Nikola Tesla was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 4, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 6, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted November 7, 2010 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Physics: Biographies / History B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. This article is supported by History Taskforce. Electrical engineering B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia / Core B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Belgrade B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgrade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgrade on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgradeWikipedia:WikiProject BelgradeTemplate:WikiProject BelgradeBelgrade articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Serbia B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Radio B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Austria B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Yugoslavia B‑class High‑importance Nikola Tesla is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the Wikipedia coverage of articles related to Yugoslavia and its nations. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Croatia B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science B‑class Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Robotics B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found several reliable, primary sources.

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2], 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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is the mentioned article. [3] 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [4]

--

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)[reply]

Apart and regardless of the ongoing discussion about his place of birth, Tesla's own opinion that Croatia is his homeland should be explicitly stated in the article. I will just briefly repeat Tesla's own statement: "I was born in Croatia". [10]. Also, his other statement from 1892. : "I see it as my duty, as a son of my homeland, to help the City of Zagreb in every way by advice and deed" , May, 24, 1892. , Zagreb [11] In my opinion, the context of the whole article somewhat diminishes Croatia, while Croatia is a big part of Tesla's life. Croatia is mentioned only 2 times as Tesla's birthplace, in a misleading phrase and below the picture of his birth house. That does not reflects the importance Croatia had as Tesla's homeland. I think that Croatia should be mentioned in the very beginning of the article, and the whole context of the article should reflect Croatia's importance in Tesla's life. Asdisis (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion is based on the first quote. Tesla himself stated he was born in Croatia, he lived his early life in Croatia. That makes Croatia his homeland, according to his opinion. His other quote just confirms it. I agree that the relevance of the other quote can be debated. However it is not questionable that Tesla is referencing Croatia as his homeland in that statement since the quote was made in 1892. This is a long time before Yugoslavia, so your claim has no sense. The quote was made during the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. [12]. The context of that statement is clear. Furthermore, his own statement from the time of Yugoslavia , 1934. clearly distinguishes Croatia as a place of his birth although the quote was made years after Yugoslavia was established. Your objections are based on your interpretation, while my claim is based directly on Tesla's statement. Also, note that i haven't yet made any request for editing. I just presented a valuable and reliable information which should be included in the article. Asdisis (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Opposed to any edit based on Tesla commenting on his homeland, or commenting on his Croatian or Serbian heritage, unless it is covered in detail in multiple reliable secondary sources, per WP:DUE. Similarly, I would also not include Tesla's comment, "My mother was the greatest woman Serbia ever produced." or "When I was in the polytechnic college in Serbia, I became an inveterate gambler."^[1] - MrX 01:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MrX.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh yah, seemed like a sock from day one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source:Hrvatska revija, 1963.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Some sources:

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

Source: Croatia By Zoran Pavlovic

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

Source: Great Inventors and Inventions By Bruce LaFontaine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All I can really do give is pointers and maybe recomend reading this article? Its pretty well referenced. There are allot of popular notions about Tesla that are simply wrong (Tesla invited AC, Tesla invited radio, Tesla invented free energy, Tesla duked it out mano a mano with Edison in the war of the currents). Tesla's license[15] was a pretty famous deal, as well as his "ripping up the license" many years later. More info on the Tesla myth at Debunking the Tesla Myth and maybe here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the fourth paragraph, I propose something like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this can be better

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

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

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

• electricity distribution

• mechanical oscillator/generators

• electrical discharge tubes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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