Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Milutin, Nikola's father

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

---

I do not see any reason for saying that Nikola's father was an Orthodox priest. It's irrefutable fact: he was a Serbian Orthodox Church priest.

• Both the Tesla and Trbojevich families were of clerical backgrounds, priests in the Serbian Orthodox Church. Tesla and Mr. Trbojevich were the only members of the extended family to pursue technological careers and the only ones to come to America. - statement coming from William H. Terbo, a grand nephew of Nikola Tesla!, see here

• Djouka, the mother of Nikola Tesla (her given name in English translation would be Georgina) was the eldest daughter in a family of seven children. Her father, like her husband ( = Milutin Tesla), was a minister of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

from John J. O'Neill: Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla, Cosimo, Inc., 2006 page 10

• Milutin, Nikola's father, was a well-educated priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

from:Nikola Tesla: A Spark of Genius by Carol Dommermuth-Costa, Twenty-First Century Books, 1994 page 12

• The tiny house in which he was born stood next to the Serbian Orthodox Church presided over by his father, the Reverend Milutin Tesla, who sometimes wrote articles under the nom-de-plume "Man of Justice".

from: Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney, Simon and Schuster, Nov 8, 2011 page 25

• Following a reprimand at school for not keeping his brass buttons polished, he quit and instead chose to become a priest in the Serbian Orthodox Church.

from: Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson Princeton University Press, May 7, 2013 page 14

• Nikola's father, Milutin was a Serbian Orthodox priest and had been sent to Smiljan by his church.

from: Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer by Michael Burgan, Capstone, Jan 1, 2009 page 17

• The Serbian Church organization in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of (Sremski) Karlovac,which in 1710 the patriarch of Pec, Kalinik I, recognized as autonomous.

from: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 2 by John Anthony McGuckin, Wiley, Feb 8, 2011 page 564

• Eastern Orthodox Churches ... Serbian Church in Austria-Hungary: Various metropolitan sees have also claimed and acquired independence, including those of Serbia, Carlowitz (Serbian Church in Austria-Hungary) - page 251

from: Religious Bodies, 1916: Summary and general tables by Sam. L. Rogers, United States. Bureau of the Census, William Chamberlin Hunt, Edwin Munsell Bliss, United States. Census Office U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919

• The metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci was asked to submit three names to Joseph II; he chose Ghedeon Nichitici, a Serb, who assumes office in 1784. His church remained dependent on Sremski Karlovci in matters of doctrine. In 1810 the Romanian Orthodox were given the right to name their own bishops. Sibiu became the Orthodox center, as Alba Iulia was that of the Uniates and Sremski Karlovci that of the Serbian Orthodox

from Barbara Jelavich: History of the Balkans, Cambridge University Press, Jul 29, 1983 page 159

• Then, in 1766, when the Ottomans abolished Pec, the Karlovci province became an independent body, eventually with six suffragan bishops (Novi Sad, Timisoara, Vrsac, Buda, Pakrac, and Karlovac), known as the Serbian Orthodox Slav Oriental Church, which after 1848 was raised to the status of a patriarchate.

from Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, University of Toronto Press, 2002

• By the early nineteenth century the cultural and educational center of Serbian Orthodoxy was the seat of the Metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz) in Habsburg territory.

from Alfred Rieber: The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: From the Rise of Early Modern Empires to the End of the First World War, Cambridge University Press, Mar 20, 2014 page 312

• Until re-establishment of the Serbian Church in 1920 under the auspices of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there existed several independent church units of the Serbian Church: the Metropolitanate of Karlovac, the Metropolitanate of Montenegro, and the Serbian Churches in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Serbia, and Macedonia.

from Ken Parry: The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, John Wiley & Sons, May 10, 2010 page 235, Serbian Christianity chapter.

--Milos zankov (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support as the requestor--Milos zankov (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support replace Orthodox by Serbian Orthodox anywhere--65.220.39.77 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This has already been through RfC and this new string of out of context Tesla sources adds nothing new. "Tesla sources" are not very scholarly and tend to copy each other so a claim gets repeated over and over again, even if its wrong. Not one of these sources cites a source for the claim of "Serbian Orthodox Church". This organization seems to post date Tesla's father involvement in the church and linking "Serbian Orthodox priest" creates an ambiguity, especially when linked to SOC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Fountains of Bryn Mawr Didn't get your point. The references above clearly prove that Serbian Orthodox Church existed and operated even before XVIII century with her seat at Sremski Karlovci in Hungary and Austria and, therefore, Austria-Hungary in XIX century and after. Milutin Tesla was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church, like it or not. The earlier RfC is no more than nonsense, speculation, and ignorance based. Moreover the Wikipedia Sremski Karlovci article is against you and against RfC. Why do you think that Tesla's biographers should assess their knowledge of this common known historic fact by citing some sources?--65.220.39.77 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment"Why do you think that Tesla's biographers should assess their knowledge of this common known historic fact by citing some sources?" - ? hmmm? You lost me there. Wikipedia requires that sources be reliable and a source that cites sources is a part of it. Wikpedia is not an encyclopedia of "common knowledge". The question here is "Should there be a change back to "Serbian Orthodox" based on new conclusive references or arguments?" Nope, the references were all cited before and the arguments were all made before, almost word for word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Common knowledge phrase is used above in the strict scholar sense. If you need more information about history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary, please, do some search, say, Google Book search. The biographers who wrote about Nikola's father were not ignorant nor lacked credibility just for not referencing some source. Believe me, all those biographers followed much stronger academic criteria than those given by Wikipedia.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment If we are reading "biographers" that "followed much stronger academic criteria" then they should contain a source citations re: Tesla's fathers association. Feel free to point them out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Please, pass your comment to the books editorial boards. I don't think that anybody there will take you ever seriously. Your thread is messy, illogical, and confusing.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support wikilinking to Serbian Orthodox Church, but having "Orthodox" in the text. I.e. "[[Serbian Orthodox Church|Orthodox]]". But Oppose any more than that. -- Director (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing my position to strong oppose: the Serbian Orthodox Church did not exist at that particular time. At most support wikilinking to Patriarchate of Karlovci with "Orthodox" as the visible text, i.e.: "[[Patriarchate of Karlovci|Orthodox]]". If even that. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Directors proposal makes sense. FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree - that seems the most logical Red Slash 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • But Milos zankov, why is that so important anyway? Look at the paragraph, it already has 4 mentions of Serbia(n)/Serbs and one of Croatia(n)/Croats. The history of this article has often had this problem of Croats wanting to add as much mentions of Croatia as possible, and Serbs adding mentions of Serbia, and among established editors there has been a sort of unwritten agreement to avoid accumulation of ethnic mentions beside the reasonable. You have some valid points in wanting to change it to your proposal, but if you look to other exemples, you can notice that adding the ethnic/national adjective to a church is not that usual. For instance, you will rarely see this (made up exemple): "Pedro Perez was a Spanish historian whose father was a Spanish Catholic Church priest." You will most often see just the expression "Catholic priest". The national adjective ends up being unnecessary. Linking it to Serbian Orthodox Church is good so readers can go directly to the right article, but adding the full expression in the paragraph is unnecessary, just look at how it flows. FkpCascais (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The syntax is important here: Orthodox != Serbian Orthodox. Your comparison above makes no sense to me.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I made an exemple where you will see that in the articles on Wikipedia you will very rarely (or possibly never) see the expression "X-ian Catholic priest". They will say just "Catholic priest". We already say his father was a Serb, in the same paragraph we say that they came from eastern Serbia, and if he was Orthodox priest, its obvious he was priest of the SOC. No need to repeat ourselves and add million mentions of Serb/Serbia/Serbs... If he was Orthodox priest its logical he was priest of SOC. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
            • What are you fighting for? 'Serbian Orthodox' is a precise term. Orthodox is equally Russian, Armenian, Georgian, etc Orthodox. Your 'obvious' is not obvious. There are the Serb priests serving American Orthodox Churches or Russians as priests of Serbian Orthodox Church.--Milos zankov (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Its really not a big deal... He was Orthodox priest, we already have 4 mentions of Serbia/Serbs in that paragraph alone... Everything is Serbian, yes people got it, no need to repeat it exhaustively. And besides this cases of Orthodox national churches, in most other articles you will see more than 90% people just saying Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc. priests, no need to go into detail of what exact nation the church was, not so important. That is why I support Directors proposal, he was Orthodox priest, and if someone wants to go into detail he will have the link to the SOC. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Pardon, my mistake, there are 3 mentions of Serbia/Serbs, not 4.[[[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
                • I still don't understand what are you fighting for? Precise Serbian Orthodox term can't hurt anything in article, it will only make article more coherent. It has nothing to do with your 90%.--Milos zankov (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
                  • I don't oppose it, just don't see any major difference between your proposal and the current state of the article. But OK, lets see what other editors have to say. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Director We are not voting here. Please, explain why Serbian Orthodox Church is not appropriate contrary to numerous sources I've listed above.--Milos zankov (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1909 map depicting Orthodox churches in the Austrian Empire.

You're right: I should've went with the facts rather than trying to propose a compromise without a proper rationale. Withdraw my previous position, changing to strong oppose.

The wikilink should direct the reader to the article on the Habsburg-sponsored Patriarchate of Karlovci, to which belonged all Orthodox priests in Lika ("[[Patriarchate of Karlovci|Orthodox]]"). If even that. Serbian Orthodoxy is a terrible mess at that time, and it may make more sense to just go with "Orthodox", but if the reference (to the Patriarchate of Karlovci) is in the form of a wikilink, I can't object to that. No more, however. The last thing we need is an anachronous, misleading reference to an organization that did not exist, and to which Milutin Tesla did not belong.

Side note: while the head of the church in Karlovci was de facto independent and sort-of/sometimes claimed to be the "honorary" "patriarch of the Serbs", he was not recognized as "patriarch" of anything by the Ecumenical Patriarchy in Istanbul, and was properly styled a metropolitan. We call it the "Patriarchate of Karlovci" though that name makes no sense and we really shouldn't: its the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, with no formal autocephaly (this is part of what I mean by "terrible mess").

P.s. I believe the current state of affairs is supported by a previous RfC. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(I participated a little in the previous RfC). I like Director's proposal. I agree that Patriarchate of Karlovci is a better wikilink than Eastern Orthodox Church. Both are better than Serbian Orthodox Church. Also agree with using only "Orthodox". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Director Your response is no more than an irrational attempt to justify your vote. I offered ten references showing clearly whose patriarchate was in Sremski Karlovci, you countered with a map from a book which talks about Die giechisch-nichtunierte Kirche in Osterreich-Ungarn, i.e. all orthodoxy in Austria-Hungary. Your are still voting.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Patriarchate of Karlovci and Metropolitanate of Belgrade were Serbian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Karlovci is called Patrirchate because the seat of the archbishops moved from the Patriarchate of Peć to Karlovci because Peć was under Ottoman dominion. So technically seems correct that Teslas father was priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. In fact - neither were the "Serbian Orthodox Church", neither were recognized as autocephalous patriarchates by the Ecumenical Patriarchy or other autocephalous Orthodox churches. The Ottomans dissolved the Serbian Orthodox Church as such in 1766. I suppose one might say they were the "Serbian Orthodox Church" in some esoteric sense, as in the two organizations (and the Metropolitanate of Cetinje?) representing Serbian Orthodoxy in the period, but the very sentence "both were the Serbian Orthodox Church" is self-defeating if one is to claim the Serbian Orthodox Church actually, formally existed at that time. The idea that two separate Orthodox authorities somehow together formed a kind of "Serbian church" is fundamentally absurd. If there was no Serbian Patriarch, there was no Serbian church. And, as I said, the Karlovci metropolitans were not recognized as such.

@Milos. The metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci was never recognized as patriarch by the supreme authorities of the Christian Orthodox Church - and even if we regard him as such, he is known as the "patriarch of Karlovci", not "patriarch of the Serbs".

But be that as it may, linking to the Patriarchate of Karlovci article should imo be fine for anyone not trying to push some kind of nationalist POV: that's our article on the Orthodox organization Milutin Tesla belonged to. We can leave the question of "what it was" to said article.

That's my position, anyway. Think of it what you will.. -- Director (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • @Director You are adamantly ignoring sources about history of the Serbian Orthodox Church, offering just a strong opinion with no sources supporting you i.e. your WP:IDONTHEARYOU leaves me no choice save to stop responding to your comments. For the last time:
      "The Serbian Church organization in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of (Sremski) Karlovac, which in 1710 the patriarch of Peċ, Kalinik I, recognized as autonomous."

from: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 2 by John Anthony McGuckin, Wiley, Feb 8, 2011 page 564--Milos zankov (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in the quote, and nobody is ignoring it - it just doesn't support you. In fact, it explicitly sinks you. Nobody questions that "the Serbian church in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci". The metropolitan of Karlovci. A metropolitan is a bishop, not a patriarch. The Serbian Orthodox Church article is about a specific, autocephalous patriarchy - that did not exist at the time. The Britannica quote doesn't contradict that - it just points out that the center of Serbian Orthodoxy at the time was the Metropolitanate of Karlovci. We can not mislead people into thinking the Serbian Orthodox Church existed as an organization at that time.

As you correctly point out though, there's no use wasting time on someone who just won't hear you. Accept my position or don't - that's what it is. -- Director (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't respond to this comment if I weren't surprised by the level of arrogance and the high tone that "sinks" me. First of all autocephalic means nothing more than self-governing, spiritually and administratively, recognized or not. An example of fully autocephalic Orthodox Church is American Orthodox Church without any recognition coming from anyone. Whether an autocephalic church has, as her head, a Metropolitan or a Patriarch is of no importance. Moreover, I gave above a reference (The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity) specifically writing that the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary was recognized as autonomous by Kalinik I, the Patriarch of Peć (i.e.by Serbian Orthodox Church itself) in 1710 way before being abolished by Ottomans. In addition, what happened after 1776, please, read this:

"Between 1776 and 1830 Serbian lands under Ottoman rule had bishops who were Greek nationals. They were popularly called 'Phanariots' (from the Phanar district of Constantinopole, the base of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate) and were reputed as interested in catering neither for the real needs nor the problems of the Serbian people."

from Ken Parry (editor): The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, John Wiley & Sons, May 10, 2010 page 234

This is all about the facts. Now, about the logical fallacy. The Ottomans did not have any jurisdiction over the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary nor it had the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate before 1776 nor after nor their decisions ever mattered Serbian Orthodox Church in any way (existence, autocephalic status, liturgy, church doctrine, clergy, followers, etc.) in Austria-Hungary. --Milos zankov (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugh... One final word: the Patriarchate of Karlovci article is our article on the Orthodox organization to which belonged Milutin Tesla. It is the only article we can link to, if we decide to be more specific than just referring to Orthodox Christianity in general (that, or the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople!). The Serbian Orthodox Church article is about a specific church organization, which did not exist between 1766 (not "1776") and 1920 - and said article explicitly says so. Trying to manipulate cherry-picked sentences from various publications isn't a credible tactic at all, and I don't see why anyone in this discussion should give a damn whether this or that organization "cared about Serbs" 200 years ago. I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Director's proposal of a link to Patriarchate of Karlovci - better than Serbian Orthodox Church. Would mention "Patriarchate of Karlovci" in text somehow since hiding it under "Orthodox" link is WP:EGG. I see no claim for "Serbian Orthodox Church" predating John Joseph O'Neill's 1944 "Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla". O'Neill's gives us his 1944 view of the situation and all other biographies copy that. What he saw in 1944 does not seem to have existed in 1856. I would note this RfC, like the previous one, seems to be rooted in a nationalistic push (complete with name calling). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment@Director and @Fountains of Bryn Mawr I see the same nonsensic claims, over and over, denying the Serbian Church existence in Austria-Hungary and denying the fact that her patriarchate/metropoltanate was at Sremski Karlovci. How come that ignorance and irrational rant against this church takes so much time and space here? Even the Wikipedia article shows that Serbian Orthodox Church regained her autocephality in 1879 but this fella Director keeps ranting 'did not exist'?! It is shameless to which extent Fountains of Bryn Mawr was ready to falsify the reference claim: Djouka, the mother of Nikola Tesla (her given name in English translation would be Georgina) was the eldest daughter in a family of seven children. Her father, like her husband ( = Milutin Tesla), was a minister of the Serbian Orthodox Church.. All quoted text is from Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla By John J. O'Neill, O'Neill J. John on page 11.!--65.220.39.77 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Uggggh... No. My position is that I don't see any point at all in even discussing what the church organization at Karlovci represented, or whether or not it somehow constituted the "Serbian Orthodox Church". Whether or not it did, and whatever it was - Patriarchate of Karlovci is our article on it. Are we clear on that, Mr IP? -- Director (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should indeed take place at either Talk:Serbian Orthodox Church or Talk:Patriarchate of Karlovci. There, the issue will get the attention of editors interested and familiarized with the subject, cause here besides few editors from former Yugoslavia, the rest are editors interested in the scientific aspects of Tesla and mostly fed up of seeing frequent discussions about Serbia/Croatia here. FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. But I can point out that's indeed the best way to exploit Wikipedia's inherent flaw allowing obscure articles to fall under the sway of interested groups... :) Who besides Serbs, even from former Yugoslavia, would care at all about the Serbian Orthodox Church (barring maniacs such as myself)? And, not to generalize, but realistically which Serb wouldn't answer "yes!" when asked "was the Serbian Church eternal on from the beginning of time?" :D. -- Director (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on Director, it is not some fanatical beleave as you are putting it. The issue is not that clear. For instance, see the final sentences of Serbian_Orthodox_Church#From_16th_to_19th_century and the beginning of the next section.

Then, there is one question I have been asking to myself but I was postponing to add it here because of one practical reason: I am not religious and I don't have much knowledge about the religious structures besides the basic facts, so I didn't wanted to complicate the matter without being sure, but since we got here, here it goes, question:

• Are we sure Tesla father belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci within the Orthodox hierarchy, or are we just saying that because the P. of Karlovci was the one that had jurisdiction over the village of Smiljan where he was located in?

For instance, nowadays in Montenegro we have churches and priests that belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church (Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral) and we have churches and priests belonging to the "rebel" Montenegrin Orthodox Church. The two are overlapped. In Macedonia I think that there is a similar case. As we know, Tesla father came from Western Serbia and moved to Smiljan, so the question is if we are sure he belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci? Do we have even one source confirming that? Is it possible that he was sent and working for the Metropolitanate of Belgrade? I think that we don't actually know much more about him besides that he was an Serbian Orthodox priest as the vast majority of sources say, but without going into details. FkpCascais (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's literally no chance at all that any Orthodox priest in the Austrian Empire deferred to any Orthodox authority outside the Austrian Empire. But if he belonged to the Montenegrin Metropolitanate of Cetinje, then he was under the direct authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. All this is unlikely to the extreme, the Empire was a bureaucratic monster and regulated these things, you know. "Kafkaesque", after all, was a word invented to describe that bureaucracy. Unless Milutin Tesla was James Dean before James Dean, and felt the need to rebel and be special :). -- Director (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Good point Director. I can't see how a so called "Serbian Orthodox" church could have jurisdiction within the Austrian Empire given that Serbia was outside the Austrian Empire. At that time in the region of Lika it may have simply been called the "Orthodox" church. To the Serbian population it may have informally been known as the "Serbian Orthodox" church but it wasn't formally known as such until 1920. Similarly with the Military Frontier, for many Serbs it is known as the "Serbian Military Frontier", but formally it was only known as the "Military Frontier" of the Austrian Empire.Kindly Deeds (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The confusion comes from a 1848 Serbian assembly in the Austrian Empire (the May Assembly) declaring their Metropolitan to be "Patriarch of the Serbs". Nobody recognized that, however, the Ecumeical Patriarchate.. not even other Serbian metropolitans; and I'm reasonably certain these self-proclaimed Serbian Patriarchs (known as "Karlovci patriarchs" after their seat) are not recognized as such even by the modern-day Serbian Orthodox Church.

For anyone who might be interested, proposed a merge at Talk:Metropolitanate of Karlovci that may prevent further misunderstandings along these lines. -- Director (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment@Kindly Deeds and @Director. Both of you get enough valid references saying that Serbian Orthodox Church of Austria-Hungary was autocephalic as of 1710. So, they did not need any recognition from anyone. Moreover Austrian emperor Franz Joseph I recognized Serbian Patriarch: "He confirmed Rajacic and Supljikac in their positions and promised the Serb national organization." from Diplomacy on the Edge: Containment of Ethnic Conflict and the Minorities Working Group of the Conferences on Yugoslavia by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Mar 6, 2007 page 242. This man Director knows nothing, reads nothing, understands nothing.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. All of it. Whether or not the Austrians recognized the metropolitans at Karlovci to have been "Patriarchs of the Serbs" - nobody else did. Most importantly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople did not - i.e. the people who rule on when a church is legitimately autocephalic.

But either way, what difference does it make? What is your argument? One way or another we should link to the Patriarchate of Karlovci article.. -- Director (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment@Director I told you: you know nothing, you understand nothing. Before stopping responding to you Milos zankov told you that Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had no jurisdiction over anything in Austria-Hungary. Also, Milos gave an example of church that is autocephalic which is not recognized by anyone (American Orthodox Church). First, learn the meanings of the notions before using them. Also, please, do not vandalize other articles.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to be silly here, ignore your personal attacks, and take this seriously once more - as opposed to joining everyone else in writing you off as an IP troll. Let me repeat, the question is: how do you justify NOT linking to the Patriarchate of Karlovci, when that is the article on the church organization to which Milutin Tesla belonged?

Whether it was the legitimate "Patriarchate of the Serbs" isn't really relevant to this. If it was legitimately independent (which seems to be your claim) - then that's all the more reason to link to it. -- Director (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I suggest simply calling Tesla's father a priest, without specifying the religion or nationality (this is my King Solomon solution). If possible, mention the church building in which he served his ministry (but he probably ministered in several buildings over his career). Religion and politics...always good for conversations. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: why is Đuka's father mentioned? I think that fact could be reasonably removed to the article for Đuka Tesla. Xaxafrad (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Xaxafrad Tesla's mother, her father were a part of Tesla's life, therefore nothing wrong if mentioned in his biography. Why not to respect the fact (Serbian Orthodox Church priest) recorded accurately in the numerous Tesla's biographies? Why "a priest, without specifying the religion or nationality"? Which way it's a wise solution? Accuracy won't hurt.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @65.220.39.77 Re: "recorded accurately in the numerous Tesla's biographies". The number of times something is repeated in different publications has no bearing on how reliable it is, reliability is a measure of how reliable it is - and that is a whole different thing. You can claim there is high academic level being practiced by "Tesla biographers" (not sure what world you are living in because except for one or two exceptions I have never seen that). Lacking any footnotes the best we can say is they all copied John Joseph O'Neill's 1944 work, making this a claim with one source, and a dubious one at that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment@Fountains of Bryn Mawr You are repeating your nonsense over and over. "Lacking any footnootes" makes you to just speculate that everybody just took that information from O'Neil! Bear in mind that some biographers talked to Nikola's nephews Trbojevich and Kosanovic. Some of them searched Nikola's archive in Belgrade. Nikola's baptismal certificate bears the stamp of Serbian Orthodox Church.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Lack of footnotes actually means there is a lack of footnotes so verifiability can not be checked. Wikipedia policy is not "oh well, lets just go with what everybody is repeating" .... unless I missed something. Now, if you have a primary source that contradicts the secondary sources being cited, feel free to produce it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Fountains of Bryn Mawr William H. Terbo, a great grandson of Milutin Tesla wrote that his great grandfathers were the Serbian Orthodox Church priests. No need for footnotes, indeed.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This had already been discussed. Serbian Orthodox Church had been established in 1920. Sources are provided in the previous RFC. Asdisis (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Orthodox is not specific enough. There are several groups with Orthodox in the title. List of Orthodox churches AlbinoFerret 00:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing is to be more specific, and another to be imprecise. More specific formulation would be per Director's suggestion "Orthodox". Imprecise formulation would be to mention Serbian Orthodox Church which had been established in 1920. Asdisis (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Asdisis This user keeps repeating his/her nonsense now and before. I already provided several references above proving existence and activity of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary as of the end of XVII century.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support The list of references is undeniable.--96.255.26.152 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2015 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

Nikola Tesla was Croatian Born. He has no ties with Serbia. His father was Croat Born not Serbia. Serbs do not have anything to be proud of that is why they always tag along and take credits from others. Nikola Tesla father was Croatian Orthodox and automatically Serbia thought that if is Orthodox he is Serbian, well He is Croat same as his mom. Typical trying to rewrite history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.186.11 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done There's been a long debate about this, and consensus supports the current wording. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Serbian American?

He wasn't born nor set foot in Serbia. Why is he a Serbian-American? Should he not be Croatian-American or Austrian-American? Tesla even regaured Croatia as his homeland. http://www.teslasociety.com/teslavillage.htm – 108.27.252.190 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

'Serbian American' is a word that describes USA citizens of Serbian ethnicity, regardless of what country they came from, or were USA citizens for several generations. 'Croatian Americans' are Croats in the USA. Tesla did set his foot in Serbia (they probably don't teach that in Croatia), and he called the region of Croatia within the Serbian-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia his homeland, not the independent country of Croatia the idea of which he strongly opposed, stating that Serbs and Croats were one race and one language that belonged in Belgrade-ruled Yugoslavia.93.86.3.174 (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been debated before – Tesla was born of Serbian parents. At the website you link he is quoted as saying, "I am equally proud of my Serbian origin and my Croatian fatherland." Those of us who have read of Tesla's accomplishments are at times astounded that any man could possibly have done all that. Does it matter so much who is parents were or where he was born? Set priorities here. Tesla was born in Croatia (Austrian Empire) of Serbian parents. That much is revealed in this article. Be as proud as he is of his "Serbian origin" and his "Croatian fatherland", and be extra proud that he gave so much of himself to improve the world. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 02:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Be as proud as he is of his "Serbian origin" and his "Croatian fatherland"," Wouldn't that make him Serbian-Croatian? Second Quantization (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the word he used was homeland, not fatherland. Have in mind that in Tesla's time majority of Serbs and Croats were expressing the ideas that they were one race, one people, one language and that therefore they belonged in one country. That country was Yugoslavia, and within it Croatia was but the name of the historical province, and for a short time an administrative unit. The land of Croatia had 30% Serbian population, who strongly opposed any idea of independent Croatian country, but advocated the conjoined country together with Serbia, on the principles that Croats and Serbs were one same ethnicity. As a result of that political efforts, Serbs were expelled from Croatia during the wars and perceived as national enemies. Today, it needs to be presented in contemporary context where the Croatian stands are that Croats are a separate people and language than Serbs, and that Yugoslavia was a Serbian-dominated state that existed against the wishes of Croatian people. This kind of Croatia shares only its name with Croatia Tesla new. Compare with Greek Macedonians and Slavic Macedonians of today, and placing historical people from Macedonia who identified themselves as Macedonians in that context.93.86.3.174 (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Lets not forget that telegram was cordially sent to Croatian Vlatko Maček who at the time was the most notable Croatian politician within Yugoslav politics. Besides that, the link the IP brought brings nothing more to the discussion that the fact that Tesla is celebrated in Croatia nowadays, one more attempt to Croatisize as much as possible Tesla in 21 century Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily – past debates have led to the consensus that in the context of this encyclopedia's conventions, Tesla is considered "Serbian". No one has yet revealed anything new on the matter that would lead us to go against consensus. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 00:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

By the IP's logic, Momčilo Đujić is a Croatian American too! :P 23 editor (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Serbian American

People with American nationality and of Serb ethnicity. It's not a conjoined term like American-Serbian relationships (the relationship between countries of the USA and Serbia) etc. It's a name for ethnic Serbian community in the USA, and has absolutely nothing to do whether those Serbs came from Serbia, Croatia, Tanzania or were USA citizens for generations.93.86.3.174 (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015

Please add 'physicist' to the list of professions in this sentence, "Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American[2][3][4] inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[5]".

Nikola Tesla conducted research in the fields of physics, mainly electromagnetism and waves, for example the propagation of radio waves, and wireless electricity transmission. I believe not having physicist in there and merely calling him an engineer does not give enough credit to his contributions. He worked on a more fundamental level, developing his own theories, which should classify him as a physicist and not an engineer. A physicist is someone who studies the phenomena of nature and the universe, and I believe this is what Tesla did. Amruthalfred (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, this makes sense as he listed in Category:American physicists and is often referred to as a "physicist" in various sources used in the article.--BrightonC (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I have reverted this for starters per WP:WINARS, we can't go by what Wikipedia says. Reliable sources such as Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age By W. Bernard Carlson describe him as a very practical engineer and not delving into the theoretical at all, and after editing World Wireless System I can see what Carlson meant. Tesla did not try to study or even understand the basics of electromagnetic waves because he had the basic (and probably admirable) trait of a good engineer, he did not go out on a limb on theory. In that case he knew you could conduct electricity through medium, such as the Earth so why build something based on some crazy electromagnetic wave theory. He was not conducting "physics", he was just pushing practical engineering on a large scale. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

rv'ed again because of basic WP:WINARS, Wikipedia can not be used as a source as to whether anyone is a "physicist". Tesla as a "physicist" is a popular claim in the "Tesla Universe" of publications but Wikipedia exists outside that universe, in other words Wikipedia is not a fan site and there needs to be a reliable third party source (that means some other book than a Tesla bio) that makes this claim. The removing editor Grinevitski[1] set up basic WP:BURDEN re: "Please cite his contributions to physics". It would be helpful to cite a book on the history of physics that includes a Tesla contribution, but I sure ain't seeing it[2][3][4][5]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Admitedly, there is a marked lack of mention of Tesla in historical accounts of physics; however, it wasn't too difficult to find A Cultural History of Physics, page 615:

• "Tesla, Nikola (1856–1943) [...] American physicist, [...]

It's gotten better, though, because it was one of my electronics students who opened my eyes to Tesla nearly forty years ago. Our school's texts had absolutely no information about Tesla, and even the public library sported little information about him. Yes, there is still such a thing as the "Tesla Universe", and I think that it was just that gathering of people, who thought Tesla had received a bum deal, who were able to finally influence some historians to objectively look into Tesla and his accomplishments. I was taken aback to read that even the classic inventor of radio, Marconi, had used Tesla's work and patents, and that the US Supreme court reversed Marconi's patents in favor of Tesla the year he died, 1943. One begins reading about Tesla and learning about him, and it's not difficult to understand, perhaps favor, the Tesla Universe. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 04:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, misconceptions first: the US Supreme court did not reverse Marconi's radio patent in favor of Tesla, the court case was not about the invention of radio and it was not about Tesla (it was about later tuning patents held by Oliver Lodge and John Stone Stone and the court noted Tesla had a tuning concept in his "balloons at 30,000 feet" wireless power patent more here). The "A Cultural History of Physics" gives us nothing because it describes no physics theory/experiments conducted by Tesla. Its also a 2012 publication so a good chance of it being a WP:MIRROR - "Croatian born American physicist, electrical engineer" is a close match to the authors own language Wikipedia[6] (life in the echo chamber). The claim "physicist" was added to English Wikipedia in June of 2012 without rational[7]. This comment actually brings up a second problem, we have a claim in the lead summary that is not made in the body of the article contrary to WP:MOSINTRO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that no matter how much we try to help, you remain argumentative. You asked for a book about the history of physics that referred to Tesla as a physicist. One was found for you, but now it's not good enough. That wasn't the only reliable source I found that calls Tesla a physicist, that was just one that was titled as a "history of physics". If you try, then you can find them, too. But I doubt you will. I also doubt that your mind can be changed at this point. And after all I've read on the matter, I doubt if you could change my mind, either. Tesla was a physicist. He had to be a theorist because nobody else helped him come up with those things, such as the Tesla coil. He rubbed elbows with great physicists who treated him as an equal. He had the gaul to disagree with Einstein so Einstein ignored him, which was the beginning of most everyone ignoring him. No longer. This is not about what you or I or anyone thinks. It's about an encyclopedia that requires reliable sources when any claim is challenged. You have challenged a claim and there are reliable sources to support that claim. And that is what this should be about. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 09:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I also fail to see how being a "theorist" somehow makes him not a physicist. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that we've been having a parallel discussion on my talk page, so I've copied it here to share the additional sources. The next 3 posts are duplicates from there. --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: this edit, Would you care to point out where in the article it states Tesla had operated as a physicist? i.e. had an advanced education as a physicist, proposed theories, did scientific experiments, or made contributions to physics? The word "scientist" or "physicist" does not show up in the article (other than noting Tesla's views on the topic) and WP:BURDEN does require that claims be referenced before you re-add them.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fountains. :) Here is a direct link to the section in the article which directly (but meagerly) discusses only just his contributions to physics: Nikola Tesla#On experimental and theoretical physics. WP:BURDEN is fully satisfied by the references in that section. Almost every verb in that section (said, claimed, disagreed, was-critical-of, etc.) represents one of his published writings on physics. You asked about education, he studied experimental physics at both the Austrian Polytechnic in Graz (prof. Jakob Poeschl) and at the University of Prague (prof. Karel Domalip)₁. While many of his theories were wrong or not accepted, he did work extensively in the field. For instance many of his inventions relied heavily on new or fringe physics. Colorado Springs & Wardenclyffe were advanced experimental work in physics. Transmitting electricity through the ether, which he worked extensively on, relied on his whole competing theory of the universe that lost out to Einstein's theory of relativity, he debated this in the open press. The contemporary press thought of him as a physicist₂. Nikola thought of himself as a physicist ₃. Many modern biographies say he's a physicist ₄. Although you may not see him on some smaller lists of most notable physicists, because many of his theories were wrong, he is is usually part of the larger more complete lists of physicists_{5, 6, 7}. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1937 ₈. Minor portions of Tesla's theories on physics are still being debated today as refinements to current EM theory ₉. That whole portion of our article could be greatly expanded. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

How someone self-styles themselves or is styled by relatively unreliable sources does not really meet the requirements for Wikipedia. WP:BURDEN is satisfied via "citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" so a source that has an unreliable summary "eccentric physicist developed the alternating current electric power system that lights up the world today. He also invented radio" is directly contradicted by the much more reliable Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age By W. Bernard Carlson which describes Tesla's working methods as anything but science (page 301). Per Carlson again Tesla did not operate in "fringe physics" at Colorado Springs & Wardenclyffe: he used very well known theories of electric conduction (and for 30 years rejected the fringe-y idea of radio waves) and led himself down the garden path because he believed in his own idea's, he did not test them by scientific experiment. Two of the sources you provided are copies of each other and copy each other's wrong facts (the war of currents came before Tesla's induction motor, not the other way around). A paper that has a previous work citation "Solutions to Tesla's Secrets and the Soviet Tesla Weapons," is getting well out into the WP:FRINGE. If you read through the sources you provided you will see Tesla had no advanced education in physics, he did not have the language requirements to take the courses at University of Prague and had to drop out within a year. Tesla had no "published writings on physics", just his own unpublished ideas and musings or claims he made in the press. Tesla's CV is that of an engineer, engineers study and use physics but they are not physicist. Tesla may have self-styled himself as a physicist in his later years and the press may have dubbed him a "physicist" but in the same quote they also dub him "Dr. Tesla" (Tesla did not have a doctorate). So if we summarize Nikola Tesla#On experimental and theoretical physics to conform to WP:LEAD at best we have "self-styled physicist". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Fountains, yes your one source, Carlson, is universally negative about Tesla's science; but reasonable people could disagree whether he says Tesla is not a physicist. There's a difference between a claim of bad science and one of no-science. So you just have one source that doesn't say what you want, that he wasn't a physicist, and you have to extrapolate yourself what he must have thought about that. This stands against literally hundreds of sources that list him specifically as a physicist. This discussion seems really silly actually. If you get nominated for a Nobel prize in physics, it doesn't matter if you're Elmer Fudd, you ARE a physicist. Even more so if the same guy nominates you as did Einstein. Besides the hundreds of regular reliable sources that show he is viewed as physicist ₁, reliable-source biographies that bill him as a physicist rise to a higher level as sources, being specifically about him _{2, 3}. Then at an even higher level still, undisputable, are the published books about nothing other than being a compilation of scientists _{5, 6, 7}. The four general physics books you linked do not contain him because they're about the most notable & highest quality physicist, Tesla was possibly neither, being wrong on many of his ideas; but there are kazillions of both good and bad physicists who are not listed at your four links. Can you honestly say, from a truly neutral perspective, when someone is nominated for a Nobel prize in physics and defined as a physicist in the Oxford Dictionary of Scientists, you can be sure that hundreds of reliable secondary sources are wrong? --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I see allot of pop-culture sources and they really don't hold water because Wikipedia does not base its content on popular culture perceptions, otherwise Tesla would also be the inventor of alternating current, hands down. We also have compilations, compilations can be lazily written, note again two of the ones supplied by Tom Hulse are simply copies of each other (and pretty wrong to boot). "you can be sure that hundreds of reliable secondary sources are wrong?" errr... yes I can. Being nominated for a Nobel prize in physics does not make you a physicist, unless we are planning to add physicist and chemist to Thomas Edison[8]. So what points to Tesla not being a physicist?:

• A) A physicist in the later part of the 1800s (just after Electromagnetism and just before Relativity) would have to have a very high level of education, you just had to have that level of education to run with the big boys, Tesla never achieved that (and it shows).
• B) Science (physics) is conducted by people who propose theories, test theories, build on theories, try to disprove other theories and their own theories, and publish the results. Tesla did none of that and for good reason, he was an inventor - inventors have a hunch and they run with it for financial gain, its very different from science.

Tesla as a "physicist" seems to come from a series of popular culture pushes to make Tesla something he is not, as well as some real fringe stuff out there (free energy, secrete weapon conspiracy theories, Ufology). Allot of that push was born of Tesla's own writings and pronouncements. Tesla did not invent things in a vacuum as characterized by Paine Ellsworth ("nobody else helped him come up with those things"), almost everything Tesla came up with already existed in one form or another, he simply modified or improved it and you can see his voracious mind at work reading up on works on coils, the latest induction theory, Crookes tubes, etc. There is no equivalence between Tesla and Einstein and I can't help anyone who believes that, something you got to work out on your own. In engineering and invention very few people could beat Tesla. I would put Tesla's physics ideas at the level of "crank" as I heard the late George O. Abell define it. By Abell's definition a "crank" is a very educated person who plunges into a field but lacks higher level information and is unwilling or unable to expand their level of information. They end up going up developmental dead ends. Well at least we don't have "physicist" at the top of the laundry list, which is as it should be. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I searched the archives of this talk page for "physicist" and found that this is a repeated subject of discussion that has been hashed and rehashed over the years. I even found at least one old discussion that involved Fountains of Bryn Mawr, so I wonder two one thing:

• Does editor Fountains of Bryn Mawr like to bring this subject up every so often to see if a new consensus might be found?
• Has all this discussion over the years resulted in consensus to keep the "physicist" in this article? or to keep it out?

Personally, I have no problem seeing Tesla as a physicist, and that is based upon many reliable sources that refer to him as a physicist. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 23:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

PS. I just rethought my response above and decided to wonder about only one thing. PS added by – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 00:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Return to status quo

This article has been returned to status quo until this issue is resolved. Since this is and has been a controversial issue that has a cloudy past, maintaining status quo is probably the right thing to do. The basic issue of this and several past discussions in the talk-page archives is:

• "physicist" vs. no "physicist" – IOW, is it appropriate to refer to Tesla as a physicist?

As I have mentioned in the above discussion, I tend to be on the "physicist" side of this debate; however, I don't really have strong feelings on the matter because I don't think that not calling Tesla a physicist detracts in any way from his accomplishments both great and small. I do feel, however, that this article must remain at status quo (no "physicist") until this issue can be resolved. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 06:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, it is also important to recognize that other editors in this discussion appear to be more strongly committed to the "physicist" side, so I shall leave it to them whether or not this should be taken to the next level. It might be a good thing to get other objective opinions from uninvolved editors by starting an RfC. Any editor may start an RfC, and any editor can participate in an RfC. Again, I leave that decision to others. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 06:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't really see why you needed to do that; as far as I can tell from the above discussion, consensus was pretty clearly in favour of including the physicist description, with only one editor arguing against it, and their arguments were pretty strongly debunked. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

We actually have "two against" - yours truly and the removing editor Grinevitski[9]. But the "vote" does not matter because Wikipedia is not a democracy. The original removing editors WP:BURDEN removal re:"Please cite his contributions to physics" was never satisfied. Physicist or not a physicist probably doesn't matter because I find that pop culture notions such as this are really never put to rest until you drive about 30 reliably sourced facts through its heart. Someone can read through the article and judge for themselves. Of course the converse of that is true as well, we should not be telling a reader what to think, they can read through the article and judge for themselves. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus is clearly against you, and your arguments have been debunked. It is hardly a "pop culture notion" when it is a factoid presented in a wide range of reliable sources, and you keep coming up with ridiculous suggestions (30 reliable sources? Really.) You are using your own opinions/OR to try and present a case against reliable sources, which is not how this works. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Free to your opinion but "factoids" are not content. And trying to divine something from Nobel nominations is not citing actual reference. There is adequate sources out there on Tesla doing X, building Y, and proposing theory Z - none of it is OR. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I explained why I brought the article to status quo, so let's not cloud the main issue. As much as I personally see Tesla as a "physicist", I have to wonder two things:

1. There was a recent discussion about the removal of Carl Sagan's name from a list of astrophysicists, and he had a doctorate in astrophysics, so the push seems to be that it doesn't even matter if they have a PhD, if they don't do the work in the field, then they don't deserve the title. That's absurd, of course, but isn't Tesla just the opposite? He seems to have done work in the field of physics, but I don't think he ever received a doctorate in physics. If that is correct, then it might be wrong to refer to him as a "physicist".
2. Isaac Asimov wrote extensively about astronomy, physics and many other non-fiction subjects as well as the fiction he wrote. The PhD Asimov received was in chemistry, so he did have training as a scientist. Nobody calls him a "physicist", nor an astronomer, nor a mathematician, nor an engineer; however, when you read his works it becomes obvious that Asimov possessed amazing amounts of knowledge in all those fields. So, at least in the 20th and 21st centuries, it is imperative that a person receive training as a scientist to be called a "scientist" in any field. But what about in Tesla's time? In the late 19th century he did a lot of work that was "physics", and he rubbed elbows with several physicists who saw him as an equal. Did this modern imperative to require "schooling" and "education" apply in Tesla's times? I don't think it did; I think that back in those days, if one did extensive work in the field of physics, it was correct and proper to refer to that person as a physicist. We should not judge a historic figure by today's standards.

Then, of course, all of this reasoning pales with respect to Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, and it seems to me that this requirement supports this argument and that Tesla may be listed as a physicist. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 18:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue is actually an exact parallel to the above RfC "Milutin Tesla a priest in the Serbian Orthodox Church" - the "Serbian Orthodox Church" claim, like the "physicist" claim, can be found in allot of sources but "Serbian Orthodox Church" can not be verified and failed verification for external reasons (the organization did not exist during Milutin's lifetime). I am not sure what work Tesla did in the 19th century was "work in the field of physics" or "was "physics"", he took already known principles and applied them to inventions but that is not conducting "physics", the world of science is different from that, whether we are talking about the 19th or 20th century. Tesla's primary biographer, O'Neil, does not make a claim of physicist[10] (although he does note Tesla's study in school of physics/mechanics/mathmetics) and Tesla does not make a claim of physicist in his serialized Electrical Experimenter bio My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla[11]. Re scientists ""saw him as an equal"", Tesla did his inventing in secret and announced his results, along with scientific ideas that seemed very odd to allot of 19th century scientifically oriented people[12], in the press, a practice that brought him a great deal of disdain from the scientific community(Carlson, 352). With his work being done in secret it would be hard for anyone to judge him as a scientific "equal" during that time and at least one scientist, John Stone Stone, may have projected his know-how onto Tesla[13]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm restoring "physicist" per standard consensus as Luke mentioned. WP:BURDEN has been perfectly and fully satisfied per solid refs such as The Oxford Dictionary of Scientists and many other very high-quality sources. Fountains you are misusing WP:BURDEN by asking for repeated explanations of his contributions to physics (even after we've given them). That would all be more irrelevant original research, it doesn't matter. WP:BURDEN requires sources, not fancy OR explanations that go beyond the sources. Your original ideas about what does or doesn't constitute a physicist, or what is new physics vs. rehashed physics, are not only in conflict with the highest level sources, they are OR; please stop bringing them up. It just doesn't matter what you or I think, this is an encyclopedia of sources.--Tom Hulse (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I puzzled over "where does this fail WP:BURDEN/WP:V?" - It fails because the sources being quoting are not reliable. I'll ignore the borderline WP:PERSONAL and take this point by point:

• "WP:BURDEN has been perfectly and fully satisfied per solid refs such as The Oxford Dictionary of Scientists and many other very high-quality sources" - Just because something is titled "The Oxford Dictionary of Scientists" does not mean its a reliable source and it can be proven not to be a "very high-quality source" at all re: "Nokola Tesla (1856-1943) Croatian-American Physicist" (not exactly and primary notability "engineer" totally missed), Tesla "worked for Edison, worked for Westinghouse, invented an AC motor, left and set up his own shop" (nope, its "worked for Edison, left and set up his own shop, invented an induction motor, consulted at Westinghouse"), "Tesla's invention led to the War of Currents" (nope, War of Currents was raging full force by the spring of 1888 and the start of that little conflict had nothing to do with Westinghouse licensing Tesla's induction motor patent in July of 1888), "In 1991 the first transformer was demonstrated" (well, wrong there by a good 6 years and historically way off, the transformer started the sequence of events mentioned above - it did not show up at the end, but who are we to quibble?).
• "WP:BURDEN requires sources" - WP:BURDEN requires "reliable sources", please don't half read policy.
• "this is an encyclopedia of sources" - nope, this is an encyclopedia of reliable sources and when they disagree you note the disagreement, you do not put such a claim in Wikipedia's voice (see WP:YESPOV bullet #2).
• "Fountains you are misusing WP:BURDEN by asking for repeated explanations of his contributions to physics (even after we've given them)" - I must have missed something somewhere because I have not seen a single "contributions to physics" cited anywhere, which brings us back to the original WP:BURDEN posed by the removing editor.

Since nothing new has been added here re: anything reliable, I am reverting back to the status quo. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr; Tesla was an engineer, inventor and promoter, not a physicist, and should not be called one in the article. Most of the relevant arguments have been given by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr above. What scientific (as opposed to engineering) organizations did he belong to? None. What scientific (as opposed to engineering) papers did he publish? None.[14] What scientific (as opposed to engineering) discoveries did he make? None. He was a genius at engineering and applied research, but the weird theories he spouted, about "Dynamic Gravity", "Earth Resonance", etc. were all wrong, because he didn't perform the first requirement of the scientist, test his theories by experiment.

There's a great quote [15] by Reginald Fessenden about the difference between a scientist and an inventor:

The inventor and the [scientist] are confused because they both examine results of physical or chemical operations. But they are exact opposites, mirror images of one another. The research man does something and does not care [exactly] what it is that happens, he measures whatever it is. The inventor wants something to happen, but does not care how it happens or what it is that happens if it is not what he wants.

Tesla was clearly the pragmatic inventor, he wasn't interested in scientific research, and did as little as possible, and that was his downfall. He rejected (probably because he didn't bother to read and understand) the scientific theories of his day: Hertzian waves, the electron, special relativity, if he didn't think they would help him in his inventions. His greatest project, Wardenclyffe, failed because he didn't bother to do the research which would have shown that his notions about electromagnetic power transmission were wrong and real physicists like Hertz, Lodge, and Heaviside were right.

But Tesla was a master self-promoter, and assiduously tended his mystique, and a lot of misconceptions have grown up about him. That's why we have to be careful about sources and try to present a balanced realistic view of him, avoiding the hype. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable sources call him a physicist. It doesn't matter whether his theories were bunk or not, and it matters not one jot what your opinions and original research say. He doesn't have to publish a scientific paper to be a physicist. Plenty of other very famous scientists had strong opinions on things that were debunked at the time - does that stop them being a scientist? No, no it doesn't. It seems to me that, rather than "avoiding the hype", your actual intentions are to obfuscate whatever Tesla did to comply with your own personal opinions. That, I'm afraid, is not how Wikipedia works. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Still major problems putting "physicist" in the lead.

• "Reliable sources call him a physicist" - please cite them, cite the activity they cover and the sources they use, if it is a reliable source all that should be readily apparent. Allot of claims are made about Tesla (and allot of claims were made by Tesla) but when you dig into them they fall flat.
• The body of the article does not call Tesla a "physicist" or describe the activities of a physicist. Editors of this article have been cleaning up the lead to follow WP:LEAD - if its not in the body it should not be in the lead, period. There is no reason to break with that to simply add what seems to be more of a popular notion than a verified fact.
• "physicist" as a claim does not appear in O'Neill, Tesla's own bio, and is disputed by reliable biographies on Tesla such as Carlson. The claim, if it is to appear at all, should be in the body where it can be covered in detail. A conflicting assertion should not be in Wikipedia's voice in the lead.
• "famous scientists had strong opinions" - its debatable whether Tesla was a scientist, let alone a physicist. Famous people have opinions and a soapbox to spread those opinions but Charles Lindbergh's view on eugenics did not make him a social philosopher or anthropologists any more than Tesla's views on Physics made him a physicist.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think it may be a good idea to open an RfC on this at this point. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla - mind travel

@User:Chienlit Nikola Tesla is said to have described his mind travel experiments in his autobiography. Original text taken from his own autobiography, "My Inventions by Nikola Tesla", he writes "...soon discovered that my best comfort was attained if I simply went on in my vision farther and farther, getting new impressions all the time, and so I began to travel - of course, in my mind. Every night (and sometimes during the day), when alone, I would start on my journeys - see new places, cities and countries - live there, meet people and make friendships and acquaintances and, however unbelievable, it is a fact that they were just as dear to me as those in actual life and not a bit less intense in their manifestations." Which text is freely available at this link http://www.teslasautobiography.com/ . Marc Seifer makes a reference to this statement from his autobiography while discussing this aspect of Nikola Tesla deducing it to be an out of body experience rather than a mind travel. Since, it looks like that there are not any "other" source besides Marc - who terms it an out of body experience - we may exclude from adding it or phrasing that Marc Seifer believed Nikola Tesla had out of body experiences. Or is there a better way to include it while not sounding implausible? Tesla, we all know was a man of mysterious composition. Or it may just end up being a fringe part of Nikola Tesla that may not be worth adding here. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Re the question of whether Tesla was a scientist - I rest my case. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kapil.xerox, I have tried to restore your edit and merely adjust the phrasing a little, but the page is now fully protected because of an edit war. I was not unhappy with the statement or reference of his out of body experiences, only that the phrasing implied that ...meeting people and making friends ... was reality, when it is only an imaginary part of the out of body experience. 'Making friends' by definition involves real people, 'imagining making imaginary friends' is entirely plausible.

When the page protection is removed I will restore the sentence as: Tesla had Out-of-body experiences since childhood, where he had regularly perceived experiences of visiting places, meeting people and making friends. He found those experiences not any less real but he never attributed any mystical or paranormal element to them. unless you have further edited this in the meantime. Regards, and apologies for an accidentally truncated/nonsensical edit comment.Chienlit (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Chienlit, that's fine - thanks for clarifying the issue. Yeah! When I added it - I knew it sounded implausible but I guess I did not phrase it correctly. I appreciate if you can add it after the edit-war is over. I would guess only extraordinary personalities like Tesla would have phenomenal experiences like these. Including such uniqueness in a personality in the article is often a challenge. But, I appreciate your taking time to re-edit. I would be happy to see my edit in the article. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

tesla and the Transistor

On page 169 of reference no. 8 namely "Tesla: Man Out of Time" By Margaret Cheney, Tesla's influence on the modern transistor can be found in patents 723,188 and 725,605. Given how important the invention of the transistor is (and since this is apparently a credible reference), credit should be given where it is due. I suggest this mention be added to the section on his patents.TonyMath (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The claim is actually referenced to Leland I. Anderson, sorta the fringe of the fringey Tesla world (expanded version of the claim here[16]). Seifer does not make this claim[17], Cheney does not make the claim in her other book[18], and it does not appear in the most recent Tesla book[19]. It also does not show up in histories of the transistor[20]. WP:FRINGE claims should be avoided. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I really don't see the connection to transistors. Anderson is using some kind of "voodoo attribution". Let me see if I've got this straight: Tesla invented an early AND gate. Because AND gates are now made with transistors..... therefore Tesla had an influence on the transistor??? That's some pretty bent logic. Maybe we should call it "ad hoc ergo propter hoc".

On the other hand, it looks like Tesla can be credited with the AND gate. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. There is also the wikipedia site to the AND gate. A link can be established. So how about it? Let's give credit where it is due. TonyMath (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we should first dig up some sources that don't depend on Anderson; he is not a WP:RS. I also would object to saying Tesla "invented the AND gate". I doubt he knew anything about Boolean logic, and I would think the first automated telephone exchanges, which were being developed at the time, had similar circuits. I think a weaker assertion is more accurate. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This claim was removed at Logic gate and the current version of that article notes electrical switching logical operations described by Charles Sanders Peirce that predate Tesla by a good 10 years. The editors at Logic gate could not see a logic function in Tesla's patent (talk). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there's Walther Bothe [21], [22]. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2015

Please change "serbian american inventor" to "croatian american inventor" because he was born and studied in Croatia, although his parents were orthodox. Tesla himself wrote in his diaries that his ancestors were from the croatian cities of Zadar and Novi Vinodol. At least you should add a section talking about his nationality and the quarrel between the croatians and serbs about it. Here are the links that support my thesis: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tribute_to_King_Alexander from the article of The New York Times published on October 21, 1934 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9400EFDE1039E33ABC4951DFB667838F629EDE). Thanks. 130.25.70.157 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See section above Talk:Nikola Tesla#Serbian American.3F Cannolis (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If the IP actually bothered to read the Tribute to King Alexander, he would easily see how Tesla is praising Serbs. So if a section is to be added, it could well be about the number of Croatians that live in denial that he was a Serb and praised the Serbian King. FkpCascais (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This argument goes on constantly at every article which mentions Tesla's nationality, and it is endless. Because of the shift in the border there are justifications for both sides. I don't care which nationality he is given, but I think this article should pick one and stick with it. --Chetvorno^TALK 11:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that discussion is endless, because there is no definitive answers. First of all, there are no sources that exactly deal with that question. Yes, we have many sources that repeat each other, but is you look at the references you will find that there are none that would back up the writing of that source. I tried to resolve a simpler question, the place of birth, and I was rejected although majority of the sources (that are listed in the article and used to write the article) said that Tesla was born in Croatia. Here we have yet another unclear question about Tesla, and we can not resolve it because there are no sources. The best thing to do is to leave it as it is. Asdisis (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Consensus for the Serbian American nationality was decided at least 4 years ago... it's long since been chosen. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We went trought this, and there are hardly any sources saying he is a Croatian scientist, besides some Croatian sources. The only thing that is sourced regarding Croatia/Croats is that he was born in what is today Croatia. What happends nowadays is that there is some, I dare to say near-hysterical, movement in Croatia in order to Croatisize him. That is why we have all this IPs from Croatia making always the same endless request. And this one is almost outrageous, as the IP seems not to have even bothered to read the Tribute to King Alexander. If any of this IPs wants to make changes, they need to provide a set of reliable sources which would back-up their edit request, because there is vast majority of sources about him being Serbian/Serbian-American. FkpCascais (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tesla is a Croatian scientist because his birthplace is Croatia, or Austrian scientist because he had Austrian citizenship, (although that is another unresolved question, because people after Military zone was returned under Croatian administration were given Croatian citizenship) and of course an American scientist. That does not have anything to do with his ethnicity, but this definition goes towards nationality. Tesla by nationality is not Serbian. I will start a discussion on this topic as soon as i prepare it. The present formulation mixes ethnicity with nationality and it is coined probably on emotions, this time pro-Serbian emotions. One thing is sure, this formulation completely neglects Tesla's former nationality. If he is an American scientist, what had he been before he gained American citizenship and before he arrived to America? I also strongly oppose that any introduction of Croatia in this article is considered to be a nationalistic move as you are trying to present it. Asdisis (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First my IP is from Italy, second I didn't say that you MUST change Serbian to Croatian but I suggested you to create at leat a section in which you talk about this debate, third even the "Treccani" encyclopedia (the most famous and respectful italian encyclopedia) says that Tesla is Croatian. If I really wanted to change that I could do that anyway without asking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.25.70.157 (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The place to insert this may be Nikola Tesla in popular culture {that article isn't just for comic book references). It could be added here if if IF if there is RS that some kind of controversy exists (the four "if"s added means I did not say go ahead and do it;)). btw, you can't just add it because you saw it in a "source", Wikipedia requires reliable sourcing, not sourcing, very big difference. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• IP, you couldn't change it "without asking us" because the page is semi-protected. Which means you can't edit it. Also, not seeing what relevance some random Italian encyclopedia has to an English-language site, but there we go. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument about the Treccani encyclopedia has already been used in the Croatian Wikipedia (see here). Even so, Treccani has two articles, one that says that Tesla is "of Croatian origin" (see here) and another one from Enciclopedia Italiana (see here) where they chaned from "origine croata" to "fisico iugoslavo". FkpCascais (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis, to the citizenship issue I started: since then, many wiki pages the fake "Austro-Hungarian" citizenships were removed and the clearance is still ongoing. Since I am mostly active with Hungary related issues, my proposal is to fill the hole between 1867 to 29 July 1891, the fact he resigned on the Austrian citizenship by gathering the U.S. citizenship, the fact there is not known any information he would gain Hungarian - anyway it would have been very problematic to resign on Austrian, gathering Hungarian then after again resign on Hungarian and gathering Austrian, and what for a reason between the 1867-1891 period, it is 99,9999% impossible - I propose to add the infobox the Austrian citizenship between 1867 - 29 July 1891. The were more debates how to demonstrate easily that a citizen of a state is only citizen of one member country inside the state, the two most accepted versions are - check Albert Einstein and Philip Lenard articles i.e. - "Austrian of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867 - 29 July 1891)" or "Austrian in Austria-Hungary (1867 – 29 July 1891)". An administrator should choose which is more alike. Anyway the Croatian Military Frontier and it's return to Croatian administration is an interesting issue, since also I was the first who claimed for a Croatian history expert to clarifiy about the status of any possible existence of Croatian citizenship before-after membership in Austrian Empire, or from 1867 in Austria-Hungary, when after a while the old Hungarian-Croatian state relations - administrative, diplomatic, etc. - were reinstated. I found the "Croatian–Hungarian Settlement" article, but I am not sure it would answer our question. Anyway, we Hungarians are sure he was never a Hungarian citizen and we believe his Austrian citizenship was continuous during Austria-Hungary. So we still need a Croatian History expert to clarify the possible Croatian citizenship issue. If he was once, or became a Croatian citizen, would it meant he loose Austrian? Had he to resign or it was automatic? Or by gathering Croatian citizenship, he remained also Austrian meanwhile? (by Hungarian it would be impossible, a law between Austria and Hungary banned dual citizenship). If he was once Croatian citizen, he had to loose it once automatically or resing on it, because before gathering the U.S. citizenship he had to resign only on the allegiance with Austria...well, the most probable is he had continuous Austrian citizenship since the beginning, if he had Croatian, it may be only for a current intervall...but let this to be investigated by Croatians...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

I remeber your topic, and I had not forgotten it. I will for sure start another topic when I prepare, have objective arguments, and when I will have time. If you remember I posted one answer back then. According to Vasilije Krestic, when Military Zone was reunified with Croatia in 1881. people living there became citizens of Croatia. Here, I have to mention that Vasilije Krestic is, as a greater-Serbian ideologist, completely unreliable source, but it is interesting that he, although he is a greater-Serbian ideologist, stated that. Military zone was Croatian territory under military control and I think that people living there had, by most part, Austrian citizenship. After Military zone was abolished I think that those people automatically gained Croatian citizenship. I'm not sure if Tesla was among them. That is worth investigating, but unfortunately there aren't many documents online, and I'm not a historian to go and investigate. Anyways, wikipedia is not a place where objectivity and rationality wins. That much was documented trough my attempt to change Tesla's birthplace to Croatia when people with no arguments managed to beat my arguments with accusations that I'm Croatian nationalist because I'm trying to introduce Croatia to the article, although I have not stated my nationality and it is only their assumption that I'm Croatian. Regarding citizenship, I agree with you that Tesla most probable had Austrian citizenship, whit a possibility of Croatian citizenship. This is worth investigating. However, regarding this topic, one thing is sure. The formulation American-Serbian scientist if wrong and it completely omits his former nationality and country. However, out of reasons I can only guess, people who gathered around this article are satisfied with this formulation. I found myself how hard it is to be one against the others, even when a great majority of sources(that are even listed on the article page) are on my side. Asdisis (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course Asdisis, everyone refused your proposals with absolutely no arguments... FkpCascais (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis, yes, I saw I triggered a very long and big debate with my "innocent" warning. I remember your contribution. About Wikipedias objectivity and rationality I met also much arguments and conflicts, I was even twice accused as a sockpuppet just because I could not bare some incorrect or misleading information, of course I was categorized as a Hungarian "nationalist" or whatsoever, but finally rationality and facts won after a while (high level admins noticed the fake charges and banned my last accuser), although it is a very hard work, more stressful if you know you have right but it is much more harder to prove it in a way that would totally comply with the Wikipedia rules. One Romanian friend (Adrian) told me Wikipedia has no connection to the truth, information can be cited by the order of relevance. As you can see on my personal page, assuming good faith should mean from more citable information we put a stress pattern on the most truthful and objective approach. If there are more, the counter-interest will fight you so long it is not against the Wiki rules. Since Serbian-Croatian relations are very tensed, you will face a very hard struggle. About the birthplace, I have to also correct many pages because they forget about Hungary that was a separate state only with a Habsburg/Austrian crown but was never incorporated to the Austrian Empire. About Croatia, I am not such an expert those times when it's personal union and direct affiliation with Hungary was "abolished" because of the Austrian interventions, so I let this issue also to Croatia experts. Yes, we could agree he had a continous Austrian citizenship until emigrating to the U.S., if he had once Croatian, it could be temporary for a certain reason, official Croatian state records should be investigated. Anyway I will fill the hole and add my proposal that holds until something new will not appear. For the debate of the "Serbian-American" designation I can only say, it can be viable if his ethnicity is Serbian. I draw only examples from the Hungarian-American designation, however I meet much conflicts if the designation should refer ethnicity, double citizenship or the former state's designation, where nationality does not necessarily equal with ethnicity. In some non-obvious cases you have to judge individually, there you'll face harsh debates again.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC))

Yeah. I will start another debates as soon I have time to prepare them. I'm sorry wikipedia is not completely objective. My sources were dismissed because I had not given an equally strong impression as the rest. The reason is that I was trying to be objective while some people like FkpCascais gave only a strong impression with no arguments or sources (which is not consistent with his strong opposition). I see below some claims and the same pattern is still present in his comments. Strong impression, no arguments, personal interpretations, no sources, strong opposition with no objective reason and so on. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• After 1918 he had double nationality, American and Yugoslav (Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, K. of Yugoslavia after 1929). What Asdisis is trying to discuss is his nationality prior-1918 (how relevant in general?). I guess having some citizenship it needs to be from a sovereign country, which Croatia at any time during Teslas lifetime was not. FkpCascais (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Then, there is a wrong assumption Asdinsis is making that Tesla was born in Croatia. Tesla was not born in Croatia, but Tesla was born in the Military Frontier which was a multi-ethnic Crown land of the Austrian Empire. What happened is that the village Tesla was born in, later in 1881 became part of another Austrian crown land, Croatia-Slavonia (he is assuming that it was all always part of some Croatia). This was explained several times to Asdinsis but he seems to have some problems with admitting these straight-forward facts.
• So, similarly we have the case of Vojvodina, like Voivodeship of Serbia and Banat of Temeschwar, which was also a multi-ethnic crown land of Austria. We have notable people born there and we are not assuming they are Serbian just because much of that territory later became part of Serbia. We actually distinguish people born there by their nationality, either Serbian, Hungarian, Romanian, German, Slovak, etc. That is the case with multi-ethnic crown lands of Austrian Empire and later Austro-Hungary. An exact opposite exemple to Tesla would be of Croatian hero Josip Jelačić who was also born in the Military Frontier but in the part which later became part of Serbia. So by Asdinsis logic, Jelačić is Serbian? See the nonsense? FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• What is ridiculously fascinating here is that the proponents of Tesla relation to Croatia are having the Tribute to King Alexander as their main argument, when in fact just by reading and understanding what Tesla wrote, is clear that Tesla is praising the Serbian king against the Croatian attempts of descentralization. I see how can editors non-familiarized with Yugoslav history be mislead, but here is in a few words what the tribute Tesla wrote is all about: Tesla wrote the tribute to New York Times at a time when Kingdom of Yugoslavia was going trough a turmoil. Ever since the creation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1918 that there was a conflict between Serbs who exited WWI victorious and had their territorial compensations given in form of an amplified kingdom (Yugoslavia, perceived by Serbs mostly as enlarged Kingdom of Serbia); and Croats, who initially felt like "liberated" from Austrian rule, but soon felt that the only change for them was that they were now swearing ought to the Serbian king in Belgrade instead of the Austrian emperor in Vienna. So most Croats fought for descentralization and even aspired independence, while most Serbs backed the king and supported a centralized monarchy where Serbs held most, if not all, positions in charge in the kingdom. Croats had their reasons for discontent, started making protests, even uprisings, however the king, Alexander I of Yugoslavia, opted for imposing dictatorship (the 6 January Dictatorship). The result was that discontent grew even stronger among Croatians against Yugoslavia and the king, many openly campaigned worldwide for the Croaatian cause how they were suffering within the Serbian-dominated Yugoslav kingdom (Einstein, for exemple, simpatised with Croatian cause) and it all culminated with the king Alexander assassination while on visit to France, by a group of Croatian and IMRO nationalists. The assassination happened on October 9, 1934, and the tribute Tesla wrote in regard to it, was published in NY Times 10 days later, October 19, 1934. What Tesla is doing in the tribute is praising Serbian tribute and sacrifice for Yugoslavia, backing the king, and by saying he was born in Croatia, in fact he is making a sneaky political game, which is giving the idea to the American public that there were people born in Croatia that supported the king and his policies. Supported the Serbian king, the one who wanted to centralize the country, and who strongly opposed Croatian descentralzation ideals. So it is a bit ridiculous Asdinsis and others opting to have one sentence from the tribute into account, but ignoring the entire meaning of the tribute. FkpCascais (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That is a very interesting claim about dual nationality. You should provide sources and it should be included in the article. Your other "guess" would is wrong. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't made an assumption but a claim with over 20 sources. I even went trough every source listed in the article page and concluded that a great majority says that Tesla was born in Croatia. Military zone was not a crown land, and this is the pattern i was talking about. You gave a strong impression based on the fact that is wrong. Military zone was legally Croatian land under military administration, like eastern Croatia was under UN administration for a

few years after Croatian war. In 1881. military administration was abolished. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No there is nothing similar with your analogy to my case. I claim that Croatia had a part of territory under military administration. I did not claim Tesla was born in Croatia because his village was later included in Croatia-Slavonia. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Tesla himself said he was born in Croatia, however that was not part of my argumentation that was based on sources and literature. We concluded that Tesla's own opinion can not change the historical fact, although I claim that it goes along with historical fact. Your strong opposition to the fact that Tesla was born in Croatia goes even so far that you deny Tesla's own words with this interpretation. Your interpretation above is nothing but your own subjective interpretation. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Either you have some serious understanding problems, or you simply twist everything maximally with no regard to whatsoever. Just be happy and live in denial, but outside this project please. FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am just interested in making you one simple question: why is then that you think that Tesla wrote a tribute to the Serbian king which was so unpopular among Croats? ;) FkpCascais (talk) 06:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with his place of birth. Nor does his own statement that he was born in Croatia. That just shows what Tesla himself felt, but the historical fact remains unchanged regardless of his opinion. I feel that it is pointless to discuss with you since you are obviously subjective. That I concluded upon your claim that Tesla was not born in Croatia because he wrote tribute to Yugoslav king. That is obviously a subjective claim. Asdisis (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your answer was much more meant to Asdisis than me, I understand both of your point of view. In case if it would remain blurry, I am also against desginating people's nationality of current status quo, unfortunately we meet often by this regarding Slovak interpretations. I read a horrible - and at the same time very unprofessional and pathetic - debate on Mozart's ethnicity, and finally they let it empty, although it is obvious he was German, but of course the Austrians are afraid of this deisgnation and as well with the confusion with the Third Reich or today's Germany. More funny it is his birthplace that time was not even Austria or Germany, but a smaller German entity. Finally they even cheated history that Austria was never the part of Germany (by territory more time it happened, of course they denied 1938-1945), and every person should be judged by the current status quo, some proposed the ethnicity is not important, but the contemporary nationality...they put horrible examples like Béla Bartók is "Austro-Hungarian" or "Romanian"....I am sorry I did not take the time to intervene, they've made more silly contradictions, just because Austrians have a psychological fear to admit they are ethnic Germans, to say nothing of the Austrian national identity was developed only after WWII. If Mozart would be put as an "ethnic German", it would resolve everything and would not be confused with successor states, but of course if you want to mention a German ethnicity back in time, soon you'll be accused of being a Nazi ideologist...with this story I just wanted to make clear with your second pharagraph I agree. As an accepted Wiki convention, contemporary status quo matters and that's why I did not want to involve the Austrian Empire/Military Frontier/Croatia question, it is not my current expertise. In this case I understand Asdisis, he want's to demonstrate it is de facto/literally Croatia, the historical Croatia, the territory of Croatia, etc. He put's a stress pattern on emphasizing Tesla also supported this by his own words, but unfortunately if that time the crownland's official name did not contain the word "Croatia", then nothing can be done instead of the addendum "modern-day". For us Hungarians it is also painful in some cases the person was born literally in Hungary, the territory of Hungary, but the former/current borders/status quo is/was foreign the time. You mentioned he had double nationality after 1918, how is that possible? Because in modern interpretation, nationality=citizenship, ethnicity can be different but not necessary. We have no informationon that he would be the citizen of Yugoslavia or Kingdom S.C.S....or...?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

I'm sorry the discussion about Tesla's birthplace went in the wrong way (to the question to whom Military zone belongs ). It should have stayed on the sources. To be completely clear, Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier which is not a legal-political entity, but a part of Croatia under military administration (much like eastern Croatia was under UN administration few decades ago). Here you can see on the map. Croatia with it's military frontier, and Slavonia with it's military frontier. [23] Too many people (including me) had gave their opinion on that subject, but no sources were presented. I will gather sources and start a new topic on that question and on the question of Tesla's birthplace. That question remains unresolved and I want to resolve it. Too bad there are no more people willing to help, and I know that there are a lot of people willing to oppose with no arguments like FkpCascais. Also bare the fact that some people opposed to state that Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier because it contains the word "Croatian". Regarding citizenship, I support the present formulation, Austrian citizenship until he became American citizen. Asdisis (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First learn what Military Frontier is. Then think about commenting on an encyclopedia. FkpCascais (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You should learn what Military frontier is since you called it a crown land. That just shows your level of knowledge in that subject. The link you gave clearly says that "The Military Frontier was a separate Habsburg administrative unit". To repeat my claim, Military frontier was a part of Croatia under military administration. You clearly have no knowledge about the topic and although I admit I'm not fully familiar you on the other hand go on and claim obviously incorrect claims with no argument what so ever. In my opinion that just shows you are subjective. I do intend to gather sources and change Tesla's birthplace in this article. Since all the sources I presented weren't enough because the legality of Croatia's territories under military administration remained unclear, I intend to resolve that question. Your unfounded claims will again be disregarded like in the last discussion, about Serbian orthodox church. Asdisis (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

To be concise, he did not belong to the Croatian American community. He was born in the Austrian Empire, in what is today Croatia. His ethnicity is Serb, from Lika (a region which had Serb ethnic majority up until the Croatian War). He was more of an "Habsburg/Austrian Serb" than "Croatian Serb" (nationality-ethnicity origin). To call him "Croatian American" is blatant revisionism – it is already stated that he was born "in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)", which is perfectly sufficient.--Zoupan 06:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tesla's nationality is still an open question if you haven't read the discussion. If you can be of assistance that would be great. I'm against mixing nationality with ethnicity in the statement that Tesla was a American-Serbian scientist. Not only that, but that neglects whole of Tesla's life before he became an american. The correct formulation in my opinion would be American-Austrian(or Croatian) scientist of Serb ethnicity. Again his nationality before he became American citizen is an open question, but one thing is sure, he either had Austrian or Croatian citizenship before he became American and the present formulation neglects that. I'm interested in the subject and I try to bring objective arguments to the table, but it seems the others are here just to contradict and oppose every good argument with no arguments of their own. Asdisis (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has long been over now... Your frustration assdinsis has simply no limits. FkpCascais (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion FkpCascais is nowhere near over. I supported Asdisis on this topic in a previous discussion given the amount of evidence he presented that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia. Asdisis, I stumbled upon a Tesla site that mentions The Croatian Military Frontier where Tesla attended high school in Karlovac (Rakovac). This may well be the same Military Frontier in which Tesla was born. Rakovac in the Croatian Military Frontier seems to be written on an official school document, see following link- http://www.croatia.org/crown/articles/10649/1/Nikola-Tesla-distinguished-Croatian-American-inventor-and-his-high-school-education-in-Croatia.html Keep searching.Michael Cambridge 08:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk •contribs)

Here is another link that mentions the Croatian Military Frontier- http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/tesla.html This one's in Croatian.Michael Cambridge 10:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

During the previous discussion I spent a lot of time investigating and I found some great literature on the subject of Military zone in Croatia. I'm sure the answer to the previous discussion is in there, unfortunately I couldn't find that literature online. I intend to go to library and find it when I will have time, since it would resolve the question of Tesla's birthplace once and for all. If someone is willing to help that would be great, but it seems people like FkpCascais are pleased with their version in the article and are willing to oppose any change no matter of objective reasons and sources. Not only that but they are willing to make any ad-hominem attack to discredit that editor. Thank you for the links. Those are great. I often found difficulty to find original Tesla' documents and here on the links there's a bunch. I will save this page and use the documents when I open a new discussion. I already see one correction that needs to be done to the article. Tesla's documents clearly state his mother tongue is Croatian. That has to be changed in the article. I will do the edit, however I know it will be reverted. Fortunately the documents you provided are a great proof. One other thing that documents say is that Tesla's homeland is Croatia. Arguments are slowly accumulating and a new discussion will have to be opened. I'll study those sources in more detail, but I'm already impressed. Great work! Asdisis (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

As FkpCascais said, this discussion has long been over now... we would need far better (WP:RS wise) to revisit this. What we have is more non-reliable sources and the same old nationalistic POVPUSH. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me Fountains of Bryn Mawr but if any new evidence comes to light it will be examined thoroughly. There is nothing to fear.Michael Cambridge 10:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

The discussion had not reached any conclusion. If you are claiming that "no consensus for the purposed edit" concluded something then I will use that statement to describe your credibility. Tesla's place of birth is still an open question and I'm trying to resolve it objectively. That is why I haven't started a new discussion and that is why I'm doing the research in my spare time. I agree that it should be based on reliable sources and that is why I'm doing the research. However, I do not agree that sources listed on the article page are not reliable. If that is the case, then the whole article is pretty much useless. Remember that I had gone trough every source listed on the article page and concluded that a great majority say that Tesla was born in Croatia(within Austrain Empire). If you are claiming that I had based my claim on unreliable sources that I must strongly disagree and ask myself the reason why did you not reacted to the whole article which is written from that sources. I also strongly disagree that official Tesla's documents are unreliable sources. If you are claiming that then I can only conclude that you are not objective. Maybe you are talking about the presented pages in general, however the documents are very real and I intend to use them as strong arguments. Of course I won't use some webpage as my source. Asdisis (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but nothing new has come to light. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

New evidences had came to light. There is a simple way to determine if the newly presented evidences are new or not. I'm involved in this topic for a long time, and I haven't seen those documents presented yet. I would appreciate if you could point to the topic where those documents had been presented and discussed,since I do not see them in previous discussions. I haven't been involved in this topic from the very beginnings so maybe I missed those sources. If you go trough the discussions I had started you will notice that I had not used that documents nor had anyone else. I admit that maybe I'm mistaken and those are not new evidences. I briefly went trough discussions and maybe I missed them, since I was looking for images. Asdisis (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, we caught an interesting circumstance. One of the sources (http://www.croatianhistory.net/etf/tesla.html) present his passport (Putovnicu je Nikoli Tesli izdana u Zagrebu godine 1883., na hrvatskom jeziku, kada je Nikola Tesla imao 27 godina. Odobrila ju je Kraljevska hrvatsko-slavonsko-dalmatinska vlada, vidi gore lijevo). It could be a proof of Croatian citizenship, but to be really sure I want someone to join the discussion from i.e. Wikiproject Croatia, to say nothing of in the Croatian Wikipedia in the citizenship section only Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, and United States are mentioned. So please cease or confirm my following deduction:

"When the Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867 created the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, the Habsburg crownlands of Croatia and Slavonia were effectively merged and placed under Hungarian jurisdiction."

"Following the Settlement, the Croatian kingdom was referred to using the name Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia."

"Practical territorial consequences of the settlement were creation of Corpus separatum attached to the Kingdom of Hungary (pursuant to the article 66) and incorporation of the Croatian Military Frontier and the Slavonian Military Frontier in the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia (pursuant to articles 65 and 66) in 1881."

"With this compromise the parliament of personal union (in which Croatia-Slavonia had only twenty-nine deputies) controlled the military, the financial system, legislation and administration, Sea Law, Commercial Law, the law of Bills of Exchange and Mining Law, and generally matters of commerce, customs, telegraphs, Post Office, railways, harbors, shipping, and those roads and rivers which jointly concern Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia."

"The Compromise confirmed Croatia-Slavonia's historic, eight-centuries-old relationship with Hungary and perpetuated the division of the Croat lands, for both Dalmatia and Istria remained under Austrian administration.[15]"

The passport is from 1883. It is in two languages, Croatian and German, on the behalf of Franz Joseph, including his titles (C. Austria, K. Hungary, Dalmatia, Croatia-Slavonia). The Croatian text above states it is approved by the Croatian-Slavonian government. In 1883, under Hungarian personal union it is very highly assumed this is not supporting necessarily an Austrian citizenhsip, can it be possible after 1867/1881 the Croatian-Slavonian Government had the right to give or introduce citizenship? As we see above, Austrian administration of the these territories have been ceased. I don't say he ever lost Austrian citizenship, since someone sourced earlier he resigned on the allegiance from Austria before gathering the U.S. citizenship. So the infobox is still valid, who knows maybe Austrian or Croatian citizenship was not mutually excluded like Austrian/Hungarian. So if anytime Croatian citizenship were held, we should know the due date, only then it could be added next to the existing ones. But I really finished investigating, I even went more far as I expected. Someone should make this clear from Croatian side.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC))

He had Austrian citizenship. The thing is that his passport was issued in Zagreb, the capital of the crown land of Croatia-Slavonia. The issue of including Croatian language is not that meaningfull. I am not sure if you have any Austro-Hungarian bills, but you could see that 8 languages are used on it. The document translated reads,

"The government of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia - in the name of his majesty Franz Joseph I, Austrian emperor (cesar) and Hungarian, Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian king, Passport".

So the document only shows that the Zagreb could issue passports on behalve of the Austrian Empire. Not independently, of course. FkpCascais (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said, people in Military zone gained Croatian citizenship after 1881. This of course is not supported by sources, but I read that in various places, and I think it is correct. The fact that Tesla had his passport issued by Croatia is a strong indicator that he had also gained Croatian citizenship with the unification, although not the definitive proof by itself. Your other questions are interesting, and there is a lot of literature about Military zone and Croatia in that time. The answer to that questions is in there. It would be great is someone could find that literature online. However, I'm involved in the question of Tesla's birthplace and I intend to study that literature. Unfortunately I don't really have much time, so I don't know when I will do that. Regarding Tesla resigning Austrian citizenship, I believe it is more complicated. I think that in foreign relations Austrian or Hungarian citizenship was stated. I'm very sure that you are right by saying that Austrian or Croatian citizenship were not mutually excluded like Austrian/Hungarian. This is worth investigating. I'm interested in this topic and I will keep investigating for new sources. Asdisis (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

If FkpCascais has right, somebody should explain me why would be needed the behalf or mediation of the Austrian Empire, when Croatia-Slavonia were reassigned to personal union to Hungary, and Austrian administration were ceased (it remained only in Dalmatia and Istria). That's why I cited much above from the Croatian-Hungarian settlement, and the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia article, because almost we need a good lawyer to decide what the laws were that time :) It is also dubious for me, why the "Government of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia" used, if the separation were made earlier in 1881, in 1883 it should be only "Government of Croatia-Slavonia" only. I have access to Hungarian Military papers, their language was German-Hungarian, more dominantly German if it was issued in Austrian territory or by the Imperial High Command. About the right, "issuing a passport independently" is a little bit contradicting with the Croatian-Hungarian deal that Croatia has it's own separate administration without Hungarian involvement. Franz Joseph was everyone's King, King for Austria, Hungary, etc., so the fact his behalf is written, it does not necessarily proves an exclusive Austrian citizenship or right, but really, I can't believe nobody knows it for sure from Croatian side....(KIENGIR (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC))

It is possible that Tesla had Austrian citizenship since at time of his birth Military Frontier was under direct rule from Vienna. I also noticed the inconsistency regarding the Croatia-Slavoinia and Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia issue. Another thing I want to mention is that Asdinsis still doent understand what Military Frontier is and that the part later was added to Croatia was part of the Military Frontier. PS: I haven't found sources yet for his Yugoslav citizenship but I didn't really had time for it. Asdinsis only goal here is to say Tesla was Croatian, he has been doing that for 2 years now, all he finds are Croatian sources, so that is why I don't take him too seriously. Regards KIENGIR, FkpCascais (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I had not used more than a few Croatian sources out of two dozens or more. Also, the statement that you would find a source not credible solely on the fact that it is Croatian is enough for me to show you are subjective. Asdisis (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not that Asdisis :( now I see how you misinterpreted me. The thing is that I have participated in a large number of hot debates in Yugoslav-related matters for many years here on en.wiki, and whenever that hapends it is quite usual that participants demand foreign neutral sources. For instance, that happened with many discussions regarding WWII in Yugoslavia, where we avoided using local Yugoslav authors because of their possible bias, and we preferably used foreign ones. And sorry to tell you, but I think we should apply this to Tesla as well, cause seems quite obvious that Croatian sources will be treating him as Croatian, and Serbian ones as Serbian. See my point? It was not because I don't like Croatia -_- you misunderstood me about this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I had not used but a few Croatian sources in the previous discussions and I think you know that very well. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You are still on the imagined discussion whether Tesla is Croatian or Serbian. I had not participated in such discussion. I had not questioned Tesla's ethnicity, although I might touch that topic since I haven't seen many arguments to any definite answer. However, one thing at a time. I tried to resolve the question of Tesla's birthplace, and I intend to do that, since it is still an open question. For now my interest is on his citizenship since noone but KIENGIR had tried to resolve that question, noone tried to help, and I don't expect you will participate the discussion I opened in a good faith. But when it came to the question of introducing Croatia, or even Croatian Military Zone to the article everyone objected with absolutely no arguments, including you. You had opposed the most, and you had not presented a single valid argument, not a single source to back up your claims and personal interpretations. I can only conclude that you are subjective. Also you said everything about you with the last statement about Croatian sources, and now you just confirmed contempt towards Croatian and Serbian sources because there is a possibility that they are biased. A possibility. That is a clear bias on your part. I have not misunderstood anything. A person who objects to several dozen sources with no valid argument , with no presented sources and only with his personal interpretations is subjective. You clearly have a contempt towards Croatia. However, as I said, that is not important, because you anyways won't present any source, and we know what wikipedia says about unfounded claims and personal interpretations. Asdisis (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I presented you plenty of sources saying Tesla was born in Military Frontier, Austria. That is a fact you have some problems understanding but that is not my problem. Second issue, Tesla didn't had Croatian citizenship because Croatia was never independent nation during Teslas lifetime, deal with it. And you presented tones of croatianhistory.com, Croatia.com Croatia this and that sources which have zero value, so stop annoying all people around here. Also, stop talking about others, because the only one here who failed to present evidence is you. FkpCascais (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I presented several dozen sources that Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier, that was not the dispute. About the citizenship, join the below discussion and present your sources. I started by presenting some, and I'm currently studying other sources. The premise that Croatia should be independent so that people living there could have Croatian citizenship is wrong. First of all that is contrary to all of the currently presented sources and it is contrary to common sense. Neither Hungary nor Austria were independent and both Hungarian and Austrain citizenship existed. Please read the sources I presented so we omit such pointless claims in the future. I do not know which sources you are referring that have zero value. I think you are referring to the sources that weren't presented by me. Again this is the statement that describes your credibility. You haven't presented a single source and by default you reject other sources. I'm sorry, but that is subjective. You claim that I misunderstood your subjective statement that all Croatian and Serbian sources have zero value, and from comment to comment you repeat that statement and with your acts prove that. I do not intend to have such pointless discussions with you in the below discussion. Walls of text do not help anyone, so you either present the sources or restrain yourself from making personal unfounded claims and interpretations. Asdisis (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais makes unfounded claims. I don't think he's participating with good intentions, so I do not take his claims seriously. At the end, it isn't important what he says because he never verifies his claims with sources. I don't think he will contribute to this discussion. To get back to the topic. It is normal that every entity in Austrian Empire issued passport in the name of the emperor. That does not help us with anything. On the passport you can clearly see formal-legal crown lands of the Austro-Hungary, Austria, Hungary and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia was the official name and I really do not know why wikipedia states only Croatia-Slavonia in the article you are talking about. You have to know that wikipedia isn't always the most correct source and I suggest you find better, history literature if you want to know more on that topic. The only thing we can conclude using Tesla's passport on the question of his citizenship is that there is a strong indication that he may had Croatian citizenship since his passport was issued in Zagreb. That is due the fact that people living in Military zone became Croatian citizens after 1881. I don't see how Tesla would be skipped in that process, especially when he had interaction with formal institutions. I don't really know how the process went nor if there is a document stating someone's nationality (most certainly there is). Apart from history literature I tried to find official documents. If you want to investigate I suggest you go in that direction. Tesla had to write down his nationality in several places, so it would be interesting to see what he stated by himself. I don't think there's much we can do with history literature, because it will say in general that people in Military zone became citizens of Croatia after 1881, but nothing about Tesla specific. The people like FkpCascais will most certainly oppose to anything that is even supported with several dozen sources, let alone the source that does not talk about Tesla by name. There aren't those problems with his place of birth, but about his nationality there are, since it changed in 1881. My suggestion is to concentrate on his immigration records, which I could not find, or census records. Also you said Tesla resigned Austrain citizenship, you are probably referring to this [24]. It would be gread if that slip could be found on some formal site, like [25] or [26] just to verify it. Bdw, ancestry.com has Tesla's naturalization record, but you have to pay to see it. Lastly I have to say that almost none of the literature about Tesla does not deal with the questions about his nationality, ethnicity, place of birth, and so on. If you look at the literature you won't find any footnote. As someone said, one books in many times just repeats the previous one and so on. The real documents are hard to find. I haven't really seen that many documents, and to me even the question of Tesla's ethnicity is still an open question, although I have no intention to deny it, yet. I would start an awful discussion and I wouldn't want to get into it without any sources. Asdisis (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• • The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia never existed. It was just never fulfilled wish of some Croatian nationalists. British Historian Taylor, while writing about the Habsburg Dynasty, stated clearly that Dalmatia never had a representative in the so-called Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, rather opted to have representatives in the Imperial and Royal Court at Vienna only.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

We can clearly see "Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia" written on Tesla's passport. Your interpretation of valid source is false. Either present the source or restrain yourself from personal interpretations. Asdisis (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can give their interpretation. Let's try to avoid personal attacks, Asdisis. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Asdisis, FkpCascais, I react this section for the new debate of yours. I highly oppose to disregard a source, because it is - let's say Chilean or Scottish (this we agreed with Adrian, a Romanian user we had very hard clashes, but finally we noticed our struggle for the truthful, valid content, so any discussion or debate should not be a Hungarian-Romanian "war"). I say this, because in many spicy historcial debates our "counterparts" say "it is just a Hungarian source", and they don't put any validity or credibility, and it hurt us very much because this does not mean it cannot be true. I am much amazed when they expect Anglo-Saxon sources in the 12th century, if it would have any real decisive manner. I.e. who else could have a more valid administration, that Hungarian Royal documents that time? Because they are Hungarian, they are surely not to be taken serious (i.e. debate between Romanian presence in Trasylvania)? I cannot bet if Hungarian-Romanian or Croatian-Serbian relations are more tensed, but the latter one is more fresh and spicy, we with Romanians get used to it almost a century. Well, when I corrected some mistakes in WWII Yugoslavia-related articles, I was heavily attacked by Serbians, finally an American editor made "peace", I was not totally satisfied, but the result was more objectivity in the article afterwards. My policy is to judge and value every source, but those to be taken more serious containing evidence, not just a point of view, and then I don't care the source's "nationality". Ignoring a source because of this is a clear mistake. About being "independent", Austria and Hungary in a way after 1867, and practically for sure after 1881 Croatia-Slavonia-(Dalmatia?) were independent, having their own country, administration and authority with citizenship (Austria, Hungary), but outside to the outer world they appeared as a joint country with some joint ministries of external affairs. Croatia-Slavonia became and independent country, administration, (citizenship? to be resolved) with a personal union with Hungary, like in the old times. Also, viewed from outside, they see only Austria-Hungary and they question the independency as a fully sovereign state, but legally they were independent, the only things is the countries had other ties with each other as per agreement, de facto it is shortening the concept of "total independence" (Hungarian-Croatian deals first level, Austrian-Hungarian deals second level, Austro-Hungarian deals with the outer world as final level). Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC))

Tesla entered USA with Austrian citizenship. FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a good example why wikipedia does not use primary souruces. To foreign states all citizens of Austro-Hungarian empire had Austrian citizenship. The discussion is about citizenship within Austro-Hungary, and not how it was viewed by USA or other foreign states. I confirmed this with a secondary source in the below RfC. Asdisis (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

In the Early years section, last paragraph, the name "Ferenc Puskas" is probably wrong. The correct name is likely to be "Tivadar Puskas". (Ferenc was a well-known football player in the 1950's, Tivadar was the inventor of the telephone exchange in the 1880's.) 80.98.154.22 (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I checked the facts, and apparently Tivadar Puskas set up a telephone exchange along with his brother, Ferenc (different person of no relation to the 1950s footballer), so the article is correct. Altamel (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

edit request

The disambiguation page linked to should be Nikola Tesla (disambiguation), and not Tesla (disambiguation)

A plain {{otheruses}} will link to it.

Or if linking to both is desired

{{otheruses|Nikola Tesla (disambiguation)|Tesla (disambiguation)}}

For other uses, see Nikola Tesla (disambiguation) and Tesla (disambiguation).

But in either case, the primary linked disambiguation page should be "Nikola Tesla (disambiguation)", since that is the name of this page, "Nikola Tesla", which is not "Tesla"

-- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Done Altamel (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Tesla's citizenship from 1867 to 1891.

I've done some research on this question, and after long time I think it is time to resolve it. KIENGIR had asked for help a long time ago, and no one had interest to help, but when it came to the question of Tesla's birthplace everyone were experts. My conclusion is the following. After 1868 and Croatian-Hungarian settlement two forms of citizenships existed in the lands of Hungarian crown.

To quote: "National Citizenship

According to the Croatian-Hungarian Compromise, the legislation on acquisition and loss of citizenship was common for all the lands of the Hungarian Crown while their execution was decentralized so the Croatian-Slavonian Ban had full executive powers in the matters of national citizenship."

"Local Citizenship and Croatian-Slavonian Membership

Croatia-Slavonia had full autonomy in the matters of local citizenship ( zavičajnost ). In other words, its legislative body had full power to enact the law on local citizenship, and the Ban with the autonomous Government had full authority in the execution of the laws on local citizenship."

[27]

The national citizenship is called Hungarian in Hungary and Croatian-Hungarian in Croatia-Slavonia.

I have more sources, but I still need to go trough them. For now I think this is enough to start the discussion. The matter to discuss is what to write under Tesla's citizenship, national or/and local citizenship. My suggestion that both national and local citizenship should be stated.

So the formulation would be: Croatian-Hungarian national citizenship with local citizenship of Croatia-Slavonia.

Local citizenship was primary when it came to determine important rights. More about that in the presented source.

"The law on the Croatian Domicile(Heimatrecht)...was the first law that regulated the question of belonging to Croatian local communities in a systematic and rather complete manner...it was the basis for exercising particular civil and political rights derived from the Croatian autonomy which had been defined by Croatian-Hungarian Compromise...of which the most important were electoral and the right to hold posts in public service" [28] (go down to summary). Asdisis (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

KIENGIR I hope to see you in this discussion. Also I think it would be the best to revert your edit until this discussion is finished. I agreed with you that Austrian citizenship should be stated, and it is interesting how noone objects until something Croatian is introduced. Then a bunch of people object. I hope we can resolve this question objectively. I will make a RfC. Asdisis (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)