Talk:Nikola Tesla

Tesla is Croatian

I am from Croatia, and I think that Nikola Tesla is Croat - everybody in Croatia thinks that, and we always celebrate his birthday and we even have a museum about him. But here it says that he is Serb! How is that possible?! Someone please answer. IksDe (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Tesla's revolt to jewelry - pearl earrings in particular - is this information true?

In Personal Life section we can read "Tesla was physically revolted by jewelry, notably pearl earrings." Note 96 is the source of this claim but I have read this PDF document twice and there was no obvious statement about pearl earrings (only rounded objects). I would like to find another source to back this theory up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theasix (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see:
Tesla, Nikola. My Inventions. : Walking Lion Press, 2006. 11-12. Print
States that Tesla had a violent aversion to women's earrings and independently of that, "The sight of a pearl would almost give me a fit." So not necessarily pearl earrings, although I would imagine pearl earrings would have elicited a compounded reaction from Tesla. The passage also states that Tesla found other jewelry, such as bracelets, to be generally pleasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.39.188 (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla did revolt jewelry but i bet he never thought we would use his theory's and research to make a foundation for jewelry click on the link below for more information. Nikola Tesla's free energy theory also can be applied in jewelery. Such as Purple Plates click on th link for information -->www.purpleplates.com <information site to educate the reader.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purple-plates (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert Dilts modeling Tesla's Strategies

I was surprised not to find any reference to the fact that Robert Dilts modeled Tesla and published it in one of his "Strategies of Genius" volumes. Right now I don't know anymore which one. May be worth mentioning though. I'd like to read other people's thoughts on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.16.165 (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy and Honours

I've made this to replace the Legacy and Honours section, not including the monuments section. The change would save the page around eight five bytes with out getting rid of any major information. Since it would be a major change, I thought I'd bring it up before doing any major changes to the section. Albacore (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and change it since there have been no objections in around a week and a half. Albacore (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

scholarly papers to use

As the link was just removed, thought I'd mention these papers that may be helpful in the article.

• Nikola Tesla and the Electrical Signals of Planetary Origin, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D., International Tesla Conference, "Tesla, III Millennium," Belgrade, Yugoslavia. 1996. 82 pp. Illustrated.
• Nikola Tesla and the Diameter of the Earth: A Discussion of One of the Many Modes of Operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996. 30 pp. Illustrated.
• The Schumann Cavity, J. J. Thomson's Spherical Resonators and the Gateway to Modern Physics, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1996. 77 pp. Illustrated.
• Nikola Tesla, Lightning Observations, and Stationary Waves, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1994. 44 pp. Illustrated.
• Atmospheric Fields, Tesla's Receivers and Regenerative Detectors, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and A. H. Aidinejad, Ph.D. 1994. 44 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla's Egg of Columbus, Radar Stealth, the Torsion Tensor, and the "Philadelphia Experiment, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D., and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D., 1994. 94 pp. Illustrated.
• Dr. Mahlon Loomis: Terra Alta's Neglected Discoverer of RF Communication, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum et al. 1992. 69 pp. Illustrated.
• Some Thoughts on Tesla’s Death Beam, by K. L. Corum, J. F. Corum, Ph.D. and J. F. X. Daum, Ph.D. 1992. 32 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla and the Magnifying Transmitter: A Popular Study for Engineers, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 57 pp. Illustrated.
• Fire Balls, Fractals and Colorado Springs: A Rediscovery of Tesla’s RF Techniques, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 36 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla Coils: 1890-1990—100 Years of Cavity Resonator Development, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1990. 27 pp. Illustrated.
• Tesla Coils: An RF Power Processing Tutorial for Engineers, by K. L. Corum and J. F. Corum, Ph.D. 1988. 88 pp. Illustrated.
• Vacuum Tube Tesla Coils, by J. F. Corum, Ph.D. and K. L. Corum. 1987. 150 pp. Profusely illustrated. Paperback.
• A Technical Analysis of the Extra Coil as a Slow Wave Helical Resonator, by J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum. 1986. 24 pp. Illustrated.
• Critical Speculations Concerning Tesla’s Invention and Applications of Single Electrode X-Ray Directed Discharges for Power Processing and Terrestrial Resonances, by J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum. 1986. 22 pp. Illustrated

from: http://www.arcsandsparks.com/teslapage.html --J. D. Redding 18:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would one assume these papers by Tesla fans count as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards? Published by some university press or academic publisher? Published in respected and refereed scientific journals? Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who the Corum are? That they are published by the IEEE?

Edison, please do some research before you ask things. Want me to Google "J. F. Corum and K. L. Corum IEEE" for ya?

James F. Corum, Ph.D., is a senior member of the IEEE and is listed in Who's Who in Engineering, Leading Consultants in High Technology, American Men and Women of Science, and more than a dozen other professional and biographical dictionaries in the US and Europe. Formerly a Senior Scientist at Battelle (Columbus, OH), he is now Chief Scientist at the Institute for Software Research, Inc. Other positions include time spent as Chief Scientist at Science Applications Research Associates (Huntington Beach, CA), and 17 years as a tenured college professor. Dr. Corum is a member of the American Geophysical Union, American Association of Physics Teachers, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Sigma Xi, and a Life Member of the Quarter Century Wireless Association. He is also a former Chairman of the West Virginia Subsection of the IEEE, a former Secretary of the DARPA National Panel of Radar Experts on Ultra-Wideband Radar, and was cited by the U.S. Office of The Secretary of Defense as "A National Treasure." Additionally, Dr. Corum has a broad range of professional experience in Relativistic Electrodynamics, General Relativity, Applied Electromagnetics, Antennas, High-Voltage RF Engineering, and Radio Wave Propagation from 7 Hz. (Schumann Resonances) through 18 GHz. (Radio Astronomy). He is the inventor of Contrawound Toroidal Helix Antenna technology and was an invited guest of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Moscow. His RF research has been recognized by prestigious scientific organizations and professional societies around the world, and his many achievements include numerous awards and the publication of 100 technical papers, 7 books, and 5 patents.

Kenneth L. Corum is listed in American Men and Women in Science and is the recipient of many industrial awards. He is the author of more than 60 technical papers and 6 books.

--J. D. Redding 07:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take everything written by someone with impressive credentials as a reliable source. See WP:RS rather than waving credentials. Were the papers published in refereed, peer reviewed and respected scientific journals? Were they published in books from university presses or other respected publishing houses with a reputation for accuracy, or are they self published original research by fans of Tesla? Most of the writings you listed lack evidence they were "reliable published sources" as required by WP:RS rather than self-published or unpublished manuscripts, which should not be cited as references. Please provide full bibliographic information as to where these writings by the Corums et al were published. Edison (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ummm no. Scholarship.

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC) ... knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety percent of his labor.

You list a bunch of short monographs which are for sale for $28 or so each by the authors. You are still doing handwaving and trying to change the subject rather than providing the requested information. Please provide full bibliographic information as to where these writings by the Corums et al were published. What publisher? The authors? Were they in physics journals, or just selfpublished works and presentations to the Tesla Society. How rigorous is that society in its refereeing of papers? Is it biased toward anything which promotes Tesla? Edison (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Doth protest too much.

Do it when they are added.

Tesla Society has intellectual rigour concerning Tesla. I would guess you never heard of them. Their publications are in most scientific libraries.--J. D. Redding 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are still engaging in handwaving. Are you really claiming that "most scientific libraries" have paid the Corums $28 for each of these brief monographs? Looking at the first one, "Nikola Tesla and the electrical signals of planetary origin", I see that per Worldcat, only Texas Tech has it in their library. It is a "spiral bound photocopy" per Worldcat, hardly an academic press imprint or the equivalent, which was presented to the Tesla Society in 1996. Is this more than a walled garden of papers presented by fans, to fans? Looking at the second, "Nikola Tesla and the diameter of the earth : a discussion of one of the many modes of operation of the Wardenclyffe Tower," World cat shows only one library holding it, again Texas Tech. Looking at "Vacuum tube Tesla coils" I see the same library and three others. This does not make for much confidence that we can accept every such writing as a reliable source to verify claims, and your claim of "most scientific libraries" holding them is shown to be very questionable. Edison (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No ...

I stated that the Tesla Society! Their publications are in the libraries ... Sheesh! You can spin this discussion how you like it ... but it's not very helpful. Seems to me that your judgement on the situation is questionable, as you cannot understand what I said.

As to the Corums, you may find Google Scholar helpful.

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [ps., Oh yea, try Google books too.]

So you still engage in hand waving, adding foot stomping and personal attacks. No demonstration that these papers by fans of Tesla (I certainly consider myself one such) should be considered reliable sources. Edison (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

These are not "fans of Tesla" in a derogatory sense. They are scholars of Tesla.--J. D. Redding 07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If the Corums couldn't get any scholarly buy-off on these writings, they fail our purposes. I, too, would like to know which imprint the books have been published on; to know whether the books are self-published without peer review. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Buy off? Out of print books 'fail our purposes'? What are you talking about? If we can get it through a library, no need to buy it. You can buy them, if you want.

I hope you are 'not' implying that their works need a publisher to pay them for their work to be used for our purposes.

Lets take one written by the corums [not in the list though] ... 'A Physical Interpretation of the Colorado Springs Data'

You have to get : Proceedings of the Tesla Centennial Symposium held at Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America, August 9-12, 1984: celebrating a century of electrical progress

You can get this in a library. You may have to travel to go read it, but you can get it.

As to the list, none of it is self-serving. The above list are papers that have been vetted by the scholarly community and are regarded as reliable. Scholarly dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. These are available at scientific libraries. Such as the California Institute of Technology or Texas Tech University or Linda Hall Library or ... other scientific libraies.

What is the cause of the reasonable doubt as to their authenticity? --J. D. Redding 07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed implying that a paid publisher is required for our purposes; I hold that a scholarly imprint, one that conducts a thorough peer review, is the best scholarly source. Otherwise, the scholar is riding his or her own laurels into obscurity, publishing screeds which do not reflect the standards of scholarly research. You list CIT, TTU, LHL but which ones go with which Corum writings? Your lack of specificity is astonishing. Binksternet (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously stating that monographs and other scholarly publication cannot be used in Wikipedia?

And, as I stated above, "Do it when they are added". Though, your lack of reasonable doubt is astonishing.

I do agree that scholarly imprint, one that conducts a thorough peer review, are good scholarly sources. But they are NOT the only ones available for use. --J. D. Redding 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

These monographs are not cited by scholars. Not a scholarly source. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion. --J. D. Redding 16:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not try to equate someone's photocopied personal publication with a dissertation, which had to be approved by a doctoral committee at an accredited university. And someone writing a paper and presenting it at a meeting devoted to extolling the virtues of a bygone inventor is hardly evidence of the "scholarly vetting" you claim. You may "regard them as reliable," but to satisfy WP:RS we need evidence that the scientific community, outside the group of Tesla Scholars, regard them as reliable. Edison (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop. Wait. Think what you said, "Tesla Scholars". There are probably a handful of them around. The Corums are. Along with Seifer, O'Neill, Valone, and a few others. These are the references that are and need to be in the article. They pass WP:RS.

I don't think you have read on the subject of this article.

--J. D. Redding 01:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the ad hominem attacks and concentrate on the reliability of the sources. The "Tesla Society" website looks like it is devoted to unabashed promotion of Tesla. The publications you listed are not inherently "reliable sources" by Wikipedia standards. for the reasons cited. What I do like are the historical publications available at the Tesla Society website, by Tesla and others. The website is a very convenient way to access these valuable historic publications. Edison (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

1st, When did I personally attack you? I don't think you have read on the subject. Have you read any books on Tesla? Have you read Seifer or O'Neill? If you have, I do apologize.

You cannot do original research [ala., primary sources]. That only leave scholars on Tesla.

The publications are "reliable sources". Information from Tesla Scholars are "reliable sources".

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 06:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are very mistaken. It is not "original research" to cite scholarly papers which are so old as to be in public domain. Please go and re-read WP:OR before you cite it again. Your repeated complaints that I have "not read on the subject" are certainly ad hominem attacks. Certainly I have read many papers by Tesla, and all the major books on Tesla. I have spent many pleasant hours in university libraries reading about Tesla and other early electrical experimenters, in truly scholarly publications, and not just self-published works by latter-day fans of Tesla. I have cited schoilarly works about Tesla in Wikipedia edits. I accept your proffered apology. Edison (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Or you would have know of the Corums. --J. D. Redding 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [PS., Valone's book and Seifer's book references him ... sorry, doesn't pass the smell test]

Amid the personal attacks, the message is consistent: the monographs published by the Corums are not useful sources for us if they have not been peer-reviewed and printed by an academic publisher. There is a wealth of fine sources for this article to draw from, and no need to fish around at the periphery. Binksternet (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Tesla really "tear up" his AC power patents to help his firend George Westinghouse?

Heard the story that Nikola Tesla tore up his AC power patnets etc for his Freind American inventor George Westinghouse! How could he do this? There must have been some lawyer(s) legal requirements involved even in those days to give up ones patents contractsVICTORMOI (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've read something similar also. The story is that Tesla, basically out of loyalty to his old benefactor and partner, gave up his rights to highly valuable patents to help save Westinghouse from financial ruin. So what's the truth here? Did Tesla actually give up the rights to the patents? Did he receive something significant in return? Was his action significant enough that it played an important role in saving Westinghouse?--Davefoc (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Davefoc, this was during the economic bust after the gilded age, IIRC. Westinghouse's financial backers were nervous about the contracts. And remember Edison and GE was on the attack against Westinghouse's company. As I remember the story, Tesla did this for his good friend Westinghouse, who gave Tesla the opportunity to develop AC systems. --J. D. Redding 06:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The PBS site has a good video on this. It's apocrypha, IIRC. There is a mention of the contract in the Westinghouse archive, but nothing concrete. I'll see if I can get the link. --J. D. Redding 06:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

it's not on the site. http://www.pbs.org/tesla/index.html ... you'll have to buy the video or catch it on a US local PBS station [if they air it]. --J. D. Redding 06:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tesla's contract with Westinghouse would have given him a set sum per horsepower of AC motors installed using his patent. The value for the remaining life of the patent was several million dollars.By the time the patents expired in 1905 induction motors in the US were producing 7 million horsepower, which would have yielded $17.5 million in royalties had not Tesla waived the payments to help Westinghouse. This is per O'Neil(page 79, but he says it was $1 per hp) and per Jonnes "Empires of light" page 354. It is in Cheney, with made-up dialogue, page 73. It is in an IEEE publication by Rockman, where it says Tesla accepted a one-time payment of $216,600 in lieu of all payment due him in the future. Westinghouse was able to avoid bankruptcy because of this concession by Tesla of royalties. Tesla got to see his AC motor technology put to wide use and was thus a benefactor of the public. Westinghouse paid some of Tesla's bills but altogether gave him a pittance comparede to his gift to them. So much for the "aprochral" label. Edison (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But there is NO record of such a contract to begin with. There is no record of it in the Westinghouse Archive! 'Watch the video. It is apocrypha. --J. D. Redding 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC) [PS. ... wouldn't a company keep records of such a deal? it's called contracts ... and both parties keep a copy; the funny line in the book you cite is "though no records of it were kept". Ha! funny ... I believe the Westinghouse Corporation was a better business than that ... there is a mention of a possible contract in minutes of a meeting, but no real record.]

So if a document was lost in 120 years, or if someone at Westinghouse "tidied up" by removing an embarrassing document, then Tesla never had any expectation of making a dime from turning his induction motor patent over to Westinghouse? Wasn't he smarter than that? Many books have described the abandonment of royalty payments due Tesla from Westinghouse as a condition of the financiers not forcing Westinghouse into bankruptcy. Not every record of every business matter is still in the files for us to examine 120 years later. There is also no record in any Edison papers that Tesla was promised the $50,000 bonus for making improvements to the Edison dynamos or motors, and I have found no description or record or patent showing what those improvements were. Sounds pretty "apocryphal" as well though it was only $50,000 and not $17,000,000. Edison (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Both cases are conjecture [due to the physical records]. And the second one is more possessing the character of apocrypha than the previous; especially since Tesla and Westinghouse were 'friends' ... Edison and Tesla were 'enemies'. Scholars have looked at the Westinghouse documents, and have stated that they deem it as such [note, i'd recommend that people see the interviews of the scholars in the PBS documentary]. Various versions of the story about Tesla and Westinghouse [like by Marc J. Seifer, Page 59, or the one you posted] are usually fuzzy and amorphous on the subject. Tesla stated the other (edison) situation [IIRC, it's in "Nikola Said" [1938] ... I'd recommend the version of John T. Ratzlaff ... I'll try to check].

It seems "though no records of it were kept" of a contract being signed. Maybe promises were made here, too, and Tesla [upon George asking him to] never presued it. Or he tore up a real contract. Too bad there isn't a historical primary documents somewhere that exists about it.--J. D. Redding 02:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Did the PBS video suggest that the story was true but couldn't prove it? The actual contract wouldn't need to be available today to make at least a good guess about the reliability of the story. If one could trace Tesla's income from the patent and see the royalty payments stop after the alleged meeting between him and Westinghouse that would be an indication that there was some truth to it and if one could find evidence of this one time payment to Tesla that would be another piece of evidence for the reliability of the story. Today, there would be nothing ambiguous about this story. The assignment of patents are carefully controlled documents by stake holders in the patents and transferring the right from a patent holder to an assignee would never be done based on a verbal agreement. It is hard to believe that this was actually done in this case even though it was obviously long ago. --Davefoc (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if you had Tesla's bank book sitting in front of you, it's no good here on Wikipedia because it's a primary source. Surely some Tesla biographer has mentioned this relationship between T and W. Perhaps Tesla thought Westinghouse's company was so fragile that a one-time payment was a better bet than an uncertain stream of royalties. This might have been a good business decision at the time, though Tesla was never renowned for his money-management abilities. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Istro-Romanul "Nicolae Teslea"

The info I wanted to post is Here > http://www.istro-romanian.net/articles/art990111.html and I can't copy it.

You can see what's Here > http://ro.altermedia.info/stiintatehnologie/nicolae-tesla-sau-un-roman-venit-din-alt-spaiu-i_3263.html too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilvianDement91 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rekonstruh, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Rekonstruh (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please change nationality from Croatian to Serbian,as Tesla was a Serb,which is undisputable fact and is already established in the rest of the article and its sources. Thank you!

Sources(if you need them): http://www.neuronet.pitt.edu/~bogdan/tesla/ http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/588597/Nikola-Tesla http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Nikola+Tesla http://www.vias.org/encyclopedia/curriculum_tesla.html http://inventors.about.com/od/tstartinventions/a/Nikola_Tesla.htm

Declined. Read Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity a few times over. I wanted to change his nationality to "European" which would have avoided all this. Same thing for John Logie Baird. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 79.175.120.69, 18 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Nationality: Croatian" to "Nationality: Serbian". Nikolas father was Serbian Orthodox Christian priest, and all Croatians are Catholic, so he cant be a Croatian. 79.175.120.69 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: Please refer to Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How all Croats are Catholic? Are you retarded or stupid? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.240.59.113 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It is Serbian. --Τασουλα (Shalom!) (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Photograph

Personally, I thought the 1890 picture was a nicer one for the lede; less cluttered. SpinningSpark 08:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tesla and Twain

One line states that Twain and Tesla became friends and then states: "They spent a lot of time in his lab and elsewhere," but with no citation that would support the amount of time spent in the lab, or what is meant by "elsewhere."

It seems to be an insinuation about sexual orientation that should be removed unless there is cited evidence to support the statement. The fact that Tesla was known to have been celibate should not be viewed as an open-door to drop subversive insinuations about his life. The reality is, some people go through life as asexuals - not really caring either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.171.236 (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no connotations. Tesla was known to have been celibate. Elsewhere were social events. They were friends. [facepalm] --J. D. Redding 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Without any citations, then it does have connotations 24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Ummm ... no. People hang out with friends all the time, and it doesn't mean they have sex with them. --J. D. Redding 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, yes. The statement has no citation and is undefined. It is within the same context as the reference to him being celibate. The fact that people hang-out together is generic. The line serves no purpose, because it has already been stated that Tesla and Twain were friends, so, what is the purpose of stating that "they spent time in the lab and elsewhere?" If they were good friends, it would go without saying that they were in each others company at social events.24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC).

Jan 7th 1943 Tesla died NYC What was the cause?

Has anyone sen the Death Certificate for Nikola Tesla died New Yorker hotel Jan 7th 1943 Just wondering. he was past 80 was it a heart attack,stroke or??/ TESLAEDSON123 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Birthplace

The village where Nikola Tesla was born was part of the Ottoman Empire during his birth. The area and the city of Gospic were part of Bosnia prior to the coming of the Ottomans. The city of Gospic as well as all of Lika and Dalmatia were ethnically cleansed of Bosnians and settled when Austrio-Hungary occupied Bosnia and split bosnia into 3 areas, Lika and Dalmatia (forced all bosnians to leave to Ottoman Turkey, Von Bismarck's bosnia (today's bosnia), and the sancak of Yeni Pazar and what is called Montenegro today (excluding Cetinje and Ulcinj). Since austrio-Hungary didn't occupy 2/3 of Bosnia until 1867, your records are based on records at time of application and not at the time of entry into the us. Austro-hungary occupied Bosnia (Bosnia-herzegovina (german name Herzegovina added by Otto Von Bismarck of Germany at the congress of berlin in 1878) from 1867 to 1917. Lika and Dalmatia were considered the military Kraina called bosnian kraina and the serbs were the soldiers of the Ottomans(the only christian soldiers in the empire. the serbs of lika and dalmatia were allowed to own property and live their lives as if they were bosnians or ottoman turks. Unlike serbs of von bismarck's bosnia and the sancak of yeni pazar and what is called montenegro, serbs of lika and dalmatia were not kmets or slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.97.113.85 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Purple-plates, 21 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} request to paste link to page

Purple-plates (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What link is it that you want to add? You need to include it here, and then we can determine if it should be added. You may want to take a look at WP:EL first to see if the site your thinking of meets our guidelines on acceptable external links. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately history

There is no such thing as "Croatian military frontier". That same frontier Croatians ethnically cleansed in 1995 and during the WWII. His father was orthodox priest Milutin (common Serbian name), so he is a Serb, just like he said lots of times. There are no orthodox Croatians, because their only distinction from the Serbs is catholicism. Catholicism was base on which that so called nation was created. Major role in this process had Austria-Hungary. Of course, no less important was Vatican. These days they are founding so called Croatian orthodox church in order to present this process as reverse. It is unbelievable that we have to discuss such matters on this topic, but forging have to be disclosed and corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zan D Alf (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)