Jump to content

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Birthplace & Hungarian citizenship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This has been discussed at length. Please refer to the note at the top of this page and the archives. We use secondary sources to establish Tesla's country of birth, while acknowledging that his citizenship changed over the course of his lifetime. - MrX 02:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Tesla was not Autro-Hungarian citizen, he was born in Smiljan, at the time Kingdom of Hungary.

The division was so marked between the countries that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenships.[1][2][clarification needed] The difference in citizenship also meant that, there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.[3][4]

I believe, according to our sources, Smiljan was part the sovereign state known as the Austrian Empire. This quote from the Austrian Empire article is instructive: "The Austrian Empire... was a modern era successor empire centered on what is today's Austria and which officially lasted from 1804 to 1867. It was followed by the Empire of Austria-Hungary,..." - MrX 21:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

|}

But this didn't change the fact that: Tesla hadn't Austrian Passport or Austrian citizenship. He had Hungarian citizenship and Hungarian passport.--84.2.167.189 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Tesla was not born in the Kingdom of Hungary. Smiljan was in the Austrian Military Frontier which was governed directly from Vienna(Austria). It ceased to be in 1881, after which it was integrated in the Kingdom of Croatia(which was a part of the Hungarian half of the monarchy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.208.15 (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, it was military frontier of Kingdom of Hungary. The Habsburgs governed it on the right of the "Lands of the Hungarian Holy Crown" as Kings of Hungary. After the Hungarian revolution was surpassed by Austrian and Russian armies in 1849, the Hungarian Parliament was disbanded & suspended even in Hungary. (The Austrian Parliament have never had right to create laws on the Military frontiers of Kingdom of Hungary, they were governed by Hungarian Royal decrees from Vienna. That's why Tesla has Hungarian birth certificate and citizenship instead of Austrian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.162.4 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2013‎

And wrong again. He was born in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, then only one of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netko000 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Smiljan was in the Austrian Military Frontier which was governed directly from Vienna(Austria). - a correct statement. See for details "The Austrian military frontier zone encompassed the largest part of Krajina, Vojvodina ... " page 33 of The Christian-Muslim Frontier: A Zone of Contact, Conflict or Co-operation by Mario Apostolov, Routledge, Sep 25, 2003, then "As a defence against the Turks Ferdinand of Austria created a march called the Militärgrenze [Military Frontier] in 1578. This was a land of forts, watchtowers and beacons, and its inhabitants, the granicari or frontiersmen, held their land on a ..." page 36 of International frontiers and boundaries: law, politics and geography by J. R. John Robert Victor Prescott, Gillian Gillian Doreen Triggs - 2008
  • From Austrian Empire: "The Kingdom of Hungary was only formally part of Empire of Austria.[5] It was regnum independens, a separate Monarchy as Article X of 1790 stipulated.[5] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually Tesla had a Croatian citizenship as Croatian Military Frontier where he was born although under direct military provision in Vienna, was still nominally part of the Croatian Kingdom...to which it was reincorporated in 1883. This is evident from his passport [1]. It was issued by the Provisional Govt. of the Kingdom of Croatia. The passport says: "In the name of his Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty Francis Joseph I., Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia, etc.". Above it you can see who was issuing the passport as it says: "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia Provisional Govt." and the coat of arms of Triune Kingdom. Shokatz (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2013 (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.

Edit Request - 6/6/13

There should be a sentence added to the paragraph below from the wiki article, which starts off, In 1881, after the first sentence. It is well known and documented on http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm among other locations, that tesla thought up of the idea of alternating current while walking in the park with a friend, and drawing the design in the dirt. The information to be added should be ----

He began his career as an electrical engineer with a telephone company in Budapest in 1881. It was there, as Tesla was walking with a friend through the city park that the elusive solution to the rotating magnetic field flashed through his mind. With a stick, he drew a diagram in the sand explaining to his friend the principle of the induction motor.


In 1881, Tesla moved to Budapest to work under Ferenc Puskas at a telegraph company, the Budapest Telephone Exchange. Upon arrival, Tesla realized that the company, then under construction, was not functional, so he worked as a draftsman in the Central Telegraph Office, instead. Within a few months, the Budapest Telephone Exchange became functional and Tesla was allocated the chief electrician position.[38] During his employment, Tesla made many improvements to the Central Station equipment and claimed to have perfected a telephone repeater or amplifier, which was never patented nor publicly described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigavp (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1881-82 claim of Tesla "imagining" the induction motor rotating field is a claim made by Nikola Tesla. So its an opinion/POV (Tesla's) that should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice (WP:YESPOV). Also Teslasociety is not very reliable source so it should not be copied verbatim. Tesla/1882 is already covered in the article as per his claim. Claim could always be expanded but it should never be stated as a fact. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Even you explained that it was a claim by Nikola Tesla himself.... and it is mentioned in the wiki earlier that. " Tesla would visualize an invention in his mind with extreme precision, including all dimensions, before moving to the construction stage, a technique sometimes known as picture thinking." So why can we then not state in the wiki that Nikola tesla claimed this. I believe it is important to list Tesla stated it, even if it isnt 100% provable that its possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigavp (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Claims, as along as they are explained as claims in text, are fine. The "Tesla would visualize an invention in his mind" section is another part of the problem: unreferenced and presented in Wikipedia's voice as if it were fact. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I second that thought. That part of that section has bothered me ever since I looked at it above when removing the synesthesia/other "diagnoses". It's problematic without a reliable source. Begoon talk 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit/Change Request - July 4th 2013

I've noticed that M. Cheney book Tesla: Man out of Time, page 318 is referenced as a"proof" of something that Tesla never said - 'my fatherland is Croatia' The full quote: "He used to say, 'I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia'" comes from Bogdan Raditsa who was a Tito's man, working temporarily in the diplomatic mission of Tito's Yugoslavia(1942-44), and who switched to exiled Croatian Ustashi side at the end of WWII. That man never met Tesla. His statement is a tell-tale with no credibility. Such nonsense did not come from people who were Tesla's relatives: nephews Sava Kosanovic and Nikola Trbojevic, his three sisters, nor from Tesla's friends: Mark Twain, Walter Russel, Anthony Szigeti, Kenneth Swezey, Konstantin Fotic - Kingdom of Yugoslavia ambassador in USA. It was not possible to find anything about his 'homeland' in the newspapers or books of that time or in his writings.

As to the 'telegram' attached to this article, the truth is it does not belong to Tesla's archive nor there is any evidence that Tesla ever received such a telegram and, even less, that he responded to the 'telegram'. There was no public aprehension of such telegram in newspapers or other written documents of that time. If Croatian separatist and nationalist Macek ever get such telegram he would certainly advertize its content in his speeches and local newspapers from 1936-1941. Macek even did not mention ever Tesla in his political manifest "In the Struggle for Freedom". The tell-tale about Tesla's 'homeland' is a wishful thinking used to promote Tito's brotherhood-and-unity, then to boost new Croatia identity.

It is worth to note that Tesla's 'homeland' destroyed stone memorials on the graves of Tesla's parents, ruined the church in which Nikola's father Milutin served as an Orthodox priest, more than half of Smiljan inhabitants, Serbs, were slaugthered by Croatian Ustashi. Nikola was fully aware of the destiny of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. In the last war, Croats destroyed Nikola Tesla monument erected in Gospic by Tito's Yugoslavia.

Please, remove 'telegram' and quotes about Nikola's 'homeland'. Wikipedia shall be free of political propaganda.--Fight Forgery (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - The existence of the telegram is sourced to the BBC. Please provide one or more equally reliable, independent sources that refute the authenticity of the telegram. A website called CroationViewpoint is likely not such a reliable source. - MrX 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The the telegram existence is sourced? First of all, BBC is a corporate media, therefore unreliable and far from independent. The www.croatianviewpoint.com website is reliable for showing a real Western Union telegram and comparing it to the fake one. Stronger source is Macek's In the Struggle for Freedom book. If Macek knew nothing about the 'telegram', then how a BBC correspondent from Croatia (in his blog) knows about the same? Bear in mind that you are not a decisionmaker here. Since when is a BBC blog a source?--216.54.171.18 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken, but you can raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard if you like? - MrX 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

If Tesla was born and raised in Croatia which at the time was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, why is he listed as Serbian let alone American? ÓCorcráin (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed here many times - so many that there is now a subpage for such discussions. Please see the notice at the top of this page pointing to the correct location for discussions about Tesla's ethnicity/nationality, and place arguments about Tesla's ethnicity that are non-WP:ATT-related on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. Questions concerning his nationality and/or ethnicity should also be asked on the sub-talkpage. Thank you. Begoon talk 10:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Influenced: Elon Musk

Please add this entry. Thank you. Ref: Elon Musk introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earwicker1 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"Influenced:" The intention is to only list those that were influenced by physical contact with the scientist per Template:Infobox scientist. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Notes/References

The organization of the notes/references and further reading is absolutely ridiculous and confusing. Terrible.Cosprings (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Could you please explain what specific issues you see with the current organization of the references? - MrX 02:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, there is no need to differentiate the sources between "books" and "others." Also, all the sources should be organized by the author's name.Cosprings (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I supplied the wrong book for the reason why the letter is a myth.

Oops. I supplied the wrong book for the reason why the letter is a myth. The book is really Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla : Biography of a Genius.

Slushy9 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Legacy & Honors.

Last year a Seattle comic book artist helped a non profit organization put up a fundraiser on IndieGoGo to raise a million dollars to convert the historical Wardenclyff labratory into the "Nikola Tesla Science Center;" a museum.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/let-s-build-a-goddamn-tesla-museum--5?c=home

There's also a wiki page here, though it fails to mention Matthew Inman's involvement (he also has his own Wiki page, as The Oatmeal). http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Tesla_Science_Center_at_Wardenclyffe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources showing this is notable? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Notability is not the standard to determine whether something should be included in an article about an otherwise notable subject. WP:N says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list. For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons." Issues affecting whether this fundraiser should be mentioned in this article include WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOT. I've no opinion as to whether the fundraiser passes these screens. Edison (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Notable as in "worthy of notice in a Wikpedia article about Tesla", not WP:N. Any reliable sources showing someone is noticing this? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

"Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-born and later naturalized American [2][3] inventor"

Nikola Tesla was born in Smiljan a town in Croatia,i know that because this year i visited it with my school(ps. i'm from Croatia)

http://hr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

http://www.nikolateslatour.com/blog/2012/09/05/nikola-teslas-birthplace-museum-and-memorial-center-in-smiljan-croatia/ 93.142.220.198 (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the best way to clarify it is without bloating out the lead. The problem is that while he was born what is now modern day Croatia, at the time it was part of the Austrian Empire, and on that account it wouldn't make sense to call him Croation born. Ethnically, he was serbian, and not a Croat, so again, saying he was Croation born wouldn't work. The first section clarifies all that, but I don't see a way to get that much nuance into the lead. Monty845 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If I had a penny for every time this has been debated, I would be one rich man. Slushy9 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox scientist?

This seems to be the wrong template. Tesla was most notable as an engineer who worked via trial and error and ignored current theory i.e. did not work very scientifically. Also not listed as a "scientist" in the lead. Looks like he should have a Template:Infobox engineer/Infobox person, similar to Edison. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of any reason not to change it. - MrX 22:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Fountains of Bryn Mawr is incorrect in stating that Tesla "did not work very scientifically" and "worked by trial and error." (Maybe he is thinking of Tesla criticizing Thomas Edison for these behaviors). If he is not listed as a scientist in the lead, that can and should be corrected. (Some called him a "mad scientist). The new infobox is inferior to the old in that it omits the many scientific and technical devices and theories he is known for, so I recommend switching back to the old infobox. Some cites to books which characterize Tesla as a scientist: "Nikola Tesla:Incredible Scientist and Prodigal Genius- the Life of Nikola Tesla", "Tesla: Man out of time," which says (p111) "People were to call him a wizard, a visionary, a prophet, a prodigal genius, and the greatest scientist of all time", "The prodigal genius" p5 says "Tesla, the scientist and inventor, was himself an invention..." "Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy" p219, by James Corum, who has specialized in the study of Tesla's work: "For a scientist, Tesla was a prolific but abstruse and poetic writer.", and "Nikola Tesla: A Serbo-American scientist.. The New York Times (subscription, at "NIKOLA TESLA," New York Times (1923-Current file) ,New York, N.Y.: Jan 9, 1943 pg. 1 . Article Types: editorial_article. .Publication title: New York Times (1923-Current file) Source Type: HISTORICAL NEWSPAPER. ISSN/ISBN: 1493907. Document ID: 85067238), in an article shortly after his death, which evaluated his contributions, said "There was a solid scientific basis at the bottom of all this romanticism. For he was no tinkerer, but a first-class mathematician and physicist whose blueprints were plausible, even though they were far in advance of the technical resources of his day." Present-day biographies call him a physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer. The burden is on those who assert he was not a scientist .Edison (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
A scientist leaves detailed records for others to follow and duplicate the experiments. Tesla had no concern for this. He was an inventor, not a scientist. Hyperbole in biographies does not change the basic facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Tesla DID NOT accept, or work with theories on atoms, electrons, or radio waves. Writers on the general subject[2] have noted that Tesla worked exactly the way Thomas Edison worked, by trail and error, just with a higher level of education, i.e. he was an inventor more than a scientist. The infobox "scientist" simply did not fit: "Institutions" was incorrect, "Known for" was a laundrylist of Tesla lore, and "Influences / Influenced" was baloney. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "baloney", exactly. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Addressing "Fountains:" Tesla not accepting some theories which are now accepted does not make him "not a scientist," anymore than it makes all the physicists who disagreed with general relativity "not scientists." Scientists frequently disparage the theories of their contemporaries. Your opinion and original research do not trump mainstream present-day encyclopedias of scientific biography and modern biographies of Tesla which include "Physicist" as a descriptor. You claim "writers say" and then cite exactly one book, in contrast to the many I cited which called him a scientist or physicist. Binksternet is wrong when he says Tesla did not leave detailed records. After his funds were gone and he was just a retired broke eccentric, talking about rayguns, then indeed he did not do scientific publication. But for earlier work he gave many well followed public demonstrations to scientific audiences which were written up in detail by himself and others, and he wrote volumes about his own work in radio, x-rays, his remote-control boat, wireless power to light lights, rotating magnetic fields, and induction motors, in the 19th century. His publications were numerous. If he were merely being evaluated for notability as a scientist, one might look at Google Scholar and similar citation sites to see if he published and if his papers were cited by others.He gave well-received lecture-dempnstrations to learned societies, for example. See "High frequency oscillators for electro-therapeutic and other purposes," 1898, "A new system of alternate current motors and transformers," 1888, "Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential" 1904, Experiments with alternate currents of very high frequency and their application to methods of artificial illumination 1891, Tesla, Nikola. "On light and other high frequency phenomena." Journal of the Franklin Institute 136.4 (1893): 259-279 (no free online view), "The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla: With Special ..." published by TC Martin, 1894. This is not a complete listing, but it shows him as publishing his work in an exemplary way, and these publications have been cited by later workers. He was a highly regarded mainstream engineer and physicist in the 1890's. Edison (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously the way NOT to prove anything about Nicola Tesla is to cite primary sources. That is "original research" by the way. Tesla as a "physicists" is the hyperbole you find in a small subset of "Tesla literature"[3], making that claim a hard pass per WP:RS. Tesla as an engineer (not a physicists) is by far his most common association[4]. Engineers use physics BTW but that does not make them primarily physicists. Physicists, like other scientists, use a systematic method that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations. Tesla never really did that. For example Tesla had his own theories on how wireless energy could be transmitted (through the ground) that he was determined to make work (until he ran himself bankrupt trying to do it). He was not trying to test/disprove his or anyone else's theories on this. And as late as 18 years after Marconi's radio transmissions Tesla didn't believe that the radio signals predicted by Maxwell and experimentally shown by Hertz really existed[5]. So the infobox we should use is TEMPLATE:INFOBOX SCIENTIST (BUT NOT A VERY GOOD ONE)? There are many people who dabble in their own personal form of Science but that does not make that their primary notability: for example the amateur astronomer John Dobson has his own form of cosmology but that does not make him primarily a "Cosmologists". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I listed some of his scientific publications to refute the claim that he "did not publish," and then you disparage his publications as "primary sources." This is sophistry and the setting up of a constantly shifting impossible to satisfy demand, since he can hardly publish his own work as "secondary sources!" Certainly his work was also written up by and commented on by secondary sources. Your personal opinion that he was not a physicist is original research and is refuted by modern and reliable encyclopedias of science and technology. Being wrong does not exclude someone from being a scientist. Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling had a crackpot belief in the magical curative power of vitamin C, and Nobel prize winner Shockley wrote racist nonsense. That does not make them nonscientists nor would it justify your proposed infobox item "TEMPLATE:INFOBOX SCIENTIST (BUT NOT A VERY GOOD ONE)." Edison (talk) 05:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you misread that. I am citing your use of primary sources, not Tesla's. I am not calling Tesla a non-scientist, just that he is primarily an engineer per WP:RS sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Tesla (9th from left), along with some of the greatest scientists at that time, including Albert Einstein (8th from left), taking an inspection tour of the New Brunswick Marconi Station. Circa 1921.[6]

I find it hard to believe the 6 foot 2 tesla is actually pictured here, shorter than Einstein and most of the other pictured scientists. Other sites are unsure of the identity of this man as well.Cosprings (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree in questioning that the image is Tesla. The caption on the original image does not identify Tesla. It seems to be someone's original research to claim that the photo includes Tesla.But I cannot rule it out. Edison (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The short middle aged guy in the middle is a 65 year old tall Tesla? Picture should be removed and its image page modified. Tesla writer Marc J.Seifer looked into it and came to the conclusion the man standing between Einstein and Steinmetz was the then 35 year old transmission theorist John Renshaw Carson[6]. John Carson is listed as an unidentified possibile participant in the picture documentation. Retouched UPI photos of this Einstein / Steinmetz meeting[7] take out the third guy, probably because he was a relative nobody. Tesla was definitely not a nobody (man that would have been a historic meeting) and would never have been airbrushed out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources contradict the attribution so I have removed the image. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Pigeon

"In the spring of 1938, Tesla was able to get up. He at once resumed the pigeon—feeding walks on a much more limited scale, but frequently had a messenger act for him.[30]"

There is a long dash here where there should only be a hyphen. 75.118.51.238 (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! - MrX 22:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Nikola Tesla was not Serbian born, he was Croatian. It is well documented. Even to the right of the Wikipedia page it shows Croatia as the area born and dates, etc. It should be corrected.

99.60.181.132 (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looking at the talk page, I can see this has already been discussed several times. RudolfRed (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Done It has been discussed - particularly on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity and of all the discussions there I did not see anyone claiming that Tesla was Serbian born. He was a Serb. He was born in a place that is now in Croatia. It was not at any time in Serbia as far as I can see. This sentence is in error and should be updated to one of the previous versions - One of the least contentious versions seems to have been to say he was an inventor and then :

Born in Smiljan in the present-day Croatia, he was an ethnic Serb subject of the Austrian Empire and later became an American citizen.
Even the reference given to the line above states Tesla wrote that he was equally proud of his Serbian ethnicity and his Croatian birthplace.Antiqueight discuss 13:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Update : the previous version seems to have been Nikola Tesla was a Serbian-American inventor until Backendgaming changed it on 07:38, 14 July 2013 to Nikola Tesla was a Serbian-born American inventor in order to adhere to WP:MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiqueight (talk • contribs)

Please, remove forgeries from this article

This is my second attempt to point at forgeries in this article.

1. "Telegram" - never existed nor confirmed by Tesla and Macek. A plain visual comparison of the "telegram" and real Western Union telegrams of that time shows that the advertised copy of the "telegram" is not a telegram. For details see IS THE TESLA-MACEK TELEGRAM AUTHENTIC?

2. The phrase "I am equally proud of my Serbian ethnicity and my Croatian birthplace" attributed to the Chenney's book is false. There is only a story (telltale) coming from a Croatian (B.Raditsa) who was a member of Tito's diplomatic mission from the second half of 1942 and who never met Tesla nor talked to him. This Croatian invented the story about Tesla telling him about his "homeland" in 1957 when Raditsa was a supporter of the exiled Ustashi.

3. No one of the people who were Tesla's friends of who met and talked to him ever said or wrote about the Tesla's "pride". User MrX falsely stated "The existence of the telegram is sourced to the BBC"--Fight Forgery (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct that I falsely stated that the telegram is sourced to the BBC. I was going by footnote #3 which says
"Electrical pioneer Tesla honoured". BBC News. Retrieved 20 May 2013. "Replying to a telegram written to him by a Croatian, Tesla wrote that he was equally proud of his Serbian ethnicity and his Croatian birthplace; because at the time Serbia and Croatia were unified as a single kingdom."
It looks like someone read the telegraph, saw Tesla's quote under a photo on the BBC article and synthesized the rest.
The personal blog that you linked to can not be used as a source (See WP:RS). Also, policy does not allow us to make a comparison between the Tesla telegram and a "real" telegram. See WP:OR.
Can you find a reliable source that claims that the Tesla quote or the telegram are not authentic? Such a source would most likely be in form of a respected newspaper, magazine, journal, book, or encyclopedia. - MrX 21:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I have the Cheney book in front of me. The p. 318 does not have the quote "I am equally proud of my Serbian ethnicity and my Croatian birthplace" [8]. If Tesla and Macek nothing ever knew or wrote about the "telegram" how somebody else knows about the same? Ask those who are talking about the "telegram" how they got, invented the "telegram" first. See WP:OR The most powerful references are the samples of the Western Union telegrams (sent, received). None of them verifies the "telegram".--Fight Forgery (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey User:Velebit, is that you again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
No- the quote from the book is "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia" - However it is a hearsay quote 🍺 Antiqueight confer 17:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Great. A hearsay is the hearsay and cannot be used as a proof of anything. The quote as presented is taken out of the context, therefore invalid again. Removing this quote the same way as the one before.--Fight Forgery (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    • The full wrapper text of the one claimed to be Tesla's words is

"As soon as Kosanovic came to the States", said Professor Raditsa,"he tried to reorient Tesla from the exclusive Serbian policy, and he succeeded. Tesla, even before, never felt himself a Great Serbian chauvinist. He used to say, 'I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia'"

Radica was an active Ustashi supporter in 1957 when M. Cheney was writing her book. See his book: Hrvatska 1945 (Barcelona, 1974); therefore he cannot be trusted.--Fight Forgery (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism

This article's importance rating on WikiProject Skepticism should be upgraded from “Mid” to “High” – it is believed by a great many people, including me, that he discovered free energy – consider Wardenclyffe. It is also widely believed that the U.S. government, after his death, confiscated his papers, which are still hidden; see Pentagon Aliens by William R. Lyne.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

“it is believed by a great many people...” Pardon my weasel words. A large portion of people I've taked to believe in free energy – and by extension that Tesla invented it – or at least are favorable to the proposition. The opinions of the people I talk to, could be biased though, because I myself believe in free energy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

X-ray, radiant energy, radio waves

Tesla most definitely did NOT consider "X-rays" the same as "radiant energy." Please provide your source. In fact, he was probably the first to come up with a reasonable explanation for Roentgen rays. A good starting point on radiant energy is in his Canadian patent on radiant energy C0142352. [7]

Also, it is stated that Tesla did not believe in radio waves. This is also COMPLETELY false. His poly AC motor used radio waves (or "Hertz" waves). He met with Hertz personally in Bonn to discuss and dispute the manner in which RF waves propagate through a conductor, through the air and through earth. Hertz himself had doubts about his own theories after learning about Tesla's experiments. Many scientists today believe Tesla was correct. One thing is for sure: Tesla believed in the existence of radio waves (although he saw it as an inefficient source of energy/communication compard to radiant energy) and many of his own writings make this abundantly clear. [8] Selection of Tesla's Articles and Writings .... search "Hertz" or "Bonn"

~~Russ~~

67.1.222.28 (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

"provide your source" should be done to add any claims per WP:BURDEN. Please note: Tesla's writings are or not a very reliable source per WP:RS and examining patents to derive significance is WP:OR. "abundantly clear" is defined by reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors. There is "Nikola Tesla: The Guy Who DIDN'T "Invent Radio", many sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
When and where did Tesla write that his electric induction motor operated on radio waves? Surely he understood the difference between utility frequency alternating current and radio waves. Edison (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

'Telegram' is a photoshop con art

There is a great number of the Western Union telegram samples available on the Internet. Comparing them to the 'telegram' we can easily come to a few facts about the 'telegram':

- The 'telegram' is apparently a sender copy
- The 'telegram' address and the message are both written on a photoshop made tape imitating the real one that might be found on the receiver's copy of a real Western Union telegram. The con artist forgot, or was not able, to make the tape rim visible as it is on any real receiver's copy.
- The 'telegram' shows no creases, discoloration, or any other wear and tear signs i.e. it's freshly mint
- A real sender's telegram cannot be written by the Western Union tape typewriter for this type of typewriter was not operated manually and only used to print the received text on a paper tape that was later cut and glued on the telegram sender's copy by the Western Union operator.

Moreover, those who read Tesla's letters written (in Serbian) and sent to his relatives might easily find out that the language of the 'telegram' message is not the one Tesla ever used: The two words 'cienjenoj', 'srbskoga' are from the Croatian Ustashe so-called 'korienski' Croatian language vocabulary. The 'korienski' Croatian was in the official use in Independent State of Croatia, from 1941 to 1942. There is a great number of the Tesla's letters available in the Nikola Tesla Museum in Belgrade.--216.54.171.18 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey User:Velebit, is that you again? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the telegram still displayed in Zagreb in the museum as coming from Tesla? Until such time as the telegram is either considered suspect or proven to be a fake there is nothing wrong with displaying it on the page since the museum - with greater experience than an internet search - still considers it authentic. However, if you can provide RS suggesting it is not authentic, that can be discussed. Otherwise this is just your opinion and that can't be used to edit a Wikipedia article.-- 🍺 Antiqueight confer 14:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Here you see another 'telegram' which comes from "Tesla Memorial Society of New York is grateful to Milka Kajganić, journalist, publicist and human rights activist, for these extremely important and historical documents (Western Union above and photos below).". So, how come that the 'telegram' from Kajganić differs the one supplied by the con artists team? How come that some text visible on the Kajganić's 'telegram' is not visible on the con artists' 'telegram'? Which way it is proven that the 'telegram' comes from Zagreb Technical Museum? Please, provide answer whose 'telegram' is authentic then and who really owns it. Please, provide the clear proof that the 'telegram' comes from Tesla. --216.54.171.18 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
It looks the same to me - From the photograph in the link above it looks like a photocopy or similar of the original with what may be archivists notes and stamp on the copy. Otherwise it appears to be the same telegram. The Tesla society in New York seems happy with the authenticity. 🍺 Antiqueight confer 16:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Yesss, it's the evil Croats, all out to get you - with museum exhibits. *facepalm* --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't care whether the telegrams are fake, but I have removed both images from the article because they were not explained and therefore not relevant to the reader. It's the Gordian solution to the IP's complaint. Binksternet (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The explanation was in the article before, but it was removed earlier for unrelated reasons, someone said that the discussion of Tesla in the scope of Croatian-Serbian relations after his death was coat-racking a tangential issue to the biography. I disagreed, but didn't have the time to rewrite it to be clearer as was requested. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
If you were really brave and foolhardy you would write the article Nationality of Nikola Tesla. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I actually don't think it's a topic worth an entire article. The mainstream view of his nationality and its various implications is perfectly clear, and there isn't really a lot of relevant controversy to be explained. It would, however, be the target for a lot of irrelevant, fringe "controversy". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

About forgeries

The introduction text

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American[2][3]

with references

[2] Burgan, Michael (2009). Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer. Mankato, Minnesota: Capstone. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-7565-4086-9.
[3] "Electrical pioneer Tesla honoured". BBC News. Retrieved 20 May 2013. "Replying to a telegram written to him by a Croatian, Tesla wrote that he was equally proud of his Serbian ethnicity and his Croatian birthplace; because at the time Serbia and Croatia were unified as a single kingdom."

is another case of forgery. Reference [2] does not mention Serb or Serbia at all. Page 9 just says that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia. Reference [3] is based on a fake telegram, therefore invalid. The fake telegram language is not the one Tesla ever used. Here is on the page 98. visible a copy of a Tesla's letter where he wrote: 'srpskoj' (not srbskoj), 'dvije' (not dvie), 'osmijeh' (not osmieh) i.e. his language is not the language of Ante Pavelic.

Instead [2] and [3] I'd like to propose two other references in which Tesla says, by his own words, who he is.

  • Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla by Marc Seifer p. 1740
In front of a welcoming committee Zmaj read his poem "Pozdrav Nikoli Tesli", and then Tesla took the podium. "There is something in me which is only perhaps illusory," Tesla began, "[It is] like that which often comes to young, enthusiastic persons, but if I were to be sufficiently fortunate to bring about at least some of my ideas it would be for the benefit of humanity." Referring back to Zmaj's poem, Tesla concluded with a message that would deeply touch the hearts of his people" If these hopes become one day a reality, my greatest joy would spring from the fact that this work would be the work of a Serb".
  • My inventions by Nikola Tesla (autobiography)
At that time I was under the sway of the Serbian national poetry, and therefore full of admiration for the feats of the heroes.

--Fight Forgery (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • "Reference [2] does not mention Serb or Serbia at all. Page 9 just says that Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia" You may want to read it a little more carefully. Ref [2], page 9 says: "Although living in Austrian Croatia, Nikola's parents came from Serbian families. Nikola's Serbian relatives included other priests and several military officers honored for their bravery."
  • Your fake telegram theory will gain no traction here unless you produce reliable sources, that are better than the BBC, that state that the telegram is fake. There are several passages in one of your proposed references that supports the notion of Tesla being Serbian, without any additional analysis.
  • You seem to be trying very hard to to prove that Tesla was not Serbian and I would like to understand why, given that our sources say otherwise. Is there a conflict of interest that you need to disclose? - MrX 00:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • This anonymous user (Mr) continues fabricating false statements:
  • You may want to read it a little more carefully.. I read the Page 9 correctly. What the anon quoted belongs to page 19 of the same book.
  • Your fake telegram theory will gain no traction here unless you produce reliable sources.. Me and IP already provided two powerful, the most reliable, references (real Western Union telegram sender's copy and a sample (page 98) of a real document written by Tesla personally ) showing clearly that both "telegram" copies are no more than a photoshop telegram mockups, poorly and ignorantly done. About the Croatian BBC correspondent: the anonymous user Mr publicly and falsely stated earlier The existence of the telegram is sourced to the BBC. My question to the anon: Is there, maybe, another Western Union telegram mockup circulating that, maybe, was referred by the Croatian BBC correspondent?
  • You seem to be trying very hard to to prove that Tesla was not Serbian.. A rant, blatantly false and incivil.
  • My proposal was (and it remains current) to replace the hearsay of BBC correspondent by references with Tesla's own words (' I am a Serb').--Fight Forgery (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As MrX said, original research on the telegram, no matter what you think you see in it, will not work in Wikipedia. As to "serbian american", it passes a simple Google Test[9] with lots of other sources. (I think) I was the one who moved the telegram off to a page note because it seemed to have no use in the article except for people who wanted to pick nationalist fights. So I am so-so for it being in a note. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Mr X & Fountains, you both seem to think FF wants to disprove Tesla is a Serbian. Please reread more carefully, he does not want that at all. You're both misunderstanding him completely. He merely wants to change the sources/quotes for the same idea to a valid, non-fraudulent, non-forgery source.
I agree 100% that if we were judging his source for this telegram fraud, that it would not meet Wikipedia standards for including it as a source itself in the article. But there is no such policy for when not to include a source. If it is suspect, for any reason, even though not definitively proven false, we can still adopt a wait-and-see approach for some reliable sources to address the accusations. We can still source the same idea from other sources that don't have a reasonable cloud of fraud hanging over them. Yes, this is not from reliable sources by Wikipedia standards for article inclusion, but the cloud of fraud is genuine on this one. Could you both just look at the article he linked to in the other discussion here? The reliable sources like the BBC and the museum who displays the telegram, if they have even seen this, are undoubtedly adopting a wait-and-see approach for others to comment on the issue. Everybody is waiting, and in the meantime they can all see that Wikipedia, with it's high standards, is still sourcing the telegram (so it must be ok... right?). I know we can't use it as a source in the article for fact, but the fraud accusation is very reasonable, and we can certainly do better in constructing our Tesla article and getting the same ideas across with better references & quotes, don't you think? --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The accusation was put forward by a well-known Wikipedia abuser, so no, it's a priori unreasonable to act upon it in a way that would (continue to) make a mockery of this whole thing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That's true, Joy, but arguing against the person is really irrelevant to the facts. Fight Forgery won't be coming back, lol, but there is nothing wrong with his actual request. From this point forward, disregard him completely and consider the request coming from me. The facts are there, and if you would take the time to review the link I gave you can easily independently verify the fraud on your own, regardless of the link's lack of credentials. I'm sure we all don't want to have false info in Wikipedia, especially if it is just as easy to say the same ideas with different sources. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think think FF wanted to disprove Tesla is a Serbian. Please reread my post more carefully. I moved the telegram reference to a NOTE because I didn't think it added anything to the article body text. I think there are lots of other sources so, yeah, it could be sub'ed since I am so-so for it even being in a ref NOTE. Now a personal point of view website like croatianviewpoint.com is not a "cloud of fraud", in fact it is not even a reliable source per Wikipedia consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that the note could be sub'd out. :) I also agreed that croatianviewpoint is not a reliable source per Wikipedia consensus for including facts in an article, but no one has suggested that it should be used that way. There is no similar Wikipedia standard for deciding when not to include a source, when it might be better to wait for someone to directly address the accusations, or when it might be better to find other sources to say the same thing. The cloud of fraud, as I said, does not come from the reliability of the author, but from the facts themselves, which you can independently verify yourself. The only reason it is a "cloud", and not a cold hard fact that we could comment on in the Tesla article, is that a self-publisher has first brought it to light. Any reasonable person though can verify for themselves that it's extremely likely this is a fraud, and that we should source elsewhere. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's just wrong. If there are facts that anyone can independently verify, then they exist in reliable sources. If they don't exist in reliable sources, there can be no assumption that they are indeed independently verifiable facts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
No Joy, certainly not, lol. That's an outrageous claim. Consider the entire "field" of original research. All of it. It may not constitute reliable sources per WP standards for inclusion in an article here, but it is the very definition of "independently verifiable" facts. Just because multiple, reliable, secondary sources haven't yet got around to commenting on a fact (they may never), doesn't mean that there is no way in the world for you to go out and independently verify it yourself. That's just silly. Example: If the town newspaper (reliable source) says there is a new grocery store on 2nd street, then you can believe them because they are reliable, and it could be repeated in Wikipedia. But what if instead that shifty little brat Billy claims on his blog (not a reliable source) that there is a new grocery store on 2nd street? You can still independently verify it by just walking down to 2nd street and looking for yourself, and see: "Yep, it's a fact". You can see that it is true, but you just can't include it in Wikipedia, since that would be WP:OR. Same exact thing in the question above. If you would just read it with an non-nationalistic open mind, you can see that you could easily verify the fraud for yourself, even if no reliable source has commented on it. I would certainly agree that, per WP policy, we can not comment on the fraud in the article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
What you're talking about is WP:BLUE. However, an intricate claim such as that BBC and a museum are falsely reporting a very specific forgery - simply does not qualify. If you assume that I'm not having an open mind on the matter because I'm a nationalist (which is in itself a blatant violation of WP:AGF), you can go ahead and ask someone else at WT:V or WP:RSN or some other relevant forum. They'll tell you the same thing (and then you can come back and apologize for this blunder and for calling me names). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
No, it was not WP:BLUE, because that is about adding article content. I explained above why this is different, I don't wish to add the fraud accusation to the article. I will certainly believe you that you have no nationalistic bent in relation to this article, but could you tell me what it is that's causing you to make ridiculous logic arguments, like independently verifiable facts only exist within reliable sources; and tell me what it is that's preventing you from simply reading the link and deciding if you can verify the fraud for yourself? --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The simple fact that I don't have infinite free time so that I can spend some researching a known abuser's "sources"? If there was any relevance to the story, we would have seen it covered somewhere other than a blog promoted only by a person with an axe to grind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

So you would have us leave fraud in the article because you don't have time to look at the page, and you will spend plenty of time arguing with other editors that it could not possibly be true, even though you won't just simply read it?! The facts there do not rely on anyone's "reliability". You can read the arguments and easily go prove it for yourself. It is not being promoted by a known abuser now. It is being promoted by me, someone with widespread, neutral mix to my posts and no ancestors from anywhere near there. Please stop with the nonsense about it only being possible for facts to exist in reliable sources, this is grossly incorrect logically, as I showed above the very existence of the idea of original research proves. If you don't have time to even look at the facts here, then you probably don't belong in this discussion, don't you think?
Let's put all the cards on the table for everyone to see. I know from your editing history that you can see something that the others above missed. This telegram is really most often used in support of Croatian nationalism, not Serbian. It is the primary link to Croatia being able to claim Tesla as a heroic son of the fatherland. Major national pride, and what is taught to the children in history books, is dependent on this telegram. So I expected serious opposition from Croatian editors. Yet I didn't expect completely illogical arguments and a refusal to even read the facts or discuss them from a Croatian administrator. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I'm not sure what it is that you are trying to accomplish here. Is it that you believe that one or more of the article's sources are unreliable because the sources rely on telegrams to establish Tesla's ethnicity? If so, then please present a specific, policy based argument that moves us toward rectifying it. As has been repeatedly said, editors can not examine telegrams to reach a conclusion different from our reliable sources, which is what I understand you to mean when you say "The cloud of fraud, as I said, does not come from the reliability of the author, but from the facts themselves, which you can independently verify yourself." That's not how Wikipedia works. - MrX 22:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Wait, you're accusing me of being argumentative? :) You're once again failing to assume good faith, and you're still arguing that the encyclopedia should care for all those "facts" that don't come from reliable sources simply because you think that they make sense. Do you not see the slippery slope in that argument? The violation of the verifiability policy seems glaringly obvious to me. In any case - if you're an expert in the field, write an article about it and get it published in a respectable journal, and then that can be referenced. Before that happens, all we have is plain old hearsay. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Joy, I didn't "accuse" you of being argumentative. I said you were arguing, just like "making an argument" or "making a point"; same as me, we are both arguing our points and that is ok. I also didn't fail to assume good faith. I just laid out facts and you can make your own interpretation. I will not hide facts that point in a less-than-flattering direction. In your policy argument about what an "encyclopedia should care for", the real slippery slope is your use of the word "care". The policies we are here talking about are not about what the encyclopedia "cares" for, or what sources it cares about, but rather, explicitly, which sources are reliable enough to include their facts in the article. How many times can I say that I don't want to include that material in the article? There is no matching policy that says a source must be used unless it can be reliable-source proven that it is in error. You are trying to stretch over Wikipedia policy to cover that area so you can keep this content, which is fraud, in the article. We aren't required to prove a source is in error before it can ever be taken out.
MrX, same argument. When you say "that is not how Wikipedia works", again you are trying to stretch the reliable sources policy, which is for adding content into an article, over to also cover when we may not want to include a source; as in the case where reliable sources have not yet picked up the fraud. Honestly, some things are just not so earth-shattering from the perspective of major news organizations, even if fraud, to warrant an immediate full-fledged expose on this one single point. They may not get to it for a very, very long time, say in some future Tesla book. That just doesn't mean it's not true right now.
Before either of you cry wikilawyering, please consider which of us is using protracted technical arguments to keep fraud in our article, when you could easily just verify it for yourself, in half the time you spent arguing we should not even read it!
If ever, and I mean EVER, there was a reason for WP:IGNORE, this is certainly exactly the reason it was adopted. It really is fraud. Just read the links: 1st 2nd. I apologize that you have to suffer the nationalistic garbage that may be included, but the core facts about the telegram are still there, and you can independently verify them for yourself. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An article should not contain references that do not support the article's content. Whether a source is reliable or not is determined by consensus, but there are guidelines.
Your arguments here have been almost entirely hypothetical. Please make specific edit proposals, or simply edit the article with good explanations in the edit summaries. I'm starting to form the opinion that you simply want to argue or discuss policy in the abstract. If so, you're in the wrong place. - MrX 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if you thought they were hypothetical. I thought it was clear to everyone we were talking about removing the telegram reference from the article that makes the false claim. Only a Wikipedia rookie (not that you are) would try to remove the crown jewel of Yugoslav references from the article without a serious discussion first, 100% chance of being reverted. I went ahead and removed it per my reasons above, per your recommendation, and per Fountains comment above that he was so-so for it even being a ref note. Thanks. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Earth resonant frequency

Did a cleanup on this claim. Claims of what Tesla found re: Earth resonant frequency and that it had some exact value need much better referencing. We have 11.78, other sources with 6Hz, 8Hz, or 6, 18, and 30Hz, and one source (Seifer) not giving values and not claiming it was the Schumann resonance. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Petition to change the first paragraph of this article

Due to the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in the country of Croatia, I am submitting this petition to change the nationality of Nikola Tesla from the inaccurate "Serbian-American" in the first paragraph of this article to the correct nationality of "Croatian-American". 114.229.77.176 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Please read the notice at the top of the page as well as the previous discussions where consensus (and sources) determined that the current verbiage is correct. - MrX 13:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Born in Croatia, Croatian passport with Croatian birth certificate just because someone thinks it's been discussed enough shouldn't mean that a discriminatory lie should be sustained. I see no counter point made. Let the truth out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A007spy0782 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

While I agree Tesla is Orthodox, and of Serbian parentage, he considered himself a Croatian in public speeches. Moreover, he should be considered Austro-Hungarian, for that was the name of the country at the time of his birth. And yes, his early years were not only spent in his birth town, but also in Karlovac, which at that time was called Carlstadt, due to Austrian political strong-arming and irredentism. But if I had to choose, I think it should be historians from today's Croatia and Serbia that carry the debate, not external sources, such as the United States. As a matter of record, the U.S. does not honor ANY documentation of any tribes or nationalities in its official records, unless that nationality is sovereign and has its own "official country," with clear political borders. Sverko (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Tesla was raised in the Serbian culture. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Tesla is Serbian, not Croatian, and revisionist Croatian historians should stop trying to claim him as "theirs". Azx2 23:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Tesla is considered himself to be a Croat and not a Serb. Clarifying this is a must, because this information will mislead many people. Another simple resolution to this issue could be to say that Tesla was 'Austro-Hungarian'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Young Contributor (talk • contribs) 21:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Ferenc Puskas vs. Tivadar Puskas

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

It is a mistake. He worked for Tivadar Puskas. (Ferenc Puskas /1 April 1927[3] – 17 November 2006/ was a Hungarian footballer.) PPeter46 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla statue in SIlicon Valley

This one seems to be missing. They held a successful kickstarter and there is even a Youtube video of the unveiling. The statue is also a free wifi hotspot. --Helping Hand (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

JAN 7TH 2014 71ST.ANNIVERSARY OF TESLAS DEATH

Tesla died jan 7th 1943 in the old new yorker hotel nyc. the last person besidews tghe hiotel maid he told not to disturb him. To see tesla was a man named SPINELnot sure iof the spelling. a suppossed Soviet agent! Anyone have info on spinel. thanks!remember TESLA!01:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.87.163 (talk)

Marguerite Merrington 1857 - 1951

a woman who was a Tesla's important friend DOES NOT HAVE her own wiki page


Predavanje o Nikoli Tesli u biblioteci u Filadelfiji, SAD

p4 300x225 Predavanje o Nikoli Tesli u biblioteci u Filadelfiji, SAD


Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I will try to describe a non scientifical aspect of the life of brilliant scientist Nikola Tesla. Like many things connected with him, the question of women in his life is pretty unusual. Why?

First, because he used to say that he is married to science (that was an answer to the question whether artists and scientists should get married. Tesla said: „An artist, yes, a musician, yes, an inventor, no. The first two can get inspiration from the female influence and they can be led to sublime achievements by love, but an inventor’s nature is so fierce, with so many wild and passionate aspects in it, that he would, by giving himself to the woman he loves, give everything, and then nothing of his would be left for the chosen field. I do not believe you can name many inventors who were married.” He also added: “That is a pity, because sometimes we are so lonely”)

Second, it is unusual that he really lived his life according to his convictions. It cannot be claimed with certainty he did not have any physical relationship with any woman, especially during his life period before he came to the USA, although he is often portrayed as such a person.

He was a bachelor all his life, and he also had some strange reactions connected with women. For instance, he abhorred chubby women, women who wore a lot of jewelry made him sick (he especially felt sickness upon seeing pearls; he could not stand their roundness). He used to say he could not touch hair of any woman.

But, nevertheless, apart from his attitudes, he was a subject of female sighing and adoration, especially during the period of his greatest scientific fame.

Let’s start from the first woman who is important in the life of each man, mother. His mother’s name was Djuka Mandic (1822-1892). Her real name was Georgina, Djuka was her nickname. She was a daugher of an orthodox priest, whose family ancestry was also in the clerical background. She had no formal education, but she was extremely intelligent. She had excellent memory, talent for handwork and inventing new objects for household by herself. Tesla had a very good relationship with her. When he was in his youth in a bad period of life (he was constantly gambling), his mother, upon hearing about that, gave him all the money she had, telling him to gamble it all away, but he instantly decided to conquer his vice and stop gambling, without even touching the money.

When she was dying, he had lectures in Paris. He cancelled the already appointed lectures due to her difficult condition and left for Gospic. He was lucky enough to see her still alive. In his autobiography Tesla said: “ I was totally exhausted because of pain and a long wake, so one night some people took me two streets away from our house. As I was lying there helplessly, I was thinking that my mother will, while I am far from her deathbed, certainly give me some kind of sign. I was intensely listening, but nothing happened until dawn when I fell asleep, or fainted, and saw a cloud carrying faces of wonderful beauty, one of them was looking at me with love and gradually getting the look of my mother. In that moment I was certain my mother has just died. And that was true.”

Tesla often mentioned her, for instance, when he was stressing her unbelievable power of intuition and when he was paraphrasing her words that success in life can be achieved only with man’s own efforts. In his autobiography he devoted the most beautiful and the most touching lines to his mother.

Tesla had three sisters: Angelina, Milka and Marica. Although he lived far away from them, he took care of them and helped their families, and they often wrote letters to him, being so proud of their famous brother.

Tesla’s first love was a girl named Ana (in some texts I found her name was Marija). He fell in love with her in Gospic in Lika. They walked together in Gospic or in Smiljan (his birthplace). It is said that he uttered he had been in love for the first time. When he came back from the university, she has already married (she wanted family). Tesla, allegedly, then said: “She got married, I have been dreaming her for a long time and then I died.” However, he was very disappointed because of that love story and it is possible that it was one of the reasons why he decided not to have further relationships with women.

That story continued in a totally different way many years later, when her son came to New York. Tesla took care of him and tried to help him. The young man was interested in boxing, and Tesla managed to arrange a box fight for him, but the unfortunate boy fainted on the first match, and later died. Tesla mourned him as if he were his own son.

Sarah Bernhardt (1844 – 1923)

I have already mentioned that Tesla had arranged lectures in Paris. They were preceeded by enormously successful lectures he had in London, in the Institution of Electrical Engineers and The Royal Institution of Great Britain. Both the scientific and journalist world talked about them, and he was famous in Paris before he even got there. One person was especially intrigued by that news, it was Sarah Bernhardt. She was born as Sara-Marie-Henriette Rosine Bernard, and was the most famous French and world’s theatre actress of her time. Her nickname was “divine Sarah”. Her first successes were in Europe, during the 70′s of the 19th century, and after that she started tours in America. The critics celebrated her as the best actress in comedies and dramas. Her repertoire was diverse: Moliere, Beaumarchais, Dumas pere, Shakespeare. She played Joan d’Arc, Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, Queen Elizabeth I…

Let’s go back to Tesla’s stay in Paris. Sarah has already been well-known, and Tesla came to Paris for the second time, also famous and well-known (when he lived in Paris for the first time, he was just a worker in Edison’s company full of ideas and will to succeed in the USA). Sarah had a wish to meet him personally. She sent messages about herself via French engineer Andre Blondel whose task was to narrate Tesla about her. But, she could not wait for the answer and reaction, she acted instead, visiting the hotel “De le pe” when Tesla was in the restaurant with Blondel and passing by. She looked mysteriously in Tesla and deliberately dropped her lace handkerchief. Tesla jumped off the chair, grabbed the handkerchief, but did not look at Sarah at all. He just said: “Miss, you dropped your handkerchief!” and continued conversation with Blondel.

They later arranged a dinner, but Tesla had to travel from Paris due to the news of his mother’s sickness. A few years later Tesla and Sarah met several times in New York, when she was on theatre tours. They attended dinners and parties. Tesla met one of the most important people in his life, Swami Vivekananda by Sarah’s assistance, during one dinner.

Marguerite Merrington (1857-1951)

She was a writer, journalist and pianist. Tesla met her at the Johnsons’ house, she was their dinner guest. What is special about her is the fact that Tesla considered her charming, moderate, clever, and lady-like, she was special to him. He kept very active correspondence and friendship with her all his life. He liked her for not wearing jewelry. She was tall, graceful and modest. She also wrote about music (she left the unpublished biography „Intimate memories of Pederevski“).

Merrington was born in England, but spent most of her life in America. She grew up in a monastery in Buffalo before entering a musical school. She had a job of Greek language teacher, and then she quit and came to New York to write plays, namely, her first published comedy play was called „Captain Lettarblair“. She wrote fiction as well.

There is one well-known conversation of her and Tesla about money. They talked about it and she said she would, if she had it, spend it on a house instead on jewelry and other expensive things. Then Tesla said he will buy her a square block in New York to build a villa with a lot of trees around.

So, she was tallented for journalism, writing (plays, librettos, novels), playing the piano, in general, she was a clever and subtle woman. For her opera libretto „Daphne“ she won the prize of the „American composer“ from the National Conservatory of Music of America. Tesla wrote about Margaret to Katherine Johnson in 1899 asking her to invite Merrington as a guest again, noting she was unbelievably intelligent and wise woman. Besides being Tesla’s close friend, she was a member of the whole party around the Johnsons (for instance, she attended Mark Twain’s birthday party in 1905 with Owen Johnson (the son of Robert and Katherine Johnson)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.117.103 (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

On religious views of Nikola Tesla

Should not this article also mention Tesla's views on Hinduism. For reference, please note:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tesla_and_swami.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.199.138 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

tesla memorials

There is a memorial to tesla in Baku azerbaijan in a park at Azadliq and Ssuieyman Rahimov streets. I don't know how to enter this info but think it is worth entering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.150.189 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Рэнтгенаўскі здымак рукі Тэслы.jpeg

For the file File:Рэнтгенаўскі здымак рукі Тэслы.jpeg I can find no reliable source that this is a Tesla image, that it is his hand, or when it was created. Tesla, Master of Lightning By Margaret Cheney, Robert Uth, Jim Glenn has the image but does not claim it's Tesla's hand. Nikola Tesla and the Discovery of X-rays shows similar work being done in 1896. Many dubious claims on the internet that these images predate Röntgen such as[10]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you've seen their book, you should already know that the 'dubious' claim on amasci.com/tesla/tesray1.html (my site) comes from Cheny/Uth's "TESLA: Master of Lightning," where they state on pp 74-75 that before Roentgen's discovery, Tesla was making x-ray shadowgraphs using glass film plates in metal containers, and that the "foot inside shoe" image was an example of a glass plate "recovered from the rubble and ash" of the NYC laboratory fire which interrupted Tesla's work. If you've found solid information contradicting Cheney/Uth about the date for the foot-inside-shoe shadowgraph, please say. 72.55.203.153 (talk) 08:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Gotta love that Cheney-Uth et al book! I would swear they Googled that thing. Does it contain other such mistakes? Yep. "shadowgraph" in that context may refer to film fogged by the unknown radiation, not images. Want to see Cheney contradict this? See Tesla: Man Out of Time, page 134[11] (seems to be sourced to this article[12]) where she shows Tesla was still clueless about radiography (re: the accidental image of the metal locking screw on the camera lens) a few weeks before Wilhelm Röntgen's December announcement. That would be 8 months after the laboratory fire of March 1895. Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla By Marc Seifer[13] also states Tesla's images before Röntgen were examples of fogged film. To let Cheney and company off the hook a little you have to watch out for photograph captions in books, they may not be written by the authors and may contain erroneous information made up by who ever was doing the paste-up. It was a companion book for the PBS documentary so it may have been a rush job all around. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Gilded urn with Tesla's ashes location possibly changing soon

Teslas ashes to be stolen by the Serbian Orthodox Church: The plan to remove the urn from the Tesla museum in Belgrade and move it to the Temple of Saint Sava was revealed several weeks ago. The plan was to move it in June or July. People, thankfully, started protesting against that, (fb group) and at the moment it seams that the plan is "frozen", which may mean that they gave up but do not want to admit it, OR it can also mean that they are just waiting for the people to forget and then to do a blitz move after which it will be "too late to move him back" or something like that. Oh, the plan was not to move the urn INTO the Temple because cremation is strictly forbidden in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, instead they want to bury the urn BEHIND the Temple in a hidden park under a Tesla statue...--StojadinovicP (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty bizzare and not referenced

I propose these sentences to be deleted (section Relationship) from the article:

In the late 1920s, Tesla befriended George Sylvester Viereck, a poet, writer, mystic,[citation needed] and later, a Nazi propagandist.[189] Though nearly a hermit, Tesla occasionally attended dinner parties held by Viereck and his wife.[citation needed]

The sentences are not referenced for a long time.--96.241.218.72 (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - although re-worded. Most "Tesla books" note this relationship (one cited). Removed the bit about the hermit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2014

Please change his brother Dane being killed when Nikola was 5 to when he was 7. Dane was killed in 1863 when he was 7. Sources: Tesla by W. Bernard Carlson, My Inventions by Nikola Tesla 71.237.227.192 (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You'll need to be more specific about your source. You have not given enough detail for me to be able to find the source you claim backs your story. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 01:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Electromechanical devices and principles developed by Nikola Tesla" - list

I removed this list restored from a 19 month old version of the article[14] because it is fundamentally un-encyclopedic, with implied claims these were Tesla inventions, non-conforming to WP:LIST, and containing material unreferenced or referenced to primary sources. Not sure why we need such a list, the article does (or should) cover these topics. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Schizophrenia???

Hello! Sorry I'm a bit of a new user here, but I've read quite a bit about Tesla, and was curious if anyone would be interested in putting in a section or bit about him being schizophrenic? As a young boy, he often saw visions (mainly after his brother died) and had trouble distinguishing between reality and visions. It is partially addressed in the section "Eidetic memory", however I believe there could be more. In the book Nikola Tesla: A Spark of Genius by Carol Dummermoth-Costa, the author talks about these visions early on, but the word schizophrenic isn't mentioned. I found this website http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_41/thepennypost.html. I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source, but I think it would be good to include his schizophrenia and possibly manic depression. Tesla also talked about being blinded by a light he saw in a pigeon's eyes. Sounds schizophrenic to me. Thanks from a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomkitty (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

We need independent reliable sources to explicitly suggest that he may have have been schizophrenic before we can mention it here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-standard vocab.

This article uses the word "wireless" as a synonym for "radio", which is a vocab quirk that doesn't exist much outside the UK. "Radio" is the universal abbreviation for "radio-frequency e/m signal transmission", and the use of "wireless" for "radio" makes the text unclear.77Mike77 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You would have to cite instances. Allot of what Tesla developed was "wireless" (as in wireless power and wireless transmission) and this was not the same as "radio" - in fact Tesla thought "radio" (Hertzian waves) were next to useless for much of anything (some explanations here). I can see need for cleanup but it may be the other way around - allot of things in this article called radio that really were not. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

For example, "He tried to put these ideas to practical use in his ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission," I suspect that the author means "radio" here, but perhaps Tesla was thinking of communicating by static "zaps" the way Marconi did. I don't have time to analyze the dates to see how Tesla's inventions fit in with the other inventions of his era, but given the British use of "wireless" to mean "radio", the article is ambiguous whenever the word "wireless" is used. It's a good article overall, but just a little unclear on that point. I'm coming from the viewpoint of a reader trying to understand what the author means, not as an expert on Tesla.77Mike77 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That particular example refers to wireless power transmission. Admittedly, the sentence could be written more clearly. - MrX 02:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is there are many meanings as to what this was. Tesla sold it to J. P. Morgan as a world wide wireless signal transmitter. When Tesla talks about "wireless", he sometimes (always?) means a lack of wires, in this case it looks like he was going to inject massive amounts of electricity into the ground based on his perceptions that some sort of resonate aether would carry his signals through the whole planet to similar stations around the world--- i.e. there were no wires--->Earth was the wire. Tesla also may have sold Morgan a bill of goods and really wanted to prove that his wireless power transmission ideas would work. There is a real lack of understanding in this article as to what Tesla was doing, that can be fixed. It would help to explain allot. Wardenclyffe was thought up by Tesla before Marconi hit upon the idea of using airborn Hertzian waves ("radio-frequency e/m signal transmission") as a means for long range transmission, so no, it would not technically be a radio transmitter. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

there is a thru in this and that drives me crazy. I just want to change it to through

 Fixed - Thanks. - MrX 12:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 96.245.223.133 (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2014

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American He was born in Smiljan, Austrian Empire, today's Croatia, so he cant be a Serbian-American scientist, but Austrian-American scientist, because his nationality before American was nationality of Austrian Empire... 89.164.228.5 (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

Nikola Tesla was born in Smiljan(Croatia) 10.july 1856.

Josipa1410 (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Croatia was not a recognized sovereign state at the time of Tesla's birth.- MrX 17:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?

Moved to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity § RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?
 – – S. Rich (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

By 1992 Edison's company was consolidated into the conglomerate General Electric

PLEASE CHANGE "1992" TO "1892" WHICH IS THE CORRECT DATE FOR THIS EVENT.

Slashplayer (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done request completed by User:SnakDev. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 21:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY TESLA!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY NIKOLA TESLA! GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DAY TOO IS ON JUL.10TH!````DR.EDSON ANDRE' JOHNSON D.D.ULC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.0.241 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I join the congratulating. I would also like to state that July 10 has been declared a National day of Nikola Tesla in Croatia. Asdisis (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Emigrating vs. Immigrating - please change

Please change the word "emigrating" to "immigrating" in the below line. Proper grammar dictates that you can "emigrate from" somewhere and "immigrate to" somewhere. Therefore Tesla immigrated to the United States. He also emigrated from Serbia.

"Tesla gained experience in telephony and electrical engineering before emigrating to the United States in 1884 to work for Thomas Edison in New York City."

P.S. Happy birthday, N.T.

Imjeeves (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you- MrX 13:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2014

The third sentence of the second paragraph in the "War of Currents" section, there is a typo. The word "could" should be removed.

- 69.4.113.25 (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you - MrX 14:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2014

Change from: Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia).

To: Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Croatia , Austrian Empire.

Reason:

First, we have a direct quote from Tesla: "I was born in Croatia". Source: Tribute to King Alexander Nikola Tesla Published in New York Times, Oct. 19, 1934

Furthermore, the above construct suggests a different thesis. That Tesla was not born in Croatia, but that he was born on the land that would later become Croatia.

Tesla's birth place was at that time in the Military zone, made from Croatian land that was under administration of the Empire. However Military zone was not a political subject. It's an militarized area made for protection from Ottomans. Not to go deeper into classification of the Military zone, i will only mention that in 1881. Military zone was returned to Croatia. That is somehow a confirmation of my claim, that Military zone was Croatian land.

I think that i made my point. Tesla was born in Croatia, just as he himself stated.

Asdisis (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. You stabbed yourself in the foot. You claim that in 1881 the military zone was returned to Croatia. This tells me at the time of his birth, it was not under the control of Croatia, but would later be returned to Croatia. Therefore, at the time of his birth, it was not Croatia. You may be able to get a consensus from other editors to make this change anyways, but I'm guessing it will require a reliable source that says that land was under Croatian control at the time of his birth. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


As i said, Military zone was not an political subject. It's a special entity that does not have any political relevance. Although it was under the control of the empire, it has never been proclaimed that Military zone is not Croatian land. Croatian parliament repeatedly requested for it to be demilitarized and returned to Croatian control. That was done in 1881. Asdisis (talk)
But the source from The New York Times of 1934, is nevertheless, quite interesting: [15], where Tesla himself says "I was born in Croatia." Surely this should be reflected in the article somehow, e.g. "Tesla regraded himself as having been born in Croatia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
That is my main argument. I can't get into the whole history of the Military zone. I simplified it. Tesla himself stated where he was born. As Military zone is not a political entity, he did not mention it. Basically Croatia was at that time divided in 2 parts, "civil" Croatia, and the Military frontier. Asdisis (talk)
thumb|right According to this map, Tesla would have been born in the Croatian military frontier, part of the then sovereign state of Austria-Hungary. Also, as I've pointed out above, Tesla indicated on official documents that his citizenship was Austrian prior to becoming an US citizen. See also, Kingdom of Croatia.- MrX 23:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Do you think Tesla had access to this very clear and carefully drawn political map? Do you think this was how he saw his homeland? Of course he's dead now, so his personal views don't matter? He knew where he was born. We all do. The argument here is over which state claimed to have "owned" that town at the exact date. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what Tesla had access to, but a letter to an editor of questionable provenance, hosted on questionable website is of little value as a reliable source. Personally, I'm skeptical of its authenticity. I believe that the preponderance of our sources state that Tesla was born in the Austrian empire. That is also a matter of geopolitical fact, as far as I understand. Unless we have more and/or better sources that state otherwise, there is nothing more to do here.- MrX 23:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Tesla's own statement is enough. We can't analyse very complicated history of Military zone. Not to mention that the written construct has no source. There's no reason to prefer the written construct without source above Tesla's own statement. The sentence should be written as I suggested, and the source should be Tesla's own statement. Presented map has no legend, or I can't see it. Croatia has never renounced the right to discussed territories. The right to those territories was confirmed, some time later, after Tesla's birth. It is important to state that the confirmed right is based on the continuity. That means that Military zone had been Croatian land, although under separate administration of the Empire. Military zone was not a separate entity. It had no representative or separate institutions. So to repeat, i do not see any reason to keep the written construct before Tesla's statement. Asdisis (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Goodness me. You are doubting that letter was published in The New York Times on 21 October 21, 1934, Sec. IV, p. 5, col. 4, 5? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the mentioned article. [16] The source is valid. There is no question that Tesla clearly stated that Croatia is his homeland. Asdisis (talk)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Once you establish a consensus here (I Strongly suggest notifying the list wikiprojects above about this request), then you may reactivate this request per WP:PER. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Tesla's own statement is not enough. Again, Croatia was not a sovereign nation when Tesla was born. While he may have once written that he is from Croatia, (or Austria, Austria-Hungary, Serbia, Yugoslavia, Smiljan, or Europe) that does not change the sourced fact that he was born in the sovereign nation known the Austrian Empire.- MrX 00:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we have established, without any doubt, that Tesla himself stated that Croatia is his homeland. That is the most important argument.

Also, we all agree that the Military zone is under Empire's administration. However the reason is that Military zone isn't a political entity. It's a militarized defensive zone. Of course that it's under the highest military control. However, the only entity that places political claim over Military zone is Croatian parliament. Since its creation, Croatia had never relinquish its right over that lands. It only allowed Military zone to be established under Empire's administration. It is not a question who has the administration but who has a legitimate political claim over those lands. I do not see any reason to diminish legitimate decisions of Croatian parliament. Yes, Empire had direct control over that land, but with the permission of Croatia which had not relinquish its legitimate right over that land. To confirm my claim i mentioned that Military zone war returned to Croatian administration(!) in 1881. I did not say that it was put under Croatian administration. It was returned, because Croatia had legitimate,not disputed, political rights to that land since the creation of Military frontier. I did not stab myself in the foot, because i did not claim retrospectively, but i was referring to the continuity of Croatian legal right to those lands.

Croatia of course was not independent county. If it was, I wouldn't suggest the statement that he was born in "in the village of Smiljan, Croatia , Austrian Empire".

Also, it is important to distinguish administration, and political right to those lands. Empire had administration with the permission of Croatia which had the political rights to those lands. Those rights were not disputed.

MrX, your arguments have no sense. We are not even discussing about Croatian independence. It was a political entity within Austrian Empire. Military zone was not a political entity. Legal right to the Military zone had only Croatia. Tesla's statement is very important. The whole context of the article clearly diminishes Croatia as Tesla's homeland. His statement should be stated in the article. Some constructs were easily adopted (for instance, Tesla's house was not burned down during Croatian war), while others are rejected, even if they come from Tesla himself.

Asdisis (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2014

Encyclopædia Britannica says "Nikola Tesla, (born July 9/10, 1856, Smiljan, Austrian Empire [now in Croatia]".
Note that Wikipedia forbids the use of original research and articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. - MrX 02:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Are we really discussing this for the millionth time? Asdinsis says that Croatia "allowed" a Croatian Military Frontier to be formed (Really?)... The Military Frontier was a separate Habsburg administrative unit, directly subordinated to Vienna. See Military Frontier. This setles all. And whatever someone says in a interview doesn´t change geo-historical accuracy. MrX said it all, the Asdinsis argument about claims and rights over that territory are useless. FkpCascais (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Croatia gets quite a few mentions in the article. But I still think that Tesla's own clearly stated view should be given greater prominence somewhere. We're not talking about "whatever someone says in a interview", we're talking about a letter Tesla himself wrote to The New York Times? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, basically, the Empire held administration on Croatian land. It was never disputed that Military zone is Croatian land. Ok, i accept the argument that i do not have a valid source. If I find it, I'll repost the request. In the meantime Tesla's own opinion is very important and it should enter the article. I do not agree that Croatia is not diminished in this article. It's only mentioned twice in that construct i tried to change. The construct that distance Tesla from Croatia, as somehow Croatia did not exist at that time. That is directly opposite to Tesla's own opinion. And it's mentioned with the picture of Tesla's house with incorrect claim that it was burned down during Croatian war. So, i will make the requests. I should mention that I'm not too familiar with the process. It says that i should make a request that changes x to y. It's hard that way to incorporate the changes. Asdisis (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


Ok, i found sources for my initial claim.

Quote: "The Teslas lived in the small mountain village of Smiljan in Austrian Croatia"

Source: Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer By Michael Burgan

--

Quote: "As a Serb growing up in Croatia..."

Source: Wizard: The Life And Times Of Nikola Tesla: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla By Marc Seifer

Also, this book had dealt with the history of that area. Not once is mentioned that Tesla was not born in Croatia, or that Military zone isn't Croatia. I urge everyone to read themselves. [17]

--

Quote: "Nikola Tesla was born at midnight between July 9 and 10,1856, in Smiljan, a small village in Croatia"

Source: Nikola Tesla: A Spark of Genius By Carol Dommermuth-Costa

--

Quote: "Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia..."

Source: Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney

--

The construct present in Brittanica is clumsy since it can be interpreted in the way i described. Yes, it was Austrian Empire, yes it is Croatia today. Nothing is incorrect, if viewed from the stand of independent states. I do not purpose any radical change. Just a minor clarification that he was born in Croatia which was a part of Autrian Empire, and today is independent. The construct written in Brittanica is not in conflict with ones presented above. However it can be it can be interpreted in the way i described, which is wrong. That's why I purpose a little clarification which is more consistent with Tesla's own opinion. Asdisis (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

18 July comment

Nikola Tesla was CROATIAN not Serbian. Please fix this incorrect information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.174.11 (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Can his article be added to the "people associated with electricity" category, or is this article already in too many categories? --- Former Wikipedian who forgot my password. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.124.79 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Efficientsy"? Really? I'd correct that mistake myself if the edit option were available.--72.94.172.49 (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Also "It will be impossible for to do anything in the matter." Lots of errors in here!--72.94.172.49 (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

 He is in Category:American electrical engineers which is a subcategory of people associated. – S. Rich (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

In Search of Nicola Tesla

See my biography In Search of Nikola Tesla F. David Peat 

Ashgrove Press

1983 > The biography is of particular interest since I was asked by the National Research Council of Canada to investigate the scientific credibility of Tesla Transmitters and the proposal to transmit electrical energy (without wires) from northern Canada to the island of Newfoundland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.3.16.107 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't decide between "Nicola" and "Nikola"? If that's where you're at, I doubt I'll be reading your book. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 15:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Short citations and reliability of TeslaUniverse.com timeline

I am trying to clean up the citations. Is there any objection to changing the short citations to {{Template:Rp}}? The advantage is that it makes it easier to see full citations when using Reference Tooltips.

On another topic, what does everyone think about teslauniverse.com's timeline as a reliable source?- MrX 14:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Got some IRL obligations, but I'll be back later this week to help out with this. Re teslauniverse.com: "This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on its credibility."--Atlantictire (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not married to the citation style here. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
teslauniverse.com simple copy/pastes sources and it does not tell you what sources it copies, so it is not very reliable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's birthplace

I'm sorry for starting a new discussion. The previous discussion had given a clear answer that Tesla was not born in Croatia. I still think that the present construct has double meanings. I suggest that "Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)." be changed with "Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire.".

That will avoid misinterpretations that Tesla had connections to Croatia. It would also play on someone's curiosity to click on Smiljan and see for himself where Smiljan is located today. I think that this construct had also been suggested several times during the last discussion.

If this request is accepted, I would also like to bring your attention to the caption under the picture of Tesla's house. It has a phrase "Rebuilt, Tesla's house (parish hall) in Smiljan, Croatia... ". Since we have a construct "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" it would be advisable not to have to similar, yet opposite constructs, but to make a clarification. I suggest "Rebuilt, Tesla's house (parish hall) in Smiljan...". That would be more understandable to the readers, having the previous edit, and the same reasoning in mind.

Asdisis (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We just had an RfC on this. Please respect the consensus. The wording is fine as it is.- MrX 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I respect the decisions of that RfC. That's why I started this discussion. RfC's conclusion was that Croatia should not be explicitly mentioned, since Tesla was not born in Croatia. This discussion is completely different one. It goes along with the RfC, since some people can misinterpret the present construct (like i have) and think that Tesla had connections to Croatia , since similar formulation is often used with the interpretation which connects the person and mentioned entity which exists today. I thought you may agree with this suggestion. It's easy to click on Smiljan and see where it is located today. This discussion should be a simple one, since we already eliminated one of the double meaning the present formulation has. Also, If you still feel that the previous RfC was not respected, we can ask an opinion from the editor who closed the RfC. Asdisis (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was closed with the conclusion that "Consensus is for 'Nikola Tesla was born on 10 July (O.S. 28 June) 1856 to Serbian parents in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)'" is the wording that should be used. That's not ambiguous at all, and it supports the inclusion of the phrase "modern-day Croatia". The closure was assessed by five independent uninvolved editors at the Admin Noticeboard as being a valid close. The consensus is against you this time, and your refusal to drop the issue is becoming disruptive. Please find some more constructive way to contribute to the encyclopedia. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, it lead me to wrong interpretation, since i read a lot of material about Yugoslavia and i saw the construct "born in Yugoslavia, today Croatia" used often. That construct is often substituted for "born in Croatia, Yugoslavia", which i tried to introduce here trough the RfC. Asdisis (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems that there is no interest in this discussion. Some argued that it is in dispute whit the decision of the RfC. I disagreed with that opinion. The editor who closed the previous discussion refused to give his opinion regarding that issue. Also people who participated the above discussion also refused to participate in this, although I invited them personally. I would say that this discussion is ignored on purpose, even by the people that themselves suggested the same formulation and the editor who closed the RfC. A simple clarification from the editor who closed the RfC that this discussion contradicts the RfC's conclusion would put an end to it. Since the editor refused, and the discussion is ignored, I withdraw my suggestion and accept the opinion given by the editors who participated in this discussion. The general consensus is that the present wording stays and can't be changed to any other suggestion. I thank all for participating. However, since I think that the present formulation has double meanings, I would like to note that the RfC established only single interpretation. It should be interpreted that Smiljan is today located in Croatia, however in Tesla's time Smiljan had no connections to Croatia but was located in Military frontier, thus Tesla had no connections to Croatia. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla nationality

Nikola Tesla is not Serbian-American but Serbian-American-Croatian.Because he was born in modern day Croatia and Croatian nationality existed in that time.It should than mean that nobody born in Serbia while it was under Ottoman occupation is not Serb but Ottoman.That also mean that Otto von Bismarck is not German but Prussian because it was not Germany in that time.Those are just examples and I do not have anything against Germans or Serbs.Croatian region of Lika is Croatian historic region so I think Serbian-Croatian-American is his real nationality.He lived in Croatia until he was 18,and in Serbia he was once in his life.I do not think that anybody should be against this.Nikola Tesla even had Croatian grandparents which is only reason more.So,I think it should be written:"Nikola Tesla was Serbian-Croatian-American inventor..." Serbian-because of his religion an nationality Croatian-because he said:I am proud of my Serbian nationality and my Croatian homeland.And because of all what i already wrote American-because he lived long in USA and he made there his greatest succeses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.90.127 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was not born, nor he lived in Croatia. That was resolved by previous discussion. See Here. Croatian nationality existed, however people living in Military frontier had Austrian citizenship. Tesla is Serbian, and later became an American. He had no connections to Croatia.Asdisis (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this article nationaly biased?

Not a discussion about the article or national bias. More of a dialogue about editor interaction.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think this discussion is reasonable since every edit regarding Tesla and Croatia/Serbia is followed by accusations of nationalistic agenda. The article is very difficult to edit. To me, it seems that some editors have strong objections when editing their writing. Also it seems that few editors can team up, make a biased article, and transform it into an impenetrable fort. People who try to make an edit are accused of nationalistic agenda, no matter how many sources they present. I would also like to note that there is a possibility that initial editors had nationalistic agenda. I opened this discussion so people familiar with Tesla can give their judgement if this article is nationally biased. I also suggest that you read This discussion. I was motivated by constant accusations that I have nationalistic agenda, although i tried to improve this article according to the sources. I refrained myself of the same accusations, thinking the sources have to be followed, however it seems that Guilt by association functionates. Asdisis (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

  • 1 Please consider that "every" edit on this article is not drawing bias concerns, but rather edits from just one person. You know which editor, no?
  • 2 The easy answer why would be to say that, to some, your arguing on the talk page seems to value national concerns more than improving Wikipedia, but that could be subjective, so please consider at least if it is coming from multiple directions then it might be worth an honest look in the mirror.
  • 3 All your edits are about this article or just a couple very, very closely related. Look at the edit history from every one else here. They all edit on a variety of subjects that may interest them. This variety helps others see they are here to help Wikipedia and not just to push their own single-purpose agenda. It helps prove neutrality.
  • 4 Your edits are not only at just a couple articles that together share a single national root, but even within the articles your edits are about specific points of nationalism or ethnic disagreement.
  • 5 Unlike most others here, ALL your edits favor one national viewpoint or ethnicity. Of course this could be an honest and perfectly legitimate coincidence; but other editors, even those with your same ethinic perspective still sometimes accept good points from the other side, and still sometimes prefer an edit to favor Wikipedia's high quality over what might seem the best from their own nationalistic viewpoint. Do you see how all the others go the other way sometimes? It reinforces the truth that they prefer Wikipedia's quality over their national preference.
  • 6 Single-purpose accounts like yours, when used only to edit in favor of a single national viewpoint, on one single subject, have been misused in the past, often as sockpuppets trying to hide their other Wikipedia identity or to circumvent an administrator's block, or by those with a strong personal agenda contrary to Wikipedia's best interest. I know you've said that's not the case with you, but perhaps you can see how your type of account would raise a warning to experienced editors who see that type of behavior often?
  • 7 It is fully your right to maintain a Wikipedia user page that [looks like this], but if you choose not to engage with the Wikipedia community at all, and to only edit in a single direction on a single subject, then isn't it natural that others might start to wonder if your priority is really to build a neutral encyclopedia regardless of your ethnic or national origin?
Regarding your claim that you are merely editing "according to the sources", Croatian/Serbian ethnic disagreements are always controversial, with sources pointing both directions. Sorting them out for an encyclopedia really takes a pure heart of neutrality, and a strong preference for Wikipedia's quality more than the glory of our race. It is very easy to cherry pick what appears to be facts saying whatever we want on these kinds of subjects. I remember at least 3 times recently where others have warned you about cherry picking sources. I hope you don't think I'm just picking on you, but I really want to help you. Remember recently when you lost that Rfc and the closing admin told you he considered the "reputation" of the participants? Think hard about that. These points above can help you strengthen your reputation. Care about Wikipedia first and it will care more about you. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not a discussion about me. Asdisis (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
It absolutely is. :) You have accused everyone else of bias and teaming to make an "impenetrable fort". If true, then, yes, this would not be about you. However... since the majority hold the opposite view about you personally, as you have agreed they do, then the most direct, on-point answer to this topic question is: "No. Look in the mirror", for the specific reasons I outlined above. --Tom Hulse (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not about me, although I stated my opinion and the reasoning for starting this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Misinterpretation of history

This issue was kicked around at the RFC above and after 10 days of no new discussion, the RFC was closed. My notice said I'd entertain challenges to the RFC closure on my talk page so that the full "default" 30 discussion period could be had. No challenges were posted on the talk page. (Moreover, no postings were made even after notice below was provided about the proper place to challenge a closure.) So, we've had a full 30 day exposure on the issue. The postings here have provided nothing which can change the consensus. Now if editors want to post an WP:Administrators' noticeboard thread to review the RFC they are free to do so. But my guess is that such a posting will not go far considering that procedures for challenging the RFC closure were not followed. With this in mind, there is no reason to keep this thread open. – S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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.

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 [18])

"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"

The same way, we read from Orthodix East (page 260 [19])

"Before the great migration of Serbs to Austria took place in 1690, there had already existed in Austria- Hungary several Serbian Orthodox Church Dioceses with ..." --96.241.218.72 (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures. It's not appropriate to re-open this discussion or to challenge the closing here.- MrX 19:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Velebit/Oesterling/Purger/whatever, when will you get tired? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Again. The point is that Serbian Orthodox church had not existed before 1920. Yes, Patriarchate of Karlovci had represented Serbs that lived in Austro-Hungary, among others. It had represented all people of Eastern Orthodox belief, not only Serbs. If you want to call it Serbian because it represented Serbs, that is ok. However, it's official name is not Serbian Orthodox church. Orthodox churches are national, and Serbia had not occupied territories of Austro-Hungary in 19th century. Later, after First World War, those territories entered Yugoslavia, and a single church had been established. Your sources use retrospective view. Moreover, The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (edited by Ken Parry) explicitly states that "The five groups of Serbian dioceses" refers to the situation after WW1. After, Yugoslavia was created, and after those Patriarchates had found themselves in a single state. You have misinterpreted the source. It is clearly referring to the situation after Yugoslavia had been created. Your quote is out of context. Second source uses retrospective view. I would also question its relevance since Serbian sources tend to be nationalistic and want to trace the roots of Serbian Orthodox church back to St. Sava instead of 1920. That is simply wrong. One thing is to state that its history goes back to St. Sava, since SOC had been created in 1920. by unifying 3 Patriarchates which already had their history. But completely different is to claim that SOC existed before 1920. Especially on the territory of Austrian Empire in the 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • You are miitrepreting the cited by me references. The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (edited by Ken Parry) is not talking about the state afrer WWI. In addition, in Austria-Hungary existed three Orthodox churches: Serbian Orthodox Church (Sremski Karlovci), Roumanian Orthodox Church and The Greek Catholic Church of Galicia in Lviv. More about [20]--96.241.218.72 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 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.
  1. ^ Eric Roman (2009 isbn=978-0816-07469-3). Austria-Hungary and the Successor States: A Reference Guide from the Renaissance to the Present. Infobase Publishing. p. 401. Retrieved 1 January 2013. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ The New Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. ISBN 978-0852-29961-6. Retrieved 1 January 2013.
  3. ^ Szávai, Ferenc Tibor. "Könyvszemle (Book review): [Kozári Monika: A dualista rendszer (1867–1918): Modern magyar politikai rendszerek] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup ([[:Category:Lang and lang-xx template errors|help]])". Magyar Tudomány (in Hungarian). p. 1542. Retrieved 20 July 2012. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
  4. ^ Szávai, Ferenc (2010). Osztrák-magyar külügyi ingatlanok hovatartozása a Monarchia felbomlása után (PDF) (in Hungarian). p. 598.
  5. ^ a b László Péter, Hungary's Long Nineteenth Century: Constitutional and Democratic Traditions in a European Perspective, BRILL, 2012, p. 6
  6. ^ "Distinguished Scientists (Einstein, Tesla, Langmuir, Steinmetz, etc.) on a Tour of the Wireless Station, Somerset, NJ (1921)". Franklin Township Public Library. Retrieved 16 July 2012.
  7. ^ http://tinyurl.com/mugozz4
  8. ^ https://keychests.com/mods/filesaveas.php?id=484
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_5&oldid=1137046732"