Talk:Nikola Tesla

Birthplace & Hungarian citizenship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been discussed at length. Please refer to the note at the top of this page and the archives. We use secondary sources to establish Tesla's country of birth, while acknowledging that his citizenship changed over the course of his lifetime. - MrX 02:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

|}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Synesthesia/Ideasthesia

Discussion moved from User talk:Begoon#Ideasthesia

Thank you very much for your kind and informative message -- and explanation of why you reverted my edit.

This made me think a bit more about it. It turns out that this section is kind of "messy" in respect to synesthesia/ideasthesia of Tesla. What has been described is partly unrelated to synesthesia. Other things are incorrect. I have made one correction in that synesthesia is not a form of disease and hence it does not have "symptoms". There are more corrections that one should make.

The problem of that section is that it claims that synesthetes report similar form of visualization during a creative engineering process. However this is not a case. Synesthetic associations are supposed to be fixed over lifetime.

The only research that shows otherwise is my own research. In my lab we have demonstrated that changes can be made. For that and other reasons we needed to introduce the term ideasthesia.

You are right that claiming that Tesla was ideasthete is speculative. On the other hand, claims made before that trying to relate Tesla's creative process to synesthesia are plainly incorrect.

Unfortunatelly, there is no scientific reliable source known to me that would discuss either Tesla's ideasthesia or synesthesia.

I made another edit that reduces the problem.

Regards,

Danko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Dankonikolic (talk • contribs)

Of course the other solution is to remove all the speculation about both terms. Probably we should not be trying to "diagnose" him at all, just presenting the sourced facts about the events in his life if we have no reliable 3rd party sourced discussions to back up our "diagnosis". The problem that may occur with the edits you have made is that they may appear to have been made under a "conflict of interest". You probably should read WP:COI. We really shouldn't have anything in the article that cannot be reliably sourced to a 3rd party publication. See WP:RS. I can understand the points you are making, and you may possibly be 100% correct, but, and sorry to hit you with another bit of alphabet soup, it could be perceived as "original research" to a greater or lesser degree: WP:OR. Have a read of the material at those links, and tell me what you think. Begoon ^talk 08:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that there is my own interest involved: to promote ideasthesia. This is not deniable.

But what is better, my interest satisfied with more correctness or free-of-my interest and incorrect/less correct?

Currently, I am a bit confused with the customs about editing on wikipedia. My latest change was reverted back by someone else than you and this time the comment was related to another change made not by me, but someone else then me. So, did this person made a mistake by deleting inadvertently my changes? Or is it kind of custom to delete everything that has been changed recently without a need to elaborate on details? This confuses me.

A result is that we still have even the obvious mistake of calling synesthesia concurrents "symptoms". That is a very simple error, and a correct term is free of my interest. Why would that be deleted?

But let us say that this somehow gets through and symptom is corrected into experience, then we have still the problem of "incorrect diagnosis", as you call it.

The sentence we talk about is preceded by: "Just by hearing the name of an item, he would be able to envision it in realistic detail." There is no study known to me that demonstrated that this happens to other synesthetes. The connection made between that statement about Tesla and synesthesia is a kind of "original research made in wikipedia" -- a research that resulted with incorrect conclusion, and obviously made by someone who has only superficial understanding of the issue at hand.

In other words, there is an implied speculation that Tesla used synesthesia like skills for his creative work. There is no evidence for it presented in the text or in the link. In addition, the theory of synesthesia as a phenomenon presumes that this is not even possible. Ideasthesia at least remedies this problem a bit.

So, what do we do?

Danko — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Dankonikolic (talk • contribs)

I think you are correct in that the other editor reverted your addition inadvertently while reverting a different change.

I'm fairly convinced now that the best thing to do is to remove the content about synesthesia as well. There is no reliable source to support this, or your addition, so far as I can see, and I should probably have removed them both as speculative when I made my first reversion of your edit. My mistake. I've removed it now pending consensus here.

Because this is my talk page, we won't get much input here, so I'm going to copy this discussion to Talk:Nikola Tesla, and hopefully more editors can give input there. You shouldn't add anything to the article itself related to this in the meantime, now that a discussion is ongoing. WP:CONSENSUS explains our consensus process, which will apply. You should make further replies at Talk:Nikola Tesla - I'll pop a link to the precise discussion section on your talk page in a few minutes.

I understand it is confusing when you first start to edit here, but if you can find the time to look at the blue-linked policies and guidelines I have linked for you it should help you to become more familiar with the process. Thanks for discussing this openly - that's very helpful. Begoon ^talk 13:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Petition to change the first paragraph of this article

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

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

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

Edit Request - 6/6/13

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

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

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

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

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

Claims, as along as they are explained as claims in text, are fine. The "Tesla would visualize an invention in his mind" section is another part of the problem: unreferenced and presented in Wikipedia's voice as if it were fact. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I second that thought. That part of that section has bothered me ever since I looked at it above when removing the synesthesia/other "diagnoses". It's problematic without a reliable source. Begoon ^talk 15:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Telegram on Tesla nationality

I have RM'ed this edit to talk because it is redundant (this exchanged is already noted in the second footnote in the article), WP:PEACOCK (famous?), and seems to be needlessly nationalistic with no reliable sources to establish if this was famous or even notable in Tesla's life or what context it has in a biography. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 for removal of that. That was nationalistic attempt even then, and today should not be featured on central article about this person. -sources... --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The exchange was an event that was notable in its own right, to say that it is famous is not an overstatement, because it's been the subject of a long-standing political discussion well known in fmr. Yugoslavia for decades now. The source talking about it is Slobodna Dalmacija, one of four mainstream Croatian newspapers. You can find analogous discussions of this in mainstream Serbian newspapers, too, for example Danas also ran an article discussing it in 2012. Even so, the solution to the peacock term problem, if you will, is to remove that single word, not the entire story. I fail to see what's "needlessly nationalistic" about the whole thing - in fact, both the Tesla telegram and the Tesla quip at the end illustrate very welll what Tesla thought about nationalism - and that's ultimately what's of direct relevance to his biography. In addition, this topic certainly has no less notability than the other stuff Tesla did at the time - I see absolutely no reason to relegate this 1936 event to a short footnote (without elaboration) when we're having a discussion of a 1934 letter to his homeland right before that, or about a 1937/1938 pigeon feeding right after that. To remove just this one is pure cherry-picking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

In addition, this action leaves the two images in the gallery without proper context. It just doesn't make sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Joy's comment "much more trivial topics are still covered in detail", but the solution is not to add more trivial topics, they should actually be trimmed down. That probably includes removing the picture gallery entirely per WP:NOTGALLERY. If this is a "long-standing political discussion" there should be English sources covering the controversy, preferred per WP:NONENG. The para as added has no context: are we trying to to tell people how to think about nationality? Was Tesla some kind of notable commentator on these topics or conditions in the 30's? Sources? If its just some kind of claim as to Tesla's nationality it can be skipped in the article, readers can simply follow the sources and decide for them selves what they want to think. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is no evidence that Tesla ever sent any telegram to anyone in Zagreb. There is no the telegram's sender copy, the offered one is the receiver's copy. Anyone pretending to be Tesla could send such telegram from New York that time.--71.178.109.96 (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, so this thing is notable enough to have a conspiracy theory attached? :) Thank you for helping to prove my point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

His few thoughts on the topic are today thought to be sufficiently notable to be covered by mainstream media in articles specifically discussing them. I'd say that's plenty above the threshold for inclusion, in and of itself. Furthermore, did you even try to look this up in English-language sources? Because a Google Books search for a few of these keywords, "Tesla homeland" (without quotes), easily found me a 1978 book, A Report on the Chicago Ethnic Arts Project, a 1982 book Serb World, a 1989 book The Croatian Americans, in addition to several more recent books (both of native English and other authors). So when there's coverage of a topic on both sides of the pond over a period of several decades, I fail to see how it could not be something that merits inclusion and explanation. And, I don't see how you interpreted the paragraph as telling people how to think about nationality - the paragraph tells people what Tesla thought about nationality - that the linked source discussed. That seems eminently pertinent to his own biography and perfectly in line with the sourcing policy - we don't discuss his thoughts through original research, rather, we report on what others have already written about it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Joy, I tend to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to supply something that has context with sources. Its the job of the editor adding material to supply reliable sources in the first place (WP:BURDEN). A search by me for sources on a "Tesla proud Vladko" exchange produces sources that are kind of thin[2]....hmmm... bordering on non-existent. There is a somewhat reliable Margaret Cheney/"Tesla: master of lightning" hit (page 153) on a similar topic but it is a totally different story with an out of touch Tesla being exploited by the factions involved for their own ends. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheney has a 1942 quote that ends with "Preserve the unity of all Yugoslavs", which is indeed a clearly different occasion, but the spirit seems to be exactly in line with the Maček telegram. The entire context is apparently not something a typical Western Tesla biographer investigated, but we're not constrained with using only those exact kinds of reliable sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

References

References

Edit/Change Request - July 4th 2013

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

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

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

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

• See more about that telegram here: IS THE TESLA-MACEK TELEGRAM AUTHENTIC?.--216.54.171.18 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

I'm pretty sure that you're mistaken, but you can raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard if you like? - MrX 20:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

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

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

Influenced: Elon Musk

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

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

Infobox scientist?

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

I agree. I can't think of any reason not to change it. - MrX 22:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr is incorrect in stating that Tesla "did not work very scientifically" and "worked by trial and error." (Maybe he is thinking of Tesla criticizing Thomas Edison for these behaviors). If he is not listed as a scientist in the lead, that can and should be corrected. (Some called him a "mad scientist). The new infobox is inferior to the old in that it omits the many scientific and technical devices and theories he is known for, so I recommend switching back to the old infobox. Some cites to books which characterize Tesla as a scientist: "Nikola Tesla:Incredible Scientist and Prodigal Genius- the Life of Nikola Tesla", "Tesla: Man out of time," which says (p111) "People were to call him a wizard, a visionary, a prophet, a prodigal genius, and the greatest scientist of all time", "The prodigal genius" p5 says "Tesla, the scientist and inventor, was himself an invention..." "Harnessing the Wheelwork of Nature: Tesla's Science of Energy" p219, by James Corum, who has specialized in the study of Tesla's work: "For a scientist, Tesla was a prolific but abstruse and poetic writer.", and "Nikola Tesla: A Serbo-American scientist.. The New York Times (subscription, at "NIKOLA TESLA," New York Times (1923-Current file) ,New York, N.Y.: Jan 9, 1943 pg. 1 . Article Types: editorial_article. .Publication title: New York Times (1923-Current file) Source Type: HISTORICAL NEWSPAPER. ISSN/ISBN: 1493907. Document ID: 85067238), in an article shortly after his death, which evaluated his contributions, said "There was a solid scientific basis at the bottom of all this romanticism. For he was no tinkerer, but a first-class mathematician and physicist whose blueprints were plausible, even though they were far in advance of the technical resources of his day." Present-day biographies call him a physicist, inventor, and electrical engineer. The burden is on those who assert he was not a scientist .Edison (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A scientist leaves detailed records for others to follow and duplicate the experiments. Tesla had no concern for this. He was an inventor, not a scientist. Hyperbole in biographies does not change the basic facts. Binksternet (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Tesla DID NOT accept, or work with theories on atoms, electrons, or radio waves. Writers on the general subject[3] have noted that Tesla worked exactly the way Thomas Edison worked, by trail and error, just with a higher level of education, i.e. he was an inventor more than a scientist. The infobox "scientist" simply did not fit: "Institutions" was incorrect, "Known for" was a laundrylist of Tesla lore, and "Influences / Influenced" was baloney. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "baloney", exactly. Binksternet (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Addressing "Fountains:" Tesla not accepting some theories which are now accepted does not make him "not a scientist," anymore than it makes all the physicists who disagreed with general relativity "not scientists." Scientists frequently disparage the theories of their contemporaries. Your opinion and original research do not trump mainstream present-day encyclopedias of scientific biography and modern biographies of Tesla which include "Physicist" as a descriptor. You claim "writers say" and then cite exactly one book, in contrast to the many I cited which called him a scientist or physicist. Binksternet is wrong when he says Tesla did not leave detailed records. After his funds were gone and he was just a retired broke eccentric, talking about rayguns, then indeed he did not do scientific publication. But for earlier work he gave many well followed public demonstrations to scientific audiences which were written up in detail by himself and others, and he wrote volumes about his own work in radio, x-rays, his remote-control boat, wireless power to light lights, rotating magnetic fields, and induction motors, in the 19th century. His publications were numerous. If he were merely being evaluated for notability as a scientist, one might look at Google Scholar and similar citation sites to see if he published and if his papers were cited by others.He gave well-received lecture-dempnstrations to learned societies, for example. See "High frequency oscillators for electro-therapeutic and other purposes," 1898, "A new system of alternate current motors and transformers," 1888, "Experiments with Alternate Currents of High Potential" 1904, Experiments with alternate currents of very high frequency and their application to methods of artificial illumination 1891, Tesla, Nikola. "On light and other high frequency phenomena." Journal of the Franklin Institute 136.4 (1893): 259-279 (no free online view), "The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla: With Special ..." published by TC Martin, 1894. This is not a complete listing, but it shows him as publishing his work in an exemplary way, and these publications have been cited by later workers. He was a highly regarded mainstream engineer and physicist in the 1890's. Edison (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notes/References

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

I disagree. Could you please explain what specific issues you see with the current organization of the references? - MrX 02:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there is no need to differentiate the sources between "books" and "others." Also, all the sources should be organized by the author's name.Cosprings (talk) 00:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Legacy & Honors.

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

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

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

Reliable sources showing this is notable? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Notable as in "worthy of notice in a Wikpedia article about Tesla", not WP:N. Any reliable sources showing someone is noticing this? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture

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

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

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

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

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

Nikola Tesla

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

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

http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

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

I don't know what the best way to clarify it is without bloating out the lead. The problem is that while he was born what is now modern day Croatia, at the time it was part of the Austrian Empire, and on that account it wouldn't make sense to call him Croation born. Ethnically, he was serbian, and not a Croat, so again, saying he was Croation born wouldn't work. The first section clarifies all that, but I don't see a way to get that much nuance into the lead. Monty₈₄₅ 18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every time this has been debated, I would be one rich man. Slushy9 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)