Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Photo of Tesla?

In a cleanup of MOS:SANDWICHING/over image I removed File:Нікола Тэсла, 1880..png because there is no reliable source as to this even being Tesla. Also the description "c. 1880" seems to be wrong - image page says "The photo was taken during Tesla's arrival from America, when his mother Georgina was sick - testifies to the "News" engineer Slobodan Nikolic. " (Tesla went to America in 1884 so "arrival from America" would be some time after that date). The only record I can find to Tesla visiting his ill mother is Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla by John J. O'Neill - Tesla visiting his ill mother in 1892[1] (the year she died). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Past discussion here.--Zoupan 19:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Missed that.... good catch. So the evidence is "a person claims another person told him this was Tesla". That does fall way below Wikipedia policy so we are at WP:BURDEN, any reliable sources out there saying this is Tesla? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify: what we seem to have here is an image copied from a web article and it says (I think) - An engineer named Slobodan Nikolic has a large collection of scientific/research instruments and one item in his collection is a photograph claimed to come from a "distant relative" of Tesla and claimed to be of Tesla. Guess that's all we get for provenance. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
True.--Zoupan 13:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Great rewrite

I think the rewrite by Fountains of Bryn Mawr is excellent so far. I like the improved division of the article and section titles, and the expansion of the wireless power material, since this was Tesla's lifelong dream and major focus. The removal of excessive WP:UNDUE WEIGHT unencyclopedic blather about Tesla's "Death Ray" and his appearance, and replacement with a sober historical account, is making this a decent article. Don't want to interfere, but just thought I'd mention things that in my opinion still need work:

  • The "X-ray experimentation" section gives WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to Tesla and should be cut back. Tesla didn't make any significant contributions to this field; he doesn't appear in histories of radiology. His single-electrode X-ray tube went nowhere. Many researchers were experimenting with x-rays and unusual Crookes tubes at that time.
  • The wireless lighting exhibit described in the quote in the "Tesla Polyphase System" section doesn't have anything to do with his power systems; it was powered by a Tesla coil. It was just demonstrated in the Westinghouse exhibit along with Tesla's electric power equipment. Perhaps it should be moved to the "wireless lighting" section?
  • The Tesla coil was independently invented at about the same time by Elihu Thomson [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Perhaps its applications should be mentioned: it was widely used in radio transmitters, medical electrotherapy and diathermy apparatus, and induction heating, until the triode vacuum tube replaced it in the 1920s.
  • Tesla's dramatic public lecture-demonstrations of high voltage, high frequency electricity between 1891 and 1894 at venues like the Franklin Institute, National Electric Light Association, St. Louis, and British & French scientific societies, received a lot of publicity and were a major factor in making him famous.[8] Besides powering lights wirelessly, Tesla did stunts like connecting himself to a Tesla coil, causing a glowing corona discharge to surround his body, sparks to shoot from his fingers, and Geissler tubes to light up when near him. Perhaps more should be said about these demonstrations?
  • There should probably be a link to World Wireless System.
  • The messy references need to be put in a common format. There are also a few remaining sources that I think are iffy:
    • Marc Seifer: Although his Tesla biography contains important facts that AFAIK are not available elsewhere, I think he is a doubtful source and is certainly not to be trusted on the subject of Tesla's scientific work. He is a psychologist/guru who writes books [9] promoting fringe New Age pseudoscience ideas like parapsychology, Cosmic Consciousness, telepathy, faster than light travel, and the ether. His interest is in Tesla's discredited pseudoscientific beliefs, and he doesn't appear to have the knowledge to distinguish pseudoscience from mainstream science; he says Tesla's ether theories were a step beyond Einstein. Here he promotes the ridiculous fringe myth that Tesla invented a laser. He also quotes Tom Beardon, a notorious pseudoscience bullshit artist, repeating his unsupported claim that the Soviet Union stole Tesla's "Death Ray" plans and used them to build a particle beam weapon.
    • John J. O'Neill: A friend of Tesla, his 1944 biography is pure hagiography: he worships Tesla and uncritically accepts everything he said. O'Neill originated the myth that Tesla in his wireless power experiments lit 200 light bulbs at a distance of 26 miles.
    • Tesla Memorial Society: Although a RS on their own activities, they are not a RS on Tesla. They repeat the myth that Morgan withdrew funding because he was afraid Tesla was going to produce unmetered electric power. Tesla Memorial Society
  • An important duty of a Wikipedia article is to debunk myths about the subject. I think there should be a statement that although Tesla claimed to be able to transmit power long distances there is no reliable evidence that he accomplished it. The widely-repeated "200 light bulbs" myth mentioned above should also be refuted in the article, and perhaps other Tesla legends.

--ChetvornoTALK 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick read through - agree.
Noting one point - I could see as I was re-arranging the "bones" of this article what was missing: that we need to describe Tesla's "wizard" performances, the stuff that made him famous. He also brought celebs to his lab and wow'ed them there. I would think performances, lab demo's, and how he maintained a persona of "the wealthy successful inventor" via hobnobbing with the rich and famous at the Palm Garden, The Players Club and Delmonico's (also where he obtained allot of funding) should be added to lead description at "New York laboratories". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good! - pull together descriptions of his lifestyle during this era and efforts to impress New York society people, explaining how he got his reputation as a "wizard". I think that is definitely needed, as many popular descriptions of Tesla gloss over this aspect. Some fans don't want to see the less flattering, more calculating, celebrity-hungry side of their idol's personality. --ChetvornoTALK 19:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I support the ongoing rewrite by Fountains of Bryn Mawr, and agree with the overall comments of Chetvorno. The article is very high-visibility, and needs to be of highest quality. Tesla is widely known because of his showmanship and promotional efforts (which do need to be covered objectively in the article), but there also needs to be much better documented coverage of his lasting technical contributions and his limitations and failures as well. The lesser-known but fundamental work of his quieter and more modest contemporary Charles Proteus Steinmetz should also be mentioned, because they both had an enormous influence on the developing profession of electrical engineering. Their work and accomplishments are often conflated, and the general public has heard little or nothing about Steinmetz, while responding to a "hyped" legend of a Tesla credited with accomplishments far beyond his historical record. Reify-tech (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference format?

We should move towards a single referencing style in the article now, after the GAN. Currently half of the citations use <ref> tags and the other half use the {{sfn}} template. This is not good because we currently have normal references (cite_web, etc.) appearing in the "notes" section because there is no way to separate them from the footnotes generated by the template. Personally I'm in favour of using standard inline citations and named references because of how many web sources are used (which are hard to convert to Harvard format). Thoughts? Laurdecl talk 11:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that standard inline cites and named refs are preferable, because of the number of web sources as well as book sources used in the article. I also strongly urge the use of Template: Refpage to add page numbers, when they are available. The template documentation looks formidable, but the actual usage is quite simple. Essentially, all one needs to add is {{rp|133-135}} after the usual <ref name=FOO />, to append ": 133–135 " after an inline cite. For more examples of its use, see the biographical articles for Frank Oppenheimer and Arnold Orville Beckman, both of which use a mix of web refs and book refs. Reify-tech (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the second format suggestion at Help:Shortened footnotes#Shortened footnotes with separate explanatory notes with references would cleanup references appearing in the "notes". {{sfn}} could co-exist with <ref> and we would have a "Notes", "Citations", and "References" section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC) (note:editor is a citation Luddite)

I'll have to disagree. I couldn't think of anything worse than three separate sections for multiple different referencing styles (quite a disservice to readers). The Wikipedia policy is that all articles should one day become featured (ridiculous; I know) and one of the criteria is a single reference format. The sheer number of web sources means that {{sfn}} is probably untenable. Refpage is also a good idea. Laurdecl talk 06:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The suggested format does not split references into three separate sections, it puts all specific citations (no matter what format we use) under "Citations" and moves all notes (which seem to number about a dozen at this point) under "Notes". Its a suggestion that solves the first problem noted i.e There is a way to separate references from the footnotes.
As to the second FA problem, to me, consistent citations seems to be a quint idea left over from the days of paper, and that, along with <ref name="name">content</ref> and {{sfn}} tags, seem a bit anathema in an encyclopedia where "anyone can edit". My preference would be simplified <ref>''source''</ref> tags mixed with {{sfn}}, easy to understand, non obtrusive, easy to maintain, and can always be cleaned up by Harvard referencing wonks who want to push the article to FA. I do not like <ref name="name">content</ref>+Refpage at all. In an article that has to use allot of book references that format is going to get ugly, giving us a gang of little numbers at the end of sentences that will be pointless and confusing to the reader...... anyway, that's my two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I support a single consistent citation style. A separate "Notes" section is fine, but I find separate citation styles in an article confusing, and WP:CITE says "Each article should use one citation method or style throughout." I don't have a strong preference, but I hope we can agree on a style. Just to list the choices, addition to Harvard referencing, {{sfn}}, <ref name="name">content</ref>+Refpage, there is also the plain vanilla <ref name="name">content</ref>, in which separate pages in a source are handled by separate named citations. The effort required to make all the citations consistent is considerable, but I'm willing to work on it, if we can come to a consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 03:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Techneticist?

An editor recently added the obscure unsourced characterization "technicist" [10] as a description of Tesla to the lead sentence. When I put on a "citation needed" tag he took it off.

@Учхљёная: You must provide a source that describes Tesla as a "techneticist"; "de facto" is not enough. WP:VERIFIABILITY: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. ...any material whose verifiability has been challenged...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." --ChetvornoTALK 21:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Учхљёная: I'm sorry, but the citation you added [11] has a definition of "techneticism" but does not say Tesla was a techneticist. This is not enough. Concluding from the definition that Tesla is a techneticist is WP:SYNTHESIS. --ChetvornoTALK 21:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: I am sorry for my mistake. I will try not to edit anything based purely upon an inference. Although, to be fair, there are not sources cited on the Nikola Tesla page stating that he was "inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist" and I would assume that these would also be based off off definitions. I sincerely apologize for my mistake and promise that I will try not to happen again, as I am still a relatively new User to Wikipedia and do not know all of the rules yet. Thank you! -Учхљёная (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Учхљёная: You are certainly right, not all of those other terms (inventor, futurist, etc.) have been sourced. And the word "techneticist" does seem to describe Tesla's viewpoint well. Sorry, I would not normally object to your addition, but "techneticist" is such an obscure, unfamiliar, esoteric term, I think it will annoy ordinary readers, who will have to look up the meaning. Also we already have 5 descriptive nouns in front of his name. Don't apologize, you didn't do anything wrong. I just used a bureaucratic rule to prevent you from adding a word I didn't like. I admit this is not entirely fair.
By the way, not all of those terms were added without debate. There was a fight over adding the term "physicist", which I and others objected to, as Tesla was an engineer and didn't do any physics; the few weird physics theories he proposed (faster than light radio waves, mind power, his alternative gravity theory) were all proven wrong. However we were overruled since one of the books about him called him a "physicist". --ChetvornoTALK 20:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikola Tesla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Just what was Tesla receiving at Colorado springs?

Since conjecture has been given about what Tesla was actually receiving at Colorado Springs, that being some of Marconi's tests... I would like to propose the much easier task of receiving emissions from pulsars, is what was actually happening. Now he (Tesla) shouldn't be credited with the discovery of pulsars, since the connection to stellar mass objects was not made, but I would like to propose he may have been the first to receive them. Some examples can be heard at this URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb0P6x_xDEU . AE7EC (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, but we don't deal in conjecture at Wikipedia. Would be a topic for some other forum. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Then the conjectural point of receiving Marconi's tests, a much harder feat, in the main article should be removed also IMHO. AE7EC (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Difference being its referenced to a published source. If there is reliable sources re:Tesla detecting pulsars then it could be added. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nikola Tesla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Opening that can of worms again...

 – - MrX 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Croatian Military Frontier?

 – - per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. ChetvornoTALK 18:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nikola Tesla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Repeated addition of the term "genius"

@Steinpal: I feel characterizing Tesla as a "genius" is an example of WP:WIKIPUFFERY. The use of such a subjective, loaded WP:PEACOCK term tends to give WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to him. Many people could be called "geniuses". The preferred technique on encyclopedias like Wikipedia is to list his accomplishments, as this article does, and allow the reader to decide for himself whether Tesla was a genius. Also if there is opposition to an edit, it should be discussed on this page before adding it to the article again, see WP:BRD. ----ChetvornoTALK 07:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I would note this edit also sanitized/censored the article making a more "Tesla friendly" version. And again here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. The article should make clear that Tesla believed that long distance radio communication was due to "ground currents", not Hertzian waves, and that this belief was totally erroneous. Tesla stubbornly clung to this belief long after it was proven false (e.g. his 1919 article The True Wireless). --ChetvornoTALK 02:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Nikolai

So when is he Nikolai (and not Nikola). The only bit (with Nikolai) for this article is in Archive1 (Talk). I’m sure I’ve heard it in American and British shows. My iPhone defaults to it! MBG02 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Tesla was a physicist?

I don't support Thomas Paine1776's other recently reverted changes, but I do support his removal of the term "physicist" from the lead sentence. Tesla was a great, creative engineer and inventor, but he wasn't a physicist. Describing him as one is WP:WIKIPUFFERY. He didn't do any physics research, and because of his inadequate applied research the few supposed scientific "discoveries" he made while developing his inventions (e.g. "terrestrial waves") were quite wrong. While physics made tremendous advances around the turn of the century, Tesla's ideas about physics remained mired in common 19th century misconceptions; he believed all his life in the ether, the old "fluid" theory of electricity, and particles moving faster than light, and didn't accept the existence of the electron, or Einstein's theory of relativity, or even communication by radio waves (Hertzian waves). Reliable sources such as Carlson and Cheney do not describe him as a physicist. There are sources that do, but that is because Tesla has become a cult figure to the New Age movement, and most earlier books about him have been credulous hagiography (see Cooper).

The term "physicist" should be removed from the lead sentence. --ChetvornoTALK 22:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be removed per MOS:LEAD, article does not contain any description of him as a physicist. Should be removed per WP:YESPOV #2, what is probably the most reliable source on the topic does not call him as a physicist and explains how he was not a scientist (see Tesla, Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson, page 301[12]). The claim "physicist" comes from the "fringe" side of the Tesla world out there. Publications that are on the sensational side kinda run with a myth propagated by Tesla himself, that he was a scientist developing unknown and secrete scientific theories that supported some of his more outlandish ideas. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. --ChetvornoTALK 01:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

misinformation

The iPhone Quiz app TriviaCrack has claimed (in 3 separate questions) that Tesla invented a radar patent; discovered Alternating Current; and invented radio. It could be the same (mischievous) author; but I think it indicates a (sizeable) tide of misinformation. MBG02 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, since the 1960s Tesla has become a cult figure, and there are numerous pseudoscience websites [13], [14], [15] that credit him with a lot of discoveries he didn't make [16]. Other examples are fluorescent lights and lasers [17], [18]. This horse manure often finds its way into mainstream media. One problem is several early biographies of Tesla (such as O'Neill and Seifer) were written by adoring fans, and uncritically repeat these outrageous myths as facts. These myths should be debunked in the article. --ChetvornoTALK 19:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Serbian Orthodox Church

This is not going to happen. Obvious sock advised to log into their registered account.- MrX 🖋 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

Can you replace reference 15,16,17,18 with the one used by in this version of the article when the consensus was done:[19]

The reson is that those references are cherry picked and against this consensus,[20], since they are mentioning Serbian Orthodox Church which didn't exist in the 19th century. Here is a quote from the referenced rfc: "The consensus is to keep the present text, which reads "Nikola Tesla was born ... to Serbian parents... His father, ... was an Orthodox priest.Tesla's mother['s] ... father was also an Orthodox priest,..." The other suggested version, saying the father and grandfather were Serbian Orthodox priests, would introduce ambiguity. (E.g., 1. Orthodox priests from Serbia, or 2. Serbian Orthodox priests.)..."

Thank you.

141.136.229.217 (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You were told already at ANI to use your account. If it is blocked, then ask for unblocking first. Enough of this sockpuppeting and abusing IP´s. FkpCascais (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I had to post since you and the other guardians of this article are wasting to much time untying any connection Tesla has to Croatia. You are not bothered about pro-Serbian POV pushing. So blatanty one sided. You did one revert, do the other and finish this. I would be happy if you did it to at least in this instance prove that you aren't POV pushing one side.141.136.229.217 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done - Please use your main account as explained in WP:ILLEGIT.- MrX 🖋 20:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I should not concern you.89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I added a reference to the consensus and a quote from the consensus and the edit done by the user who closed rfc. 89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Are the same editor who started the discussion?- MrX 🖋 20:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That is not consensus, now stop it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Of course it is. The first sentence starts with "The consensus is to..." 89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I get that your pal MrX asked you to do him a favor, but at least think of a better excuse89.164.164.9 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2018 (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 24 October 2018

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 18:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

i want to fix a spelling error 162.255.201.203 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Please let us know where it is. Thanks.Limit-theorem (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DBigXrayᗙ 00:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 20:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Proseline

Too much of this article is suffering from Wikipedia:Proseline. "In Year X, Y happened". It's pervasive in the "Early life" section and present in others. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Tesla was an extremely eclectic inventor who worked on a lot of different projects in his lifetime. I think this approach is justified to adequately describe and organize his career for readers. --ChetvornoTALK 10:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 05:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Serb vs Serbian

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

3, 6 and 9

Tesla had an obsession with the numbers 3, 6 and 9. He only associated with numbers divisible with three, like in how he only stayed at hotel rooms divisible with three. Though there is no section about this, I was wondering why that is, and if it should be added. --Year1888TALK 12:26, 27 February 2019 (GMT+1)

@Year1888: could you point to a (reliable) source or two that verify this? Along those (OCD?) lines, Tesla reportedly abhorred small spherical objects. I believe that was covered in O'Neill. - MrX 🖋 12:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: I found a lot of independent sources from some quick searches. One could, for example, be from an article called "The Mindblowing Secret Behind The Numbers 3, 6, and 9 Is Finally Revealed!" from Lifecoach.com. There is also a book on it called "Nikola Tesla and the 369 code". - user:Year1888 - 17:41 27 February 2019 (GMT+1)
I doubt that Lifecoach.com would be considered a reliable source for such an important biography. The book appears to be self-published, so I think it would fail WP:RS as well. - MrX 🖋 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MrX. You can't trust that just because a "fact" about Tesla appears in multiple websites it is true. A LOT of myth and false information circulates on the web about Tesla, repeated by many fanboy websites. A reliable source would be a reputable biography such as Carlson or Cheney. --ChetvornoTALK 18:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: I see where you're going with this, and you're probably right. There just isn't anything to completly draw the line and say that it is true, that Tesla was obsessed with 3, 6 and 9. - user:Year1888 - 21:50 28 February 2019 (GMT+1)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Croatian-American inventor Victoria ruklic (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 22:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2019

Hello,

In the section Eidetic memory, there are five links referring to the same book. Isn't that a bit too much? If all sentences are derived from the same source, simply place one reference on the final sentence and in this way define the whole text. If several consecutive sentences refer to one source, link the final sentence only. This will simplify and clean up things a bit.

I haven't checked the entire article but this exaggeration with references is also true with section Early years:

"In December 1878, Tesla left Graz and severed all relations with his family to hide the fact that he dropped out of school.[32] His friends thought that he had drowned in the nearby Mur River.[34] Tesla moved to Maribor, where he worked as a draftsman for 60 florins per month. He spent his spare time playing cards with local men on the streets.[32]"

All three references (32;34;32) link to same book.

Next, there should be a separate section called, "Tesla's Thought Experiments", to further describe his ability to construct electro-mechanical devices in his mind. He has said that:

“My method is different. I do not rush into actual work. When I get an idea I start at once building it up in my imagination. I change the construction, make improvements, and operate the device entirely in my mind.” ― Nikola Tesla, My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla

The majority of his work took place in his thought experiments (in the laborytory of his mind). This is exactly what Einstein was doing when experimenting with the laws of nature. The only difference between Einstein and Tesla is that Tesla did thought experiments with machines.

This topic is briefly mention in the section Eidetic memory:

"Tesla would visualize an invention in his mind with extreme precision, including all dimensions, before moving to the construction stage, a technique sometimes known as picture thinking. He typically did not make drawings by hand but worked from memory."

There should be a separate section as this ability is significant in Tesla's life and makes him a special character in the world of inventors.

Please respond,

Marino

p.s. Section Notes takes up 17% of the whole web-page... Marinoklisovich (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

To your first point, they are repeated since one of them points to a specific page in a book. This is preferable, it helps those who want to verify the information. It's also all right to repeat references for each sentence, it makes it more clear where the information comes from and is helpful for when editors want to change parts of paragraphs. Having a long Notes section for such a long article is quite all right. – Þjarkur (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Þjarkur: I didn't know that references go in such detail. Thank you for your answer.
@Marinoklisovich: His "mental development" process is mentioned in the "Eidetic memory" section, but maybe more should be said about it. As biographers like Carlson have noted, his failure to perform adequate development experiments and build scale models before attempting full scale projects is responsible for the failure of his Wardencliffe transmitter, and maybe other projects. This should probably be mentioned. In general he seems to have been too impatient or unable to do conventional engineering development, which probably explains why all his projects after 1900 were failures and he ended up destitute, when other similar engineers of his era ended up rich. Tesla was nothing like Einstein. Theoretical physics you can do on a blackboard since it is built on experimental physics, but in engineering you have to test out whether your methods work in the real world. Tesla was completely wrong about his "earth currents" theory of wireless, and stuck to his failed theory long after radio waves were proven. --ChetvornoTALK 21:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: I don't now about his later yeas but his invention of rotating magnetic field was conceived in his mind with no support from real lab. From my own experience, thought experiments are quite possible. After prolonged observation of reality (just raw experience), you can do though experiments. Nikola Tesla lived his whole childhood in a natural village, surrounded with by nothing but nature. He was underestimated a lot by academia and established scientific world. Anyway, a comprehensive article for sure.
@Marinoklisovich: Yes, his alternating current inventions (the induction motor which came from his rotating magnetic field idea, and multiphase power) were his only successful ones, perhaps because he was working for Westinghouse labs where he was forced to actually develop them into practical products. His record when he was working on his own, developing inventions by "thought experiments", is almost complete failure. Tesla was a wonderfully creative inventor, but he wasn't a scientist, an entrepreneur, or much of a development engineer. He failed to accept the scientific advances of his day and remained mired in 19th century misconceptions; he didn't believe in the electron, relativity, or even radio waves, and continued to believe in the ether and antigravity.
If Tesla was once underesteemed as you say, he is now WAY WAY overesteemed [21]; Tesla is the definition of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. He was discovered by the New Age movement in the 60s and is a cult figure now [22]. Due to an echo chamber of hundreds of WP:FRINGE WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE websites [23] [24], [25], that promote fake science, millions of fanboys worldwide believe he invented radar [26], x-rays [27], the laser [28], the transistor [29], the fluorescent light [30], radio [31], particle beam weapons [32], and long distance wireless power [33]. In these fantasies the reason he didn't get credit is the inventions were stolen from him by [(choose one): the Government, J. Pierpont Morgan, Big Corporations, the Nazis, the Russians, Aliens]. Of course, he didn't actually invent any of these things [34] [35]. I think the article needs a section on his current cult status, debunking the many myths about his work which are so widely circulated and believed today. --ChetvornoTALK 01:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Chetvorno: Thanks anyway.
 Note: Closing request. NiciVampireHeart 10:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Tesla's nationality

It is not sure if Tesla was a Croat or a Serb. Pizzasuperman (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity, and if you have anything to add to those discussions that would be the place. Thanks. -- Begoon 09:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla was CROATIAN and NOT Serbian

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 22:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Tesla was a Serbian -American inventor !!!!

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 22:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • God I am so tired of this bullshit. Don't these people, the pro-Croat and the pro-Serb parties, ever get tired of this? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Chetvorno and Drmies: Why was this moved to a page that's not even an article ? - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@FlightTime: See the box at the top of this article. Ever since it was started, for 14 years, this page has seen a nonstop edit war between Serbian and Croatian nationalists over whether Tesla was Serbian or Croatian. The debate got so nasty that in a 16 June 2015 RfC an overwhelming consensus of 15 editors decided to move discussions of Tesla's nationality and ethnicity to a subpage of this Talk page Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity so those who are here to build an encyclopedia can get on with their work. --ChetvornoTALK 16:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Spoken Article

I see that there is a request for this article to be read out loud. The request has been there for a long time but hasn't been put on the official article yet. Why is this? -user:Year1888 May 15, 2019, 11:04 (UTC)

Simply because no volunteer has done it yet. If you would like to do it I think the instructions are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Cheers. -- Begoon 09:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2019

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 21:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020

village: shengedol 5.234.65.21 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Radio?

Tesla did more than make contributions to "radio control", he effectively invented radio. The Supreme Court in 1943 found that Marconi had infringed on prior patents filed by Tesla, Stone, and Lodge. While the Court did not dispute Marconi's claim to having achieved "the first radio transmission", it did find that he did it with technology developed in prior years by Tesla, Lodge, and Stone.[1] Furthermore, Marconi's transmission occured in December 1901, whereas Tesla had demonstrated "radio transmission" in the form of a radio-controlled boat, as early as 1898.

This article needs to mention Tesla's invention of radio, and the info-box needs to include radio (not just "radio control") as one of the areas in which he made significant contributions. Without Tesla's inventions, Marconi could have done nothing.

Lacking this significant information, it is difficult to see how this can be called a "good article".

I'd have made these additions myself, but editing seems to be broken for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/320/1.html%7C United States Supreme Court: MARCONI WIRELESS T. CO. OF AMERICA v. U.S.(1943)
The first Morse code radio communication system was developed by Marconi in 1894-5 and patented by him in 1896,[36][37] not 1901; and it did not use Tesla's technology; [38][39] no reliable source claims it did. While Tesla did invent the resonant transformer circuit which was used in the first long distance radio transmitters and receivers, the famous "four circuit" system[40] and used it in some radio wave transmission experiments, he was mainly interested in wireless power and never developed a radio communication system.[41][42][43][44][45] Lodge,[46] Stone,[47] and Karl Ferdinand Braun[48] applied it to radio.[49][50] Marconi's transatlantic radio transmission occurred December 1901 but by then he, Stone, and Braun had been transmitting with the "four circuit" system for several years. The 1943 Supreme Court decision did not challenge Marconi's original 1896 patent, only his 1900 patent claim to the "four circuit" system. Tesla was also mired in 19th century electrical misconceptions; he didn't believe that long distance radio communication was carried by radio waves at all but by ground currents.[51][52] No one person "invented" radio; it was collaborative achievement.[53] A detailed, thoroughly sourced explanation of the contribution of these people to radio is at Spark-gap transmitter#Inductive coupling. --ChetvornoTALK 15:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
However I agree that it would be appropriate to include the word "radio" in Tesla's contributions in the infobox. --ChetvornoTALK 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Archive_10&oldid=1050330314"