Croatia. We can't write articles on your opinions nor mine, just references; please, please read WP:NOR (this is exactly what you are doing) . Please consider that when a Serbian ethnic transplant living in Croatia says "homeland", he could have easily meant 1)the exact country he was standing in at the time, 2) the foreign lands of his forefathers that he ethnically identifies with, or 3) a combination of the two or 4) something else. He just didn't define his homeland and you don't get to insert your opinion about what he meant into the article. We will only say what the sources say, no more, even if it is your opinion it "must" have been what he meant. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained it well in my previous comments why the term "homeland" should be used. As I said, Tesla's personal opinion does not have to match with geo-political situation on the area he was born, which your sources describe. We need a source that interprets Tesla's opinion. Join the above discussion with your sources. I think they will be much appreciated. Second source, viewed with other Tesla's statements does not have any dual meanings. Viewed separately it can have dual meanings, but viewed with the other sources, it is clear which entity Tesla meant. Also, note that I will incorporate Tesla's telegram in which Tesla also used that term in the request. I agree we shouldn't give our interpretations and we must base our conclusions on the valid sources. That is exactly i have been doing. I can't say you have also done that. You stated only your opinions, and the sources that do not belong to this discussion. To sum the whole discussion, we presently have only 2 sources I stated in the initial post. Also I will further add Tesla's telegram as a source. The conclusion has to be based on those sources. Asdisis (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you will now use a combination of sources to induce opinion, as you don´t have even one claiming what you pretend. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no other entity than Croatia Tesla could have been thinking of. Of course that if subjected to someone's opinion, that is why we must look other sources. I stated that I base my conclusion on the 1st source, Tesla's statement that he was born in Croatia. This makes Croatia an entity where he was born and established himself as a person. In 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was created. From that point there is no doubt Tesla lived in Croatia. In his opinion, he was also born in Croatia. To him, the area of Croatian military frontier was Croatian land. This makes Croatia his homeland. That is why I suggested a sentence "Tesla considered Croatia to be his homeland.". I haven't interpreted anything, and i haven't stated anything but Tesla's own opinion. So to repeat, Croatia is Tesla's homeland because he was born there and spend his early life there (this is his own opinion, not the geo-political situation). The only thing that remains is why I used the term "homeland". I used it because Tesla used it himself in his other statement. That term reflects his feelings and opinion. As Tom Hulse put it, the term "homeland" brings more honor to Croatia than merely "born in". I haven't derived Croatia from 2nd statement. I explicitly said that this statement looked separate can not derive Croatia as his homeland. And furthermore, I repeat that I will introduce Tesla's telegram as a source as soon I investigate its reliability. That Telegram contains the exact phrase Croatia-homeland and leaves no doubt what Tesla meant. I would appreciate if someone could paste here the reasoning Tesla's telegram was removed from the article. That would me very helpful. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to any edit based on Tesla commenting on his homeland, or commenting on his Croatian or Serbian heritage, unless it is covered in detail in multiple reliable secondary sources, per WP:DUE. Similarly, I would also not include Tesla's comment, "My mother was the greatest woman Serbia ever produced." or "When I was in the polytechnic college in Serbia, I became an inveterate gambler." - MrX 01:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MrX.

Asdisis, I think everyone understood quite well what you pretend, no walls of text are making any difference anymore, you were clear. So sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you. Yes, Tesla may have considered Croatia his "homeland" but he was also very aware of his Serbian ethnicity, and by then, the Yugoslav ideals were already very much disseminated, specially ammong educated Serbs, Croats and others living in Austro-Hungary. As we know, Tesla was a Croatian Serb Yugoslavist, and he fully supported the ideia of uniting Austro-Hungarian lands of Croatia, Slovenia, Slavonia, Dalmatia and Vojvodina to sovereign Serbia and forming a joint state. So he may have easily said that he would help events in his "homeland" in Split, Sarajevo or Belgrade, not only Zagreb, if he was asked about. That only source doesn´t give us right here to add some passionate idea between him and Croatia. It´s simply far from enough. Lets talk straight honestly: the region Tesla was born was not independent despite me knowing how great efforts are made in nationalist circles in Croatia to promote the idea of an almost independent major Croatian Kingdom by then. But no, the region was in constant turmoil allways occupied by Austria who, in their interest, created there several subdivisions, giving sometimes to some of them some local power in order to avoid rebellion because romanticism and ideals of liberation were already present in the population since early XIX c. (see Yugoslavism). So, we obviously need to see the correct historical perspective at that point, and Tesla later in his live allways clearly showed support for Yugoslavia and Serbian king, and never defended Croatia and their regional autonomical aspirations within Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, no walls of text can make someones case stronger. The case must be based on valid sources. I do not understand what you mean when you say "pretend". I quite well explained my suggestion. I answered to all other comments and further elaborated all uncertainties. I suggest you read my last comment again, because it seems you haven't understood it completely. I explained that I do not base my proposal on the 2nd statement. And again i repeat that we are not discussing geo-political situation of Croatia in Tesla's time, but Tesla's personal feelings towards Croatia. Since it seems nobody will post here why Tesla's telegram was taken out from the article, i will probably include it as my source in the request. Its validity will be discussed there.

MrX, I think i explained my case very well. I will make a request. I repeat that Croatia is somewhat diminished in this article, and that has to be corrected. Your personal opinion on what would you include in the article is just that, an opinion. I have a different opinion, and valid sources. I also explained why this primary sources are valid. I accept your argument that the decision should be based on reliable secondary sources. I suggest we find those secondary sources that will confirm presented primary sources. In the absence of secondary sources the decision should be made on the presented primary sources. I explained why, because they are in support of a direct quotation. No personal interpretations have been made. Especially the interpretation of Tesla's telegram. If, in the future, secondary sources are found by someone, a new request can be made. I think our discussion here can finish. I will leave some time for us to find secondary sources before i make a request. Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this entire thread (and even the one above) belong elsewhere: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? (see template at the top of this Talk Page). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As i can see from a quick look, this discussion was not discussed before. His birth place was discussed. However i want to state that this discussion was on a far higher intellectual level. It's based on valid sources, and it can't be compared with the previous discussions. Asdisis (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to appraise the "intellectual level" or novelty of this discussion, just suggesting it might be in the wrong place. I realise it's all been prompted by a statement in the article, but the subject matter of this dicussion thread seems to be quite clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash, lol. This is ridiculous circular arguing with a heavily biased individual that won't accept consensus. You've given zero sources that say what you want in the article. Instead you try to "infer" the truth in a way that everyone agrees is original research (and most think is plain wrong). Can't you see the supreme irony of how in the next discussion up above, you are so adamant that nothing can be inferred about the meaning of the word Croatia and they must absolutely use only the specific literal wording in the sources despite what may have been meant, yet here you are doing exactly what you criticize above. It is also ironic to the point of being funny that you agree homeland/born-in have different meanings so you can sell the importance of making a change, but then you turn around and say they are the indentical in the same post so that you have permission to change the wording of what the source actually says. Can't you see how outrageous that is? Does your nationalism have no limits in logic? It is just so simple, simple, simple: your sources do not say Croatia was his homeland, your opinion about what the ref "must" have meant is irrelevant babble. --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Methinks Asdisis is a Croat, and one from Zagreb :)

No, I think its logical to state at some point that Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland, but only if sources are provided stating that explicitly. We could quote him, though.. that's permitted per WP:PRIMARY. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would accept consensus. In the previous discussion I'm going in that way. This discussion haven't yet become a request. In any way i thought that you do not want to accept consensus. I've given valid sourced that i haven't interpreted. I haven't been doing original research. I do not see the irony. I have been working on a consensus in the above request. I haven't been adamant. Not in the above discussion, nor in this one. I explained why in Tesla's case the term born in also means that Croatia is his homeland. To repeat, because he also grew up and established himself in Croatia. The complicated situation Croatia had been in the time of his birth was resolved already in 1868, and even before the area Tesla was born, Military zone, "galvanised Croatian national sentiment" (source is listed above). I argue that a place where someone was born and established himself as a person makes that place his homeland. That term Tesla himself used. He also explicitly said that Croatia was his homeland in his Telegram. Director, as I can see, Tesla's telegram states that explicitly, however i do not know why it was removed from the article. Asdisis (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The man was born in what was generally considered "Croatia" in unofficial parlance, and "Croatia proper" today. That is to say, from a less formal point of view, it is correct that "Tesla was born in Croatia". However, from a strictly formal point of view, such a statement suggests he was born in the contemporary Austrian state of Croatia (which comprised one part of said region), as opposed to the military frontier (which took up the rest).

Its a bit complicated, but as this is an encyclopedia, I think we should insist that anyone wishing to discuss this issue be at least marginally familiar with the basic state of affairs in that part of the Austrian Empire in 1854. And we should not cater to the "unwashed masses" through utilizing a simplistic approach, shoving all this under the rug. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director please, this arguing does not belong in this discussion. This discussion is regarding Tesla's own opinion about the place he was born. To quote you "The man was born in what was generally considered Croatia". His opinion does not have to be based on political and administrative situation at that time. People form their opinion on national sentiment of a certain area. Please join the above discussion with this argument. Asdisis (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly. I also understand you are missing some basic information regarding how sourcing functions. You can not find a quote of Tesla saying "Croatia is my homeland" - and then introduce a statement of "Tesla thought of Croatia as his homeland". You need a secondary source that states that, not him.

You can either understand what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is, and what WP:SECONDARY sources are - or you can essentially be ignored along with your unsupported demands. If you want this article to state that "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland", you need a secondary source that says just that. Not Tesla - a secondary source. Why? Well because you are not a historian or published biographer or any sort. That's how the project functions. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I haven't been analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating material found in a primary source.Asdisis (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but you have. Interpretation: "Tesla says in this telegram that Croatia is his homeland - therefore Tesla must have regarded Croatia as his homeland". -- Director (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. The sentence "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland" is not an interpretation. The sentence "Croatia is Tesla's homeland" would be my interpretation. Do you see the difference? Asdisis (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not wrong. The sentence "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland" is an interpretation of the primary source. You can not take telegrams from a hundred years ago and use them to make claims about Tesla's personal views and opinions. Only historians get to do that, and only when they're published can we use them. That's how the project works. As is said, you can either accept that, or just keep talking pointlessly. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. If someone says "I'm proud of my Croatian homeland" then the above sentence is not in any way an interpretation. Also since some people have problem with born-homeland, i will probably make a request "Tesla regarded Croatia as a place of his birth". It will probably extend the construct that will be the result of the above discussion. Asdisis (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

People's words and their opinions are different things. For a hypothetical example, if you thought I might give you 50,000,000 euros for your experiments - you might say things like "I am proud of my Tanganyikan homeland" (just an example). Now, I'm personally sure Tesla did regard Croatia as his homeland, but I would never write something like that in the article - if a secondary source didn't say it. Because it takes historians, and proper biographers, to interpret whether that which people say corresponds to what they think, and to what degree. because they know the circumstances, and the conditions of the period, and understand Tesla's thoughts and opinions better than you or I. Understand?

You are free to search for a secondary source. But if you've decided to go with "option #2", please don't be offended if I ignore you completely here on the talkpage, and revert you in the article without fail. Regards -- Director (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, you are also free to search for secondary sources. As I noted before, I agree that decision should be made on the valid secondary sources. I urged everyone to find secondary sources that will support the presented primary sources. I also already noted that, in the case no secondary sources are presented, the decision will be made on the presented primary sources. If later secondary sources are found, another edit can be done. Asdisis (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody needs sources except you, as you are the one proposing changes. In case no secondary sources are found for the changes, they will not be introduced (naturally). In no case shall your personal interpretations of the primary documents be introduced as fact. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Director (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, he cares not for logic or for Wikipedia, only for the fulfillment of his nationalistic crusade. I think we are all wasting our time pretending he will reason logically. I finally found the discussion on the telegram removal, here. Although I'm sure our Croatian friend here will not care if it is truly a forgery, or care about Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia; only if he can find a way to force us to use it. Besides Director's careful explanation of the need for the secondary source, let's be very clear that there has been not even a primary source cited here at all where Tesla says Croatia is his homeland. Only one saying he was born in Croatia, one saying he had a homeland (but not where exactly that included), and one forged telegram. --Tom Hulse (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It just so happens I make it my business to counter "nationalist crusades", as it were. This place is just lucky its so mainstream.. nonsense like this would be enough to cause a serious edit/flame war in your typical Balkans article. For the record, though, I'm Croatian too :). -- Director (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Tesla himself saw his place of birth as Croatia" (NYT letter as ref). Yes on no? Text or footnote? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

NO, you would have to research all of Tesla's statements and give them the balance they deserve..... errr... and that would be WP:OR. YES to "Tesla is claimed by many national and ethnic groups" (material found by Joy.... ^ up there somewhere) and added to "Legacy and honors" section, then knock out allot of the honors, its a borderline trivia list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That counts as 1 NO, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not function by vote. -- Director (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

... think you could probably safely remove your last two words there. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, you don't have to sound so WP:OWNY, because I agree (for once), Christ, this is a stupid fucking argument. Morbidly curious about how Balkan editing worked I decided to take a peek. Jeeee-zus! No wonder everyone gets so batshit. This could simply be solved by finding a few books that make reference to this particular region in Croatia during this time period using (or not using) this format. Asdisis, I do agree this is a question of style and you do need to show this is not the convention stylistically. Also, have some sympathy for the reader, who is probably coming to this article because he/she wants some quick, digestible answers. A convoluted description of the location is likely to baffle and alienate--Atlantictire (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

I would think it's fine, because it is a secondary keeping the wording very close to the primary. I wouldn't have a problem with that wording, as long as it is relevant to the section and is appropriate for the context where you want to use it. :)

Asdisis, who has supposedly only been editing Wikipedia for 5 days, says: "... in the case no secondary sources are presented, the decision will be made on the presented primary sources", contradicting a 50K+ Master Editor (Director) with confident authority on how this situation will be handled. Hmmm. Has anyone else noticed that this guy can not be a brand new editor his account suggests. This smells like a sock puppet, or at the very least a clear violation of Clean Start policy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yah, seemed like a sock from day one.

And chalk one up for Atlantictire's WP:HOUND, a point or two more and you win a fabulous prize (fabulous for me, that is). Save the transparent stories for your attempts at sock fraud, and stop following my contribs. You also don't seem to know what WP:OWN is about, jeeeeeez... -- Director (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So glad this discussion has not degenerated into a mud-slinging row with pointy accusations and counter-claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that will teach me to notice that Director may actually be right about something. Silly me.;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I admit i do not yet fully know the rules of wikipedia. However, there is no need for ad-hominem attacks. Article can be edited based on primary sources and in the lack of other sources it will be edited on the presented primary sources. Asdisis (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please, keep this discussion on the intellectual level is has been so far. There is no need for ad-hominem attacks. I agreed we should find secondary sources that support the presented primary sources. Asdisis (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Folks, lets remember that Croatia kicks off the World Cup today in the opening match with Brasil. Seems old Nikola must bear some of the burden :D -- Director (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from that kind of comments. This discussion have so far been on high intellectual level. You have started to drag it into pointless argument. Asdisis (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't made any requests so the question of valid sources can't be answered yet. If we do not find valid secondary sources my request won't interpret Tesla's words. It will only include Tesla's quote in the article. I thank Tom Hulse for providing the discussion about Tesla's telegram. I will study it and include that source if there have not been any reason for its removal (valid secondary sources). I also think that some of the people object my suggestion because they have a contempt towards "nationalist crusades". I strongly protest against that. Some people have shown that they are not objective but biased. I won't be dragged into pointless discussion based on ad-hominem attacks and personal contempts. I will concentrate on valid sources. I will also stop discussion with those who presented no sources, suggested no alternative proposal, and contributed nothing to this discussion apart from their constant objections to every suggestion. As in the previous discussion,I will limit myself to those comments that present valid sources concerning this discussion. Other comment, I will ignore. The edit will be done based on the presented sources so there is no point in discussion weather Croatia opens World cup with Brasil today.Asdisis (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, this is a high intellectual level discussion. The highest of the kind. What´s a matter with you, didn´t you recongised it from the begining? FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you on your support. Up to recently this discussion had indeed been on the highest level of the kind. Let us keep it that way. Asdisis (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thank you. I was being intellectually ironic. FkpCascais (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please, stick to the topic of this discussion. I already repeated several time that this discussion is not about Tesla's birth place. Please, read the initial post in this topic again. Comments that do not belong to this discussion will be dismissed from establishing a conclusion. I urge you again to help this discussion by finding relevant secondary sources that will support the presented primary sources. The request will be made after the above discussion finishes, then we can discuss concrete proposal. I thank you in advance. Asdisis (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Quote: Tesla has always considered himself a Serb from Croatia, and he had never denied that in his personal data.

Source:Hrvatska revija, 1963.

Asdisis (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may just throw something into this discussion. Margaret Cheney's biography 'Tesla- Man Out of Time' is considered to be a fairly reliable reference source. On page 259 it is written that Tesla would apparently say "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia." Now in this case we may reasonably assume that 'fatherland' means 'homeland'. We need to be careful because this quote was not written by Tesla himself. Author Margaret Cheney had received a letter from professor Bogdan Raditsa written on February 19, 1979 in which he states that Tesla would say "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia." This could be considered for inclusion in the article under the appropriate section backed by the telegram sent to Vladko Macek, as an additional reference where Tesla wrote that he was equally proud of his Serbian origin and Croatian homeland. That is of course if the Telegram is authentic as there has been some suspicion regarding its authenticity.Michael Cambridge 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

As i have understood. There aren't any suspicion regarding authenticity of Tesla's telegram that aren't the produce of original research. My stand is that Tesla's telegram should be taken in consideration. That is because it, and its contents have been included in many secondary sources. I will present some of them to support my claim. Until the request is made this discussion is only a guideline that shows Tesla's own opinion on the question of his birthplace. I thought of including Tesla's own opinion in the article but i haven't found a suitable place to do so. One thing i think that should enter the article, apart from Tesla's stand about his homeland is the sentence that both Croatians and Serb consider Tesla as one of their own. I don't remember the exact sentence but someone has presented a source that contains that sentence. Asdisis (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would just like notify everyone that a definite answer had been reached regarding Tesla's birthplace. I think that the discussion about his birthplace had been of high quality and that the definite answer that Tesla was not born in Croatia should put an end to all other requests of that king in the future. Since Military frontier had been unified with Croatia in 1881., and that was after Tesla was no longer living in Smiljan, we also have a definite answer that Tesla had not lived in Croatia at any point in time. His own views about Croatia are irrelevant and probably can be interpreted as a clear support to Yugoslavism, as suggested by someone. The closure of the previous discussion puts an end to this discussion. I thank you all for participating. Asdisis (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don´t need to be mad or ironic about this Asdisis. What can I tell you besides that we really can´t say that he was born in Croatia if in fact the village of Smiljan at time of his birth was not part of K. of Croatia but part of the Military Frontier. We can´t forge that. First you tried to add Croatia as his birthplace based on some sources (as you can see there are even books which say he was born in Montenegro, so there goes out of the window the argument that we should follow sources regarding his birthplace). We have to see historical data about the precise territory Smiljan belonged to at time of his birth. Then you tried to argue how Military Frontier was part of Croatia, which is also wrong (I still think you didn´t understand the difference between CMF and MF). Military Frontier was a much wider territory than just the one under Croatian cultural influence and had a pretty diversified ethnic composition. It was actually within the MF that Yugoslavism gain traction as it was within that territory that Croats, Serbs and other South-Slavs found themselfs lving together and shared a common interest in wanting to break-away from Austria/A-H. Tesla is just a very fine exemple of an inhabitant of the MF. Then he lived in Karlovac (also within MF) and he got a scholarship from the MF. MF was not that ignorable at all as you think (you said basically "Oh, it was just part of Croatia under military rule, something like UN occupied territory"). So there was no way that you were going to gain support in ignoring Military Frontier and just swiching it with Croatia as the subdivision of Austrian Empire where Tesla was born in. Then, during his life, there are few occasions where he mentions Croatia, all of which you brought them here, but are you aware how much links he had with his Serbian heritage? All that is missing as well. Why? Because that is not what was important for what he is notable for. The ironic thing here is that him being a world-wide known figure in a most positive way, many people in Croatia want to bring him closer to Croatia, but if by any chance we were talking here about a negative figure, a person interpretng things your way could easily portrey him as a hard-core Serbian nationalist: born in a traditional Serbian religious family, started a Serbian culture club in Graz, was close and allways supported the Serbian (Yugoslav) royal family, etc. You made a huge effort to, at some way, expand Croatia´s role in Tesla´s life, however none of your proposals seemed correct or acceptable (so much that you didn´t even got support from the Croatian editors either), as you always asked far more that the sources and the neutrality would allow. Encyclopedia is about verifiable facts, and not about atributing ideals to someone trough a combination of cherry picked sources and a twisted interpretation of them. No one here dislikes you or Croatia, and if you would have made a reasonable proposal backed by majority of sources, you would have been supported. Kind regards, srdačan pozdrav! FkpCascais (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop assessing my motives, emotions, nationality and so on. Me trying to introduce Croatia to the article does not in any way mean I'm Croatian. I dismissed all that allegations numerous times. I'm not mad or ironic. I just followed the sources. I was also strongly guided by Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. I accepted unanimous decision of ANI, and now I completely agree with you. There is no need to repeat the arguments from previous discussions which has been resolved. I feel that we had achieved something. We now have a discussion of high quality that considered numerous sources and gave a definite answer to Tesla's birthplace. Hopefully, that puts an end to that question. Asdisis (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Tesla Ethniciy in Lead

Please, respect the ongoing above discussions. After they finish the lead can be rewritten, because it depends upon above discussions. Thank you. Also, there is a problem with sources next to "Serbian-American inventor". Source listed at [3] isn't valid and has to be removed. Also i can't find the claim written in the article in source listed at [2]. I have nothing against the claim, but it must be supported with valid sources. Maybe someone can find a direct quotation from source number [2] that supports that claim. I found a lot of sources claiming Tesla was both Croatian and Serbian and American inventor. I'm busy with above two discussions, but i will join this one and focus on the questions that rely on above two discussions.That is because I'm deeply involved in above discussions and I have investigated a lot of sources, thus I can be of some value here. Asdisis (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article can continue to be edited during the RfC. Is there some aspect of the changes so far that you disagree with? As far as the source you mentioned, why do you believe that the BBC article is not a valid source? I was able to find Serbian-American in the Burgan source.- MrX 15:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, still it would be advisable to respect the above discussions because a lot of sources has been presented. Generally news articles can't be considered a valid sources. Also, BBC's article does not in any way support the written claim. There are far better sources that could support that claim. Thank you for the new sources, I also think that history channel can't be a valid source. This is because there exist an extensive collection of books that specially dealt with Tesla. I will post the sources as soon as i investigate a little further. However i can say that many sources mention Tesla as Croatian and Serbian and American inventor. I stated previously that Tesla had strong connections to Croatia. That should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Although we have disputes about the place of Tesla's birth, I think that no one disputes that Tesla lived in Croatia most of his life. If we want to use term "scientist", than we have to discuss one thing. Tesla had Serbian origins , however when the term scientist does not go towards someones origins. Let's say that we have someone born in America who became a scientist and his parents are Polish. Most biographies would mention "American scientist of Polish descent". The term scientist goes towards someones nationality. I think someone had already made a request that "Serbian-American scientist" should be changed with "Austrian-American scientist." My suggestion would be "Croatian-American scientist of Serbian descent" or "Croatian born Serbian-American scientist". Asdisis (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We're leaving the wording about Tesla's birthplace alone while the RfC proceeds. Everything else can be edited. News articles are valid sources per WP:NEWSORG. I think we can remove the BBC article as a source, since none of the text is dependent on it.

Tesla most certainly did not live in Croatia for most of his life. He lived most of his life in the United States. The term scientist is not related to where someone is born, or their heritage. It just happens to be a grammatical construct. If there is a dispute that, instead of Serbian-American, it should be Croatian-American, Austrain-American, Hungarian American, or Yugoslav-American, then that is a subject for a separate discussion, or an RfC.

Most editors here want to improve the entire article, not bend it to their preferred nationalistic POV. This discussion section is about improving the lede to make sure that it summarizes the main points of the article, and to make it clear, concise, informative, and grammatically correct. Feel free to start a new section to explore the Serbian American question if you believe a preponderance of reliable sources support different wording.- MrX 18:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but BBC's article does not support that claim. It should be removed. I saw better sources that can support that claim. I'm sorry for my mistake, I meant that Tesla lived in Croatia most of his early life. I said that because some argue that he was not born in Croatia. But it is clear that from 1868. Tesla lives in Croatia even by their claim. I think that most of the sources look towards someones nationality for the term scientist. I'm also trying to improve the article. I'm directed by Tesla's own statements that reflect the importance Croatia had in his life. I already explained that Croatia is diminished in this article. I said I will present valid sources. I won't start a new discussion. This discussion is concerning the lead, and I suggest that Tesla's connection to Croatia should be mentioned in the lead. What do you thing about my suggestions? Asdisis (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said I am opposed to expanding the content about Croatia in the article, especially in the lede and especially with cherry picked sources.- MrX 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, I sympathize, but I think it's time to let go. A picture of Tesla's birthplace is there, the name of his hometown is linked twice, a link to Croatia is there. There is absolutely no danger that anyone who reads this article will fail to notice Tesla's connection to Croatia.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but that doesn't matter, valid sources will speak for themselves. Both Croatia and Serbia should be mentioned in the first paragraph. To someone familiar with Tesla's life that should be obvious.Asdisis (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think i presented a lot of sources in above discussions. I don't think that can be considered cherry picking.Asdisis (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutelly cherry picking sources as you limit your sources to those mentioning Croatia because that is all that you want to see. No, Tesla was not a Croatian scientist, was not born in Croatia, Smiljan was not a Croatian village at time he was born, and you are not trying to improve the article, you are just trying to Croatisize the article. I really think you are becoming disruptive by now and I am considering reporting you giving the ammount twisting reality and nationalistic POV-pushing you are making here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, can someone please close the threads above. The ammount of no´s Asdisis receved are quite clear. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, find sources i neglected to mention. If your claim is true there should be overwhelming number of that sources. Otherwise, your accusation is unfounded. Your claims are incorrect, as I showed with valid sources. I think that your unfounded accusations are disruptive. I stated my intentions clearly. Yes I am trying to reflect the importance Croatia had in Tesla's life. Constant objections and ad-hominem attacks on my behalf will not be productive on your side. I suggest that you instead invest your time into finding valid sources. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for what? There are already plenty of sources saying he is a Serbian-American scientist born in Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire. You seem to fail to understand the basics here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained that Croatia is a broader term and that the sources you mentioned are not in conflict with sources that explicitly mention Croatia. Asdisis (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are. Croatia is one thing, Military Frontier is another. A middle ground consensus was reached by adding Croatian Military Frontier. Your insistency to add Croatia by any means is disruptive already. FkpCascais (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "middle ground proposal"? The only consensus so far is to make no change at all to the current wording.- MrX 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Preciselly. FkpCascais (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I confirmed my claim with sources. You should do the same if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Asdisis (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The name of this discussion is somewhat wrong. Tesla'e ethnicity is Serbian, that is already mentioned in the lead. My suggestion is that both Croatia and Serbia should be mentioned in the lead. To anyone familiar with Tesla that is obvious. However, since some people have personal contempts towards Croatia, I will find valid sources to support my claim. Asdisis (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some sources:

Quote: "The dawn of the 20th century produced some of the greatest names in Croatian science.Nikola Tesla was born"

Source: Croatia By Zoran Pavlovic

Quote: "Nikola Tesla (l856-l943) was a brilliant and eccentric Croatian scientist. "

Source: Great Inventors and Inventions By Bruce LaFontaine

This is only a representation of the sources or, as some call it, cherry picked sources.

However, from the sources I studied i can tell that Croatian sources mainly speak of Croatian scientist, while Serbian sources of Serbian scientist. I will repeat my suggestion that Croatia should be mentioned in the lead. Tesla was connected to Croatia equally much as to Serbia. Some guidance for that can be the above discussion about Tesla's personal opinion about Croatia. Not to paste all sources here, I will just refer you to the sources presented in above discussions. Tesla comes from Croatia and that should be mentioned in the first sentence as I suggested. "Croatian born Serbian-American scientist". Asdisis (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean, except few, only Croatian sources claim him as Croatian. Also, the formula you are proposing is against WP:OPENPARA, and he was not born in Croatia but in the Austrian Empire in the Military Frontier. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Tesla's ethnicity is Serbian. I'm claiming he can also be called Croatian scientist because he was born and he lived in Croatia his early life. I said that previous discussion can be a guideline. Tesla himself stated he was born in Croatia. Also, there are no disputed that Military frontier belonged to Croatian national circles. I don't think you are right. My suggestion is not against WP:OPENPARA. I do not understand your objection towards mentioning Croatia. Tesla had strong connections both to Serbia and Croatia. Just to show what I mean, I point you to: Rade Šerbedžija. You can see he is called a Croatian actor even though he is Serbian. I already said there's a problem with the present construct. It mixes nationality and ethnicity. Also, note that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Asdisis (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I object the way you want to include Croatia by any means. Its clear from your own words that your only intention os to promote Croatia in this article. I do not object to mention that he was raised in K. of Croatia. But at time of his birth, Smiljan was not part of K. of Croatia, it was part of a different administrative unit named Military Frontier, and no, Military Frontier did not belonged to Croatian national circles (in what sense?). I object your simplification by POV-pushing, I object to all your proposals in which you allways want more for Croatia than the real situation is. Also, many facts about Tesla links with Serbia are missing or are very little expanded and you just want to equalise by 1:1 Serbia and Croatia in this article, which is not that simple. Just as you do your own conclusions, I also conclude that Tesla only mentions Croatia because of his desire, as Serb from a territory that came to belong to Croatia, that by occasionally promoting Croatia in interviews and so, that will help in the Croatian aspirations of independence from Sustria and subsequent union with Serbia in a creation of some Great Serbia/Yugoslavia which would include Croatia and the place he was born. But I will obviously not promote that idea in the article and I support the inclusion in the article of only clear and correct facts: where he was exactly born (not what that place was culturally belonging to and if Croatian sabor claimed it or not), what he exactly did, and so on. While you allways push everything a step further with OR and pro-Croatian idels and way of seing things. Also, its becoming extremelly arrogant on your behalve to claim that I and others don´t have sources. There are plenty of sources claiming the basic facts already included in the article and no one needs to search sources claiming the opposiite of you because you still failed to find conclusive sources for what you pretend to claim. Maybe the best way for you is to make a new thread and say a precise edit you want to insert and the exact sources you think back your edit, and then we´ll see, because by now you are not even clear about what exactly you want, besides p+ushing Croatia by any means in the lede... FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Croatia is very important part of Tesla's life. It needs to be included in this article. I already explained that Military frontier had always been de jure Croatia. Apart from Tesla's birthplace, it is undisputed that he lived in Croatia from the age of 12 when in 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was established. Even years before people in Military frontier were connected to Croatia, because Military frontier was not another entity within Austrian Empire. I see that you got it right. I want to equalize Croatia and Serbia in this article. I base my intention on Tesla's personal opinion. See the above discussion. Tesla also mentions Croatia explicitly as a place of his birth in the time of Yugoslavia, thus your conclusions are not accurate. I disagree with you claim about the sources. That dispute will be resolved by WP:DR. I think i clearly stated my intentions. The only request so far is to change the misleading construct about Tesla's birthplace. It is obviously misleading because you, and some other people negate Croatia as his birthplace. I presented sources that support my claim. I also added sources that support my claim that Military frontier de jure belonged to Croatia. Since it seems that no consensus can be achieved, we will do according to WP:DR. I will leave some time before initiate that, according to Wikipedia suggestions. I thank you for WP:OPENPARA manual, we will do according to it. In my opinion, it seems, that this manual was not respected.Asdisis (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I will make a request from this discussion as soon as we resolve the above discussion and have a definite answer that Croatia is Tesla's birthplace. With all that have been said in above discussions i think that the WP:OPENPARA will be in favour of my suggestion. Both Tesla's ethnicity and birthplace are relevant to its notability. There is no reason to mention one and not the other. Asdisis (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to "equalize" Tesla's Serbian ethnicity with his Croatian residence. The two things are not "equal" at all. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think by "equalize". I said both Croatia as his homeland and Serbian ethnicity should be mentioned because they are relevant to Tesla's notability. He is a Croatian Serb. Asdisis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "Tesla was connected to Croatia equally much as to Serbia" and "I want to equalize Croatia and Serbia in this article." The first statement is not true (he was culturally Serbian), and the second statement will not be carried out here. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you meant to equalize his homeland and ethnicity. I do not see how those two can be equalized. Tesla was was born and lived in Croatia. It seems that some people do not want to accept that. To anyone familiar with Tesla's life it is known that he had strong connections to Croatia. You can see that in his statements and acts. Tanks to Tesla Croatia had the second hydroelectric power plant in the world. His statement about his duty to help his homeland tells about a strong connection to Croatia. I think that the whole context of this article should reflect the importance his homeland had to Tesla. I was guided by Tesla's own words. After the above discussion finished, Croatia will be added to the lead. The term "Croatian born" is suitable I think. Asdisis (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you think Dispute Resolution will turn out? I expect you will discover in that venue the same resistance to your views. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After the above discussion gives a definite answer to the question of Tesla's birthplace, I do not think that anyone will oppose this request. It's a simple clarification. I will be done according to WP:OPENPARA suggestions. Asdisis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to add these sources to this discussion. Sources are listed in the lead by the sentence i suggested to be edited. I think that these sources, which are already listed in the article are enough for edit. I will make a request as soon as the above discussion finishes and gives a definite answer that Tesla was born in Croatia. Then we won't have to argue about Tesla's birthplace in this discussion. As you see, every single source listed by the sentence i suggested to be edited are in favor of including the term "Croatian born".

Quote: "Nikola Tesla lived in a small mountain village in Austrian Croatia"

Burgan, Michael (2009). Nikola Tesla: Inventor, Electrical Engineer

Quote from the article: ""I am happy that we are here today to celebrate Tesla, a Serb, a son of Croatia and a citizen of the world," President Mesic "

"Electrical pioneer Tesla honoured". BBC News. 10 July 2006. Retrieved 20 May 2013.

Quote: "Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan, Croatia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire."

"Nikola Tesla". History Channel. Retrieved June 15, 2014. Asdisis (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Due to the closure of the the previous discussion, no requests for edit will be made. Tesla was not born in Croatia nor he had any connection to Croatia except his support for Yugoslav ideas and general support for all Slavic people to unite with the homeland of his ancestors, Serbia. Asdisis (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead Re-Write

I'm always interested in decluttering, dejargonizing and streamlining articles. This one, IMHO, sorta reads like a crazy quilt of various editors' specific obsessions.

I've rewritten the lead so that it's more concise and clear (hopefully).

Tell me what you think. I will add the references if it's a go:

lead re-write

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic): Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American[2][3] inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[4] In 1884 Tesla emigrated to the United States to work for Thomas Edison in New York City. In 1885, he sold George Westinghouse the patent rights to his AC induction motor and transformer, thus igniting the infamous “War of Currents” between Edison and Westinghouse. Tesla formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing, in 1886 and set up laboratories in New York City and later Colorado Springs. His singular fascination with high frequency electrical phenomena produced inventions such as the Tesla coil and numerous innovative experiments involving wireless devices, radio signals, illuminated gas-filled tubes, and x-rays. Tesla’s unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project was an ambitious though tragically ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission.[5] Tesla's inventions and showmanship made him world-famous.[6] Although he earned considerable sums from his patents, he never accumulated much wealth as he used his profits largely to finance costly projects. He lived for most of his life in a series of New York hotels. The end of his patent income and eventual bankruptcy led him to live in diminished circumstances.[7] Tesla’s habit of making public statements on topics such as interplanetary communication and supernatural phenomenon earned him a reputation in popular culture as an archetypal "mad scientist."[10] He died on January 7, 1943. In 1960, in honor of Tesla, the General Conference on Weights and Measures for the International System of Units dedicated the term "tesla" to the SI unit measure for magnetic field strength.[12] Since the 1990s, his reputation has experienced a resurgence in popular culture.[11] Tesla’s work and reputed inventions are also at the center of many conspiracy theories and have been used to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories and New Age occultism.

I think it's an improvement. I'm going to take a stab at copy editing the death section.- MrX 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Edison article is fantastic. Just beautiful summation of his significance in the lead. IanWills did that, and any input he'd care to give would be very much welcome.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD revert. I reverted 2 edits by Atlantictire. Most of it seems to be an improvement but some of the facts are wrong. I can list them if needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, then just fix the facts. MrX is copyediting too, and I don't see his edits getting reverted ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD. You are removing too much from the lead. It should summarize the article, not WP:PUFF. Tesla did not "sell" his patents to Westinghouse, they were licensed, and that was 1888. I have seen no claim this "ignited the infamous "War of Currents". "In 1886 Tesla formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing" <--- out of sequence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it more like the Edison lead, which is an elegant summary of Edison's notability rather than a coatrack of factoids. Let's collaborate instead of edit warring!:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)--

Sorry to put on the BRD break but you summary read like a cliff notes version of the Tesla Myth. It did not even follow the article under it. Please stop for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Then make some constructive suggestions, because now I promise it's something that only the geeks who wrote it will read!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I can get you sources for the War of Currents, because that was a huge event in the technological history of everything and Tesla played a pivotal role in it.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "geeks". Tesla's life is pretty "geeky". And it is not the version you read in popular culture re War of Currents. Many things wrong with your version.... the basic of which is it does not follow WP:LEAD. Besides the mistakes above you can't skip big events in Tesla's life like Wardenclyffe. The lead used to be pretty WP:PUFF and you took it back there a bit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's just remember we're not writing this for people who are already obsessed with Tesla, or are even interested in electronics. It's for a general audience. I don't know what you mean by WP:PUFF, but yeah, it shouldn't be an onslaught of technical jargon only electronics geeks will recognize. It's the lead! Look at the Edison article. It doesn't punish its readers for not sharing Edison's obsessions. And how is being "like Cliff Notes" a bad thing? This is an encyclopedia, for pete's sake.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not seeing it. It at least has to be right. Please list what parts of the lead are too "geeky". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The parts where nobody wants to read it, i.e. the whole discombobulated thing!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: you comments here and here, you need to create a lead that summarizes the article per WP:LEAD. Please do not state views based on popular culture notions (that do not appear in the article BTW). If you think something major is missing you need to add it to the article first before you add it to the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Where are my views on popular culture in the lead? Maybe you're not familiar with what all of that electronics speak was actually referring to, but I just translated a bunch of it into concepts your average person might actually recognize. Other than the War of Currents (which you and I are going to find sources on, correct?) where does my version add something that isn't already in the article. If it's in my version and not the article, then that's also true for the old version.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And FYI, there's a bunch of stuff in the old version what isn't discussed in the article at all that I did take out.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Other than parts of it being flat out wrong you hit on minor parts of Teslas life, like War of Currents and things he did not work on, like radio (he worked on wireless, not "radio" per say), and missed the big part of his technical career---> high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I said "high frequency electrical phenomena". How is that incorrect? Forgive me for thinking we might be able to focus mainly on applications in the lead for the sake of the layman. You need sources my friend. I'll get some on Tesla's work with radio signals. In the meantime, here's a whole bunch of stuff on the War of Currents 1, 2, 3, 4<---who's "flat out wrong" again?--Atlantictire (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Some pointers. References belong in the body, not the lead, so "sources" are there, read the body. If you think the lead should be something else then you need to change the body, with sources, with consensus. References should be scholarly and on the topic ... err, I can't give you any more advice on that other than read WP:RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and even said that myself and explained that I put it in because it is in fact a highly significant element of Tesla's biography, and the article's failure to mention it is a serious omission. There are things in the current version of the lead that are definitely not in the article, so you're not really being fair here. What's more, you said I was "flat out wrong" about Tesla's involvement in the War of Currents. Aside from not being very nice, that's incorrect. If I were you I would try to collaborate and not quibble, and maybe even apologize. I am absolutely open to putting things back in the lead, but I will advocate for writing about them in such a way that shows consideration for the average reader.

I feel like I keep saying let's comprise and collaborate and you're trying to find excuses for why we shouldn't. Oy!--Atlantictire (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections. The flat out wrong stuff is the "license", "date", "company" and ascribed invention stuff. Per War of Currents if we delve into RS (such as The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia[5]) we see the "war" started with Westinghouse's Buffalo AC system, two years before Tesla got into the business. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's just get something straight: you're not quibbling and are in fact trying to collaborate, correct?--Atlantictire (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

errr... I have always tried to collaborate. I see the problem re:"Average reader", it has been in the back of my mind for some time, and I have actually been doing a cleanup in ALL the periphery articles..... I know.... its the long way round. Here is the problem. Tesla was up to something from 1890 on. It ran him bankrupt and got him labeled a crackpot. He may have deserved those monikers. Its his real story. The article dances around it to the point of being obtuse. That part needs to be cleaned up.... it would help the summary of his life in the lead. My two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the book you're sighting gives 1885 as the start date for the War of Currents, and my re-write says Tesla sold his patents for the AC induction motor and transformer to Westinghouse in 1885. Seems like what I wrote could have been fixed by changing the word "sold" to "licensed," not reverting. :-)

Yeah sure, dig up some sources on what Tesla was doing after 1890 and we'll take a look. And thanks for the tidying up work you've been doing so far.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla "licensed" his patent in 1888, and it was not Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing (that was some little venture Tesla got booted out of in a year), and we are now 3 years before Tesla got into the war of the currents with allot of engineers in some place called Europe making most of the major developments in AC. But I quibble ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong! Jeeze, I knew I wasn't crazy. Maybe he did license some patents in 1888, but he sold the ones for the AC generator to Westinghouse in 1885. 1, 2, 3. Swing.... and a miss.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Lesson here: show good faith to Atlantictire. Atlantictire looks for sources before editing. ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We always got this article or Induction motor, written by many editors with (way to many) references, you may want to look at that. Also I don't think the guys at IEEE are smoking rope[6] ;). Lesson #1..... allot of the stuff on Tesla, even the print stuff ... can be very wrong. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, on further inspection, I see some books saying the patents were sold in 1885, and some saying they were sold in 1888. I haven't found any that says they were "licensed" but that doesn't mean there aren't books that do.

Do you have sources saying that Tesla wasn't instrumental in setting off the War of Currents? Because despite all the conflicting dates I'm not finding any that say that. Not saying they don't exist.

And don't worry, I'm not an ANI monster and I don't take any of this personally. You can totally tell me when I'm being an autocratic dweeb. Say, "Atlantictire, you're being an autocratic dweeb."

It is Friday night and we're arguing about Tesla. Good lord, we're geeks!--Atlantictire (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, is this the WP:PUFF version of the lead that was, uh, improved? Take out the second to last paragraph and it seems fine to me. The syntax is far less tortured, it covers the essentials and it doesn't read like somebody tried to make themselves feel smart by name-dropping concepts that are likely foreign to people who don't already care about electronics and Tesla. You don't have to talk about "mechanical oscillator/generators" and "electrical discharge tubes" in the lead. No really, you don't. It's much kinder to talk about recognizable applications rather than widgitery, and Tesla is in fact so notable because of the familiar applications of his work.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

All I can really do give is pointers and maybe recomend reading this article? Its pretty well referenced. There are allot of popular notions about Tesla that are simply wrong (Tesla invited AC, Tesla invited radio, Tesla invented free energy, Tesla duked it out mano a mano with Edison in the war of the currents). Tesla's license[7] was a pretty famous deal, as well as his "ripping up the license" many years later. More info on the Tesla myth at Debunking the Tesla Myth and maybe here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not "giving pointers." Pointer: don't respond to people who are giving you links to books and published research by telling them to read earlyradiohistory.us or edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked if you're trying to sound like an Expert who Knows What He's Talking About. I have read the article and there's absolutely no reason the lead needs to use terms like "oscillators" and "electrical discharge tubes" in lieu of more familiar applications. None.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I supply one source on the actual topic (Empires Of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, And The Race To Electrify The World), and you supply 3 sources, (1, 2, 3), not specifically focused on this topic with short glyphs on the history. You really need to read WP:RS re: how some sources are way more reliable than others. If terms like "oscillators" and "electrical discharge tubes" seem to have no reason to be in the lead then expand their description in the lead. Tesla was not working out of "fascination", he had a goal of producing a wireless AC system, those were just instruments towards the goal. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, I gave you sources about The War of Currents when we were talking about Tesla's involvement in the War of Currents. I gave you sources about the patents when we were talking about the patents. You gave me websites to make some blanket defense of the lead. Forgive me if it's starting to seem like winning is more important to you than being honest. Either appreciate good faith attempts at collaboration or keep making reverts. I'm fairly generous about not setting editors up for 3RR, but only up to a point.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I are having trouble collaborating. I ask him to clarify what he means by factual errors and he complains about puffery. I ask what he means by puffery and scolds about lead protocol. It's hard to pin down exactly what he's saying, but from what I gather statements like "Tesla experimented with radio signals" actually mean "Tesla invented radio" and "Tesla was fascinated by high frequency electrical phenomena" implies "Tesla invented AC." Somehow discussing "illuminated gas-filled tubes" as opposed to "electrical discharge tubes" is POV Tesla worship.

He keeps saying I'm too wrong on the facts to edit this article. There are conflicting claims in the literature about Tesla, but I am attempting to present him with quality secondary sources. For my trouble, I'm scolded for not knowing the difference between reliable and unreliable sources and then told to read edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked.

My concerns are about concision and clarity, and I'm completely willing to acknowledge he probably knows more about Tesla than I do. I want to work with him, but I think he's saying I'm not allowed to touch the lead.

Help?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest starting with Fountains of Bryn Mawr's statement "Most of it seems to be an improvement but some of the facts are wrong." and working from there. The lede should be 100% consistent with the rest of the article and should summarize all of the major points; successes and failures. If there are disagreements about the major points are, that needs to be worked out. I would recommend proposing smaller edits, whether they be additions, copyedits, or deletions. If they are likely not to be controversial, just be bold, otherwise post them here and wait for consensus.

I have a couple of content specific comments: The third paragraph has some trivial detail and could benefit from better wording. Perhaps the second sentence and the last two sentences can be salvaged. I propose something like this:

Tesla was renowned for achievements and showmanship, eventually earning him a reputation in popular culture as an archetypal "mad scientist." His patents earned him a considerable amount of money, most of which was used to finance his own projects with varying degrees of success. Tesla lived most of his life in a series of New York hotels, through his retirement. He died on 7 January 1943.

For the fourth paragraph, I propose something like this:

Tesla's work fell into relative obscurity after his death, but has experienced a resurgence in interest in popular culture since the 1990s. In 1960, in honor of Tesla, the General Conference on Weights and Measures for the International System of Units dedicated the term "tesla" to the SI unit measure for magnetic field strength.

I removed the "His work and reputed inventions are also at the center of many conspiracy theories and have also been used to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories and New Age occultism." as it is not content already in the article and seems to be original research.- MrX 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

- MrX 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's cool and those are good edits. I've edited with many an engineer and sometimes (sometimes) they think a wikipedia article is an occasion for nerds to speak in arcane nerd code to each, the rest of humanity be damned. Just so we're clear: it is not.

Whoever wrote the Thomas Edison lead wants people to care about Edison. Whoever rotted the Tesla lead this past year wants him to be the private property of nerds.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Smiljan, Northeast Serbian-Orthodox quarter, Lika, Croatian Military Frontier, Austria-Hungary (modern-day Croatia), while arguably the most correct designation, is obnoxious. It is massively contemptuous of the reader. Similarly, I'm just not convinced that the way to fix the lead is to expand its explanation of oscillator/generators and electrical discharge tubes.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr without "pointers" or lectures on wikirules or lessons on the pitfalls of Tesla historiography or any evasions not otherwise specified, could you please explain what in the lead from a year ago that I linked to is 1.) factually incorrect and 2.) WP:PUFF and/or POV? If I seem uncivil it's because yes, I think you are being evasive and yes it is trying my patience. I apologize. And sure, there is "no deadline" but it's not very nice to hold up editing because you'd rather not collaborate, and I hope that's not what you are trying to do.

Also, consensus MrX if it's just the three of us who care about this and everyone else would rather talk about the Croatian Military Frontier, can we go ahead with edits? I'm fine with doing them piecemeal.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will make the changes and if someone disagrees with them, they can join this discussion.

I think this can be better

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. He tried to put these ideas to practical use in his ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission; his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project. In his lab he also conducted a range of experiments with mechanical oscillator/generators, electrical discharge tubes, and early X-ray imaging. He even built a wireless controlled boat which may have been the first such device ever exhibited.

If Tesla's experiments and inventions were innovative, notable and compelling we should try to convey this and write about them in way that's accurate and NPOV but doesn't strike your average reader as wonk wonk wonk nerds talking to themselves don't care zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I keep saying this but is there a way of phrasing this--perhaps in more general terms or with reference to familiar applications--that's interesting in the way the Thomas Edison lead is interesting?

"Accuracy" doesn't require the most excruciatingly fussy exact wording we can come up with because we're being jerks. That's Smiljan, Serbian-Orthodox quarter, Lika, Croatian Military Frontier (Croatia Proper), Austria-Hungary (modern-day Croatia).

Concepts likely to be foreign to people who don’t already care about this stuff that we don’t need to force them to read about in the lead because we are not jerks:

• electricity distribution

• mechanical oscillator/generators

• electrical discharge tubes

The Wardenclyffe Tower wireless communications bit is notable and compelling, but is the wireless controlled boat really the best we can do in terms of notable inventions people might relate to? It sounds a little trivial, and if he worked on wireless technology more generally we should probably say that.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem, Tesla's innovations re: high-voltage, high-frequency power led to, and have, no familiar applications, so this simply wont read like an Edison article, that's not the way Tesla rolled. What he wanted to to was vibrate the entire Earth electronically and use that as a communication and power delivery system. <-----that's all the stuff above boiled down. "mechanical oscillator/generators, electrical discharge tubes, Wardenclyffe" all go with that. It was not "wireless" as people see it today, it was wireless that used the planet Earth in place of wires. That has no familiar applications, and was never built on since physicist could see it would never work. A wireless controlled boat on the other hand is one of the most striking applications to come from that period, its arguably a Tesla first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why the English speaking world's most prestigious and serious-minded publishing companies are still putting out history books that are either about Tesla or devote whole chapters to him if he was a just some gifted flake whose inventions no one can relate to. Everyone loves oscillator generators! Is this all really just a giant anti-Edison, anti-Galileo Ferraris smear? If so, seems like a wonderful opportunity for a tech historian to make a name for himself. Why hasn't that happened yet? Probably because the Masons stashed the incriminating documents in a vault somewhere.

No, you are wrong. The lead should attempt to establish why people still care about Tesla. As a comprise, in the last sentence we can list all the arcane widgetry the geeks have come for.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

War of Currents and POV

Like I said, I have no dog in this fight other than wanting to make this article more accessible and less stilted stylistically. Nonetheless, I am starting to have concerns that it may also have problems with NPOV.

I don’t want to quibble so I’ll say off the bat that “instigated” "ignited" may not have been the correct or most precise verb when discussing Tesla and the War of Currents, but no, I did not put War of Currents in the lead because I’m a massive Tesla fanatic. I put it there because every single source I looked at on Tesla and Westinghouse seemed to front-end it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there seems to have been tremendous controversy over the years in this article and in the War of Currents article over the WP:WEIGHT of Tesla’s role in the War of Currents. This, IMHO, is a far more serious issue than the Croat/Serb controversy. If the article truly attempts to minimize Tesla’s role in a way that is patently revisionist, it’s probably a matter that should take priority.

At present, the War of Currents is not even mentioned in this article. Its talk page is riven with angry comments about either the minimization or exaggeration of Tesla’s role therein. Poor Binksternet provided 13 different sources at one point in 2012 to protest the removal of a paragraph on Tesla.

From my dealings with Binksternet, he’s very generous and non-confrontational. I’m very willing to see things through until reliable sources and scholarly consensus prevail, which unfortunately can sometimes rub people the wrong way.

That book Fountains of Bryn Mawr cited, the one about the War of Currents, its title is Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse and the Race to Electrify the World. On page 163 it says:

“By bestowing his new all-important AC induction motor upon George Westinghouse’s rapidly expanding electrical empire, Tesla was eliminating the one great remaining advantage of Edison’s DC system. The War of the Electric Currents was about to be joined in earnest."

Granted, it gives 1888 as the date for this, and other sources I’ve seen have said 1885. Of course this confusion over dates is something we ought to try and sort out, but for Pete’s sake… if Tesla had everything to do with why AC won out over DC, that is a fact of monumental significance and to purposefully omit it would seem almost calumnious.

You will find in my sources that Tesla's motor was instrumental to AC's victory and that Tesla himself actively aided Westinghouse in promoting its triumph, most notably designing electrical exhibits for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, an event Westinghouse illuminated.

Again, not a massive Tesla nut. Just somebody who read this article and went yeah, kinda reads like an edit war casualty.

sources

The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870–1920 Maury Klein, Cambridge University Press, Sep 3, 2007 page 95 “Other exhibits designed by Tesla dazzled onlookers with the mysteries of electricity. The [1893 World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago] succeeded in providing Westinghouse with a compelling advertisement for ac power” E.g. not only did Westinghouse get the patents for his AC induction motor from Tesla… Tesla was actively attempting to help Westinghouse win the War of Currents. Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age W. Bernard Carlson, Princeton University Press, May 7, 2013 Chapter 9, “Pushing Alternate Currrent in America” Empires Of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, And The Race To Electrify The World Jill Jonnes, Random House LLC, 2004 page 163 AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War Tom McNichol, John Wiley & Sons, Jan 6, 2011 Chapter 6 ,“Tesla” Tesla, Master of Lightning Margaret Cheney, Robert Uth, Jim Glenn, Barnes & Noble Publishing, 1999 Chapter 3, “The War of Currents” Not my fav, but Cheney was a valid source the Croatia discussion so no quibbling because it has pictures or “glyps” (I don’t even know what that means, tbh)!

Unless someone can find reliable sources that it doesn't belong, I think War of Currents ought to go in the article and the lead. Honest discussion that debates sources without resorting to word games would be greatly appreciated.

--Atlantictire (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've reviewed enough sources to know that this is an important aspect of Tesla's legacy. I would caution us to use solid sources, present contrary viewpoints (if any), and to stay away from sensationalistic wording. Some of the content can be copied from War of Currents. I would prefer that we trim the 'Early years (1856–1885)' section and add the War of Currents content in it's own section. I am somewhat against calling it War of Current though, as that seems to be a pop culture affectation (correct me if I'm wrong).- MrX 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with all of that except maybe calling it something other than War of Currents, but only because that's what the Wikipedia article on the topic is called. Of course, I say this not having been witness to all the ways in which hairs can be split on this issue.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Checking in now and then. "Unless someone can find reliable sources that it doesn't belong, I think War of Currents ought to go in the article and the lead". Nope. thats not the way Wikipedia works per WP:BURDEN. You have to find reliable sources to support content, not ask someone else to disprove your edit. Points that are weak....... "birthday parties" are a big part of Tesla's later years, that is where almost all his pronouncements came from after 1930. Tesla did not have "vary degrees of success", he ran him self broke and was bankrupt after the turn of the century. These are weak points in the article, so should be fixed before going into the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone understands that content needs to be sourced. I think what Atlantictire was saying is please present any sources that contradict or refute the sources that are present above and in the War of Currents article. Tesla had numerous patents, several of which are in use today. He was highly respected and was financially successful for at least part of his life, so I think it's reasonable to say so in a summary of the article's content. Meanwhile, feel free to jump in and help fix the content that you believe to be weak. - MrX 01:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

War of the currents should probably be expanded. I am not sure what was ever in this article about it (before my time). I removed a section heading "War of currents" because it had no content underneath it. The problem with the claim that the licensing of Tesla's AC induction motor "igniting the infamous "War of Currents."" is it is not in the War of Currents article and is directly contradicted by sources such as "The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia"[8]. "Tesla had everything to do with why AC won out over DC" is a simplification to the point of being wrong so we don't risk any "calamity" there ;). When it comes to "common knowledge" about Tesla we can't just "source" it, we actually have to use RS on the reliable end of the scale, otherwise Tesla ends up being the inventor of alternating current. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia and decided not to include it. Not because it contradicts my sources, but because it's redundant and a tertiary source.

Tesla's contributions were essential to the of victory of AC over DC and as MrX said it's a major part of his legacy. --Atlantictire (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the war of the currents content should be added. The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia article contradict most of the (reliable) sources that I've seen in that it recasts the "war" as one involving arc lighting versus incandescent lighting. That's OK though, we have plenty of good sources to work with. - MrX 13:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going look at what the sources have to say about Tesla and the AC induction motor, because right now that section reads like someone insisted on inserting a bunch of WP:UNDUE on other inventors. This is an article about Tesla, not the AC induction motor, so it might suffice to say there's currently some dispute as to who invented the motor (if that's even true) without all this petty naming of other inventors because we are SO OVER the Tesla hype.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This can definitely go as WP:UNDUE and anecdotal "and during Tesla's demonstration English engineer Elihu Thomson stated he was working on an induction motor."- MrX 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looked at the Ferraris sources

I think we can safely say that neither http://edisontechcenter.org/ nor Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook are reliable scholarly sources

There is no mention of Galileo Ferraris in The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications Tesla, yes.

Creating the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of 1867-1914 and Their Lasting Impact says: "Tesla… was not actually the first inventor to reveal publicly a discovery of the principle of the rotating electromagnetic field and its use in an induction motor. Galileo Ferraris presented the same insight to the Royal Academy of Science in Torino on March 18, 1888, and he published his finding in April, a month before Tesla’s May 16, 1888 lectures…. but Tesla was far ahead in developing the first practical machine."

The claims about the working model of Ferraris’ motor are either tertiary or more than 50 years old.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson has the Elihu Thomson citation[9], also here[10]. Empires Of Light and Seifer cover this neck and neck invention. There is WP:REFBLOAT and it could be streamlined but the fact that this was an ongoing search for a workable motor is noted in many sources and should be cited. For a textbook covering the induction motor, Tesla, and Ferraris have a look at "The Induction Machine Handbook[11]. edisontechcenter.org is footnoted and a much better source than about 90% of what is used on this page. Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook is an IEEE publication, you know, the place Tesla gave his talk? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the illuminating sources. I withdraw my objection to that content. (ETA: I agree that we have a lot of poor sources in this article, and given that the article receives 8000+ page views day, we should remove any bad sources and dependent content mercilessly. - 16:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC))

But no way is this a reliable source. A significant part of the article is unattributed and the "Who Invented the Polyphase Motor?" is attributed to "A perspective by M.W., part of the Engineering Forum." Let's please use really good sources for this content.- MrX 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Wayne, can you quote from one of your reliable sources where it definitively says that Ferraris had a working prototype for the AC induction motor in 1885.

Also can we take the stuff on Shallenberger and Thompson out? It's not relevant. If the consensus in the sources is that Tesla had the first practical motor, do we really need all of the but what about these other guys?--Atlantictire (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also Fountains, that second source is "juvenile nonfiction."--Atlantictire (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, I agree. Right now some kid is getting harangued by his teacher for his Tesla paper. "This is why I told you not to use Wikipedia!!"--Atlantictire (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870–1920, the Columbia World's Fair was a front in the the War of Currents and a decisive victory for Tesla and Westinghouse. pg 95--Atlantictire (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to look at earlier versions of this article to see if at one time these two stand-alone sentences may have had whole paragraphs or even sections:

Tesla demonstrated wireless energy transmission (Tesla effect) as early as 1891.[54][55]

In 1891, Tesla patented the Tesla coil.[56]

--Atlantictire (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ferreris 1885 can be simply searched ----> (google books). "Tesla effect" is, I think, a turn of the (20th) term that comes from copy/pasting copyright free material from that time. It is no longer used, probably explained as EM. Tesla coil belongs in a better written section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. This isn't an article about Ferraris. What's more, the sources that had been used to substantiate the claim of his having had a working prototype motor in 1885 were total junk. Since I'm not the one wanting to put it back in the article, it's not my job to find sources. If I were you, I'd let it go.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored with one textbook ref and a "Tesla" ref. Wording was off as well, Ferreris famously did not develop a workable AC motor, he thought it was a toy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, the biggest concerns are that it's WP:UNDUE, WP:BUTITSTRUE (at best, because the sources are still dubious) and WP:POV. Nonetheless, you are still using poor sources, and in fact some of the same poor sources. You used Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook again and The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, which makes no mention of Farreris as I have already demonstrated. One of your new, "better quality" sources was not scholarly research, but another handbook, "Ion Boldea, ‎Syed A. Nasar, The Induction Machine Handbook."

Unilaterally making these edits when you know they will be controversial without first stating your intention on the talk page demonstrates a contempt for other editors and is WP:OWN. Continuing to use poor sources shows a lack of regard for scholarly consensus and WP:RS. Most distressingly, you appear to be advancing a WP:FRINGE POV, which is that other people deserve credit for things Tesla doesn't deserve credit for the things he is famous for and his work is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of examples of you saying this very thing on this talk page.

Please revert your edits so that nobody else has to and discuss it on the talk page. POV pushing is highly pernicious, and it's something I take very seriously. I will seek mediation if this continues.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources being "dubious" seems to be in your mind. Many many many sources cover the development of AC and motors in the 1880s including "Tesla oriented" sources such as W. Bernard Carlson, Seifer, and Cheney. Froehlich/Kent is not a supporting source I added and is used to backup the fact that Tesla and Ferraris gave papers in 1888..... errr.... no one disputes that. The other sources such as "The Induction Machine Handbook" are standard secondary sources on the subject and are doubled with a "Tesla" source that give even more detail on the subject. You seems to be lobbying for this article to be based on common knowledge. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of common knowledge. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Just a few comments upthread you're citing a work of "juvenile nonfiction" and www.edisontechcenter.org, a site with a POV attack article called "Tesla Debunked." You are reverting to edits with obscure handbooks and sources that don't actually cite what they've been used to cite. Pardon me if this seems like more word games. It is frustrating the heck out of me.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I just went through a highly traumatic episode with a masterful WP:CPUSH civil POV pusher. Taking the time to verify sources, only to be given more dubious sources does wear me down. So do constant evasive word games. So does taking the time to find high quality scholarly research only to be continually countered with websites and obscure handbooks. So does first discussing all my edits on the talk page and waiting for consensus, only to have the editor unilaterally change them back to the same objectionable content without discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I am letting you know: right now, I am frustrated. I would like you to afford me the same consideration that I've afforded you. At least have the courtesy to discuss an edit or revert before making it.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't heard it before, you should be discussing edits and content, not the editors, on this talk page. I think you have gotten "consideration" in spades. Better sources needed? Better sources supplied. Content too deep for this article, should be in its parent article? Content boiled down (it should also be added to the parent article but don't think we got that far). If you are taking it personal or are overwhelmed by other editing duties I can not help you there but you have my sympathies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen at least three sources that state that Ferraris demonstrated the rotating magnetic field concept in 1885. Tesla commercially developed the concept, and was the first (as far as I can tell) to create a motor without commutators, which is a significant innovation. I have reworded the content to try to make a little more concise.- MrX 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are high quality sources that support this, and this can be included in such a way that is not WP:UNDUE, I do not have a problem with that and thank you for stating your intention first. If it is in fact in Carlson that's much better than The Induction Machine Handbook - 2001, which is also currently cited.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, You don't get to just ignore me. MrX is not the only person you are editing with. We need to discuss this editing behavior. What do you want to do about it?--Atlantictire (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A lot of what you've just said is patently false, and you know it. Last time I brought it to your talk page, you told me to bring it here. Just so we're clear, which do you want?--Atlantictire (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it works this way, please see your talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What Carlson's Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age actually says about Ferraris

After testing the AC system of Gaulard and Gibbs at the 1884 International Electrical Exhibition in Turin, Ferraris decided to ‘’study’’ transformers. A this time electrical investigation did not fully understand the relationship between the incoming (primary) current and the outgoing (secondary) current in transformers. Borrowing from his knowledge of mathematical optics, Ferraris theorized that there ought to be a phase difference of 90* between the primary and secondary currents in a transformer. He then hypothesized that if there was such a phase difference, the two currents should produce circular motion, just as two light waves out of phase by 90* created circular interference patterns. To test this hypothesis, in 1885 Ferraris constructed an experimental apparatus consisting of two coils placed at right angles to each other. Between the two coils he placed a small copper cylinder of a pivot, and when he connected the coils to the primary and secondary of a Gaulard and Gibbs transformer, Ferraris found that the cylinder rotated. Ferraris was pleased that his apparatus confirmed that there was a phase difference between the primary and secondary currents in a transformer, and he freely shared his results with other electrical investigators in conversation and correspondence. Ferraris did not publish the results of his 1885 experiments until 1888 and did so only after reading about Thomson’s induction repulsion motor. In his 1888 paper, Ferraris reviewed his findings about the phase difference in transformers, commented on how his ideas could be used to cause Argo’s wheel to rotate and suggested that it might be possible to use his principle to develop a wattmeter. He also reported on how he had created two out-of-phrase currents by placing and induction coil and a resistor in two branches of the circuit, the same technique that Tesla had used in his split-phase motors of 1887. But most important, Ferraris discussed whether a rotating magnetic field could be used to create a practical motor. Ferraris had build a small motor with a copper cylinder or the rotor and had connected it to a dynamometer to measure how much mechanical work the motor performed. In these tests, Ferraris discovered that as the speed of the motor increased, the amount of work decreased. Resorting again to mathematical physics, Ferraris determined that as the motor’s speed increased, the induced currents in the copper cylinder created not only a magnetic field but also a great deal of waste heat. According to Ferraris’s analysis, when the cylinder reached maximum speed, the induced currents would produce equal amounts of mechanical work and heat, and, as a result, the motor would become inefficient and start to slow down. Based on his test and mathematical analysis, Ferraris concluded “that an apparatus based upon the principle [of a rotating magnetic filed… can have no importance as an industrial motor.” Over the years there has been ample debate over whether Tesla or Ferraris should be recognized as the inventor of the AC induction motor. To some extent, the confusion was created early on by the fact that the first reports in English of Ferrariss’s 1888 paper left out his analysis of the waste heat produced an thus created the impression that a practical motor would follow from his investigations. But as we have seen, Ferraris drew exactly the opposite conclusion in his paper: he did not think that a practical motor could be developed using a rotating magnetic field. Instead, Ferraris should be credited with being the first to investigate how AC can create a rotating magnetic field. Even more important, Ferraris should be given credit for introducing the notion of phase in discussing alternating current phenomena. Thanks to Ferraris’s mathematical analysis, electrical engineers were able to quickly grasp the ideas behind the AC and polyphase currents. Nevertheless, it was Tesla who built the first practical induction motor.

Please read the source carefully so that we do not have to go back and forth with quibbles and corrections.

As of yet, I have not succeeded in making a single edit to this article, although I have been trying now for days. Every single one of my edits has been reverted thus far.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, it would be an extremely encouraging show of good faith if you would allow me to use this information to clarify that Tesla was unique in not only building the first practical induction motor, but in believing that one could be built. Ferraris did not. It is a testament to a singular kind of inspiration and resolve and it's why the Tesla article has 8,000 page hits per day and the Ferraris one doesn't. Let's not muddle this with a bunch of misleading WP:UNDUE.

I would definitely object to creating a lengthy description of what exactly specifically in extensive detail Ferraris' contributions were, only because we have an article on Ferraris and in this one that would be WP:UNDUE. If Ferraris is important to you by all means add detail to the article on Ferraris.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)--

This does not seem to change what the article currently says. I can not see what extra wording would be added. This just states Ferraris did the real theoretical work on how an induction motor could be built. Tesla built a much more functional one independently, and was the first to patent it. Tesla seemed to get past the heat problem, how could be a good add but do we have that? Nether can be put above the other on a scale of "practicality", a practical motor would come later and be built by other people[12]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Tesla believed in the possibility of a practical AC induction motor and Ferraris didn't. That changed the world and it's huge.

That said, I very much appreciate that you responded to my proposal seriously and thoughtfully. Thank you.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take out unnecessarily specific info about Ferraris, such as the month and day of his paper and exact location of his demonstration. Carlson doesn't actually say that he demonstrated his motor in "Turin." These are historical facts, and a handbook is not a work of scholarly historical research. What's more calling Ferraris's motor a "working motor" may be misleading without further clarification. I'd like to clarify that he did not believe in or intend to build a practical motor. That is what Carlson actually says.

I'd like to be able to edit this article.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I support those edits. - MrX 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Turin and the date is not disputed by any reference and all reliable sources on the subject note this odd co-invention at the same point in time. Please do not discount sources based on the title (don't judge a book by its cover?). They are judged by how scholarly they are written and by how much they are cited re:WP:GOOGLETEST re: The Induction Machine Handbook 411 citations, and Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age 2 citations, for example. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's inconsiderate to verify a claim with a google search result when everyone else is giving you very specific references and quotations even, the biggest problem here is this is WP:BUTITSTRUE. We don't need to know the exact location or exact date for Ferraris's paper and demonstration of his motor, because this is not an article about Ferraris. The issue here is the extent to which Tesla deserves credit for building the first practical induction motor. You don't get to cite a source to verify that Ferraris built a proto-motor and then reject what that very same source says on the very same page about Tesla having built the first practical motor. That's WP:CHERRYPICKING and characteristic of WP:POV pushing. Either the source is valid or it isn't. If you don't think Carlson is a valid source, then you can't use him to support the claim about Ferraris.

It disturbs me that you just don't seem to notice yet that what you're doing isn't working. Please ask yourself, is it worth jeopardizing the credibility you've built up over the years in order to preserve a version of an article that is not supported by the sources? What's more important: getting your way on this specific issue or continuing to be seen as an editor who is capable of collaborating and respecting scholarship? Everyone else seems to want to follow the sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Atlantictire for bringing up this problem. My position is still that we must tell the reader about Tesla's role in the War of Currents, because of all the books which discuss it. The issue is so prominent that its absence from the lead section will be confusing to the reader, not to mention a dereliction of our duty as editors. I fully support any changes to this biography that restore a proper mainstream balance (not a revisionist 'balance') to the lead section and article body. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup per layout

I rearranged the content/sections on "war of currents" and the induction motor re:on topic heading/content. The induction motor is a pivotal invention for Tesla (noted many times[13][14][15][16]) and should have its own section heading. "War of currents" related material moved to section. Removed "Tesla effect" since its an antiquated (1907) term. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. I'm wondering if we should eliminate the 'American citizenship' section and combine its contents with another section, that way all of the sections will be about his accomplishments, and not about his trip to the immigration office.- MrX 17:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article War of Currents was explicitly named in the previous version. It should be re-inserted. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's still linked via the redirect War of the Currents, which seemed to me to be the most prevalent form. I won't stand in the way of anyone changing it to War of Currents or War of the Electric Currents, as long as we try to keep it consistent throughout the article.- MrX 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent, but I just want to point out that Fountains of Bryn Mawr gets to make edits without first getting anybody's permission, but unless the editor is an admin he's not affording other editors the same courtesy. All other edits must go through him first, and they will most certainly get reverted if he disapproves.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a tangent. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when it's starting too look as if WP:PUSH is happening, you may need to WP:IGNORE in order to highlight the problem. Especially if the editor isn't demonstrating that he has any empathy for your distress or any willingness to compromise. May I remind you: I have yet to make a single edit to this article that has not been reverted by you. What do you want to do about this?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is equal here. We can all make edits, and anyone can revert them if they disagree with our changes. It's then up to the BOLD editor to make the case for the content, and gain enough support (consensus) for the edit to stick. Gaining support would probably be more likely if we keep personal comments to minimum. Mutual respect can go a long way toward fostering a collaborative editing environment.- MrX 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue. I've been trying to get Fountains of Bryn Mawr to collaborate but all I get from him is no no no nothing can change, that is unless you chime in. He lets you edit, even when he disapproves, but not me. He's willing to be conciliatory towards you, but not me. That's because he thinks he can get away with it with me, as I am new to the article and do not have the same privileges that you do.

I've first discussed all of my edits on the talk page and he has either chosen to ignore the discussion, waited for me to edit, and then reverted or he has reverted after discussion, even though he's the only one who dislikes the proposed edits. It doesn't bother him that he's used or is using a lot of poor quality sources, he has no problem quibbling or telling to you read "Tesla Debunked" at edisontechcenter.com, and it doesn't bother him that other editors have voiced support for my edits.

This is a whole bunch of do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And as for anyone can revert, no, I'm not going to edit war with Fountains for Bryn Mawr. Reverting is a distressing thing to do to someone, and he'll revert and revert instead of compromising.

It's not considerate to ignore a talk page discussion and revert afterwards. It's not considerate to hold yourself to a lower standard of verifiability then other editors. It's not considerate to only collaborate with admins. It's definitely not considerate to do all these things then expect "civility."--Atlantictire (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit which seems to be revert to this version is just as incorrect in the facts it presents. Galileo Ferraris would not be a lead engineer or inventor experimenting with AC technology, he was doing theoretical work, not building technology. Ferraris' motor did not have a commutator, it was also a brush-less design. Reworded again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"other engineers and inventors developing and patenting polyphase AC transformers and generators"

You know that I have Google books too, right? Read page 118 again. "Nevertheless, the development of an economical polyphase system comprised of both motor and generator was not carried out alone by any of these inventors.” It says other inventors made "claims" and "contributions." Your are STILL trying to make it sound as if someone developed a viable AC system before Tesla. WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Are you ever going to stop being wrong?--Atlantictire (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX has suggested that if I were more cordial to you that you would be more conciliatory. In fact, other editors have been coming to your talk page and Tesla related talk pages for years to politely object about edits that are dubious and misleading. You have ignored them and continued to make counterfactual edits that diminish Tesla. I lose patience with editors who exploit WP:CIVIL. I'm here to say stop the bullshit NOW.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... gotta read the whole paragraph. "any of these inventors" refers to none of the listed inventors (including Tesla) produced an economical polyphase system. They all had parts of it, no one had the whole. AC was under developement from the 1850s and the first AC systems predate Tesla's entry into the field by two years (see Alternating current - History). All these AC systems (including Tesla's) had limited viability, for example Tesla's was not viable for the streetcar project Westinghouse put him on and Westinghouse only manege to produce an electric fan and a mineshaft donkey engine from Tesla's motor design. Next sentence (that you skipped) ---> "Electrical manufacturers would take the lead in that endeavor.", author is referring to AEG/Dobrovolsky et al. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You just don't know when to stop. The fact that Tesla's motors didn't work with street cars HAS NOTHING to do with whether or not he developed the first practical AC motor. You don't care that you're wrong. You don't care that it upsets other editors. You don't care that articles are not supposed to be yours to own. What is wrong with you? Are you just not smart enough to even realize when you don't know something

Guys, if the internet for you is all about acting out some fantasy version of yourself in which you're super smart at science, please take that shit to a message board. Here it's called "ruining Wikipedia." I'm done. This is me, after a week of this, at the end of my rope. I apologize, FOBM.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

AC and the induction motor

I have reworded a couple of sentences in this section for clarity, but removed this (in red) as WP:UNDUE:

"The motor worked with a polyphase current (two or more AC lines feeding out of phase alternating current) that created the rotating magnetic field that drove the motor. He received a US patent for the motor in May 1888. At that time alternating current power systems were starting to be built in Europe and the US because of AC's advantages in long distance high voltage transmission with other engineers and inventors developing and patenting polyphase AC transformers and generators."

In my opinion, this last sentence is tangential and not important to understanding Tesla. As long as we don't make peacock claims about Tesla being the first/best/biggest/baddest, then there is no reason to explain the history of alternating current in such detail. I took out the definition of polyphase, assuming that interested readers can click on the wiki link if they want to learn more.- MrX 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Three reasons for the rewrite by me before your removal to talk.

• 1. MOS:JARGON requests that technical terms be defined in text in the article: do not force a reader to follow the link to understand a term. (Assume the reader is reading a hard copy with no wikilinks).
  2. Readers will come to this article assuming Tesla invented AC (and the article currently does not tell them any different). The point in time in AC development should be explained.
  3. The reason why AC was preferable/being developed has been in the article for a while and should still be there.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a version of that section that explains the advantages of AC right away in the first paragraph (long distance transmission, ready conversion to different voltages). I didn't post it, because I didn't want to edit war and I wasn't confident it wouldn't be reverted or re-revised. But yes, that is better.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"But yes, that is better." Which "that" are you referring to?- MrX 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You version. It's less misleading. There's no danger that anyone with at least a 5th grade reading comprehension will come away from that thinking Tesla invented AC. Sorry, I'm too fed up with this. Patience: gone. Gonna recuse myself for the evening from Wikipedia.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I'm flexible about the jargon, if others agree. I did consider rewording that part, for example replacing 'feeding' with 'supplying'. I can't get on board with the premise that people come to this article assuming that Tesla invented AC (unless they are electrical engineers, perhaps). I think people come here because they read or viewed videos that portray Tesla as a mad genius who made huge coils, that spewed 20 foot longs bolts of lightning, and that could alter space and time. I think Tesla's role in the commercialization of AC is important and historic, but I don't think it's a major theme for his biography.- MrX 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Judging by whats on the number one viral site on the internet, The Oatmeal, in black and white in many many books, and every Tesla question I have seen on Yahoo Answers, a whole lot of people think Tesla invented AC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we have to rely on our reliable sources and follow the relative WEIGHT in those sources. Your quandary is that the many many books that claim Tesla invented AC, works directly against the content that you wish to include. The sentence, at least as written, is not faithful to the collective Tesla biographies, as far as I can tell. It also introduces a topic in a way that seems to rebut a claim that was never made, which teeters on the edge of WP:OR.

I hope we are not writing this article to address the positively poor information dispensed at various sites like Yahoo Answers, or various fan sites across the internet. Show me some scholarly mainstream debate about Tesla inventing versus not inventing AC, and I will reconsider my view on this. - MrX 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My "quandary" is that we should state the obvious and define jargon. He worked in the formative years of electric power development (near the very beginning of AC development), its in the lead in short form, it should be in the body in long form. It should be there because of WP:OBVIOUS. We should follow WP:JARGON. We can skip stating his position in the development of AC if you want. Readers can always infer that from whats given, or yeah..... we would have to explain he did not blow up Tunguska, create free energy, have J P Morgan yelling "where do you put a meter on this thing?" at him, dematerialize a ship in Philadelphia, or build a particle beam weapon in his New York apartment in the 1930's (oops, do we say that? ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, FOBM, what you're proposing is misleading POV. Tesla designed and built the first practical AC induction motor. It really is that simple. MrX, we may need to have a RfC on this as we did on Tesla's birthplace.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV and Check your facts no. It would not be a "true" statement and we do not state seriously contested assertions as facts (per policy). We could present the sides but that makes the section longer and go off topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The main issue I have with the parenthetical explanation of polyphase current is that it really doesn't work well to explain to the lay reader what it is. Anecdotally, I tried to explain this very concept to my neighbor a couple of days ago when a lightning storm cause one phase to cut out, causing our air conditioners (but not other appliances) to stop working. Their response was a blank stare of confusion. I would expect that our average reader does not even understand alternating current, so how could they be expected to understand 'out of phase current'?

Since there is no claim in the article that Tesla invented AC, the most neutral presentation of the material would require omitting content about contemporaneous AC research and development. I'm open to an RfC, or perhaps others will join this discussion so that we can establish a clearer consensus.- MrX 13:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see agreement on "The reason why AC was preferable/being developed" / "Tesla's role in the commercialization of AC" / "advantages of AC" leading to the sentence "At that time alternating current power systems were starting to be built in Europe and the US because of AC's advantages in long distance high voltage transmission" or some form of that. Opposed to RfC because it would be an RfC on something clearly spelled out at WP:YESPOV. This is not the place to rehash Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support RfC (if it comes to this) because this is the consensus among Carlson et al.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Carlson does not support first to "design"[17] and no consensus amongst sources, way to many sources call this an independent co-invention[18][19][20][21][22][23] (last two declare both designs not "practical"). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. Someone else? Re-read the entire passage upthread from Carlson. It's under the green hat.

If you want to waste your time reading through all those links FOBM just provided and explain to him how they don't at all support his claim that Tesla doesn't deserve credit for designing and building the first practical AC motor be my guest. I've been playing this game for almost a week now, and it's somebody else's turn.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we ought to state in the first paragraph what the AC fuss was all about. I would add information about the advantages of AC and take out the bit about the Peck Brown profit sharing agreement. We do learn 2 paragraphs later about the sums Brown and Peck negotiated for Tesla, and right now the priority is to understand "why AC" without overburdening the paragraph.

Here's how I'd re-write it:

In April 1887, Tesla formed the Tesla Electric Company, financed by New York attorney Charles F. Peck and Alfred S. Brown, the director of Western Union. They established a laboratory for Tesla at 89 Liberty Street in Manhattan so he could work on his alternating current motor and other devices for power distribution. Unlike direct current, alternating current is readily converted to different voltages and is transmissible over long distances.

I checked references on the paragraph I was adding to and found them inaccurate. I rewrote the this paragraph (and reverted it back) because it is factually wrong. Per Carlson, Seifer and other reference checks, Brown was not "the director of Western Union", he just worked there (and helped to set up a rival company), Tesla worked on improvements for existing motors and generators, DC devices, AC devices, a Thermo-magnetic motor, etc - it was not just to work on AC, and they did not "share equally" in profits. AC was not the primary reason for the business venture (Peck was not particularly interested in AC). This article is a BIO to accurately describe Tesla, some ins and outs of his business relationships are part of that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FOUNTAINS OF BRYN MAWR DEFIES TALK PAGE DISCUSSION REVERTS AGAIN--Atlantictire (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Jonnes (p. 114, 159) Brown was high-level engineer, not a director nor a supervisor.- MrX 21:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Carlson (page 80) Brown kept changing hats in a telegraph turf battle/patent war. Going from Western Union to general manager of rival company Mutual Union (under Peck) (probably where "director of" came from), back to "superintendent" for Western Union in a settlement where Western Union leased Mutual Union's lines. Looks like he was supervising what he built and Western Union had to buy, but we could always pull off his hats and call him a "telegraph engineer". BTW he was also an inventor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, "director" is what it said in version of the article I was working with. I didn't put that in! I merely tinkered with the wording, clipped off the last sentence in the first paragraph and added a sentence to the end. I haven't put anything in the article in days, matter of fact. All this is telling me is that this entire article probably needs to be fact-checked. From now on, instead of re-wording a sentence I will check every aspect of it for factual accuracy as well.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for references – add comments ABOVE this break

Suggestion

Nobody likes to be reverted. This is especially true if an editor has taken the time to do some research and has provided a reliable source(s) to support their additions or changes. What I suggest is that editors do not revert sourced content but instead come to the talk page and discuss the issue, gain consensus and then remove, revise, replace the content as needed with agreement from others. If an agreement can't be reached then try WP:3O or WP:RFC or a noticeboard etc. When we revert another editor it immediately creates an atmosphere of friction. So better to avoid creating that effect at the start of a discussion and preempt the back and forth of WP:BRD or WP:3RR. I think all editors on this page are here in good faith and want to improve this article. Accusations of bad faith and misconduct and ownership are likewise unproductive. Please speak to each other as you would like to be spoken to; with patience and respect. Keep in mind your common goal and create something great. Peace!- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's father, Serbian Orthodox priest

There is some inconsistency regarding Tesla's father. It is stated that he was a Serb Orthodox priest, and the given link leads to the page of the Serbian Orthodox Church where it is clearly stated that it was (re)established in 1920. I think this inconsistency should be resolved. Asdisis (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• The SOC became autocephalous in 1219 and existed ever since. The only thing that happend in 1920 was that the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro all got united. Everything is explained in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed before that unification. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro. The name Serbian Orthodox Church does not belong to 19th century. You yourself confirmed that.Asdisis (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No. -_- The SOC did exsted. Where does it say it did not existed? FkpCascais (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I referenced the article and i quoted a sentence from there in my previous comment. Also, you yourself admitted that when you said that "in 1920 the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro all got united", and I add, under the name of Serbian Orthodox Church. SOC had not existed until 1920. You mentioned that "The SOC became autocephalous in 1219..." , and the article clearly says that "...The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča". Asdisis (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You really don´t know when to stop your nationalistic rant, do you? As you couln´t get more "Croatia" into the article, now you started removing Serbia... Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1219. And his father was Serbian Orthodox priest. FkpCascais (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not. It exist since 1920. Please, stop your nationalistic rant and accept the facts. Asdisis (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources say that the Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1200[24][25] (approx.) . Asdisis, please, don't act on your own interpretations of history events. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the article on the subject[26] the Serbian Orthodox Church did not pop into existence in 1920, two Serbian churches united into the single Patriarchate of Serbia. Many sources list Tesla's father as Serbian Orthodox[27] [28] [29]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it did not pop into existence. It was established by the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro in 1920. Please do not list cherry picked sources that contradict common sense. Asdisis (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

From the article Serbian Orthodox Church:

"The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro."

By "modern" they mean unified because before that it was divided but both were Serbian Orthodox Church. Please Asdinsis read: Serbian_Orthodox_Church#Modern_history. FkpCascais (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not try to make it complicated. The term Serbian Orthodox church does not belong to 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Patriarchate of Karlovci and the Metropolitanate of Belgrade were both Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I presented sources for the Serbian Orthodox Church existing since 1200. User Fountains of Bryn Mawr presented sources for Tesla's father being Serbian Orthodox. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think we need another RfC. Some people do not want to accept facts. I shall quote once more: "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Editing this article is very hard since some people have made it into a impenetrable fort. Asdisis (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think it is time to block you for disruption, edit-warring, clear nationalistic agenda and continuos WP:IDONTHEARYOU manipulative attitude. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the same of you. You were clearly disrupting previous discussions. While i presented numerous sources, you disrupted the argument with your nationalistic agenda and continuous WP:IDONTHEARYOU manipulative attitude. You presented no sources to back up your claims, and yet i had not ignored you, but wasted my time to find sources to disprove you. That was obviously in vane since you were driven by nationalistic agenda. You presented only few cherry picked sources (which you interpreted in your way which contradicted numerous sources), and had strong objections that contradicted numerous other sources. Your attitude was a clear example of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I may be guilty of edit-warring, however you intentionally lead me there, since you knew that I'm a new user and I do not know all the rules yet. That you have skilfully used against me continuously the previous month.Asdisis (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Tesla's father a Serbian Orthodox priest

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 Tesla's father and his grandfather be listed as Serbian Orthodox priests, or just "Orthodox priests" since Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed in 19th century.

• Quote from Serbian Orthodox Church : "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Patriarchate/Metropolitanates that existed in the 19th century are listed. Asdisis (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having the previous RfC in mind, consensus will be determined by the number of votes. Asdisis (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, all discussions regarding Tesla's connection to Serb/Croats are highly nationally biased. It seems that this article had been transformed into an impenetrable fort of Serbian nationalism. Asdisis (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please note ----> RFCs are not votes, please read the guidelines. The question is, is there a reason to go against Tesla sources? Could the source on Tesla be wrong? Well.... yeah, one thing I have noticed in "Tesla research" is that one source tends to copy another and allot copy Wikipedia. Is the claim "Serbian Orthodox Church" a Wikipedia thing (mirror)? - Seifer has it before Wikipedia in 1998[30] although the claim is "Serbian Orthodox priest". Is it a "John Joseph O'Neill" thing? Allot can date back to his (only) contemporaneous Tesla biography. He has the claim "Serbian Orthodox Church" in his book (page 11), may be a 1944 claim, depends if (when) he rewrote that section. 1907 Chambers's Biographical Dictionary "Tesla Nikola born in 1857 at Smiljan In Servia the son of an Orthodox priest"[31] A short 1901 bio has "parish priest of the Greek Orthodox Church"[32]. There seems to be some kind of Orthodox Serbian Church referenced by name pre 1920 re: 1877, 1881. Need some real hard sources to counter whats out there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please copy the quotes from the sources that date before 1920. The problem with the sources after 1920. is that they are based upon modern view (retrospective view). The same thing i explained in earlier discussions. From today's point of view it could be said that he was a priest of Serbian Orthodox Church because SOC is successor of those named Patriarchate/Metropolitanates. However in 19th century, Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed. That classification thus goes retrospectively. The same thing is with Military frontier and Croatia. Although Military frontier became a part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in 1867, people were reluctant to retrospectively describe Tesla's birthplace as Croatia because he was born in 1856. The same issue we have here, because SOC had not existed in the 19th century, however, looking retrospectively it can be said that SOC existed but was divided. You mentioned some sources that date before 1920., however you should supply the quotes. That would help, and possibly resolve this RfC. Also, i know that consensus is not determined by the number of votes, however I have see that the practice is different, so I just wanted to note that. I won't call my friends to come and vote. However I find that some editors are teamed up under the same agenda. Their opinion will prevail since I'm alone. I suggest to them the same pattern used in above discussion. Present as many inconsistent sources and call the sources "all over the place" and conclude that there is no consensus to edit. Practice showed that votes will be accepted over sources in that situation. Asdisis (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Asdisis intention here is to claim that Serbian Orthodox Church didn´t existed until 1920. However, the only thing that happend in 1920 was that separate parts of the Serbian Orthodox Church, namely the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade, joined by the Metropolitanate of Montenegro, all merged. Earlier the Ottomans abolished the SOC in Serbia, and the SOC clergy separated either to the Patriarchate of Karlovci or the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and thus were separated for a period, but both were Serbian Orthodox Church by all means. Also, Tesla´s father came from Serbia itself. So I am not sure what is in question here... was it perhaps Mongolian Orthodox Church priest? Anyway, Asdisis seems to target the word "Serbian" specifically. FkpCascais (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make a distinction between an adjective "Serbian" and a name "Serbian orthodox church". The "Serbian Orthodox Church" had not existed before 1920. , and you have just admitted that. Also, you clearly have nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep the current wording. major biographical sources such as O'Neill and Cheney use Serbian Orthodox Church/priest/minister. Other sources such as Jonnes say "Eastern Orthodox minister". Many other sources also say "Serbian Orthodox". The case for the church not existing during the time of Tesla's birth has not been adequately made, nor would it be able to be made without original research.- MrX 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You had no problem disregarding major biographies(ones you named now and ones listed in the article) in previous discussion. The case is pretty simple. SOC had not existed before 1920. I should phrase you and state that sources are "all over the place". Some say priest, some say Orthodox priest, some Serbian priest/minister, some Eastern Orthodox minister, some priest of Greek Orthodox church. I also note the previous explanation about retrospective view. The case was not made inadequately. Patriarchate/Metropolitanates that existed in the 19th century are listed in this discussion. SOC had not existed. Sources also do not agree and are all over the place. Your attitude is biased. In previous discussions you discredited the sources you call upon now. Also, do not use cherry picked sources. Asdisis (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Two sections above I posted "Sources say that the Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1200[33][34] (approx.) ". You haven't replied to that comment, and you haven't provided any source that disproves the existence since ~1200. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had answered. Look up the quotation i posted with this request. To repeat: "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Also I noted that some of present day sources can use retrospective view. History of Serbian Orthodox Church goes back to Archeparchy of Žiča, however the term Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed in 19th century, and it is wrong to state that Tesla's father and grandfather are priests of Serbian Orthodox Church. The discussion about the history of SOC is not for this discussion. The only thing that is important is that SOC is a term which had not existed in 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"The only thing that is important is that SOC is a term which had not existed in 19th century". Asdinsis claim is totally made up. All Orthodox churches were known by the nation they represent, and Serbian Orthodox Church is known as Serbian Orthodox Church ever since 1219. The fact that it had a Metropolinate in Belgrade (capital of Serbia, thus the orthodox church the Metropolinate represented is obviously Serbian orthodox church) and the Patroarchate of Karlovci, which represented the Serbs in Austro-Hungary, has nothing to do with anything regarding what Asdinsis says. They were both part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same arguments. I answered those arguments. Before 1920. the term SOC had not existed.

1219. - Archeparchy of Žiča

14th century - Patriarchate of Peć

19th century, Serbia - Metropolinate in Belgrade

19th century Austro-Hungary - Patroarchate of Karlovci

19th century Montenegro - Metropolitanate of Montenegro

1920. - Yugoslavia - SOC Asdisis (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You just listed the seats of the Serbian Orhodox Church in different periods. I add a correction to your list: in 1920 where you wrote SOC it should be Patriarchate of Serbia, that was the name. But they were all SOC. (PS: I will avoid answering further in order to give space for other editors to participate more). FkpCascais (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asdisis. You quoted a wikipedia article. We never use wikipedia articles as reliable sources, because it leads to circular sourcing.

You say that the Archeparchy of Žiča was not the Serbian Orthodox church. I don't see any reliable sources for this claim. I cited two reliable sources that contradict this claim. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize I have so many posts, but I have to answer once again. Sources are provided in the article I referenced. That is anyway so basic claim that doesn't need more than few minutes to be verified. Your sources do not contradict that claim, they just use retrospective view, as I explained. And again, the official name and an adjective "Serbian" are two different things. You're clearly confused about that. If you suspect that something I said is wrong you should provide valid sources. The above post is my main argument. I haven't gone into arguing whether an adjective "Serbian" can be given to those listed Patriarchates/Metropolinates. That's irrelevant for my claim. The claim is very simple. Tesla's father was not a priest of SOC because in 19th century SOC had not existed under that name. Political situation was much different than in 1920. in Yugoslavia. He was an Orthodox priest of Patroarchate of Karlovci which was independent. I will also add a claim ( however, I do not base my case on it) that Patroarchate of Karlovci can not be called "Serbian" because it was located in Austrian Empire. The fact that many Serbs were under it does not make it "Serbian". Metropolinate in Belgrade could be called "Serbian" by adjective because it was located in Serbia. However, even that needs to be discussed because of Ottoman politics. Also your sources are cherry picked - see posts by Fountains of Bryn Mawr and MrX, and my answers. Some sources say priest, some say Orthodox priest, some Serbian priest/minister, some Eastern Orthodox minister, some priest of Greek Orthodox church. Asdisis (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep the current wording. I would be open to changing it if a majority of the most reliable sources treated it some other specific, individual way; or if a couple reliable sources discussed this as a "mistake" in other sources; but I don't see either of those. We have to be careful to not rigidly make our own personal assumptions that 'if they were know as Patriarchate of Karlovci in 1880, then they could not possibly have thought of themselves also as the Serbian Orthodox Church'. I agree with above that it would be original research. I see many sources, including the Wikipedia article Serbian Orthodox Church treating them as both during this time. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes -- List them as priests per the sources. I don't see any credible reasons to undermine existing sources that refer to them as priests.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood RfC's question. The suggestion is that they be listed as "Orthodox priests" and not as "Serbian Orthodox priests", since SOC had not existed before 1920. I added a clarification to the initial question. Asdisis (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So let me get this straight, Tesla wasn't born in Croatia because Smiljan became a part of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia in 1881, but his father was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church which was formed with that name in 1920? Tzowu (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the name Serbian Orthodox Church was not made in 1920, that is just wrong Asdinsis suposition. FkpCascais (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please everyone see Orthodox Church organization and see how they are all divided among nations. The Serbian "section" (call it whatever) became autocephalous (was created as independent) in 1219. Ever since it had several patriarchats and metropolitanates (see List of Eparchies of the Serbian Orthodox Church). There is no doubt that both Patriarchate of Karlovci and the Metropolitanate of Belgrade were part of the Serbian orthodox church and what happend is that they existed simultaneously at that period. The Belgrade Metropolitanate had jurisdiction in Serbia, and the Patriarchate of Karlovci had jurisdicion in Austro-Hungary (as it included significant Serb population specially in Vojvodina, Military Frontier and Banat). What also happend is that the Kingdom of Montenegro renounced its independence and declared union to Kingdom of Serbia in 1918, thus, subsequently, the Metropolitanate of Montenegro also joined the Serbian orthodox church. All that happend in 1920 is that Serbian Orthodox Church became centralised, as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created and now all 3 sections were within one single country. FkpCascais (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And the comparison with the previous discussion about Croatia is wrong, because in this case, Serbian Orthodox Church is like Austrian Empire, and the patriarchate and metropolinate were its internal divisions (as Croatia, Military Frontier, Banat, etc. were subdivisions of Austrian Empire). See the difference?

Yet officially those were not parts of the Church with the name "Serbian Orthodox Church". Their believers may have called themselves Serbian Orthodox, but its official name was the Metropolitanate (or Patriarchate) of Karlovci, an autocephalous church that did not have jurisdiction only over Serbs. In official Austrian documents (such as censuses) the Eastern Orthodox Church was listed as the "Nicht unirt Griechisch" and "Nicht unirt Armenisch" (Greek non-uniate and Armenian non-uniate).[35] What happened in 1920 is that 3 autocephalous churches were joined (or re-united) into one that was named Serbian Orthodox Church, not that 3 sections of the Church called "Serbian Orthodox Church" were just abolished and centralized into one. In La voix de Montenegro from 1920, following the establishment (reunion...) of the SPC, its written that the Serbians proclaimed the Patriarchate of Karlovci as all-Serbian. [36]

The comparison is not wrong, as we saw Nikola Tesla said that he was born in Croatia, yet in 1856 Smiljan was not officially part of the Kingdom of Croatia so the majority concluded that the wording about his birthplace should not be changed (although the division of the Military Frontier which Smiljan was part of was called Croatian Military Frontier and was among local population regarded as Croatia). Now as for his father, he was an Orthodox priest, he may have even called himself a Serbian Orthodox priest (although we have not seen evidence of that yet), but his Church was not officially called "Serbian Orthodox Church" during his lifetime, not by his country and not even by his own metropolitan. Tzowu (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

SOC was created after WW1, after the whole territory was in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The situation in 19th century was different. Patriarchate of Karlovci was located in Austrian Empire was independent and was not called Serbian Orthodox church. To call it Serbian Orthodox church would be very inaccurate since it was located in Austrian Empire which would not allow that from political reasons. You clearly have nationalistic agenda thus you want it to be called SOC, although that was not possible in 19th century in Austrian Empire. Asdisis (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

thumb|right|Map showing the organization of Orthodox churches in Austria-Hungary in 1909. Presented churches are Serbian patriarchate/metropolitanate of Karlovci, Romanian metropolitanate of Sibiu and Metropolitanate of Chernivtsi for Bukovina and Dalmatia.

From what I know the Patriarchate of Karlovci was not a Patriarchate for all Orthodox beleavers in A-H, but only for Serbs. The Romanians had a Metropolinate in Sibiu. FkpCascais (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For all on the area marked on the map, including Smiljan. Asdisis (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - We know Tesla´s father was Serbian Orthodox Church priest. The only thing we don´t know is if he belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci or the Metropolitanate of Belgrade. It is not that much important either way. FkpCascais (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's father as all Orthodox priests in Austo-Hungary belonged to Patriarchate of Karlovci which was independent from Metropolitanate of Belgrade which maybe could have an adjective Serbian. Patriarchate of Karlovci was not "Serbian" not by official name, not by unofficial classification. It represented Orthodox population in Austro-Hunagray which in 19th century was not composed by only Serbs. Note that 1920. is after AU seized to exist, and after Serbia pushed for all those of Orthodox faith (a considerate number of Vlachs of Croatia) to classify themselves as Serbs. Of course that was not the case in AU in 19th century. The case is very simple, SOC had not existed before 1920. and it would be very inaccurate to call independent Patriarchate of Karlovci which was in Austro-Hungary to be Serbian. Austro-Hungary would never allow Patriarchate of Karlovci to classify itself as Serbian church. No, it was independent and can not be classified as Serbian in 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems you beleave that the Patriarchate of Karlovci was some sort of independent Austrian Orthodox Church (or Austro-Hungarian OC later) but that was not the case. See the map I posted above and the description in the commons file. FkpCascais (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you believe it was not independent. It most certainly was not dependent on Metropolitanate of Belgrade nor Metropolitanate of Montenegro. The map does not tell anything about dependency or that Patriarchate of Karlovci was Serbian Orthodox church. Asdisis (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Week "keep it the way it is" because the sourcing is week. We seem to be citing two basic sources here, a Wikipedia article and John Joseph O'Neill's 1944 Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla (page 11) (its obvious most other "Tesla writers" uses O'Neill as the blueprint for their books). Wikipedia is not a source and O'Neill can be a pretty poor source for things he didn't know much about. He had the general knowledge of any reporter and knew what he heard, most of the time. But he was not an expert on religion and not a big fact checker. The wording right now is based a bit on WP:SYN:this group lived here and were this, this became that, so they are that ("A and B, therefore C). I prefer DonaldRichardSands edit because it doesn't make a claim in Wikipedia's voice. "If a reliable source has published the same argument" re: that group was considered "Serbian Orthodox Church" back in the day, post it below and I will change this to "keep". May be too much work for my two cents ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014

It should be noted on Nikola's death section that although his official death report stated the cause of death being age; he was found in a chair with clearly defined red finger outlines on his neck, indicating strangle from an unknown perpetrator. This can be verified through several independent investigation reports through their respective archives. 2602:306:BD6F:8AD0:129A:DDFF:FE61:7B13 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Caulin Dooley

 Unlikely - Please provide reliable sources to support the requested edit.- MrX 11:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy Arthur Brisbane Quote

Three long paragraphs about ...monkeys have small thumbs, Tesla is tall, Tesla is tall, etc. Why is this here? What does it add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.2 (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It also states weight/height a third time at section start and says his eyes went from dark to light twice. Its a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM and should be cleaned up. The Whole section "Personal life" is some 31 paragraphs long, that seems a bit excessive. It all could be shortened and some more WP:QUOTEFARM could be cleaned out of there as well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree also.- MrX 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of history

I see that RfC aimed to "prove" that Tesla's father was not a Serbian Orthodox Church priest is based on misinterpretation of the historic facts.

The "Serbian Orthodox Church" in Austria-Hungary (her Karlovci Patriarchate)is the Serbian by the rites, liturgy, saints, customs and origins and the people it belonged to (the Serbs of Austria-Hungary). It has nothing to do with internal organizations of her dioceses. Can we say that today's Serbian Orthodox Church in Canada and USA is not Serbian?

Moreover, here is the reference and quote supporting my post above. The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity edited by Ken Parry (page 236 [37])

"The five groups of Serbian dioceses (Montenegro, Patriarchate of Karlovci, Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Old Serbia) were united in 1920-2 under one Serbian patriarch, residing in Belgrade, the capital of the new Yugoslavia"--96.241.218.72 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)