Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Edit request on 9 February 2012

Hi - there is a typo in the Death section about Tesla's funeral. Please change "in the cathedral of Cathedral of Saint John the Divine" to

"in the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine"

(Not sure what proper punctuation on Cathedral should be.)

Thanks! Vogelbacherr (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. - DVdm (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

bizarre claims?

I feel the following statement should be removed from the introduction: and his seemingly unbelievable and sometimes bizarre claims about possible scientific and technological developments. Unbelievable? Bizarre? I will examine whether the corresponding reference (Robert Lomas) really justifies the statement. --Xabadiar (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The source is available here, and does not support the tone, nor the content of the statement. I guess the entire sentence should be removed. Also note that this is a self published source. DVdm (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. --Xabadiar (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why the sentences were removed[1] based on a bad source, especially when there is ample source for some form of the statements being made[2][3]. I have restored and reworded the deletion. This aspect seems to be missing in the article proper so we may need it to "follow the lead". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

I want to edit text about Nikola Tesla because it is incorrect. Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. serbian-american inventor,mehanical engineer etc..Because everybody in world must know that he is from Croatia,As he said I'm glad me and Croats consider their ancestors as my Croatian koljenovići Draganići from Zadar. As the Croatian nobility in the 16th Century came to Lika and the others. In the image of my obstacle came through New Vinodol. The ancestors of my mother, Kalinic, also Croatian nobility from New Vinodol. My great-grandfather of circumstances he had to go in the Bosnian Krajina (Turkish Croatia), and there married a Christian woman and converted to Orthodoxy.

XxFoxX5 (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC) You must correct this error in text because all Croats are hurt because of it, and I want to correct this fow wikipedia and other people because the truth is that he is Croat and proud of that.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Ford along with Tesla built several Model T's with Tesla electric engines?

I lived in London from '74 to '79. I remember reading a week long (monday to friday) story on Tesla. In this story the writer ( I believe it was The Evening Standard) had written of Tesla's involvement with Henry Ford in the early days of Ford developing his Model T. This was before Ford had made up his mind to go with the combustion engine. The story said that Tesla had built two beta Model Ts with his electric engine. The article described the original Model T in these early models has having two slotted openings on the fire wall of the engine compartment so Tesla would insert two voltage rods. Supposedly even after Ford was "swayed" to go with the combustion engine...the said slots for the rods were still being manufactured on the very early Model Ts. The story said that Tesla had his two versions of the car stored in a secret farm house in upstate NY. When Tesla did a private performance for Ford and other invited guests and that the cars could do 90 mph and the electric centrifugal engines were running on what Tesla described as (If I remember correctly) on the "natural earth ethers" that are there for anyone to harness. The article went on to to say that after the private performance when the two cars were being driven back to the private farm where Tesla had them....that the security team protecting the cars were found in a ditch along with the two cars without the engines in them. Now, I've never been able to find anymore on this topic since I moved back to the states in '79. Don't know if this in fact all hog wash or what? I do remember seeing pictures of a Model T firewall and seeing two slotted openings as described in the story for the electrical power conducting rods. I do find it fascinating though that there is nothing out there about this if in fact it did happen. The story mentioned that Standard Oil's John D. Rockefeller had "influence" on the disappearance of the two engines and this event may have helped/convinced Ford to go with the gasoline combustion engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.247.123 (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

forget to mention

tesla was among 100 greatest american in Discovery Channel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Greatest_Americans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.2.218 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Worked it into the intro as part of an expanded pop-culture summary. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry skip that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.5.46 (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC) i found out that tesla won high school chess competition in 1873,problem is that it is written in book and i can't find it on internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.30.230 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Original letter or DELETE please

""equally proud" of his "Serbian origin and Croatian homeland""... show the original letter that Tesla wrote it or delete this lie sentence! Quoting the text of Croatian newspapers as a "proof" is so funny and not serious. Stupid propaganda. Just show letter written by Tesla that he writes this stupidity that he is proud of "Croatian homeland" thou he was born in military frontaire in Serb family into Austro-Hungary, later Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes... no "Croatia".77.105.27.32 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

NO he was Croat not a serb...I dont believe that he is a serb...I will go to UN and comfront you if I have! (edit added by XxFoxX5 10:39, 21 February 2012[4])

Tesla's father was a Serbian-Orthodox priest and Tesla's grandfather on his mother's side was also a Serbian Orthodox priest and Tesla was baptised as an Orthodox-Serb. So please don't argue over these things — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23 editor (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fix a misspelling?

This is my first post on a talk page, so I don't know if I'm doing this right. Can someone change the misspelled "salery" to "salary"?Vandemark (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Perfect post BTW. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Inventor of the Induction motor?

I nulled out claims Tesla invented the induction motor. He developed an induction motor and may have been ignorant of the work of Galileo Ferraris making Tesla's an independent invention, but that does not equal being the inventor and the credit for this seems to lean toward Ferraris.[5][6][7]. Writing on this should describe the controversy, not take sides. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I was of the impression that Ferraris was more or less doing a lecture-hall demonstration; Tesla definitely developed the useful AC motor, and if he was unaware of Ferraris, the patent examiner certainly was not. Lots of things Tesla didn't invent, but we would be misrepresenting history if we did not credit him with this one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't "credit" anything. We can only go by what the sources say, we don't interpret them. I would note that patents don't establish "invention" or "discovery", they just establish if an idea is unique enough to merit a patent. Patents have (and still do) over lap each other. The sources show many different patents for AC motors, induction motors, and AC systems that were not Tesla's. Ferraris himself did not patent anything, he thought it should be a free open idea, so any claim he had patent wise was minimal. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure we credit people with things. We've got thousands of words proving Meucci invented the telephone. It would be misrepresenting history to not record Tesla's induction motor here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Credit" comes from who ever wrote a WP:RS secondary source (not Wikipedia editors). There may be other stuff where editors try to synthesize something but that is to be avoided, not followed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

~~3/30/2012~~ Firstly what shill is become ruler over Tesla's wiki? why can I not edit and add information? The first correction I would enter would be that in Teslas autobiography he states that he had discovered earths primary resonant frequency to be approximately 7.5 hertz not 8 as stated in this wiki. Aside from that watering down and diluting the fact that Nikola Tesla is the inventor of nearly all modern technology in use is an insult to the man. You treat his research now as they did then and it is ridiculous that people would suppress the research of the (arguably)greatest inventor in the known history of the world. If the person in charge of editing this wiki is ignorant of Tesla's mastery of electricity and magnetism and his understanding of the other zero point energies perhaps they should study his work a bit more rather than devoting a paragraph or two of heavily edited information on the man who shaped modern society with his mind. If you do a little research you will find that every device in your modern home falls under one or more of Teslas patented works. This wiki page is little more than an elementary school book article. ~~MHarris 3/30/2012~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHarris1973 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Galileo Ferraris built first working induction motors in 1885 and in the same year gave public demonstration of his discovery. He always refused to patent his inventions on the base of ethical motivations. This should be a reason for even more appreciating this gentleman scientist who has been incredibly forgotten. His collaborators oblige him to publish a scientific paper on the subject in 1888. It is important to highlight that this was also the first scientific work detailing and explaining the basic principle of the induction motors. The symbols and the mathematical description of the induction motors are the same you can find in any book of electrical machine today. This is due to the fact that years before Galileo Ferraris was the first scientist to give a rigorous theoretical explanation of the transformer. Magnagr (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

did not tesla have epiphany in 1882? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.0.124 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Independently from Tesla, and, probably, at the same time, Ferraris inventedand made a laboratory model of two-phase induction motor. He obtained the magnetic field by passing two phase-shifted alternate currents through two coilsphysically shifted for 90 degrees. The rotor consisted of a cylinder made of copper. Although knowing very well the electromagnetic theory, he made two mistakes in the analysis of the function of that motor: he neglected the leakage of the flux in the rotor, and he observed, nobody knows why, the efficiency at maximum power of the motor. Because of the first mistake he could not Tesla’s Polyphase System and Induction Motor understand why the motor does not have the highest torque at start, and because of the second mistake he came to the wrong conclusion that that motor can not have the efficiency higher than 0.5. That conclusion provoked the famous Ferraris’s statement, often mentioned when people talk about the need of caution when coming to theoretical conclusions without practical check, that a motor made in such a way, that means the induction motor created by polyphase alternate currents, can not be of use in industry to transform electric energy into mechanical work! What a mistake of a talented inventor and respected professor! Therefore is mentioned that Tesla invented the first practical induction motor!!! More [8]--Свифт (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Patent 381968 on 1888: Mode and plan of operating electric motors by progressive shifting; Field Magnet; Armature; Electrical conversion; Economical; Transmission of energy; Simple construction; Easier construction; Rotating magnetic field principles.

Nikola Tesla's AC dynamo used to generate AC which is used to transport electricity across great distances. It is contained in U.S. patent 390,721 on 1888.

There was no indipendent discovery : Galileo Ferraris came first and Tesla later. Someone nastier than me could have said that Tesla was just a fraudster and that copied idea from others, but since he is Tesla.... Ferraris was an accademic with not industrial background, he established the principle on which the induction motor is based, all the rest are just improvements of the original idea. Michael Dolivo-Dobrowolsky, the engineer who created the modern induction motor, said: "I kissed Ferraris's hand from afar for the nice idea and decided to investigate the matter intensively and to build a small test motor as soon as possible..." wondering why he didn't choose to kiss Tesla's hand Magnagr (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but Ferraris motor have mistake. From 1887 to 1890 Tesla applied his well-known patents on polyphase alternate currents, generators and motors. On May 16, 1888, he presented his inventions in his first lecture on "A new system of motors and transformers of alternate currents" to the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE). Immediately after that lecture, the Westinghouse Co. bought his 40 patents on polyphase currents. After that is available to scientists worldwide, including in Europe. In Pittsburgh (1888-89), together with engineers of the Westinghouse Co., he was engaged on the practical realization of these patents. Tesla quit research with AC motor and polyphase system in 1890 and he found a new field of high frequency. Tesla and its polyphase system was very popular in Europe, so they invited him to lecture. In 1892, at the invitation of the Royal Society in London and French Physical Society he travelled to London and Paris to give the lecture. Also, Ferraris visited the World Fair in Chicago on 1893 and then congratulated the Tesla on its polyphase system which is lighted Fair famous White City. Dobrowolsky is developed the Tesla induction motor.--Свифт (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tesla invented the myth in his 1915 memoirs of his being the sole inventor of the induction motor. Ferraris invented everything in 1885, well before Tesla but never tried to throw mud at someone. Dobrowolsky gave all the merits to Ferraris, Tesla got the credit for having invented something that was conceived by others. In 1891 Ferraris attended the Electrical Congress at Frankfurt where three-phase trans-mission was demonstrated over a line from Lauffen, more than 100 miles distant. At the Congress Dinner Ferraris was hailed as “the father of three-phase current. Magnagr (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Tesla was the first patented the induction motor in the world on 1888. Patent is the law for every country! Did Ferraris patented his induction motor in Italy and when? Three-phase motor was made after Tesla's patent in 1888. The two-phase motor is polyphase motor same as three-phase motor. Both use the rotating magnetic field which is Tesla first patented in the world. Because of that, three-phase motor is not something entirely new that could be patented as completely new discovery! For the Tesla merits you can the read Tesla (unit)--Свифт (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, Tesla is never mentioned as an inventor in numerous books and encyclopedias, only because of Thomas Edison and Morgan, who are an American business icons. But on the Tesla side are the his patants. It seems that Tesla loved America, but America did not loved Tesla. Tesla was even today banned in America [9]--Свифт (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." WP:TALK. Inventor of the Induction motor is determined by WP:RS sources, and in the case of Tesla, third party sources. Tesla as a source and sources about Tesla only have problems matching those guidelines. Reliable sources really don't seem to describe this invention as a Tesla only thing and actually lean toward Ferraris (see the top of this talk section). The best you can do in that situation is describe the controversy. Article seems to do that already. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Wardencliff

There was a recent History Channel broadcast about Tesla which showed the inside of the present Wardencliff building and some footage of a massive aerial that used to be on top of the building. Can anybody help with the name of the DVD?AT Kunene (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2012

or:ନିକୋଲା ଟେସ୍‌ଲା

Shisir 1945 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Done, by a bot. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

they need to teach about Tesla in school

When i was in school and i was a little kid, i was taught that edison was all wise and nice and an electrical genius. they never told me about how edison cheated tesla out off what would equate to a mil bucks today, and just blew him off after tesla helped him. i think they should teach about tesla in school! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.87.241 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Serbian-American

So every German, Irish, English ... who is born in USA, and works in Croatia is German-Croat, Irish-Croat, English-Croat...ok I understand. Serbs lies are under protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.177.234 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree 100%. He was Serbian. Living in a different country doesn't change your country of origin. I will change it to Serbian unless a thorough explanation for the contrary is provided. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs correction

"After the war ended, Tesla made predictions regarding the relevant issues of the post-World War I environment, in a printed article (20 December 1914)."

The war began in 1914 and ended in 1919. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sesesq (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with Chaosdruid (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 June 2012

Please add the following to the Tesla in Popular Culture section:

Tesla was the subject of one of the vignettes, titled "Jack Shows Meg His Tesla Coil", in Jim Jarmusch's 2003 film Coffee and Cigarettes. The vignette in question starred Jack and Meg White, of The White Stripes, and focused on Jack's efforts to convince Meg of Tesla's underappreciated genius after reeling off some of the inventor's many noteworthy contributions to science. The scene culminates with Jack's failed attempt to provide Meg with a demo of an air transformer (Tesla Coil) he built based on some of Tesla's original designs.

Babagoogas (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla_in_popular_culture#Allusions_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The film itself is a source. Do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.61.25.254 (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Mountain named after Telsa?

Know,theres a Tesla Elelectric car brand name,a tesla moon crater too and even a tesla aunable to find a Mt.tesla anywhere on search. no tesla mounatin why not?Thanks!Moiamme (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Proposal

The paragraph discussing John G. Trump could be linked to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.56.75 (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The grammar in this sentence is missing something: "If read one of an author's books, he had to read all the their books." ... perhaps Yoda has edit access? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.30.87.144 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done with "he".Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Tesla Motors mentioned twice

I noticed there are two mentions of Tesla Motors in the "Legacy and Honors" list. I am unable to edit the article due to it being semi-protected. Could someone please correct this error? U. E. Aduan (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done MrX 21:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

VTOL invention?

Changed this and reverted back to it because VTOL classification includes fixed-wing aircraft as well as helicopters, so Tesla is not the first instance of VTOL by a long shot. Also the entry should not be ref'ed to primary sources (patents) - it needs reliable secondary sources, one now provided (see WP:PST, WP:RS). Secondary source provided states "Contrary to popular Tesla myth, this concept was not the inspiration for vertical-takeoff-and-landing craft...", that "to my knowledge this is the first time anyone proposed a turbine on a rotorcraft", and "The other thing that’s lacking is a way of compensating for torque reaction, which means it could never be practical". Looks like info should be added to Tiltrotor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1913 Tesla quote at that source is quite interesting: "You should not be at all surprised if someday you see me fly from New York to Colorado Springs in a contrivance which will resemble a gas stove and weigh almost as much."— Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

Marconi signal was received 1901 at Signal Hill, St. John's, Newfoundland ... not Canada as stated in the article. Canada did not join Newfoundland until 1949.

Proposed change: replace 'Canada' with 'Newfoundland'.

64.80.139.76 (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done also linked. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict on trying to make the same change. The link is now refined, anyway. Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Now refined further. I have gone the whole hog here - please trim back if necessary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That works too. I thought there might be some value in linking directly to a passage that described the political status of Newfoundland in 1901, but your wording seems less awkward. Rivertorch (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Am tempted to swap the detail from the Colorado Springs section to the Wardenclyffe section, as that would better support the chronology? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Tesla's signature

I removed the illustration of Tesla's signature TeslasSig666.png and accompanying description from the article because of WP:NPOV, namely "shows Tesla's ego/demonstrates his serious-mindedness" opinion was stated as fact without in text attribution, and it is the opinion of one author (Marc Seifer) making it a tiny minority view (of one) (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:UNDUE). Also this seems to have been copied directly from the source which is an even bigger reason for removal (see WP:COPYVIO, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I have to agree. This seems to be some kind of single case psycho-analytic-graphology that is quite unjustified here, perhaps even in the original source. If anywhere one signature, as "egotistical" as you like, belongs in the info box here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. There are a few other places where this article needs similar editing. There's a fair amount of trivial detail lifted straight out of some of the cited sources. Some of the biographical source material employs a substantial amount of poetic license, often bordering on the sensational. I can't think of a good reason to include all of it in an encyclopedia article. MrX 23:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

Birth place of Nikola Tesla is: Serbian Military Frontier province Krajina - which was back then (in 1856) part of Habsburg Empire !!!

216.75.214.7 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any source for that claim? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Floating Boat (the editor formerly known as AndieM) 16:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal life needs some attention

The Personal life section is becoming large and a slightly difficult to follow. I recommend that we either shorten it or break it into smaller sections, for example:

• Social views
• Religious views
• Health issues
• Personality
• Relationships
• Animal lover(?)

These are probably not the right sections, but I think Personal life needs to be condensed or organized. It's not very narrative now, probably because of the diverse editors who have contributed that the section.

Thoughts and comments are welcome. MrX 21:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

I have cut some of the detail from and rearranged some of the content in the Personal life section so as to, hopefully, make the section a little easier to follow. I have also broken it down into sub-sections per my above comments. I think perhaps a little more work needs to be done to make it more like an encyclopedia article, and less like a full book autobiography.

With all due to respect to the editors who have been adding the very well researched material to the article, I would just caution us to remember that less is more. MrX 12:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Tesla and the Nobel Prize

I reverted this edit (and then ended up re-editing the section) because it was not an improvement, adding un-referenced claims re:Tesla/Marconi/assistant and copy/pasting dubious material from other Wikipedia articles. Also Guglielmo Marconi and the American Supreme Patent Court have nothing to do with the Tesla patent rumor. We need to not reference this stuff to more dubious or primary sourced material/opinion, other Wikipedia articles, or Tesla himself for that matter (WP:PST). Also articles don't need colloquialisms such as "fourth estate" (WP:TONE). "Nikola Tesla Research" may be wrong, we seem to have the same story twice 1912/1915... did this happen twice?

There are problems from the old version of this section. It starts with an un-referenced "Since" statement. "Some sources have claimed" is WP:WEASEL, it only references one source - Seifer, and there are other versions of this story not covered[10]. There is also no reference anywhere that this was a "Nobel Prize controversy". I have edited it back to "rumors", since that is what comes up in reference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Baldwin replaced Chamberlain?

The paragraph dealing with Baldwin and Chamberlain is seriously wrong and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.54.229 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What corrections do you think are needed? Do you have reliable sources to support the changes? MrX 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, the sequence of British Prime Ministers was MacDonald - Baldwin - Chamberlain - Churchill? Or are we talking about the sequence for some other office? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand now. I have removed most of the paragraph as it was unsourced anyway. This is what I removed:

Removed Content

He also offered this invention to European countries. Tesla revealed that he had carried on negotiations with Prime Minister Chamberlain for the sale of his teleforce weapon to Great Britain for $30,000,000. He was convinced that Mr. Chamberlin would adopt the device as it would have prevented the outbreak of the then threatening war, and would have made possible the continuation of the working agreement involving France, Germany and Britain to maintain the status quo in Europe. When Chamberlin failed to retain this state of European equilibrium, Baldwin replaced Neville Chamberlin as Prime Minister of Great Britain to make the effort to shift one corner of the triangle from Germany to Russia. Baldwin found no virtue in Tesla's plan and ended negotiations. None of the governments purchased a contract to build the device and Tesla was unable to act on his plans.

MrX 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A wise move. I think this article is probably not the best place to discuss British-European politics of the late 1930s. But the assertion itself is intriguing and I would encourage any other editors to provide any reliably sourced information about contact between Tesla and the British Government during this time, particularly with regard to his teleforce weapon. That figure of $30M does seem quite outlandish, however. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The source of the story is Tesla relating it to O'Neill, and other writers have noted how it seems to be historically inaccurate[11]. Tesla/O'Neill seem to be a pretty bad combo sometimes for anything accurate (for example Tesla/O'Neill give us Tesla using the word "robot" some 20 years before the word was invented[12]). So its hard to tell whats true, whats the ramblings of an old man, or the embellishments of a biographer. Good edit though. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

first

File:Tesladeathmask.jpeg

second

The first picture is a modern and there is no point! In the section "Early years (1856-1885)" they have a four pictures, which is enough!

The second picture is a scary! The children reads this article and there is no place for a such picture!--Свифт (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the second photo doesn't belong in the article, but not because it will scare children (see WP:NOTCENSORED. I just don't think it adds to the understanding of the subject, especially when so many other photos and illustrations are available.

The first image is perhaps excessive, and adds relatively little to the article that could otherwise be summarized in the text of the article. Other editors may feel differently though. MrX 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I see this exact same sentence three times in the article, "For example, he derided Albert Einstein for claiming that matter and force are transmutable (Mass–energy equivalence), even though Archimedes and Isaac Newton had stated that they are not." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.119.87 (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Good catch. I've removed two of the redundant sentences. Let us know if you find any others. - MrX 22:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

More for the department of redundancy department. We have two accounts of Tesla digging ditches, after he quit Edison and after he was fired from Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing. Did he just love to dig ditches or is this two conflicting versions of the same story? The references are poor (in fact one of them seems to be dead). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Induction motors and digging ditches

For something that was supposed to be a Tesla "claim to fame"... induction motors and rotating magnetic fields.... it is really poorly covered in this article, mixed up with conflicting anecdotal stories about Tesla digging ditches which sounds like they were adapted from one of the semi-fiction movies on the topic. I have tried to consolidate the material, removing un-referenced ditch digging and other claims. This should all be better explained with reference and maybe consolidated more. Also "Tesla and Thomas Edison became adversaries... in the "War of Currents" is an un-referenced and probably bogus[13] claim, reworded those parts.. While trying to clean that up I am also noticing the description of Tesla's time/relationship with Westinghouse is very poorly covered, the dates seem to be wrong, and it is pretty much scattered across the article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. There's quite a lot of florid detail about his personal life, and relatively little about areas where he made significant impacts in technology. Much of this article really needs to be written in more of a summary form, and in a more encyclopedic voice. It's simply too long and detailed, in my opinion. — MrX 19:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I have to agree. The death section also needs to be condensed. Slushy9 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 Aug 2012

He was working under Tivadar Puskás, not Ferenc Puskás. The former is an engineering pioneer and inventor, the latter is the famous Hungarian football player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsfkzm (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 August 2012‎

Not that I doubt you, but the cited source says Ferenc Puskás. Can you provide a source that says Tivadar Puskás? — MrX 21:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

From Tivadar Puskás's page on wiki: In 1879 Puskás set up a telephone exchange in Paris, where he looked after Thomas Edison's European affairs for the next four years. In Paris he was greatly helped by his younger brother Ferenc Puskás (1848–1884), who later established the first telephone exchange in Pest.Slushy9 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Baptism vs. birth certificate

The caption for the picture of the certificate says it's for Tesla's baptism, but the picture itself is title a birth certificate. Can somebody who reads Serbian take a look and change whichever is wrong? (Yeah, this is a minor issue, since—with his father being a priest—it's hardly in question whether Tesla was baptized; but accurancy is important in small things too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.230.213 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Not sure that Nikola Teala was Serbian. The reason is that on his migration to USA he filled out paperwork and stated that he was Croatian. so please check and confirm as these records as still available for viewing.His migration paperwork upon entering USA he filled out his nationality as Croatian and not in fact Serbain as your site states. Many also claim that Marco Polo was Italian, but in fact he was also Croatian by birth. Cheers Miro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miro Rukavina (talk • contribs) 13:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That Q belongs here--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity

 DoneSlushy9 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Alma Mater

If Tesla was an auditor when he attended Charles University, is that still his alma mater?Slushy9 (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't so, if he only audited classes there. I think Austrian Polytechnic in Graz would be considered his alma mater. — MrX 01:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

 DoneSlushy9 (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this Tesla?

I found this picture of a swimming instructor online. He looks like Tesla (he did enjoy swimming) and many people online have noticed. If he is, I might consider adding the pic to the personal life section.

Slushy9 (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We've got lots of pictures of Tesla that have good provenance; a random picture of a skinny white guy with a moustache in an 1890's bathing costume is not appropriate, unless it's got a reliable source saying it is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is almost 0% chance. Here are my thoughts:

• Tesla would have been about 42 years old at the time of this photo; the man in the photo looks to be about 20-25 years old.
• In 1898, Tesla was involved in inventing, having just received a large sum of money from Westinghouse. I doubt he would have needed a side job at that point in his career. Also, it was about a year before he started his Colorado Spring laboratory.
• The swim instructor has a pronounced bend in his nose, which I don't see in the other photos of Tesla.
• The ears are all wrong. Tesla had strange ears that were fairly large, angled, low on his head and stuck out slightly. The swim instructor seems to have fairly average ears.
• Rumors on the internet carry almost no weight. Reliable sources would be required, as mentioned by Wtshymanski

— MrX 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 DoneSlushy9 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I remove "(who might be Nikola Tesla" from the file description page. All content in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable - WP:V. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Electromechanical devices and principles

Cleaned up the LIST Electromechanical devices and principles developed by Nikola Tesla (dif). List needs to follow WP:LIST re: definition with matching members. List members should also be articles unless there is another verifiable criteria. Some items removed were primary source. Article links do not need references (its at the article). Linked articles that did not mention Tesla in their history section were removed. Some members were not "Electromechanical devices and principles" at all, such as airplanes. Reword statement/def "developed by" since it seems to imply invention... there are things on the list that were not invented by Tesla. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tesla's work in Budapest, Hungary

The article about Tesla states that he has worked under Puskas Ferenc at the Budapest Telephone Exchange. There is a mistake here. Puskas Ferenc was a world-class football player in the 1950's and 60's, he wasn't in the telephone business.

The fact is that Tesla worked under Tivadar Puskás; see his wiki page. Tivadar Puskás was the inventor of the multiple switchboard used in telephone exchanges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.100.125.188 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

 DoneSlushy9 (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Tesla's work in Budapest, Hungary

I was wrong about my comment above, sorry for the hasty post! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.100.125.188 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

Correction to spelling. On one occasion in this document Tesla is erroneously spelled "Telsa" Amarsd (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. — MrX 20:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 August 2012

Correction to spelling. On one occasion in this document Tesla is erroneously spelled "Telsa" Amarsd (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. This was already asked and answered above and I see no other instance of this misspelling. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tesla/Government conspiracy theories

I have removed all un-referenced or poorly referenced Tesla/Government conspiracy theories (dif), mostly stuff on how the government stole his papers. I have seen reference to John G. Trump examining Tesla's papers, left that part, needs better ref and should probably be moved up to the Tesla death ray section.... looks like that is what Trump was looking for. All the other stuff needs to pass WP:REDFLAG to be re-added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim about the liquifaction of air in the Tesla generator being "over unity" is stated as fact, but the source seems a bit suspect, and "over unity" is not fact period. Did Tesla really believe that he could get free energy/perpetual motion/over unity/thermodynamic free lunch by compressing air? or is this yet more BS. This paragraph seems to have been copy/pasted all over the web.78.128.90.154 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

To answer the above, here is what Tesla wrote in Chapter 3 of his autobiography (which you can find easily online in PDF form) about the subject of air compression and a perpetual motion engine: "I became obsessed with the idea of producing continuous motion through steady air pressure..." (14). But then he goes on to say that after learning of how air pressure acts at right angles to the surface, the rotary effect of the cylinder-- the perpetual motion pressure-powered device he had envisioned-- was in fact due to an unintended air leak, making his perpetual motion air pressure engine an impossibility. This realization was tough on him: "Though this knowledge came gradually, it gave me a painful shock" (25). Thus, while Tesla thought the perpetual motion air pressure motor was possible, after gaining a better understanding of classical physics, he realized that his visualized system was actually impossible.

I agree, in the spirit of Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I removed the original research which was apparently synthesized from the magazine article [here]

I also removed the rest of this unsourced paragraph. More cutting like this needs to occur, in my opinion. This article is becoming TL;DR-ish. I think we should be vigilant in removing uncited material, especially if it is seems speculative or related to conspiracy theories. — MrX 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Societal views: Is one note enough for such a controversial point of view?

"Tesla, like many of his era, became a proponent of an imposed selective breeding version of eugenics. His opinions stemmed from a belief that humans already interfered with the natural "ruthless workings of nature", rather than from conceptions of a "master race" or inherent superiority of one person over another. His advocacy of it was however to push it further. In a 1937 interview, he stated:

... man's new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct .... The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.[177]"

Those two controversial paragraphs are backed by only one citation (177) which is an interview by the supposed Tesla's friend Mr. George Sylvester Viereck. This article was published in the year 1937, a known period of fascist speech recrudescence. Also according to Wikipedia, Mr. George Sylvester Viereck was registered by "the U. S. Department of State as a Nazi agent". The neutrality of this segment needs to be reviewed for the sake of Tesla's article accuracy. Samooc 00:35, 29 August 2012‎

The real problem I am seeing is that large parts of the whole section, including that bit, are primary sourced, which is contrary to WP:PSTS. The next step is to delete it all and note it in talk so someone can find secondary sources on the topics. Will probably do that in a bit unless real WP:RS starts popping up. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect that there are other secondary sources to back this content, and if so, I think it needs to represented in the article with due weight (summary; perhaps 2-3 sentences). As it stands, we do the subject a disservice by taking a few cherry-picked direct quotes out of context to advance an idea that Tesla envisaged some sort of new world order. — MrX 02:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

NYT quotes our article: Tesla "died penniless"

This is embarrassing, both for WP and for the NYT. See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/science/to-keep-teslas-flame-bright-fans-return-to-his-workshop.html

Two questions:

1. what was Tesla's yearly pension income in 2012 dollars when he supposedly "died penniless?"

2. What chunk of gold was found in his office safe when opened right after his death?

(A penniless person has a pension? Owns gold? Has a safe? And an office? Yes, it was in his penniless FREAKING SUITE OF ROOMS IN A DOWNTOWN NY HOTEL!!)

Sheesh.

Don't pass on unsupported fabrications. Yes, Tesla was penniless in debt in 1916, and the land at Wardenclyffe was taken to pay his hotel back rent. But why are we using references to this to back up our article's claim that Tesla "died penniless in debt?" Yes, he wasn't a billionaire like he probably should have been, but how can this prove that he had zero money?

128.95.172.173 (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Those "unsupported fabrications" come from reliable sources. It's not up to us to conduct original research and try to analyze the economics of the situation. If you have reliable sources that contradict this information, please feel free to add such content to the article with proper citations. — MrX 19:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Those "unsupported fabrications" come from reliable sources." LOOK AT THE FIRST SOURCE. Penniless in 1916 proves he died penniless? I'll remove that one, since it has no bearing on his 1943 financial situation. I'll remove the 3rd Fox News source, since that's just the WSJ article in the 2nd source. And I'll contact teslauniverse.com, since they shouldn't be passing on exaggerations either. (And, are you contesting the claim that Tesla accepted a "modest pension" from the Yugoslav govt. You should. Hint: it was not at all "modest," don't believe me, go look up outside sources for the amount.) In other words, our article directly contradicts itself and needs to be fixed. Either Tesla wasn't penniless in 1943 after all, or the statement about his pension is wrong and needs removing. (Yes, perhaps he was penniless in the 1930s after his turbine project collapsed. That's not the issue. Or should we say "died penniless, except for his enormous pension.") Again, please answer question #1. What was his yearly pension in today's dollars? The amount appears in other external articles (but not in ours.) This dollar amount can be used to detect whether so-called "reliable" sources are passing along rumors or unsupported exaggerations.128.95.172.173 (talk)

PS, I'm motivated because I'm currently working on a "false Tesla mythology" site, and WP has at least one of the common myths: "died penniless." Maybe WP needs a separate "tesla myths" entry to help researchers separate out the significant BS surrounding Tesla?128.95.172.173 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

128.95.172.173 (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your contributions are welcome, and most editors want to improve the article. Please don't read my comments as rejecting anything that you are saying. Admittedly, I only checked the last two sources. I'm 95% certain that the "penniless" story came from one of Tesla's biographers (O'Neill ?). I'm not able to answer your specific questions about Tesla's financial situation.

Since you have obviously researched this topic in some depth, I'm sure you will have no problem finding reliable sources for citations, as explained at WP:RS. Please take a moment to also read WP:FIVEPILLARS, WP:10SIMPLERULES, WP:CIVILITY, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. I think you find these to be very useful with the present situation, as well as with your continued editing on Wikipedia. Feel free also to ask questions here, or on my talk page if your need help. Best wishes — MrX 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"died penniless" does indeed date back to John J. O'Neill in 1944[14]. To second MrX on this, if one reliable source says Tesla died in 1943, and another reliable source says Tesla had a pension at the time, we can not join those two pieces of information together to imply a conclusion that is not mentioned by either of the sources. I am not to enamored of the "chroniclers of record" on Tesla (they seem to simply make stuff up sometimes) but we need (several) reliable sources that published the same argument in relation to Tesla's (better) finances at the time of his death. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the O'Neill ref! Let me double-check... Cheney "Tesla, Man out of Time," p251 gives the endowment from Yugoslav govt as $7200/yr starting in ?1937? O'Neill "Prodigal Genius" p243 describes a Yugoslav govt "honorarium" in the last half dozen years of his life, also at $7200/yr. Search $7,200 with a comma. (But was this in 1937 dollars, or 1944 dollars? Multiply by around 15X for 2012 dollars.) I see mentions of "modest" pension or "small" honorarium, but $7200/yr in 1937 dollars would only be small/modest if compared with the cost of a downtown Manhattan lifestyle. O'Neill mentions that Tesla spent it all and ran up a 2yr hotel debt by 1943! 128.95.172.173 (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

As with allot of "Tesla tales", looking into it brings up logical holes and "details" that Tesla fans don't normally go into. Yugoslavia ceased to exist in April 1941[15], so any endowment it was paying Tesla may have simply vanished. We seem to have Tesla bilking the Hotel Governor out of back rent (a debt he never paid off) by giving them a wooden box that Tesla claimed was a $10,000 part to his "death ray" (later turned out to be an old piece of test equipment)[16]. We do have Hugo Gernsback claiming to have gotten Westinghouse to support Tesla, and another claim that from 1934 Westinghouse was paying Tesla as a "consulting engineer" for $125/month and paying his Hotel New Yorker bill in perpetuity[17]. So Tesla seemed to have no money of his own, he could not pay his hotel bills, and it seems likely his well noted generous spending used up what ever money he was getting. It is possible to see why O'Neill called Tesla's financial state at the time of his death "penniless". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Animal advocacy ?

I removed the "Animal advocacy" section[18] because it had no references that Tesla was ever an animal advocate, and seemed to simply be a spin on Tesla's pigeon obsession. The only reference that even dealt with Tesla's view on animals was The century illustrated monthly magazine, Volume 60. 1900. p. 180 and there he was simply stating that eating animals made people more like animals. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Overlinking and pop-trivia

I just removed some overlinking using WP:AWB per MOS:LINK. The article is still needs more work to remove remaining overlinking, which I will do manually.

There are, what I would consider, some trivial references in the Legacy and Honors section that I think should be moved to the Nikola Tesla in popular culture page. Some are debatable. They are:

• The rock band Tesla takes its name from Nikola Tesla.
• An electric car company, Tesla Motors, named their company in tribute to Tesla. The Tesla Roadster is an electric car which runs on an AC induction motor.[DEBATABLE]
• Google honoured Tesla on his birthday on 10 July 2009 by displaying a doodle in the Google search home page, that showed the G as a tesla coil.
• The street sign “Nikola Tesla Corner” at the corner of the 40th Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan
• The United States Postal Service honored Tesla with a commemorative stamp in 1983.[DEBATABLE]

Please let me know of any thoughts or objections. – MrX 14:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why these should be moved, especially the debateable ones. And the image of the street corner would be lost if you moved that topic. By the way, I think the location of the Gerlach Hotel should be included again. 109.153.214.88 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the street corner image speaks for itself, there should be not problem removing the trivial entry in the list. – MrX 14:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided per WP:TRIVIA. The list as it is right now is WP:OR, editor sees a Tesla mention and adds it to the list. It needs to be referenced to a recent book section or article covering the topic ---> Legacy and honors, it is not enough to add individual OR citations that an honor exists. The whole bullet listed section "Legacy and honors" should be deleted. I guess we could "toss it over the wall" to Nikola Tesla in popular culture. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. If it has no source it should be tossed away not just over the wall. Unless it's judged really important, in which case it needs a tag. 109.153.214.88 (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the enormity of the article, I think a strict adherence to WP:DUE and WP:RS are called for. I'm going to try to address this based on everyone's input. If you think I've went to far, then please feel free to edit or revert as appropriate. – MrX 14:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the key is "judged really important". A WP:RS needs to make that judgment. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved or removed

I have removed the following unsourced trivia

• The Czechoslovakian electro-technical company Tesla
• The street sign “Nikola Tesla Corner” at the corner of the 40th Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan
• The United States Postal Service honored Tesla with a commemorative stamp in 1983.
• Tesla was inducted into the Inventor’s Hall of Fame in 1975.

I've also removed the following pop culture trivia, which is already on the fork page

• The rock band Tesla takes its name from Nikola Tesla.

I've also moved the following pop culture trivia to the fork page

• Google honored Tesla on his birthday on 10 July 2009 by displaying a doodle in the Google search home page, that showed the G as a Tesla coil.

I removed this one because it seemed very trivial

• Plaque of Tesla on Radio Wave Building, the former Gerlach Hotel, where Tesla lived before the end of the century and where he experimented with radio waves in 1896.

A plaque really is not all that important in my opinion, but if it is important, it should be covered in the media, not a Power Point presentation.

I moved this from the Plaques and memorials section

to the history section of the Tesla Wardenclyffe Project page.

• In 1994, acting on the advice of the President's Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, a formal nomination process was initiated by the Tesla Wardenclyffe Project seeking placement of the Wardenclyffe laboratory-office building and the Tesla tower foundation on both the New York State and National Registers of Historic Places. This would result in the creation of a monument to Tesla out of the Wardenclyffe site itself.

I have also shortened the entries

since most of them link to Wikipedia articles. We need to either have a list or prose, not both randomly mixed together. I opted for list. I think this also should be done to the plaques and memorials sub-section. – MrX 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:PEACOCK lead problems

I have deleted allot of material out of the lead(diff) because it failed verification or was simply WP:PEACOCK re: greatest, pioneered, groundbreaking, many revolutionary, fame rivaled that of any other inventor or scientist in history or popular culture. There were also redundant statements re: alternating current, "Serbian" stated twice, etc. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No mention of his claims of resonance and "Earthquake machines" and such.

This article seems to be missing anything about the more crazy ideas Tesla had on resonance, his claims to have bent a steel girder using resonance, his claim to have almost demolished a ten story steel-beamed building that was under construction - using a device small enough to fit into his coat pocket. No mention of the widely-reported claim that he'd left some resonance machine running in his lab and caused damage and consternation over several city blocks...not to mention specific claims such as that "the very earth could be split in two given the right conditions. The detonation of a ton of dynamite at intervals of one hour and forty-nine minutes would step up the natural standing wave that would be produced until the earth's crust could no longer contain the interior."...there is no mention of his theories of "tele-geodynamics".

Read, for example:

http://www.excludedmiddle.com/earthquake.htm

I don't know what of this is:

1. True facts about events that actually happened.
2. Statements that Tesla definitely made that were not true.
3. Things that other people claimed that Tesla said/did - which are not true.

...and I kinda hoped that Wikipedia would tell me - but it looks like we don't even mention it here?!?

SteveBaker (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel your pain. The article is a mess, seems to me mostly because of copy/paste Tesla folklore from the web being added all the time. It has gone through some edits to clean up some of it. If you think something is missing you may want to try to hunt down references and post them here. The real problem is sorting fact from fiction. Start with James J. O'Neill[19], you have to take O'Neill with a grain of salt because he is quoting the (crackpot?) musings of a very old Tesla and embellishing it a bit further..... what you read you have to check against Tesla debunking sites (I think Myth-busters even did this one). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - I'm well aware that the Mythbusters busted Tesla's claims (if he did indeed claim them) - but you really didn't need that proof because conservation of energy says that it takes more energy to deform the beam than the oscillator could produce. It's very clear that he couldn't possibly have set off massive vibrations over several city blocks with a machine that could fit into his pocket...but where did this lie originate? SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Just from the little bit of work I have done looking up RS Tesla sources I have noticed something; some of the most "spectacular?" claims about Nikola Tesla seem to originate from----> Nikola Tesla. It this case the origin may be one of his annual hotel room birthday/party/press gatherings[20] where he trotted out new inventions he was trying to sell. O'Neill seemed to attend some of those and even started writing press releases for Tesla. So Tesla may have told the whole story there, added to the story for O'Neill, or O'Neill added his own embellishments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone find any info on Nikola Tesla in a car accident

I heard in a documentary that he got in a car crash in his later years that left him with a few broken ribs, and that his inventions stopped after that. However, I'm having trouble finding info. on it. Anyone wanna help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I found nothing on NewsBank, Highbeam or Google Books. I did, however, find 289 newspaper articles that mention Tesla, from between 1891 and 1922 on NewsBank's Historical Newspaper archive (which I get free access to via my public library). It would make for some interesting research. I even found a mention of Tesla's experiments with Xrays from 1896. – MrX 21:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I keep seeing an accident mentioned and there is one in Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla by John J. O'Neill, Chapter 18 (web excerpt)

• After midnight one night in the fall of 1937, Tesla started out from the Hotel New Yorker to make his regular pilgrimage to the Cathedral and the Library to feed the pigeons. In crossing a street a couple of blocks from the hotel, an accident happened, how is unknown. In spite of his agility, he was unable to avoid contact with a moving taxicab, and was thrown heavily to the ground. He raised no question as to who was at fault, refused medical aid, and asked merely to be taken to his hotel in another cab......... Tesla's back had been severely wrenched in the accident, and three ribs broken, but the full extent of his injuries will never be known for, in keeping with his almost lifelong custom, he refused to consult a doctor. ........ He was bedridden for some months, and was unable to carry on his practice of feeding pigeons from his window; and soon they failed to come...........In the spring of 1938 he was able to get up. He at once resumed his pigeon-feeding walks on a much more limited scale, but frequently had a messenger act for him.

It is debatable whether "his inventions stopped after that". Tesla was full of showmanship and spectacular ideas but he hadn't filed a patent for 10 years before that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

add a period between this instance of Croatia and Nikola.198.189.224.2 (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tesla's progenitors were from Zadar in Croatia Nikola

It was just some random croatian nationalist who changed it. i reverted his edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The definition of a Croat has varied wildly between the end of the 19th century and today, and Tesla would not refer to himself as a Croat, under the current meaning of that term, today in the 21st century. Gavrilo14

That argument is not valid. What did Tesla consider himself during his lifetime? Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Place of birth

Please exclude next phrase from first sentence: "Croatian-born" because Tesla was born in Austrian Empire, when Croatia did not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.198.224.17 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Tesla's birthplace from the first sentence altogether. This has continually been a contentious issue because of the geopolitical shifts in this region in past several hundred years. I would suggest that listing his birth country in the infobox and in the Early years (1856-1885) section is sufficient.

Assuming that there is consensus for this (which I assume from looking at the last stable version of the article, ca. September 17, 2012), then it may be a good idea to put a hidden comment in the first sentence, stating that the birth country should not be included in the first sentence. – MrX 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I was on this same tack and came to the conclusion that we could probably remove all reference to nationality in the lead, including "Serbian-American", and just state where he was born, Smiljan in the Austrian Empire, since nationality (to me) is marginal "summary" material. Everything a reader needs to know about nationality is in the Early years (1856-1885) section, and I think we could leave it all there and let the reader draw their own conclusions. We could even add secondary source material[21] re:describe the controversy, don't take sides (WP:GFCA). I just did a general revamp of the lead, but I removed my "solution" since the stable version/ca. September 17, 2012 edit looks fine to me (but I definitely don't have a dog in this fight ;)). If it all starts getting "noisy" again we could simply move it all to the article body. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hotel

Was that usual to live at a Hotel room for years back then? What was the price of New Yorker room at that time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.182.33 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

In 1934, Tesla moved to the Hotel New Yorker after he had reached a settlement with the Westinghouse Corporation, in which Tesla was granted a consulting rate of US$125 per month along paid monthly renting expenses. Tesla never satisfied the debt owed to Hotel Governor Clinton.[143] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 October 2012

The article says "Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor..." and the "Serbian-American" part is supported by 3 references, 2 of which state his known sentence that he is proud of his Serb origins and his Croatian homeland. By what logic is this then transformed into "Serbian-American" instead of "Croatian-American" when there is equal sense for both based on that quote alone? Is the fact that his parents were Serbs (also born in Croatia) make him more Serbian than the fact that he was born and raised in Croatia and educated and discovered as a talent in Croatia (which is all stated later in the article) make him Croatian, when he explicitly said he was equally proud of his homeland and his descent? At the same time he is "American" just because he said he valued greatly American citizenship and worked all his life in America.

To summarize... he is American because he had an American citizenship and worked all his life in America, but he is not Croatian although he had Croatian citizenship and was born, raised and educated in Croatia? Unlike Serbia to which he has no connection at all and which gave nothing to him during his life, except the fact that his parents were of Serbian descent. So all the arguments that there are for him to be called "American" exist for him to be called "Croatian" (and more) and none of them for him to be called "Serbian". The arguments for him to be called "Serbian" are purely descendant (biological, gentical) and neither "American" nor "Croatian" share that argument. So by which argument and logic is than "Serbian" and "American" taken and "Croatian" dismissed? Especially when he himself called Croatia his "homeland" and said he was proud of IT (proud of the country itself, unlike being proud of the Serb ORIGINS, not the country).

Because of all these arguments I propose that "Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor..." be changed to "Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Croatian-American inventor...". 31.147.121.198 (talk) 22:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hyphenated American labels actually are wholly about decendancy & cultural identity. For intance, the most common is African American. Virtually all of them were not born in Africa, but they still may culturally or through descendancy identify with that region. It really has nothing to do with where you were born. John McCain doesn't identify himself as a Panamanian-American just because he was born there, rather he sees himself with the people his parents culturally identified with. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have set this edit request to answered and consider it to be Not done: per the response above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Milutin Tesla's Death

Some sources, such as http://www.teslasociety.org/timeline.html, claim that Milutin died of a stroke, whereas other sources, such as http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-timeline-1879-milutin-tesla-dies, claim that he died of an unspecified disease. Anyone know which is correct?Slushy9 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla from Croatia was of Croatian ancestry

Nikola Tesla was born in the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia in 1856 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg) Tesla's ancestors were the Croatian families Draganić and Kalinić, "Tesla" was just his great grandfather nickname. Source: NIKOLA TESLA - istrazivac, izumitelj, genij (NIKOLA TESLA - researcher, inventor, genius) ISBN: 9530614675 9789530614673 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brkic (talk • contribs) 19:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Inventor of radio?

I have cleaned up claims Tesla invented radio because it was not based on WP:RS, sources being primary sources, Tesla related sources, or unsigned ("Answered by Science Channel"). Tesla as the "inventor of radio" is way to broad a claim, not found in sources specific to the history of radio[22][23][24] nor is it found in the Wikipedia articles on Radio, History of radio, or Invention of radio. This has come up on this talk page before and as other editors said Radio has many fathers but there is no single person who invented it.. The 1943 US Supreme Court ruling cited held that Marconi infringed on patents by Tesla, Lodge and Stone and British High Court ruled in favor of Marconi[25]. Also the US Supreme Court specifically stated it did not rule on Marconi's claim to the first practical radio transmission system[26], just that he couldn't claim patent rights against later inventors because he had no clear claim to some of his own.

Tesla/radio seems to be one one of the things missed in this article because parts of the article are a series of blank claims with no explination. I have removed unverified material and started a section on Tesla and radio.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Radio has many fathers but there is no single person who invented it:I was the author of that passage and after becoming passionate about the subject and reading a lot about it I can say that I was wrong since I came to the conclusion that Marconi was definitely more "father" than others. Tesla as the inventor of the radio is one of the many " scientific fairytale" spreading on internet as virus and corrupting the weak knowledge about history of science of the most.Unfortunately it has become more than a legend confined on the web and I could read recently a very famous guide book about Croatia reporting the "shocking" news that was actually Tesla the real inventor of the radio and not Marconi.I could write a lot about this topic but basically a certain romantic and melodramatic vision of events enjoys itself in describing Tesla as the poor, naive, harmless, freak genius creating miraculous inventions for the sake of humanity while Marconi was just a greedy businessmnan only capable of stealing idea from others. Actually, in 1895 when Marconi created the first complete radio apparatus Tesla was a middle aged man working for powerful multinationals companies in USA and he was well connected with the academia and industrial world while Marconi was just a 22 old unknown student living in Italy: he was the outsider, not Tesla. Another reason that has allowed Tesla to gain ground over Marconi lies in the fact that Marconi was a self proclaimed fascist supporter. So, an historical stigma has been attached to him and as a consequence also on his scientific achievements (even today in his home town there is not a school named after him). I don't go further since this is not an article about the history of radio or Marconi but I guess that any passage giving the idea that Tesla was the real inventor of the radio would seriously damage the credibility of the article.Magnagr (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this website can give a better understanding of what I meant: http://earlyradiohistory.us/tesla.htm--Magnagr (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The link I put seems not being able to open the website I mentioned.

You can google (on Google.uk): Nikola Tesla: the guy who didn't invent the radio

and read the first website in the list. --Magnagr (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Radio Section

I don't know the etiquette for this, so I'll note the error and request that someone who does please make the change, as needed.

In: "Tesla's theories on the possibility of the transmission by radio waves go back as far lectures and demonstrations in 1893 in St. Louis, Missouri..."

One needs to change "go back as far lectures" to "go back as far AS lectures" (not in caps, of course).

Thanks for your work on this article; I'm really enjoying it. Dmutters (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. BoundaryRider (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BoundaryRider! Dmutters (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Typo in Later Years

"Tesla's previous debt owed to Hotel Governor Clinton never satisfied."

I believe this is missing a "was." Dmutters (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done It "was" indeed! Thanks! BoundaryRider (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Dmutters (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Invention of the induction motor

Regarding a recent revert by User:‎Fountains of Bryn Mawr (diff), thank you for your concern about using primary sources, but could I trouble you to read that page you mention (WP:PST) more carefully? Primary sources may be used here, but carefully in a way to avoid sysnthesis. When you read through the examples at that page, under WP:SYNTH, what part of my post (exactly) do you feel are synthesis or "interpretaton"? Otherwise primary sources are reliable sources that may be used per policy. It is also debatable if the court decisions are even primary sources, since the facts we use them for were being accepted and analyzed by a neutral third party (the judge).
Further, this concern about primary sources is the smallest part of the real issue. The important thing is that the material I replaced included false facts NOT supported by the sources used. For instance the sentence "The paternity of the invention remains controversial, since rotating magnetic fields and a prototype induction motor were demonstrated in Europe in 1885 by Galileo Ferraris". It's false per (all) the sources. None of them say he "demonstrated" it then. He only (allegedly) "concieved" of it or "invented" it then. The difference between demonstrating and not-demonstrating is crucial, and at the crux of the controversy. We really can't afford to get this wrong and be making things up that are not in the record. The references I added make a solid step-up in reliability for the article (even if you were to discount the court cases). For instance, one ref I deleted, from the Tesla-hating Edison Tech Center, is merely a verbatim reprint of a very biased internet forum post, without even author attribution, plus I added multiple reliable references, including one I'm sure you'll agree with that answers the citation-needed tag for the tesla coil date. Your revert deleted that good reference, put a citation-needed hole back in the article, and restored the 1888 date that doesn't match the sources. So please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (see WP:PARTIALRV) by reverting to a faulty version. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding another revert by User:Binksternet, claiming that "Old court case documents cannot replace well researched Jonnes book Empires of Light"; please gentlemen, can we discuss these here before you cavalierly revert constructive edits by a serious editor who is carefully following policy? In this instance it seems you didn't even fully read my edit, since in no way does my addition of court references impinge on your Jones reference. They are not in competition at all. Jones is now referenced for exactly the same thing she was before, no change exept to direct to a version at Google I thought had a better chance at directing the exact page number that was referenced. In your future comments here, please do be specific about exactly what factual points I have added that you feel may not be supported by the most reliable sources. Thanks! :) I have added even more references to the article for your review. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because the added material was primary sourced only. You seemed to have skipped the part in WP:PST where it states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". There are no reliable secondary sources cited that support the claim "priority of invention" and looking through sources [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] you don't see 105 year old patent cases used to establish priority. It should be noted that patents are not necessarily discoveries or inventions and patents battles can be more about strong vested interest and who was more "lawyered up", as Tesla would find out in those very same patent courts when he lost in his radio patent case against Marconi. That leaves us at WP:NPOV where we should describe the controversy instead of taking sides. I have reworded the paragraph accordingly. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

After thinking more about it, court cases are definately not "primary sources" that could be ignored as irrelevant; especially up against fluffball type sources that barely mention a sentence or two on the issue and don't have 1/100th the detail in covering every possible angle that the those cases actually do. For instance, your Robert Bud reference to support the "not a unique discovery" sentence. He only has one quick sentence in his whole book, while others discuss the controversy & legal battles in great depth. It's rather ridiculous. You can find fluffball sources all day long on either side of the subject. In fact, on many different sides depending on which nationality is favored by the author. This nationality bias in the sources on this very issue was discussed by Hughes 1993 Networks of Power. On my phrase "priority of invention", Judge Hazel said "These are all significant facts, which in my judgement supply the definateness and certainty on the question of priority of invention...", and he was upheld on appeal. Quoting him is not using a primary source, and if it were, I certainly did not skip the part at WP:PST about interpreting primary sources. You misunderstand that guideline. If my statement in the article does not "synthesize" or "interpret" the primary source, then there is no need for it to be found in a secondary source. "Priority of invention" is directly from the judge, no interpretation involved. Try actually reading the court cases, they might convince you (if you truly don't have a national bias). They go into far, far, more detail than the brief-mention, fluffball, nation-bias sources that can be found for both sides of the issue. Additionally, did you notice that I backed them up with an addditional source that mentioned the court cases? If you like we could also add Lance Day, 1998, Biographical Dictionary of the History of Technology, who also mentions priority of invention on this issue; and about it says that Ferraris neglected to produce a practical motor. Although really, per WP:NPOV as you mentioned, we aren't trying to say if priority of invention is a fact; rather, we want to say that the court held that Tesla had priority of invention. That is the highly relevant and encyclopedic detail, which I properly referenced.

You also deleted my correct statement, that "Galileo Ferraris claimed to have invented an induction motor in 1885, although he did not make it public in lectures or by publication until March 1888". You replaced with a non-encyclopedic rumor-type statement that he may have demonstrated as early as 1885. Your sources are very poor here. The first only says he "may" have, which is certainly true (in the same sense that Tesla "may" have in 1882). The second is a defective reference without sufficient data to find it, perhaps you were imitating Google Books error of "Volume 1; Volume 10"? If it is the one I think it is, then it is quoting the only other person ever on record to claim knowledge of Ferraris having invented this pre-1888, William Stanley. It is notable that this is heresay from a financially biased individual (he was party to one of the lawsuits). He did not claim to actually see the invention himself, but to have talked to others who had seen it. Further, he was caught lying on the stand about almost the exact same issue, since he had himself seen Tesla's invention in Tesla's lab, but denied it on the witness stand. He recanted when faced with a letter he wrote himself to G. Westinghouse explaining Tesla's invention in detail. So direct quotes from Stanley do not make a reliable source. Third, Encylopedia Americana 1978 is an old edition. In the sixties they flat-out claimed it was a fact that Ferraris invented it in 1885, but the modern versions clarify that 1888 was first evidence of publication. Still a minor reference, as they have no serious discussion of the controversy.

To help you see past the common national bias on the issue, it may be helpful to research that these rotating AC devices predated both Tesla & Ferraris by far, far earlier than you may think. Some were more "interesting devices" that were not real load-bearing motors. Others, like Elihu Thomson that you inserted, had load-bearing AC motors, but not that could be actually used anywhere, since they still had commutators, which caused them to wear out very quickly. First AC motor is not historically relevant. First workable AC induction motor (Tesla had one, Elihu did not) is relevant in the sources. Please see Rockman 2004 pg 294 Intellectual Property Law for Engineers and Scientists for a discussion of Tesla vs. Elihu; where he says that "However, there was no successful, practical AC motor until later when Tesla invented his induction motor". Lots of people had devices that were "close". Ferraris's 1885 "motor", if you believe Stanley there actually was one, could easily have been one of these type earlier devices that are less historically relevant. We only have the liar William Stanley's word that they were not, and he didn't even claim to actually see them with his own eyes.

Also see Seifer, 1998, pg 1713, which clarifies that "Ferraris had also constructed discs that rotated in AC fields in university presentations as early as 1885", and also direct-quotes Ferraris as saying about them that "An apparatus of this principal cannot be of any commercial importance as a motor". That is a long way from a workable, load-bearing induction motor. None of your sources so far go into so much detail about Ferraris's pre-1888 inventions, or include such a damming quote from the inventor himself. I'm willing to be flexible on the wording we use, but we have to use my previous edit as a starting point; your promoting Ferraris with the "may have" rumor (which also should apply to Tesla) and promoting Elihu Thomson are both very misleading. Sorry for the length, but with your edit, you threw a million new things at me! ;) --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is actually every need for something "to be found in a secondary source" because Wikipedia requires that (as in policy), its not an option. Weighing the validity of primary sources is beyond that policy. As I have said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, I look at material and say "yes, most reliable sources seem to follow that gist" or "where did that come from?". An article should answer a readers questions, what did Tesla do?, when did Tesla do it?, what did Tesla derive it from?, was Tesla the only one? An encyclopedic article does not need to take sides on a issue because readers can always follow the links to induction motor, or Galileo Ferraris, or War of the currents and make their own decisions based on what is presented.

Re "sources": Every source has its bias or boils things down to match its reader, that's why we have "reliability" WP:RS. The more reliable sources are historical/technical books on AC and induction motors themselves, they cover the specific topic. Less reliable are "Tesla bio's" like Seifer's, the focus is very narrow and they tend to have a very non-independent promotional/sensational bent (how else are you going to sell another book about Tesla?).

Re "patent wars": Well just open up the newspaper and you can read a good one re: Apple/Google/Samsung. For induction motors what we have here are asymmetrical claims, one was the first to patent, the other was the first to publish. In the patent case one guy had the full force of Westinghouse, JP Morgan, and even Thomas Edison/GE behind him (there was a patent pool on at the time), the other guy had no patents and his testimony was a little sparse because he was dead at the time.

Per:"First workable", none of these motors, including Tesla's, was "workable", they had to be developed by other engineers to make them "workable".

Re: "not a unique discovery" - its encyclopedic prose based on source consensus. We can always remove the Bud ref unless there is some clear contention there.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fountains, please look more carefully at my explanation of Wikipedia policy. You have it 180 degrees wrong. Wikipedia policy quoted from WP:PST:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. 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 source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

Do you see that primary sources "may be used"? Yes, it has the cautions of synthesis & interpretation (which I discussed & you ignored), but barring those, "Primary sources... may be used". You are only required to use secondary for synthesis and interpretation, of which "priority of invention" is neither. We are neutrally reporting one of the most significant facts about the controversy: that it was fought & decided in court. Any neutral reader would want to know about that; even more than some Italian-American author's opinion in an electrical manual. You can't suppress court decisions just because they very strongly favor one side.

Second, and completely separate, the court decisions are NOT primary sources, which you also ignored above. Also from WP:PST, primary sources are "accounts written by people who are directly involved", like Tesla, Westinghouse, Stanley. The potential for bias from being close to the discovery is the whole crux of what makes a source "primary". A judge is opposite that; by definition, neutral, and with a required zero-personal-involvment in the case. WP:PST has only one mention of court cases, it says: "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident". Can you see how an involved witness is different from a non-involved, neutral judge? If a judge is a primary source, then by the same standards all sources are primary. I agree that we shouldn't take sides on the issue, such as introducing the discredited claim by Elihu Thomson here on the Tesla page, without explaining that almost all sources discredit his claim, and how he was humiliated by Tesla at that lecture when he made the claim. It's another "true" statement that deceives in it's application. His claim should be discussed at the Induction motor article, not here in partial form twisting the facts. I realize that the court cases have very strong language that strongly favors Tesla, and to you that seems like we are taking sides; but really it's not. We have to neutrally present the evidence and let the chips fall where they may, often in a controversy the evidence leans to one side... and that is not a lack of neutrality on our part. In fact it would be very biased to allow the Italian-favored claim of Ferraris-1885 to stand under the rumor-speak of "he may have", without allowing the same "may have" to apply to Tesla-1882 as many non-Italian sources credit him for. Really "may have" and "as early as" are bogus, vague, rubbish used to enforce a biased POV, and they don't belong here for either Ferraris or Tesla. I'm glad you brought up the Apple/Google/Samsung patent war. If a judge comes down strongly in favor of one side, and we fairly represent exactly what he says about the issue, and it seems to strongly sway the article in favor of one side... that's ok! That is still a neutral article even though the evidence seems to lean to one side. Trying to force our own artificial equality on both sides fails the NPOV test. -Tom Hulse (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A primary source is source "close to an event". A court case and an outcome "is the event". You really don't get more primary than that.

The best secondary source is the published peer-reviewed work of a (recent) historian looking at all the evidence on the subject. A "judge" in 1904 is not a recent historian looking at all the evidence (unless he has a time machine). Also in 1904 those exact same patent courts invalidated Tesla's radio patents. Would you care to analyze, synthesize, interpret, evaluate why one judge was right and the other judge was wrong? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Galileo Ferraris was a scientist who refused to patent any of his discoveries on the basis of his ethical grounds . Besides the 1888 Tesla's patent and Galileo Ferraris's article there are two previous events that are source of debate: the 1882 Tesla's claim of having conceived the induction motor and the 1885 Ferraris public demonstration of induction motors. In my opinion we cannot put at the same level the two events. Galileo Ferraris's public demonstration is substantiated by the evidence of the facts (models of 1885 motors still exist). The 1882 Tesla's claim relies only on a passage present in a page of his 1915 autobiography, in the same Tesla book claimed: "I could hear very distinctly thunderclaps at a distance of 550 miles"or "The whistle of a locomotive twenty or thirty miles away made the bench or chair on which I sat vibrate so strongly that the pain was unbearable" or "I had the sense of a bat and could detect the presence of an object at a distance of twelve feet by a peculiar creepy sensation on the forehead" or "My pulse varied from a few to two hundred and sixty beats and all the tissues of the body quivered with twitchings and tremors which was perhaps the hardest to bear". As I mentioned before Ferraris was indifferent to fame and the gap between his 1885 demonstration and the 1888 article could be understood. More difficult to understand is why Tesla, notoriously sensitive to public acknowledgement, would have waited 6 years before making public his discovery, knowing that several scientists were working on the same subject in the same period. The passage in the article: "the rotating magnetic field induction motor seems to have been an independent invention by Tesla but it was not a unique discovery at the time" is quite difficult to catch on and the use of may have been in the passage:" a working model of which he may have been demonstrating at the University of Turin as early as 1885" in unnecessary since the 1885 Ferrari's experience is something which was duly sourced (I'm wondering why my references habe been erased). --Magnagr (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem, Magnagr, is that contradictory facts can be found in abundance on all sides of issue, so you can't always just take a biased interpretation at face value. First you have to find your mystery ref, since of course you know that your personal word is irrelevant; then look close at it to see who it is they are claiming actually saw these motors. My bet is that it'll trace back to one of (the liar) William Stanley's several quotes in print that claimed that. Then you have to recognize that some sources (especially that trace back to nationalistic or monetary reasons), while in a hurry to support their guy, fail to care at all if the "device" is really a load-bearing AC induction motor, without a commutator, running on a single circuit. NOT just any ac spinning device, as there were some by others back in 1879. A motor has to do real work. Then, if your source is actually specific about these details, and all the vast majority of other sources are wrong (both those supporting Ferraris & Tesla), then you have to look at source reliability in the face of Ferraris's own damning words about those "devices": "An apparatus of this principal cannot be of any commercial importance as a motor"(pg 1713). This was at his 1888 demonstration to the Academy of Science in Turin, so it was unlikely that he just forgot, and that back 1885 he actually did have a workable motor. His March 1888 paper was titled "Electrodynamic Rotation Produced by Alternate Currents", which notably lacks the word "motor", which makes sense in light of the fact that he said it could not be used as a workable motor. If fact his own 1888 math, that he thought "proved" it could not be used as a workable motor, can be still found in the Electrical Review of 1891!(pg 413) It was only after Tesla's widely published paper showed it could be used as a motor that Ferraris patented his own version; one that was purchased by Westinghouse for a paltry $1000 (compared to the astronomical sum of $200,000 +$2.50 for every horsepower generated that Westinghouse paid for Tesla's) because they realized the Ferraris claim was worthless against Tesla's. That is neutral market forces backing up the judge's decision, and many sources describe how Westinghouse & Co. thought Ferraris's claim worthless, even though they bought it before Tesla's.

I don't really have a problem with the sentence that says the invention was not unique, I was just talking above about the source, although it might be worded a little better. My main concern is the non-encyclopedic and biased rumor-speak of "may have" and "as early as" to wrongly promote Ferraris here on the Tesla article; plus also the deceiving insertion of only a partial discussion of Elihu Thomson in a way that twists the facts and is different from how most sources treat the subject.

Fountains, again you are playing fast & loose with WP policy. A court witness is a primary source for questions like "did he invent it?" or "when?" or "where?" (as decribed at WP:PST). Those are events that happened in the lab. The judge wasn't in the lab and has no personal connection to the litigants or witnesses, so his second-hand, detached, interpretation & synthesis of their testimony makes his judgment (not the witness testimony) a secondary source. Since you didn't address it, I also will assume you concede that primary sources may be used per WP policy. If you have a "historian" that has actually read the court case and addresses them with comments on why Tesla-September-1887 might be wrong, or comments on where the actual proof for Ferraris-1885 to be, then please do share that source, but honestly most of these guys haven't even read the court cases, which have only recently been available online, so they're working from early 1900's info that includes William Stanley's claims, and explains why you can find exactly opposing claims depending on which source you cherry-pick.

Another note on how we can treat court decisions as sources is to look at the Wikipedia Featured Article Microsoft, which gets rigorous review by a wide range of editors. They use court decisions directly as sources for similar statements, such as the judgment referring to Microsoft an "abusive monopoly". The article is not claiming that Microsoft is actually an abusive monopoly, only that the judgment says it was, and that is relevant. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Engine is a device which convert something into mechanical movement, the load doesn't appear in the definition. At pg 254 and pg 261 of "Electrodynamic Rotation Produced by Alternate Currents" by Galileo Ferraris is explicitly mentioned the word motor and in other pages are present the words mechanical work (detailed in a table) as well as torque. In that article it can be found the theoretical framework at the basis of every induction motor treatise, nothing similar was ever produced by Tesla. Tesla was surely the first one to patent something adaptable to the industry need, but it cannot be possible to ovelook the panoply of material (much of which is not nationalistic) giving the merit to the guy who first came up with the idea of the induction motor. Nowadays we are using the type of induction motor from Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky who stated: :"I kissed Ferraris's hand from afar for the nice idea .....". This is an article about Tesla, any mention to Galileo Ferraris is not mandatory even if advisable, I'm already satisfied to see corrected the horrid mention (unfortunately so popular in other website) of Tesla hving invented the induction motor in 1882. Finally and maybe out of context is funny to see how the affair Tesla-Ferraris is specular to that one Marconi-Tesla. In each case there is someone who would have allegedly put the basis of an invention and another that would have then exploited it. Even if Tesla hold both the positions at the end he must always be the winner.--Magnagr (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ferraris's Electrodynamic Rotation Produced by Alternate Currents did not have 254 pages. Are you referring to the book I referenced above? That is a secondary author reprinting & explaining the math which Ferraris thought proved his own "apparatus" was not a viable motor in March 1888. Page 254 is about a completely different motor, not Ferraris's.

A workable motor is not just movement, but work. OED defines a motor as "a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for another device with moving parts". --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of motor is quite "forced" to my opinion. You can find here the Ferraris article:

http://fisicavolta.unipv.it/percorsi/pdf/Ferrarisrotaz.PDF

motore=motor

lavoro meccanico=mechanical work

coppia=torque --Magnagr (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not my definition, that's from the Oxford English Dictionary, the foremost authority in the world on the English language. I see you struggle with grammar a little, since English is not your first language (far better than my Italian!). You can still see the point in plain logic though: a motor that doesn't do useful work is not really a motor in the same way clear paint is not really paint. If it doesn't do the job, no one cares about it.

So did you see from Ferraris's paper that he is using all that math to prove that it could not be a useful motor? For instance page 10 where he says it "could have no importance in transforming industrial energy"? Yes he does discuss mechanical work & torque, but not in a positive way. Rather he is proving how the design could have no value for such a purpose. Also look at page 17, under his point #5, where he is summing up the results of all his long math proofs, and says "These reports and the results of reported experiences above confirms that which was obvious a priori, that a device founded on the principle of the one we studied could be of no importance as an industrial motor". And then about the possibility of maybe studying it further to increase the size or performance he says "it would be useless to enter here into any consideration on this issue". So if it could not be used as a practical motor, what did he think it was useful for instead? He says an "electric meter" or for "a useful experience for the courses". --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned Ferraris didn't exclude to use it in industrial applications, he just didn't want to deal with the matter in his article. Anyway, this is not the point, we can ask an inventor to devise something new not necessarily to foresee the potential application of it. I'm happy if Tesla is remembered as the first one to patent an induction motor for industrial application but Ferraris has to be celebrated as the guy who laid the theoretical foundation of it.This is not my opinion but that oner of an intitution (Encyclopedia Britannica)as much authoritative as the Oxford dictionary "....Italian physicist who established the basic principle of the induction motor, which is now the principal device for the conversion of electrical power to mechanical power" (strangely as relaxed as me in the definition of induction motor).--Magnagr (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean he didn't exclude to use it in industrial application?? Yes he absolutely did exclude it. Didn't you read the article? That's his whole point of all that math! He was proving his device could not be used practially as a motor. How about those quotes I just gave you? He said it himself. He even said it would be useless to study it further as his math proved it could never make a practical motor.

Laying a theoretical groundwork is not nearly the same as actually, really having the first working brushless AC induction motor, or the same as actually inventing it. In fact "laying theoretical groundwork" is what you say if he was important but did not invent it first. The point is not that he merely failed to realize the potential of his wonderful invention, rather, the point is that his invention was getting no useable power as he admitted himself. The article has to stick to the facts as they are in the most reliable sources:

• No proof of 1882 Tesla claim.
• No proof of 1885 Ferraris AC brushless induction motor at his lectures & demonstrations. (per multiple very reliable sources, plus you can't find any specific proof even described by others)
• Sept 1887 demonstration by Tesla in his lab held as verifiable by court & upheld on appeal. (multiple 3rd party sources if you want them, although the court itself is good enough source for what it said)
• March 1888 first Ferraris verifiable design; even then he said it would work as a meter but not a motor. (his own words plus multiple reliable sources)
• May 1888 Tesla patents & lecture at AIEE.

--Tom Hulse (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The math Ferraris was using is the same adopted to design and study powerful induction motors. Yours is a free interpretation

of that passage. The 1885 Ferraris experience is more than a historical fact and you cannot compare it with few words written 30 years after the invention by the direct competitor in his own autobiography (full of supernatural episodes) where he proclaims himself as the first one (Ferraris died in 1897): is too easy. As a matter of fact besides the fanatical websites mushrooming on Internet where Tesla is seen more as a Guru of some mysterious religion than as a scientist, no serious website takes into consideration the 1882 Tesla experience while most of them credit the 1885 Ferraris public demonstration. You can dissect into milions of details what a motor is, the sheer truth is that the core operating principle of an induction motor is the rotating magnetic field, take it out and you'l see only a standstill piece of metal whatever you call it motor, meter or God knows what...Ferraris was the first one to discover it. We are using neither Ferraris nor Tesla technology nowadays but the motor from Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, I've already cited to whom he gave credit for the invention.--Magnagr (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Magnagr, could you please stop arguing against Tesla-1882? We all agree on it, it's just chasing windmills. Just because there is also no proof for Ferraris-1885 doesn't mean the two have anything to do with each other, and disproving Tesla (which I don't disagree) will not help provide proof for Ferraris. I did not interpret Ferraris's math freely, did you even read it? It is like he is arguing for me, he could not have said it any more firmly or finally. You don't need interpretation to understand his plain words. It's not the same math our motors use today, obviously, since his math finishes up by proving no industrial power could ever come from this design; yet Tesla's motors did provide real industrial power, and we have powerful motors today, so we must have changed something in the math, no?

Very reliable sources, with very much detail and background on the subject, say there is no proof at all for Ferraris-1885, so you can't just pick any source who claims otherwise and declare it a fact because you are Italian and want to support your guy. You have to reconcile the competing sources. Which sources go into great detail about the circumstances? Do they really provide proof, or are they just parroting the old William Stanley lies that are now discredited? Where is the proof for Ferraris-1885? Which source shows the proof, not just claims an opinion? To be clear, "most" websites actually do not credit Ferraris for the invention. A majority do actually credit Tesla. Many, many of those sources do not even mention Ferraris at all, but every single source that credits Ferraris as the inventor also discusses Tesla. But of course just numbers of sources is not how we decide, we have to look at their reliability.

If Ferraris himself says he doesn't have a workable version in 1888, do you honestly think he demonstrated one back in 1885? Is there no bounds to nationalism? If you really want to go on blindly and believe he had one in 1885, how do you know that particular version did not use a commutator/brushes? What source is specific about that?

I'm sorry, but no one really cares who invented "whatever you call it" as you say. It really does matter to everyone else if it is a workable, brushless AC induction motor; or if it was just a meter or "whatever you call it". Actually neither Ferraris nor Tesla invented the rotating magnetic field, that was Arago in 1824, or more practically Bailey 1879, and also Deprez 1882. None of them though used it for a workable motor. A discussion can be found here, on page 1697.

Dolivo-Dobrovolsky is reponsible for improving the rotor of the AC induction motor with the cage rotor design, not having the first workable AC induction motor himself, which would be more notable. Our modern motors are quite a ways from his, at about 20x the power. There have been a few improvements since then. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, part of my involvement in the attempt to clarify some aspects of the history of science is triggered by the nationalistic reactions (see what the serbian have made of Tesla) of many or at least because of an exclusive monocultural approach to the topics we are writing about. I have access to italian documentation (which I have not used till now)and also to english written sources, usually the opposite doesn't happen with the people discussing with me. Your insisting on Stanley (american) as the sole (un)reliable testimony of 1885 experiences http://www.museoelettrico.com/storia/ferraris.html confirms this attitude. I invite you again to visit serious websites about induction motors and check how many reports the 1885 Ferraris public demonstration. You cannot sell something (especially if your name is Galileo Ferraris) not real as public and if this is public you don't need signature proving it. You know very well that he people you named are out of context since we are talking about commutatorless devices and we are discussing about the first scientist able to develope the theory of induction motor directly from that one of the transformer, basically the way all the books about electrical machine develop the theory of induction motors.

Finally I appeal to your common sense and ask you how the name of Galileo Ferraris is on the front line of every book and websites thanks to the 1885 experiences and 1888 article if both the episodes were irrilevant with respect to te development of the rotating magnetic field and the induction motor. A collective blunder?--Magnagr (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Magnagr, you have changed your words, and now I can agree with you at least on the last part: that Professor Ferraris is 'not irrelevant with respect to the development of the rotating magnetic field and the induction motor'. That is certainly true. If we develop something, or further it along, that is not necessarily inventing it or being the first to do anything. Both Tesla & Ferraris "developed" the rotating magnetic field further along in an important way, even though it had already been invented by others. Both did it it at about the same time, and both independently without the help of the other, but which one changed the world? Some background will help understand Tesla's importance, and perhaps we should discuss it more in the article. In the mid-1800's there was a thirst for electrical power around the world. We were ready for the next industrial revolution and the only thing holding back the floodgates was the lack of a useable electrical power. DC power could only go short distances from the power source (dam or steam plant) and provided reduced amounts of energy. AC power could be transferred very far under massive voltages; but before Tesla, it was nearly universally thought by electrical engineers that AC had no future because there was no way to actually build workable AC motors. A workable AC motor was the "holy grail" of engineering then. After Ferraris' 1888 paper, did the world say "Ah ha! Now we shall have power everywhere!"? No, they didn't. Instead, they may have said, "how nice, a design that could help lead to an electrical meter", per Ferarris's own words. How about when Tesla's address "rocked the foundations" of the AIEE, when he revealed a working, brushless, AC motor at 95% efficiency and 1/4hp? Yes! That was the moment when Tesla, not Ferraris, taught the world that AC would work and burst open the dam to put real power in every home, not just those close to the a few power plants.

Judge Townsend, in an analysis of earlier inventors, described it this way:(1)

"Eminent electricians united in the view that by reason of reversals of direction and rapidity of alternations an alternating current motor was impracticable, and the future belonged to the commutated continuous current. It remained to the genius of Tesla to capture the unruly, unrestrained, and hitherto opposing elements in the field of nature and art, and to harness them to draw the machines of man. It was he who first showed how to transform the toy of Arago into an engine of power, the "laboratory experiment" of Baily into a practically successful motor, the indicator into a driver. He first conceived the idea that the very impediments of reversal in direction, the contradictions of alternations, might be transformed into power-producing rotations, a whirling field of force. What others looked upon as only invincible barriers, impassable currents, and contradictory forces, he brought under control, and, by harmonizing their directions, taught how to utilize in practical motors in distant cities the power of Niagara."

Sometime, probably later in 1888, when Ferraris first heard of Tesla's address to the AIEE, he was forced to be "taught" by Tesla how to build a workable motor, and how to properly construct the rotating magnetic field, since he did not have an adequate one himself. He was forced to learn from Tesla that his paper was wrong and that, if he were to get the details right, real motors could be built using this design (details he had wrong that made his device useful only as a meter per his own words). Yes his device was amazingly similar to Tesla's, but it did not work as a useful motor. He did not change the world. Tesla did.

Regarding the nice link you provided, note that even from it you can see that the first verifiable or public record of Ferraris' device was his 1888 publication, as the more reliable sources describe. Please remember though that just "websites" are usually not good reliable sources, especially when they don't even have an author named. Regarding your claim that "the name of Galileo Ferraris is on the front line of every book and websites thanks to the 1885 experiences", it just makes me sad that you talk about monoculturalism and then make a crazy claim like this. It is important to know first that mere numbers of websites is irrelevant to the facts, and that yes collective blunders are possible and common; but still, why did you say that but not even bother to look to see if most websites & books actually give the credit to Ferraris instead of Tesla? A quick Google search for "inventor of the induction motor" shows websites give credit to Tesla 80% to Ferraris 20%. If you look at just books it is the same. If you look at "inventor of the rotating magnetic field", they are more than 90% for Tesla, although I disagree, he & Ferraris only developed it further (a collective blunder!). Regarding my mentioning Stanley, he is the only name I know of that actually claimed to see the motors himself before 1888. You have given no other name, and no verifiable proof; and that is probably why multiple very reliable sources say there is no independently verifiable evidence for Ferraris prior to 1888.

Please could I ask you to read from this book pages 109-117? It discusses Professor Ferraris' work at length, including the things he said about it himself. Notice how much detail it goes into on the subject? That is the type of detail and author attribution that you need to make a reliable source on a contested issue like this, not just a quick mention on some website, written by no one named. It is fair to give much credit to the undeniable genius of Professor Ferraris on his Wikipedia page, however it is not fair, or true, or in line with the most reliable sources to use him to diminish Tesla in any way at all here at this article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Ferraris provided the first scientific theory of the transformer http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/Volta%20and%20the%20History%20of%20Electricity/V%26H%20Sect3/V%26H%20309-315.pdf from which the study of the electrical machines originated. In this light he was able to deduce also the active power expression and thus the efficiency of a transformer. He added also other notable contributions to electrical engineering and to the science that I don't want to remember but what really distinguished him and make him remembered also today is the development of the induction motors. You don't found yourself cited in most of the books and websites about induction motors or hailed as “the father of three-phase current.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/10043734/Galileo-Ferraris-and-Alternating-Current for having designed "something that could lead to an electrical meter" unless there is something really "revolutionary" in the design of the meter. Yes, Ferraris suggested to use what he developed as a meter but don't forget that the word "motore" is present more than one time in his article. An analogy would be the discovery of America. As you know Columbus (yes, I know many others discovered America before him)didn't realize that he discovered a new continent but he thought of having just found a new route to reach Asia, nevertheless he is the one remembered and not the guy who first noticed the error. Moreover, websites and the books citing Ferraris link him to induction motor or rotating magnetic field, nearly none to a meter. For example: http://web.mit.edu/kirtley/binlustuff/literature/electric%20machine/InductionMachineHandbook.pdf there should be a reason for this. And a reason should also exist for seeing Bailey, Arago etc more than in a secondary position in most of the literature available with respect to Tesla and Ferraris when the discovery of the rotating magnetic is discussed. The anglo saxon culture (to whom I include also USA) is based on the concept of "correctness", aspect which I've always appreciated nevertheless I've also often noticed a certain tendency to overlook contributions not coming from its own world, surely not because of bad faith. So, it is unlikely that a malaysian or a mexican student will run across an italian book, more likely will be the possibility for them to read an american or american based book especially if it is something regarding technical or scientific subjects, so the consolidation of a certain version of the facts become nearly automatic. This is reflected on Internet (whose main language is english) where the contributions come from all over the world. This is why I'm not impressed by the results you obtained from Google. The title of the book you gave me is: A prodigal genius. The life of Nikola Tesla. I'm not expecting from it a balanced version of the facts. Tesla was a genius and the induction motor contributed a lot in this respect so the presence of any competitor in this invention would contradict the thesis of the book. The original answer should be formulated again: Did Ferraris 1885 and 1888 experiences add something revolutionary or not? --Magnagr (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Magnagr, please, please consider changing your focus to a neutral one. Wikipedia is no place for pushing agendas. I first thought to defend Ferraris because I disliked Tesla's arrogance and I usually root for the underdog, but the facts changed my mind. Defend truth, not a nationality.

First, your statement that Ferraris had"the first scientific theory of the transformer from which the study of the electrical machines originated"; let's clarify that should be "his study". All electrical machine study did not come through his theory. Next problem is the highly biased piece of propaganda that you referenced. It's an unpublished paper by 3 university kids with Italian surnames and put online at an Italian University. The bias is so thick you could cut it with a knife. For instance their main claim of Ferraris being the first to have a scientific theory of the transformer. What about Faraday's Law of Induction in 1831 that marked the invention of the transformer... with scientific theory? Then what about the myriad of transformer patent applications before Ferraris; nothing scientific there? Ferraris' transformer notes came more than 30 years (!) after transformers were already being widely manufactured. So they were all dummies, not understanding their own transformers until Ferraris came along 30 years later and taught them all what it meant by writing secret, unpublished notes in his journal?? They wrongly claim that Ferraris's notes on transformers finally "justified its utilisation in a technical context". As if transformers weren't in long & widespread use already! ...and as if anyone actually read his private notes. Their statement that "the transformer... made its first appearance fifty years after Faraday’s law" is moronic. Then they give full 100% credit for the AC motor to Ferraris without even discussing that 80-90% of all other sources (in the same language as their paper) give the credit to someone else. You might feel that one of the sources I gave you was biased for Tesla, but I was only showing you how it did discuss the controversy in detail; that's a proper reliable source. Your kids only say 'he did it'. No reasons, no details, no background... just 'he did it'. That is not a source at all on the Tesla/Ferraris controversy. Their worst propaganda is actually about the motor: "His subsequent invention of the asynchronous machine, which at his time responded to the needs of the industrial growth, must also be included in this context, because he viewed this invention as a realisation of a desired objective, the insertion of the spontaneous torque alternating current motor as a downstream of a transformer." OMG, "responded to the needs of the industrial growth" "realisation of a desired objective"?? I'm sure even you know this is ridiculous (if you read Ferraris' own words in his 1888 pamphlet you linked to).

I could agree with you that Bailey, Arago, etc have a secondary position compared to Tesla and Ferraris regarding the rotating magnetic field, if we are talking the "development" of it, and not the "discovery" of it. Tesla's & Ferraris' contribution is the greater one, I would say.

So for your final question, "Did Ferraris 1885 and 1888 experiences add something revolutionary or not?", first, there is no independent evidence of 1885. Sure, a few say 'he did it' (because he later said he did), but there are no sources so far that give evidence. There are sources that say there is no evidence. So was Ferraris-1888 revolutionary? He said himself it was impractical. What would have happened if Tesla, or someone, had not taught us the proper way to construct a motor? What if we were just left with Ferraris' theories to work with? His work pointed us down the wrong path. There would be no world-wide AC system, it would have lost out to DC; and there would be no AC motors besides demonstration models for university courses to demonstrate how impractical AC is. This is why even the very few sources that give credit to Ferraris often say something like 'he developed the theory behind the motor', not that he actually invented it. If you really want to say he invented it, then you should be clear and say he 'invented the non-working AC induction motor'. Unlike Columbus, who actually made it to the New World, Ferraris only came close. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If everything was understood about transformer it is difficult to realiza why the first attempts to use it for significative transmissions took place only after 50 years (in UK, USA and Italy) from Faraday basic idea (1831) and why the first efficient transformers were only created in 1884 (by three hungarian scientists: Zipernowsky,Bláthy Déri). The transformer is a static electric device, and thus there is no need to evaluate speed, torque etc, etc. The main parameter to evaluate is its efficiency. Before Galileo Ferraris the efficiency of the transformer was wrongly evaluated. During the '80's of the XIX century the power and the distances to be covered become sigificative and so the level of voltage to be increased. Very few believed, at that time, that it could be achieved through the use of the transformers (still called secondary generator). The understanding of the electrical machine was so far from an acceptable level that in 1881 while seeing a magnetic structure of a Hopkinsons-Edison dinamo Ferraris definied it as "the teaching of the defeat". Ferraris starting from the last part of the Maxwell "Dynamical Theory" arrives to establish a "sinthesis of the system" formalizing the model then Ferraris determined the power factor in the expression of the active power of the transformer http://steling.alternativaverde.it/documenti/Ferraris/Ferrgener1.PDF and http://steling.alternativaverde.it/documenti/Ferraris/Ferrgener2.pdf clarifiynig the doubts about the potentiality of this device and thus "opening the gate" to the adoption of the AC system. This result by Ferraris(the transformer's efficiency was based on the concept of phase desplacement) combined with the Maxwellian approach to the Fresnel polarization allowed him to realize the first COMMUTATORLESS, SELFSTARTING ASYNCHRONOUS MACHINE which is the basic device (togheter with the internal combustion engine)which has freed human being from using horses, cows and in the worst of the cases other human beings to perform mechanical work. This is why he was greeted with the ovation: "Drehfeld oder Ferraris'sche Feld" and why Von Helmotz left his seat to him as chairmain at the international Frankfhurt congress of electricity. Then Tesla succesfully applied the concept to industrial applications and Dolivo further developed it. Then again Tesla (that someone still loves to decsribe as a naive, harmless, innocente genius persecuted by the evil system) took advantage of the fact that Ferraris died young (1897) to start a self promoting campaign in order to get all the merits of the invention. We must admit that he was successfull in it since, despite several other scientsits working in the field (giants compared to him in terms of theoretical contributions), he was finally awarded with a very important unit measure. There is no nationalistic bias in the paper I posted. It is common for researchers to publish historical publication on what happened in their countries with respect to a certain field. This french http://www.youscribe.com/catalogue/rapports-et-theses/savoirs/sciences-humaines-et-sociales/les-physiciens-francais-et-l-electricite-industrielle-a-la-fin-du-1526842 do the same.--Magnagr (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

So then you could say that Ferraris developed a method to evaluate the efficiency of transformers, which is fair (though of course it doesn't belong here), but a long shot from being "the first scientific theory" of it as they say. If there is no nationalistic bias in your source, too bad you didn't you respond to the 6 points of bias I gave you above. Your 3 university kids are really the very definition of bias. You should apologize for pushing that paper, lol! How about the worst point, their quote: "His subsequent invention of the asynchronous machine, which at his time responded to the needs of the industrial growth, must also be included in this context, because he viewed this invention as a realisation of a desired objective, the insertion of the spontaneous torque alternating current motor as a downstream of a transformer." Did you really read Ferraris' paper we linked in both languages above? You know Ferraris thought his experiment was a failure as a motor but a success at disproving this method could ever be used as a motor... and yet you tell me with a straight face this is not biased nationalism? If you really did read Ferraris, you know that's not at all how he viewed his invention. "Responded to the needs of industrial growth"? Tesla did that, and it is dishonest to try and rewrite history around him.

When you say the Ferraris 'realized the first commutatorless, selfstarting asynchronous machine; that is almost true since you used the word "machine" instead of "motor". He had a machine, not a motor; he failed at inventing a motor, per his own testimony (we now later know he had it almost right). The two problems though are: 1) He wasn't first, per the majority of reliable sources and per very thorough court cases that looked extremely closely at the issue. They say it is verifiable, per multiple witnesses, that Tesla demonstrated a working version in the fall before Ferraris. And 2) no one cares who had a working machine/device/toy/non-working-motor. All that matters is who invented the motor that 'freed human being from using horses, cows and their own mechanical work' as you say. Reliable sources, including Ferraris' own words, say that Ferraris didn't, but Tesla we know did (his very first version was 1/3 horsepower).

So for this article, I don't know if Ferraris even warrants a mention; we really have to go with the vast majority of reliable sources. The major discussion of the controversy belongs at the AC motor article instead.--Tom Hulse (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Googling the topic "induction motor" invent[35] immediately brings up sources connecting Ferraris to the invention of the induction motor, so there does not seem to be a case that this is WP:UNDUE. You can pick and chose your way through the references an conclude that some are viable/right and some are wrong and draw your own conclusions based on that. But such opinions, in the face of many differing references, are not stated as an assertion of fact per WP:NPOV/WP:YESPOV. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of picking your way through references, instead of that tortured combination of search terms to get desired results, the plainer and more direct search "inventor of the induction motor", which is what you really mean, gives results overwhelmingly to Tesla. If this were a page about induction motors, then you'd be right that discussing Ferraris is not undue weight, but this page is about Tesla. Actually I don't mind a small mention of Ferraris, as long as we don't include false claims about 1885 or give him undue credit different from the 9 out of ten that give it to Tesla; or nearly 100% of reliable sources that actually discuss or address the full details of the controversy. --Tom Hulse (talk) 08:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Searching "inventor of the induction motor" is like searching "inventor of AC", with equally predictable results. Feel free to read up on Wikipedia guidelines as to why those book hits (including a Ferraris hit I might add) are not very reliable sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol. I agree 100%, as I've clearly stated above. You were the one who brought it up and used such a search to justify adding Ferraris here, I just clarified your search to show it didn't support what you claim; easier than explaining (again) why your search included few if any reliable sources. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(de-indent) Well, I guess I'm not here to teach basic search technique, for example excluding "invention" and "invented" and managing to use the most unreliable search phrase possible. Judging on a pretty harsh application of WP:RS (just looking at the first page results) one search brings up 3 reliable sources, two of which mention Galileo Ferraris - the other search brings up no reliable sources and flat out awards the invention to Galileo Ferraris in one of those. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Teach basic search technique"? Rather ironic, since you tortured/twisted your search in an unnatural way to steer away from the plain "inventor of the induction motor" to avoid the overwhelming results. Neither matters though, as you've already admitted, since just showing up on a Google book search does not make a reliable source. You are misunderstanding reliable sources though, by not asking the context of the claim they are sourcing. You can't just say 'there are 3 reliable sources here'. There are many contested claims above which we've discussed, so there is no such thing as just a plain reliable source if you don't state the issue they are sourcing. Reliable source for what?("context" per WP:RS) So some sources will be a RS for one statement in our article but not others. For the most contested issues, the real RS's will discuss the reasons and evidence thoroughly, unlike the unreliable sources which merely parrot Tesla's own 1881 claim or Ferraris' own 1885 claim. --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are ignoring the search results or are putting forward a case for Tesla as the inventor of AC. Either discussion is pointless. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree your search results are pointless. No I have not yet made any claims about AC (induction motor only here). --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical flaws in Religious Views (and elsewhere?)

As silly as it is, commas go inside of quotations, rather than outside of them.  :-)

If I notice other grammatical flaws, I'll post them here; hopefully I won't annoy anyone too badly with this. Thanks for your patience. Dmutters (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Following a prompt by Tom Hulse to "be bold," I fixed the "quotation and comma" problems I spotted in the Religion section. Will look over the rest of the article again, as I have a chance. Dmutters (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done I searched the page for the following strings: ". ", "; ": "! "? ...and changed them all so that the punctuation would be inside the quotation marks, as per grammar rules. I don't THINK this will interfere with the wiki code on the page, but I'm quite new at this, so please correct it (and me) if so. Also, there are some rare instances where punctuation goes outside the quotation marks (like with programming code excerpts), so please inform me if I changed something that shouldn't have been changed. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Dmutters (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

This may not apply to this situation (I haven't checked) but Wikipedia uses logical quotation which you can learn more about here: MOS:LQ. In other words, the terminating punctuation should only be enclosed in the quotation marks of it is part of the original quoted text. - MrX 21:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, crap. I didn't realize that such a method was considered proper in some places. My previous edits should be reverted, then. How can that be accomplished? Dmutters (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. They will eventually be corrected. - MrX 04:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name

"In 1881, Tesla moved to Budapest to work under Ferenc Puskas": It was not Ferenc Puskas, but Tivadar Puskas.

Ferenc Puskas: football player

Tivadar Puskas: inventor

82.208.133.229 (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I answered this Q already

see archivesSlushy9 (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

many sources say tesla suffered from malaria

should i include in article?Slushy9 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

JAN 7TH 2013 70TH ANN.OF TESLA DEATH!

Even after 70 years the name NIKOLA TESLA 22:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.8.146 (talk)

Typo

Shouldn't "...later gambling back his initial losses..." read " later gaining back his initial losses"? Kedb (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks. - MrX 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - gained could mean anything, such as getting a job to pay it off, etc. the book explicitly says that he gambled it back.Slushy9 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tesla as a charactor in a Canadian TV detective show

There is an episode of Murdoch Mysteries (2010) called The Tesla Effect

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1631605/

Dmitry Chepovetsky played Tesla.

signed Andrew Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manwithaview1 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Tesla understood the Sanskrit terminology and philosophy and found that it was a good means to describe the physical mechanisms of the universe as seen through his eyes. 210.118.108.252 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable source for this. Forgot to put name 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 January 2013

Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda

Tesla understood the Sanskrit terminology and philosophy and found that it was a good means to describe the physical mechanisms of the universe as seen through his eyes.

Anandk.dubey08 (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done copyvio of http://www.swamivivekananda.org.in/Articles/?p=290 and http://www.embracedbylife.com/brahman-the-absolutemahat-or-ishvara-primal-creative-energyprana-and-akash/. Forgot to put name 14:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Opinion

Ummm... "Nine months after Tesla's Death..."?????

Who came up with that??

320 US 1 was argued on April 9-12, 1943, and finally decided on June 21, 1943.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=320&invol=1

Change it to "Six months after"...

63.230.156.31 (talk), 6 February 2012‎

interesting interview

please add some info from here: [36] - (edit added by 178.148.216.119 01:45, 20 February 2012 [37])

Edit request on 11 July 2012

In the personal life section, the paragraph on Tesla's interaction with pigeons is repeated.

"In his final years, Tesla suffered from extreme sensitivity to light, sound and other influences" should be removed

In his biography, Tesla said that he suffered from this his entire life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done i changed itSlushy9 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 January 2013

Tesla was not a Serbian American. Please look into this matter further more. Thank You.

93.141.95.186 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: As if that's not the exact reason this article is semi-protected to begin with... -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Location of Ferncliff Cemetery

Ferncliff Cemetery, where his body was cremated, is located in Hartsdale, NY not Ardsley, NY. Ardsley is right next to Hartsdale, but the address/zipcode is definitely Hartsdale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramystein (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tesla's Nationality

Take this to Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, per the big warning tag at the top of this page. KillerChihuahua 03:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello editors of wikipedia, I just want to point out a few straight and true facts about the genius inventor Nikola Tesla. In the wiki article it is stated that he was "Serbian-American" which isn't true at all. Tesla was born in modern day Croatia and had serbian ancestors. He himself only visited Serbia once in his life. Even if Croatia was part of the Austrian empire at that time, Croatians still were a nationality. Which tehnically makes him Croatian, or atleats Austrian. Lets make a comparison now, if you were born in India in the past in the former british empire would you be English or Indian? So my suggestion is changing his nationality to Croatian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.142.154.19 (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Hello, I am not sure if i am adding my comment to the right place but I hope so... I just wanted as many others point out mistake in Tesla´s nationality. In the English version is written that his nationality was "American" which I consider to be misleading and wrong. He said himself "I am equally proud on my Serb origin and my Croatian homeland". He was living in US but that changed only his citizenship, not nationality. Considering disputes over his Serb/Croatian nationality I would state both or simply his mentioned quote ("I am equally proud on my Serb origin and my Croatian homeland") but definitely not American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.46.152 (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Considering the fact that Tesla was born, raised and schooled in Croatia and considered Croatia as his homeland there is considerable over-emphasis in the article on his Serbian Ethnicity, there should be some modifications made Slaven0 (talk) 09:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I dont want to sound like a man who wants to argue, but his nationality is Serbian... since back then there was no country called Croatia... its the same as if you call Gaius Julius Caesar an Italian.. it is the right place but not the right time.. he is Roman.. but surely Tesla was not an American.. so even in the beginning of the text were it says he was a Serbian-American inventor, is wrong.. he lived part of his life there.. please edit this.. its not about pride or anything.. its about truth and to respect this great man.. this is a site were you look for the correct info. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OAZineddin (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC) While there is no institutional continuity between Roman Empire and modern Italy that is not the case with Croatia and it's status in Austria during Habsburg rule, it is the same administrative authority or national state only in different power circumstances, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_%28Habsburg%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.112.105 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC) OK, so that makes him a "Croatian immigrant and naturalized citizen of Serbian ancestry", right? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Tesla's beliefs

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

---

Tesla is featured, prominently, with his picture, in both List of pantheists and List of agnostics. His article states his beliefs were unclear. Which of those lists, if either, should he be on? KillerChihuahua 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• List of pantheists parameters are people who have been categorized as pantheists and have had a significant influence on Pantheism.
• List of agnostics parameters are persons who have identified themselves as theologically agnostic. Also included are individuals who have expressed the view that the veracity of a god's existence is unknown or inherently unknowable.

• Neither We do not have a lot to go on, but neither category appears to actually fit Tesla. [38] has him "fascinated by Buddhism and Christianity" and a believer in the likelihood of some sort of life aftr death. [39] (Tesla's own words) have him identifying his scintific precepts with Christianity, and saying it was wise, practical and scientific, and different from other religions. His own statement of his views should carry a great deal of weight. He is likely a genially heretic Christian who respected the Buddhist precept of inter-connectedness. His father was an Orthodox priest [40], his mother the daughter of one. So he definitely was not a Pantheist, nor did his work influence Pantheism. His belief in life after death similarly appears to remove him from a list of agnostice. Do we have a list of "Christians seeing value in other religions"? Collect (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Well, there is Agnostic theism. KillerChihuahua 13:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neither criteria above fit, even by a loose interpretation of the sources. The sentence from the article sums this up nicely: "However, his religious views remain uncertain due to other statements that he made."

Personally, I think he was a Pantheist, but that's nothing more than conjecture on my part. - MrX 15:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll see your conjecture and raise you a gut feeling that he was more an agnostic. KillerChihuahua 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neither When I think about it, I don't think Tesla would be included in any religious (or non-religious) category. We should be looking for Tesla's most recent statements on religion. We can't assume that every statement a person makes, that person will continue believing in that statement or belief for the rest of his/her life. Also, just because his parents were Christians, doesn't mean that Tesla held Christian beliefs for the rest of his life. However, you can make a strong argument that he was a "Cultural Christian". Killer, while Tesla stated that quote about Christianity and about how practical and scientific it is, however; this statement was made in 1900. Look here for the source: [41]. However, in September 11, 1932, Tesla states: "It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making." Here the citation for this quote: Nikola Tesla (11 September 1932). Lawrence R. Spencer. ed. Alien Interview. New York Herald Tribune. p. 303. ISBN 9780615204604. To give you another example, according to one of his last interviews, Tesla states: ""Religion is simply an ideal" [Tesla remarked]. "It is an ideal force that tends to free the human being from material bonds. I do not believe that matter and energy are interchangeable, any more than are the body and soul. There is just so much matter in the universe and it cannot be destroyed. As I see life on this planet, there is no individuality. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but I believe each person is but a wave passing through space, ever-changing from minute to minute as it travels along, finally, some day, just becoming dissolved."" Here the source to this quote: [42].

To make one more point, you can not say that Tesla was "definitely was not a Pantheist" unless there is a quote that explicitly states that he was not. There are quotes that can support the view that Tesla was a pantheist (or had materialistic point of view). For example, in February 1937, Tesla states: "While I am not a believer in the orthodox sense, I commend religion, first, because every individual should have some ideal--religious, artistic, scientific, or humanitarian--to give significance to his life. Second, because all the great religions contain wise prescriptions relating to the conduct of life, which hold good now as they did when they were promulgated. There is no conflict between the ideal of religion and the ideal of science, but science is opposed to theological dogmas because science is founded on fact. To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is barn. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call "soul " or "spirit," is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the "soul" or the "spirit" ceases likewise." Here a source to this quote: [43]. It seems Tesla view religion as more of a way of life than a set of beliefs which he personal held. However, I might be wrong. So in my argument, I think we should prevent ourselves into placing Tesla into any religious (or non-religious) category for now (until there is more evidence). Ninmacer20 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and detailed view. Regarding saying Tesla was not a pantheist, definitively or otherwise: as we have no Category:People who are not pantheists or article List of people who are not pantheists, then that is rather a moot point. I apologize if my quip to X about gut feelings sounded serious, it was not meant so. KillerChihuahua 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about me; I took it as humor. In fact, I almost replied, "I think you're bluffing." - MrX 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(gasp) How did you know??? Remind me never to play poker with you. KillerChihuahua 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Neither (one more anyway) The list-def at List of pantheists is "significant influence on Pantheism". Tesla was a media-celeb during his lifetime leading to the recording of his views but he has had no "significant influence". The list-def at List of agnostics is just that they have to be an agnostic but the refs above do not specifically say Tesla was noted as an agnostic and the ref at List of agnostics is not very reliable, it just seems to be a boil down of a more complicated O'Neill reference[44]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Neither per arguments above; our knowledge of Tesla's beliefs is insufficient to justify placing in either category; to do so would be mere speculation on our part. KillerChihuahua 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Agnostic Neither - His statements seemed very pantheistic. However, there are few reliable sources backing up his pantheism as far as I'm aware. Also, there is no record of him calling himself agnostic. Allisgod (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC) In light of the source that meet WP:RS found by Binksternet and specifically states that he personally stated his agnosticism, I believe it appropriate for him to be on the agnostic list. Allisgod (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Please do not try and interpret Tesla's own words to decide this matter. We should go by what reliable sources say. Binksternet (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Reliable sources say various things about Tesla. I found no worthwhile sources asserting pantheism but a couple saying agnostic. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Philip S. Callahan, PhD, says "Tesla insisted until his death that he was materialistic, rationalistic, and agnostic."[45]
  • Journalist John J. O'Neill says about young Tesla that "he adopted, as we have seen, the then prevalent agnostic and materialistic view of life."[46] O'Neill said that Tesla adopted a more spiritual outlook later in life but he did not say Tesla was Christian, theist, atheist, pantheist, religious, irreligious or anything else. Binksternet (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neither - If he were alive today I can't imagine him caring about or wanting to be included on either list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalhotrod (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 February 2013‎
• Neither Insufficient RS for either list, given Tesla's known interest in several established religions. Miniapolis 15:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neither Unless there are reliable sources that can support his inclusion on either or both lists, his name should appear on neither of them. --Ljfeliu (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Miniapolis. Binksternet's sources are insufficient. Callahan's quote is made in a book about insects communication and navigational systems and was published 32 years after Tesla's death. O'Neill's statement cannot be construed as proof that Tesla was an agnostic as the context of that statement makes reference to Tesla's youth. Here's the full quote: "When he was a youth and his mind was in its most plastic and formative stage, he adopted, as we have seen, the then prevalent agnostic and matirialistic view of life." Ljfeliu (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neither per the reasons stated above. Andrew³²⁷ 07:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• Neither as Tesla is not known for either of religious or spiritualist beliefs/aspirations.Whiteguru (talk) 12:38, 10 February 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.

Middle years (1886-1899)

Should be 1885-1899. Company was founded in 1885 and he approached the investors about the motor in 1886. This is reversed in the text following header.

 Done (sort of) - 1885 refers to the development of arc lamps, not AC power transmission. I removed the date it since this paragraph deals with events which happened in 1886, which is introduced in the previous paragraph. In 1885, Tesla met with lawyers and began discussing his ideas with investors, but at least one other source explicitly states that the company was formed in 1886. - MrX 02:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Nikola Tesla in popular culture for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nikola Tesla in popular culture is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla in popular culture until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.- MrX 22:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Tesla in Budapest

You wrote "In 1881, Tesla moved to Budapest to work under Ferenc Puskas at a telegraph company,...." Ferenc Puskás is a famous footballer from the 20th century . Tesla worked under Tivadar Puskás . Koffilover (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Koffilover (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ferenc Puskás was the younger brother of Tivadar Puskás, who dead before the footballer Ferenc Puskás was born. http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusk%C3%A1s_Ferenc_%28ditr%C3%B3i%29 --Jadckers (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Plaques and memorials

I see a reference elsewhere to his plaque near the old Printer's Union site in Colorado Springs (Memorial Park/Prospect Lake) but not in here. I'll have to get a photograph sometime for verification/exact location and text. It's located on the north end of the park, roughly halfway between Hancock and Union, along Pikes Peak's south sidewalk. You can see the skate park from there. 75.70.89.124 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

What is going on with the refs?

Who started putting in refs in a different style?

Why are there two styles still present?

why are they not uniformly keyed?
(look at 180-188, 111-112, and 248 if you are not clear on what I mean)

Sources? What relevance is this? The first source, where the hell is it used in the article? how many times?

This is a real mess. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

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

---

Testa was Croatian, not Sebian.Even if he was born when Serbia ruled the Croatian territory, he has never considered himself as "Serbian".By many people(especially the Croatians), this kind of mistakes are extremely offensive.Please, correct it. Mark.Van.Goth (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is your reliable source that supports your claim?Dkspartan1 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top of this page that indicates where discussions as to Tesla's ethnicity and nationality belong. Thank you. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:02, 10 April 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.

Better source

Is there better sources for "He died impoverished and in debt" than the newspapers, and a primary source newspaper (historical document)? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The sourcing is poor, seems to be the same news story re-quoted 3 times and it all looks like its a copy/paste from wikipedia. Fourth source is 1916 so has nothing to do with his death. Fixed it a bit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2013

there are few mistakes on this page - first it wansnt austrian empire, it was austro-hungarian empire and second you can classified him as serbo-american if he was born in croatia, well back then it was austro-hungaria, maybe he should be called austo-hungarian then 74.72.226.186 (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: First of all, Tesla was born in 1856 and Austria-Hungary wasn't created until 1867. Regarding his ethnicity, there has been extensive discussion (see for instance Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity) and what you see in the article is as close as we could get to a consensus backed by reliable sources. Favonian (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 May 2013

Under the heading 'Personal Life', under the sub-heading 'Eidetic Memory', is the following sentence, which contains a grammatical error:

Tesla read many works, memorizing complete books, and supposedly possessing a photographic memory.

The previous editor used the gerund form "possessing", when in fact it should be the third person past simple form, "possessed", in order to achieve subject-verb agreement. Therefore I request that someone kindly change "possessing" to "possessed".

Thank you! ~All Deliberate Speed Adspeed (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit, because I agree that possessed is the correct form. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 07:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Awkward sentence..first line!

"Tesla started working in the telephony and electrical fields"

What fields? Where are they located? Use another word other than "fields" as the word is used in describing magnetism, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I made this edit: [47]. There are probably ways to improve that, too... Begoon ^talk 05:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No context.

This paragraph appears at the bottom of a section with no context. Nothing leads into it and chronologically it actually goes backwards.

"On 13 May 1899, while on his way to Colorado Springs, Colorado, Tesla stopped by a meeting of the Commercial Club in Chicago, Illinois for his "Teleautomatics" address/demonstration.[21]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it fits better like this? [48] Begoon ^talk 06:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Also in the article "The group began negotions to purchase the Long Island property from Agfa Corporation in October 2012." I do believe the word we're looking for is 'negotiations' 68.38.197.76 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done with this edit... Begoon ^talk 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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[49]....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)