Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Wardenclyffe Tower

Why do we have so much detail on Wardenclyffe Tower here when the article on the tower says no one knows how it was supposed to work? From PBS story on Tesla it appears that he was trying to transmit power through the ground not the air. But they claim no one knows as does the Wardenclyffe article. Rmhermen 15:52, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Inventions

It'd really be nice to have a section that lists just his inventions. It'd make this article a lot more useful. :-) —Frecklefoot 14:54, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There's page on Tesla patents, perhaps it could be linked from here more visibly. Nikola 16:51, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1912 Nobel Prize

Reddi: are you sure about the 1912 Nobel Prize? I cannot find supporting evidence for it. The official Nobel prize site [ http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1912/] just talks about Nils Gustaf Dalen, no one else

Some sites ...
http://webusers.physics.umn.edu/~selina/famous_story.html
http://www.genordell.com/stores/maison/Tesla.htm
"An announcement came from Sweden, in 1912, that Nikola Tesla and Thomas A. Edison had been chosen to share the 1912 award in physics. The awards, however, were never made; and the prize went instead to Gustav Dalen, a Swedish scientist. [ ... ] Tesla was the Wrst, and probably the only, scientist to refuse this famous prize." - http://www.uncletaz.com/library/scimath/tesla/prodigal3.html [this is from the prodigal genius book]
I just convey the info ... not make it up ... reddi 15:29, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You know, I'm starting to think this is an urban (scientific?) legend. Neither web site that you cite are very authoritative. I think I know the source of the legend, however. Check out Eric Weisstein's biography of Tesla at [1]. There, he cites Hunt and Draper (who are well-known biographers of Tesla). Weisstein states
There may have been some unusual maneuvering in the awarding of the 1912 or 1915 Nobel Prize. Biographer disagree on the dates, but report that Tesla was confidentially informed that he was to share the physics award with Edison, and was then surprised to see it go to a scientist (Hunt and Draper 1991, pp. 166-171).
This is different that "turning it down" and more consistent with the Nobel process. You see, recipients don't have an opportunity to "turn it down". You're just awarded it. I suppose you could refuse to go to Sweden to meet with the King, but you still have the award. However, backroom secret politics could have leaked out to Tesla, and that's what was recorded in his biography, and eventually turned into this possible urban legend. I don't have access to the Hunt and Draper book to double check.
May I suggest weakening the statement in the article, to make it NPOV? Something like, "Some people believe that Tesla and Edison were to share ..." -- hike395
I hope the present form is better ...
There is accounts of a New York Times article that may conflict with the "privately" part though. [ see the reference at http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm and in the prvious links (the 2nd one IIRC)] I'll see if i can find a newspaper ref for the article.
BTW, what is authoritative? Prodigal Genius [the book] is commonly accepted as a authoritative source of much information on Mr. Tesla ....
more later ... reddi 16:35, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It's better, thanks. I didn't realize that the quote (and third link, which I overlooked somehow) was from O'Neill's book, which seems authoritative (i.e., a researched biography of Tesla, rather than a web page full of anecdotes). Thanks again! -- hike395

Street Gang?

What's a street gang, and can someone expand on that (intriguing) sentence? Graft 02:24, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A street gang is a term for a type of laborer job he held (I believe he was diggin' ditches or some meanial task). He did this shortly after leaving Edison's employment IIRC ... there a few references to him doing this ... he did this to acquire capital to begin his next experiments [again IIRC]

Middle Name?

On a COMPELETELY different topic ... doew anyone know Tesla's middle name? I have search a long time for it (since a year ago, when it started to bother me) .... but to no success (doesn't everyone have a middle name?) ... his museum has his birth certificate, but I cannot read it (i only read / write english and bad english) ... if anyone can, please tell me and I'll find the link to it [or goto the meuseum site and look around) reddi 02:38, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Serbs don't have middle names :)) In fact, I think that most people on Earth don't have middle names. Nikola 06:40, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
oh ... ok ... but could you check the record? [ala. can you read serbian? (or whatever lang it is in?)] ... never know, might have something on it reddi 06:43, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Of course I can, but where could I find his birth certificate? What museum it is in? Nikola 08:25, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Museum in Belgrade. OK, I'll try to go there in the following days and look up the certificate. Tesla might have middle name if Austrian jurisdiction of the time required it, but I doubt that. Nikola 08:27, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Or if you have a scan of it you could send it to me, that'll be faster. Nikola 08:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Here's the birth certificate link: http://www.yurope.com/org/tesla/pic/rodimage.gif ... a translation of any applicable information would be great. reddi 04:41, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
First, the certificate is in Old Church Slavonic. There is no middle name. But I found you something interesting:
Image:Teslaname.png
Tesla was baptised in Old Church Slavonic rite and got Old Church Slavonic name Николай; that is, Nikolai, same as Nikolai_Gogol for example. Check for yourself in Cyrillic alphabet if you don't believe :) Now, it doesn't mean that we are calling him wrongly, at that time names were being translated and Tesla's name in Serbian language is indeed Nikola.
Tesla' date of birth is:
Image:Tesladate.png
month of June, day 28th, year 1856. Now, that is in Julian calendar. Could you look up why there are two possible Tesla's birthdays? Perhaps we could sort this out. Nikola 08:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I'm editing Tesla's mother's entry right now. On this page they refer to it ... "Nikola, was born on June 28, according to the Julian calendar, or July 10, according to the modern calendar." ... it must be a transitional thing between the different calendars. more later ...

Past Tense

Please use past tense to discuss historical facts. Alternating back and forth between past and present tense is rather disconcerting for the poor reader.

Alternatively, if you insist on writing in present tense, the for God's sake be so good as to do it consistently throughout the article. I mean really:

First Tesla is born... then The midwife commented,...then Tesla moves to the United States of America...

Mkweise 02:47, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I found the switch from present to past tense jarring. I think we may have a non-native speaker as the main contributor to this article, so we really can't fault him for it. But at the very least, the same tense should be used throughout the section. But for historical subjects, past is preferable. If no one else does it, I'll try to get around the changing it. It's pretty darn lengthy, though, so we may have to settle for one section at a time. —Frecklefoot 14:52, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
As to history and the tense it is written in ... a course I took in college "Writing on History" (or something similar to that) taught me to write to history in the present tense. It's commonly accepted by historians when writing on history that you write in the present tense (unless something has changed in the last decade since I left school). IIRC, It may be that it helps the readibility of the timeline (atleast from historians' view). Changes between tenses are mostly a preference (pending the exact phrase under consideration), but, primarily, historical writings should be written in the present tense. I'll try to keep it active, and not stale [as past tense is the latter and the present tense is the prior]. reddi 15:07, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I disagree with the use of present tense in historical subjects. I don't have any evidence to back me up as to the "proper" tense to use, but it just seems common sense that when speaking about something that has already happened, put it in the past tense. We are writing for the public at large, not historians specifically. If there were a WikiHisty, perhaps we'd write in present tense for it. Also, I've read plenty of history books that always used the past tense. Just MHO, but I think others might back me up on this.
As to past tense being stale, this doesn't have to be the case and rarely is. Any tense can be passive or active. I've read plenty of novels written in the past tense that kept me riveted and were very active:
  • "Jake thrust the jagged knife into Jim's abdomen."
  • "Sheila ripped off Tim's shirt."
  • "Lisa smashed her fist into the wall."
So, my opinion is to write history in the past tense and in the active voice as much as possible. :-) —Frecklefoot 15:39, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It may seem common sense that when speaking about something that has already happened, put it in the past tense ... thought it's better form to write in the present tense. This is for historical accounts in general (not just for historians, as you imply).
As to past tense being stale ... i'll example this ....
"On monday, Sheila ripped off Tim's shirt." [passive; stale]
or
"On monday, Sheila rips off Tim's shirt." [active; alive]
As can be seen, the latter is abit more active and alive than the prior ... other examples can be done ...
I'll See if i can dig up my old book on this (from the class... I have it probably packed up) to give you a citation of th title of it .... reddi 16:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well, it would be acceptable style to use present tense, if it were done consistently. But this random mix of past and present tense is ugly - we have to agree on one or the other, and most historical articles on Wikipedia do seem to be written in past tense. Mkweise 16:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree that either tense would be preferable to the current jumble. But I did find this doc from Brown University (How to Write History) that states that history should be written in the past tense to avoid confusing the reader. Which was my point in the first place. :-) —Frecklefoot 17:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
In the hopes of settling this (good natured) dispute, the table below has a short section of the biography written in the current present tense and the past tense. Which is more readable?
In 1884, leaving the warfare of his birthplace behind, Tesla moves to the United States of America to accept a job with the Edison Company in New York City. He arrives in America with 4 cents to his name, a book of poetry, and a letter of recommendation (from Charles Batchelor, his manager in his previous job). Tesla supports his brother-in-law's church in Gospic while in America. In 1884, leaving the warfare of his birthplace behind, Tesla moved to the United States of America to accept a job with the Edison Company in New York City. He arrived in America with 4 cents to his name, a book of poetry, and a letter of recommendation (from Charles Batchelor, his manager in his previous job). Tesla supported his brother-in-law's church in Gospic while in America.

—Frecklefoot 19:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

OK, this is beyond silly. History is almost always written in the past tense because it happended, in well, the past. Why the heck do you think there is a past tense at all? The only exception is the day and year pages because there is an immediacy to them. And Wikipedia general practice has been overwhelmingly to write history in the past tense. --mav 19:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you! My feelings exactly. I just couldn't seem to get anyone to agree with me (up until now). Thanks again, Mav. —Frecklefoot 19:55, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't think this is "beyond silly", but my preference would be for past tense, because:
  1. Our articles may mix "history" sections with other perspectives on a subject, so the clarity of past tense=past is useful.
  2. Our articles are aimed at and written by non-experts, and amongst non-experts history is normally in the past tense.
Of course, people should write in whatever tense they feel comfortable with - copyediting wikipedians can change articles to be in an appropriate tense. Has anyone mentioned this discussion on wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Martin 21:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Is this a joke??? You NEVER write professional history articles in the present tense, not for history books aimed at anyone over the age of 6!!! Never ever ever. Lightweight 'cartoon' coverage of history may do it, usually with pictures you colour in with crayons on the side. But no serious textbook, let alone an encyclopædia, does it. If they did they would make themselves an international laughing stock. As someone said above, it is "beyond silly". It is absurd in the extreme. Is this idea some sort of belate April Fools' day joke??? It is so nonsensical an idea as to be sidesplittingly funny. Why next? Writing every thing article in capitals? Bold every second word? Write backwards? FearÉIREANN 21:13, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've asked a colleague on the phone and (once he had stopped laughing) he explained that writing in the present tense was a rather naff fad a few people on the fringes of historical researches tried, and like all naff fads (roller discos, leg warmers, 1970s architecture, perms, writing 'hir', the Bay City Rollers, Fame, electing Jimmy Carter) is looked back upon with embarrassment, usually of the sort of 'what the hell were we smoking/taking/thinking of at the time?' :-) FearÉIREANN 21:25, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(the following few paragraphs were moved from village pump)

Over at Talk:Nikola Tesla, a disagreement over whether history should be written in the past or present tense has resulted in an article that alternates between past and present tense in a very ugly fashion. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nikola Tesla; if there is an authoritative answer, please post there. Mkweise 16:45, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I posted a link to How to Write History from Brown University, which I assume is authoritative enough. I couldn't find any arguments stating that history should be written in the present tense except from Reddi. I'd appreciate any further input, either for or against present tense (with evidence for stance). Reddi's objection to past tense is that it is "passive." I countered that both present and past tense can be passive, and he countered again. I still hold that history should be written in the past tense, but as Mkweise notes, the discussion should be furthered on the Talk:Nikola Tesla page. —Frecklefoot 17:20, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
My wife, who was a History major, says that it can be either past or present tense (but obviously it shouldn't be both in the same article); apparently there is no standard among historical writers about which is better. I personally find it strange to read about past events in the present tense, but it can be pulled off convincingly by skillful writers. My preference is past tense for historical subjects; the only potential problem with it is how to transition from events of the past to events of the present; it is probably for this reason that the policy for adding to the Current events is to use present tense. Anyhow, I would find any arguments regarding the passivity of either tense to be specious; it's very much possible to use an active voice while using past tense (consider how you would write a resume!). Anyhow, I have no solid evidence for either, but I strongly oppose the intermixture of the two. We should pick one and stick with it. -- Wapcaplet 19:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

A lot of the problem is that people are switching back and forth between tenses in the same article. I've also run across the future tense -- "He would go on to ..." form. I change those to "He went on to ..." whenever I see those. RickK 02:12, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Since it's clearly the consensus, I suggest we make it official Wikipedia style that historical articles be written in the past tense. While we're at it, how do you all feel about past vs. present tense when describing legendary and mythological events? I personally tend towards describing legends and mythology in the present tense. Mkweise 23:39, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is there a Wikipedia:WikiProject History or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology we could move this to? Martin 22:29, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've started converting the bio to past tense and have done some rearranging and rewording in the process. As of this writing, I've reached "Laboratory Construction." If you see any grammar errors or instances of present tense that I've missed, please go ahead and fix them. Changing passive voice to active would also be appreciated (<-- note: that sentence is passive-voice) :-) —Frecklefoot 14:50, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished the conversion. It wasn't really all that bad, but I encountered some awkward wording in some places that others may want to revise. This doesn't really belong in the article, but my father-in-law has a personal anecdote involving Tesla. I'll post it here for your reading pleasure. :-)
My father-in-law is a physicist and reviewed some data regarding an electrical device a fellow scientist was going to build. He asked the scientist, who was quite a bit older than he, if he was going to base it on AC or DC. He replied, "Alternating current." My father-in-law nodded and then asked, "Why?" The scientist replied, "Well, I knew Tesla, and he was a real nice guy. I also met Edison, and he was a real son-of-a-bitch." :-) —Frecklefoot 16:52, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)












some rather dubious material...

some of this article comes across as rather credulous, repeating the conspiratorial Tesla stuff one comes across on the Internet but which is never properly sourced and is clearly dubious at best.

some of this article comes across as rather credulous? which part? anything inparticular? please read the several biographies out there 1st too ...
Conspiratorial stuff? Conspiracies are prefectly acceptible to mention ... most are not this also (look @ the links) ... clearly dubious? YMMV on that ...

For example, most people consider Tesla's obsession with wireless power transmission to have been quixotic; the practical inefficiencies doomed it to failure on anything but a very small scale. Similarly his "death ray" (if it existed) was most likely a focussed microwave beam, which would happily fry a bunny at two feet but would have had no practical combat use.

"most people" consider Tesla's obsession with wireless power transmission to have been quixotic? The IEEE doesn't ....
The practical inefficiencies doomed it to failure? ummm no ....
His "death ray" (if it existed) was most likely a focussed microwave beam? and that's doesn't make it any less of a "telkeforce" device ...
No practical combat use? YMMV on that ...

Would be great if someone with knowledge of the relevant history and electrical engineering could update the article to show the borderlines between Tesla the scientist, Tesla the obsessive, and Tesla the part-fictional construct of latter-day conspiracy theorists.

knowledge of the relevant history and electrical engineering? The IEEE and several other knowledgeable and reliable sources state these commonly known FACTs regularly ... sorry you don't believe them ...
update the article? it's uptodate ...
Tesla the scientist? he was that all his life ... Tesla the obsessive? that is clearly covered in the present article .... and Tesla the part-fictional construct? I believe that is covered too ...
sincerely reddi 02:04, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I second the above motion that this article is unduly credulous about several of Tesla's ventures, and this leads me to think that there should be a section in the article about Teslaphiles. You know who I mean. For some reason there seems to be a Tesla fan club that attributes the man with visionary powers beyond all ken. It may have to do with sympathizing with the "crackpot genius vs. the uncaring bureaucracy" mentality. I propose this section not to discredit Tesla or make fun of his defenders, but because it seems to be an actual phenomenon. Tesla fans are about 1000 times more passionate about the subject than Edison fans. Incidentally, see Cecil Adams for a (rather undetailed and summary-like) dismissal of Tesla's broadcast power. Tempshill 22:40, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Tesla's ventures? Most of these are covered (not sure if there are any other ones out there? but there could be) ...
"crackpot genius vs. the uncaring bureaucracy" mentality? hmmm ... mabey ...
Teslaphile ... actual phenomenon? yes ... there are followings of him [not to mention some fringe religions that incorporate him] ... also, there is a band named after him ...
Tesla fans vs Edison fans? vs. Marconi fans? vs Hertz fans? hmmm ... mabey seperate articles? =-]
Cecil Adams on Tesla's broadcast power could be put into a crtics section? (or critical links) .. though I'd like to say that Mr. Adams had not experienced anything like the magnifying transformer [which is a modification and improvement on the original tesla coil] (of which Adams bases his judgement too from what I can tell) nor does he mention his radient energy work. If you read the Tesla patents, you know that he does lie down the many fundementals of broadcasting (among other things).
Sincerely, JDR
As a postscript, see this on the Teslaphile phenomenon ...
Kelley, Thomas Lee, "The enigma of Nikola Tesla". ARIZONA State UniversitY. [Thesis]
And if you are going to bring IEEE into it you had better note that they state "he became oracular in his later years and, for example, offered no proof of the potent "death-ray" that he announced in 1934, on his seventy-eighth birthday" and "he began work on a worldwide communications system, and a 200-foot transmission tower was constructed at Shoreham" (not as the article claims a power transmission plant) and again " It was at his Colorado laboratory, too, that Tesla, who had become increasingly withdrawn and eccentric ever since the death of his mother in 1892, announced that he had received signals from foreign planets"! And in contradiction to our article which claims Wardenclyffe was a radio wave generator "Engrossed as he was with the transmission of substantial amounts of power, however, he almost perversely rejected the notion of transmission by Hertzian waves, which he considered to be wasteful of energy. He thus proposed wireless communication by actual conduction of electricity through natural media," All from the biography at IEEE [2] Rmhermen 15:17, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
IEEE is pretty good site for some things ... though history sections are brief articles mostly ...
"[Tesla] became oracular in his later years" ... "offered no proof of the potent "death-ray"" of 1934? If you read the article by Joseph W. Alsop ("Beam to Kill Army at 200 Miles Tesla's Claim on 78th Birthday", New York Herald Tribune. July 11, 1934.) you'll see that the force cited is produced by the system using the same basic principles for a death-ray and wireless transmission ... so, it's probably an improvement and slightly different implementation of previous works (may be in the missing patents or papers? mabey not ...) there was also no working model of it though (and wouldn't o' past the patent ofice at the time) ;-] ... more later on this hopefully, though ....
"worldwide communications system at Shoreham? See the Wardencylff article for possible uses of that facility.
Colorado laboratory? It's a neat facility ... the pictures are neat, atleast ...
received signals from foreign planets? Yep ... amazing ... though he misinterperted the data ... he thought that they were messages ... but it was really radio astronomy (electromagnetic signatures of the planets) ... wouldn't be till another few decades that the scientific community would acknowledge them as a real science (IIRC, Geber (sp?) is credited as the father of that science) ...
claims Wardenclyffe was a radio wave generator? Tesla was able to transcieve substantial amounts of power ... Hertzian waves are one type ( Tesla also refers to longitudal waves [which are not akin to hertzian lateral waves, as he puts it] ... lateral waves may be wasteful of energy, longitudal waves may not be (though the info on it is scare). Remember, too, that much of his terminology is different to that of modern tech, as he was on the "edge" ... robots are an example, he called them teleautomatons (or something like that (I could look it up to be more precise)).
"wireless communication by actual conduction of electricity through natural media"? That is a possibility ... see the ultilization of radiant energy patents (2 or 3 o' em, I forget at this monent) ... or any of the radiant energy patents ...
Sincerely, JDR
Here's an article on the so-called Non-Hertzian waves: The real science of non-Hertzian Waves. Having done some reseach on Tesla for a newspaper article, I agree that the Wikipedia article way too uncritical. There is a lot of very compelling pseudoscience out there about Tesla and Wardenclyffe, but let's not forget that Tesla abandoned the scientific method in his later years. He did not accept critique regarding the flaws in his theory which were one of the reasons why Wardenclyffe never worked. The article gives the impression that the only reason Wardenclyffe never went operational is because of greedy investors.

First allow me to say that I am no Tesla expert and certainly not an EE. I have no expertise as to evaluate how plausible/crazy Tesla's wireless tranmission ideas and work were. My impression from this article (alone) is that the indications are that wireless ground/air power transmission as proposed by Tesla might actually work, but that it has not been tested as a full system. The informative science comments in this section seem to be asserting that pieces of his work on this were subsequently confirmed by independent research. So if his wireless transmission does not work (as one might suppose given we don't see them), perhaps a section akin to the one on the signals from space would be appropriate? Indicate what parts of the discovery have been confirmed, which parts were inaccurate, and which if any remain speculative. As a reader, that would be very helpful. Thanks. - JohnG

Croatian, Serbian, American

I was wondering .... besides being American ... what's up with the Serbian - Croatian thing going on? Is there any data to conclusively state one or both? I was under the impression that it is preferrable to referred to Tesla as a Serbian-American (IIRC, I read this on the Tesla Society (or a letter by them) that he was this) ... but a few web sites, again IIRC, cite him as a Croatian-American. A minority of other sites do both. It really matters little to me ... but I've seen a few edits back and forth and would like to get a general concensus ... and mabey stop the flip-flop ... Sincerely, JDR

Tesla was of Serbian ethnicity but lived in Croatia before moving to the U.S. That's it. (Some people might tell you how that place was not Croatia because it was in Krajina, but that's just wishful thinking on their part.) So if you wish to state his national affilliation, you'd say he was a Serb, but if you wish to say where he was from, you'd say he was from America and from Croatia. --Shallot 23:39, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No, he wasn't from Croatia. He was from Austria-Hungary. And from a region of Austria-Hungary that will be a part of a Croatia some 100 years after his birth. Nikola 07:22, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that's sufficiently accurate. Croatia is a geographical entity which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a political entity. Croatia didn't lose its geographical identity under Austro-Hungarian rule any more than Serbia did under Ottoman rule. Saying that Tesla was from Austria-Hungary is insufficiently precise because it doesn't identify which part of the empire he came from (Austria? Hungary? Croatia? Slovenia? Transylvania? The Veneto?). He's usually described by encyclopedias as being "Croatian-born": e.g. "American electrical engineer, born in Croatia (Austria-Hungary)" (Academic Press Dictionary of Science and Technology), "US electrical engineer and inventor, b. Croatia" (Philip's Encyclopedia), "American electrician and inventor, b. Croatia (then an Austrian province)" (The Columbia Encyclopedia). I see no reason why we shouldn't use a similar description. -- ChrisO 08:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What ChrisO said. The place had acquired a common name of "Croatia" several centuries before Tesla was born. Even the political entity where his village is was also officially renamed back to "Croatia" not long after he had left it (and the country later). There is very little basis to omit the term in reference to his origin. --Shallot 19:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Croatia and Serbia are political and not geographical regions; there is no geographical region which is called Croatia or Serbia (unlike, for example Kosovo, which at a time was both a political and a geograhical region). You say that the political entity where his village is was renamed back to "Croatia"; how was it named before? Nikola 06:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I beg to differ. While Serbia can be construed to have grown out of smaller regions (notably Raska and Zeta), Croatia also grew out of smaller regions but the regional names Pannonia and Slavonia stopped being applied to the central region at hand around the beginning of the second millenium. Pannonia was used for it in Roman times and during the Slavic settlement; Slavonia was relegated to the eastern region some time around the early Hungarian rule.
I agree but still don't see how is it geographical region. Nikola
I can't remember offhand a wide regional designation for the areas of Karlovac, Sisak, Ogulin... heck, even towards Zagreb. There are many toponyms like Zagorje, Prigorje, Bilogora, Turopolje, Pokuplje, Posavina, Moslavina, Banija, Kordun, Krbava, Lika... but very few of them can be said to describe that whole chunk or even a noticably large part of it. The common name for the whole kit and caboodle is "Croatia", I don't think there is any other. --Shallot 11:27, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As you once said, Croatia's shape is hard to outworse; there simply is no geographical region in which Croatia is, which is of course the case with many other countries. Logically, the whole "kit and caboodle" (whatever that is) could only be called Croatia because it is politically in Croatia. I'd say that Lika is geographically in Dalmatia, for example, and I don't mean Austro-Hungarian province of the same name.
(In case we don't understand each other, I mean geographical region as in region delimited by some geographical characteristics.)
Now I don't see why this is important. Nikola 23:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well,you know,if you would say that an american was born and grew up in germany youd still only call him american,so why would this be different?cause tesla is a serb so now he is not allowed to be a serb anymore? he was a serb and son of an orthodox priest so im more than surprised about the croatian claims on tesla.i thought they hate orthodoxy:) so why do they want an orthodox person?cause they cant make their genious?:) anyway,tesla mostly studied in austria which is totally understandable considering that croatia didnt even exist,it was a province of austro-hungary. igore,i heard about the romanian claims on tesla and i cant understand who started with this nonsense:)there are absolutelly no proof of any romanians in these areas. the only people who can say they exist in dalmatia (not like) is the italian national minority. i believe from what i understood on some page that tesla never accepted american citizenship,at least the office for aliens dealed with whats left after his death which brought me to that conclusion. - Katarina

I think it is acceptable to refer to Tesla as a Serbian Croat. Otherwise, is it ever possible to be an inhabitant of a Balkan (or European) region without having an identical ethnic heritage that is synonomous with the region's name. Yes, Tesla was technically born in Austro-Hungary, but it was well known and accepted at the time that Lika was part of Croatia, as it is today, even when it was occupied. He himself referred to his homeland as Croatia, and not Serbia. The conflict between these two ethnic groups was not as contentious as it is today, in fact they were quite allied back then, with a common cause to keep out invaders(which is why the first Yugoslav state came about). Zagreb was part of Austro-Hungary as well, but I doubt anyone would argue that Zagreb was not part of the region of Croatia. That is to utterly deny that Croatia existed at all during Tesla's time. Let's not forget the difference between Ethnicity and Regional "Nationality". His Ethnicity was Serbian, but his home was Croatia. It is admirable that any Croatians would honor Tesla, while knowing that he was an ethnic Serb. This makes Tesla a role model for the future of the Balkans. I think this is a sign that it is possible to be a Croatian National and not necessarily be ethnically Croatian. They are two different things, but unfortunately this is not widely accepted due to fervent nationalism. Technically, Croatia today consists of Croats, Serbs, Muslims (or Bosniaks), Slovenes, Italians, Albanians, and Romas, and even more ethnic groups. If any European nation is ever to thrive and prosper socially and economically, it is going to have to learn to embrace ethnic diversity. This ethnic identiy crisis seems to be a problem all over the European continent. In America you are considered American first, regardless of your ethnic background, it is trivial in most cases, at best. Perhaps it is easier for me to see this, as I have a Greek father and Croatian mother and live in America. -Christos (a view from a Greco-Croatian American)
In that time croatia didn't exist, and that region where he is born was (and is still) called Lika and people were Licians (Licani). No one of Licians having Serbian nationality were called Croats, because that name had only Catholic Licians. Ortodox licians were called Serbs. Tesla's father was ortodox pastor, so he was probably called Serb.FormatC
I think there's a confusion here between his ethnicity and his geographical origins. It seems clear enough that Tesla was an ethnic Serb. It's also clear that he was from the geographic region of Croatia. This map from 1911 [3] shows a unit of Austria-Hungary called "Croatia-Slavonia," within which Gospic falls (it's not marked on the map but is just above the western end of the dotted line separating Croatia-Slavonia from Dalmatia). As has already been said on this thread, the name "Croatia" was given to that geographic area long before it was given to a political entity. So it's entirely fair to say that he was a Serb from Croatia, or a Croatian Serb. -- ChrisO 17:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Was Tesla born in 1911 or when??? Nikola 23:52, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Suppose I were to tell you that Karadjordje Petrovic or Vuk S. Karadzic "were not from Serbia" but "from the Ottoman Empire/Turkey" because "Serbia did not exist at the time they were born". You would probably say I'm crazy - and rightfully so, because it's ludicrous. But that's exactly the kind of argument that keeps popping up here. Let's have some intellectual honesty and stop with the double standards: if you claim that "Nikola Tesla is not from Croatia", you're in fact saying that "Vuk Karadzic is not from Serbia". Are you really saying that? 00:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It might be interesting to see how was Tesla referring to his origin in his patents: [4].

Birthdate?

The article starts off saying he was born on "1856 July 10". The Biography section does not mention what year (I had to go looking), and says that birth certificate date says "June 28". Can someone clean this up? Scott McNay 09:45, 2004 Feb 16 (UTC)

This is a difference between the Julian calendar vs. the Gregorian calendar. Sincerely, JDR
I'd say that non-Gregorian dates should be documented as such, most especially for any dates within the changeover period.
Is there a Wikipedia standard for historical dates? If not, then perhaps we need one, with this being one of the items mentioned.
Scott McNay 03:03, 2004 Feb 17 (UTC)
Non-Gregorian dates should be documented (as it is herewiththe Julian note). What about the dates within the changeover? I'm not sure if this is done, though i'll look into it.
Wikipedia:History is a prelim on history std (add to it if you can) ... I'll post a talk itme on this difference somewhere (to get other's feelings) ... I agree that this needs to be pointed out (when necesary). JDR

Some sources suggest July 9 and some sources both July 9 and July 10

Cosmic Waves

The "Cosmic waves" section is crazily repetitive. It is actually several edits stuck together. If someone can sort out the facts and fix it. I am not too sure what to discard. Delta G 22:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I took a whack at it and am OK with the result except maybe the accuracy of this portion: He recorded measurements of repetitive signals conducted via his transmitter... Maybe someone can verify/clarify this? RatOmeter 07:30, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Transmitter" should be his "transciever". JDR

Vlach stuff

Huh, easy there, Irismeister. Where's the corroboration for this huge Aromanian ethnic nationalist litany? Some quotes from the autobiography perhaps...? Google has astonishing 4 matches for "Nicu Teslea", and I know a few Serb nationalists who will take offense at this (albeit, regardless of whether it's true or not :)... --Shallot 23:14, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Teslea is a Vlach. Teslea is also a genius. All governments would like to see their "subjects" boost their governmental legitimacy. Serbs know Vlachs for they prevent them from having schools in their own language. They know the truth and hide it. Therefore it's not in Serb official documents that you'll find what you call my "allegation" on Teslea's ethnicity. As for taking offense, it's their privilege and character, as much as mine are discovering and unearthing the truth, for historical and informational purposes.

As a whole, in the Balkans, you must use your own judgement in lieu of Google or else you'll see how easy it is to bomb those poor Serbs only because of some Google "fact". Let me stress that everybody respects humans in the Balkans, and much as I resent ethnic lies, I also respect Serbs, complete with their governments. Also, bombing them was a war crime and a big mistake.

As for the ethnicon, in truth, you will find it in visiting Lica and Teslea's family, as I did. The corroboration is in facts, and in your own careful analysis and understanding. Or, alternatively, only in your putting together the evidence (linguistical, bibliographical, historical).

Look, if you insist in deleting the fact, I will let you delete my stuff and I will even let you take Google as your ultimate bibliographical source :O) Then, and only then, I will bring you the ISBN and jpg and certified historical files.

What I will not do is either homework for you, or letting you believe Google is the arbiter. Hope this helps :O) - Sincerely, irismeister 13:18, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

This answer is about as incoherent and circular as is the addition to the article. I wonder why I bother... --Shallot 15:22, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
Don't then. Why bother ? You can say it's circular, throw anathema, cut it, and avoid understanding, pretending you did a (good) Wiki job, or whatever. Yet truth has a way of making itself known no matter what. You'll see. I'll wait, didactically, having been trained in Wiki for months, and long enough to know the habits around. When you will be googled enough, I'll publish here the evidence to show the quality of sources, critical judgment and Wiki standards.

If truth were only "corroborated" as you put it, my friend, by our poor understanding, then the world would be fairly chaotic. I concede to you, Shallot, that more and more, these days, people become interested in Google far more than in the real life.

No wonder to me then, that we bomb people to liberate them, that we liberate them to rob them, and we rob them so that we can bomb them more. Talk about circular arguments :O) In the mean time, let this Wiki article NOT be a collateral damage of the "American attitude" to truth, liberty, thinking and culture.

Suggested homework:

01. see if "allegations" contain anything interesting and relevant to the subject matter;
02. do your own research
03. gather material
04. now look at what you've got so far
05. then use your judgement
06. draw your conclusions
07. temptatively put them into writing
08. communicate them to us on this page

THEN we can discuss. But then again, why bother ? It's much more simple to dismiss what you care not accept. In the mean time, remember our Nicu Teslea and all our ancestors would turn into their graves looking at what you do to truth and to their ancestral values.

Yours - irismeister 16:00, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to turn just about anything into a holy war and how quickly can they stoop to pointless ad hominem attacks. First of all, please get off the soapbox regarding google and whatnot. Secondly, understand that the onus of making sure the article is verifiable is not on the observers, but rather on the person who adds the information. Thirdly, notice that we've had edit wars on the page regarding the birthplace, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the ethnicity could also be target of a flamewar. In fact, your holier-than-thou attitude is a very good indication that this will indeed happen. --Shallot 16:15, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

That's a cliché, not real thinking! Just because Americans have no roots, it doesn't mean that roots are not important. They are essential! Peoples who don't know who they are, become like the Americans, prone to impose a changing in the world before they have a chance to change (or only understand themselves, I'm afraid). There is more than Horatio in philosophy :O) - irismeister 15:26, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

No, my friend, it's the other way round :O)

Most Americans have CEASED to judge critically. For a great description of this end of the game and bitter fall, read the book called "The CLOSURE of the American mind". They just watch corporate-media-controlled (what we call CMC in Europe) tv. They are fed lies and every day more lies are rammed down their big mouths and deep throats. They want everybody to be like them. And then they genuinely ask why is it that everybody hates them. Nobody hates them, everybody just pities them! Remember? yYu can't applaude with only one (american) hand! And we don't judge people by "indication" (hence The Ugly American "I bomb you in order to liberate you" approach). But we judge people by recognizing they are human beings FIRST - just as you are, or I am.

Clearly, in all recent international activities, including the so called "international" Wiki in English, this is not the case.

The problem with most Americans thinking they hold the power, mystery and final word in this world is that the "others" get diabolized in the process and ultimately, and sadly, immediately bombed out of their "opinion" and "POV".

Americans call this process "freedom of speech" and "fair" debate.

They first set the rules, then they play by them, then they expect everybody to play the same game, then they don't play by their own rules, and finally they only recognize whatever those rules didn't bomb out in oblivion - themselves.

This is an old logical disaster called petitio principii.

Morally, the disaster is called hubris.

Technically, this is called "globalization".

Please note I did not, nor will I start an edit war.

I just said what the truth of the matter IS.

It's up to you, who cared to react, to take notice.

I have time to comply to whatever onus you invoke, being a volunteer contributor and a free person. See you soon back here, pal, with all the necessary documents - if you still care :O) - irismeister 16:45, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

PS Being a true Vlach, and a man of honor besides being the genius he is, Niţă (tender Nicu, as his beloved mother called him) Teslea suffered enormously from the Ugly American Edison, the FBI and everything and everybody who now run to grab his heritage one more and again. He never suffered from his fellow Vlachs - and fellow Serbs, and fellow Croats for this matter. Americans simply cannot grab everything and then spit on everybody - simply because that they thus only spit on their own foot :O)

Actually, this thing about him being a Vlach was written in an older version of the article [5] as added by User:Reddi ([6])
It's actually this Reddi's edit, BTW. --Shallot
Yes ... I did this it seems, though I do not remeber the source of this right now (I think it was during my investigation into his family (his mother, IIRC, to be more precise)). I'll try to see if I can find the source I got this from [but I'm not holding my breath on that]. This factoid was inserted in good faith. A simple Kansan, JDR 22:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC) [who is still looking for that "Ugly American" with the "American attitude" ppl here are talking about]
Edison ? Now you see your 50 K - now you don't, cauz you don't understand American humor ? Now you see those WMD, now you don't - twenty thousand dead civilians later! Now you surely see them again, cauz' we planted them there post hoc ergo propter hoc - irismeister 22:14, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
-- he wrote quite a signifiant part of this article, but it was deleted by the anonymous with the IP 67.68.69.25. Bogdan | Talk 19:51, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
The Nicu Teslea Vlach ethnicon fact is really brand new in this formulation AFAIK. I wrote it, based on new data and a visit of the places. There are interesting files in the Teslea museums too - irismeister 07:33, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Just for the record, Tesla is indeed a nickname last name, as in Serbian it means adze. Same Slavic root is visible in words relating to carpentry, such as tesar or tesati. Dr?ghici is a romanised spelling of Serbian last name "Dragić"; drag means "dear" in Serbian and is also a common Slavic root.

Negative, my friends! The Slavs took the word from the Vlachs, who had, just like the DALMATS, HUNDREDS of florishing life years, using this word in their Romance language, even for their Christianity, before the Slavs arrived. The historical records of the first Serb dynasty, the Nemanides, show this clearly, and with utter respect for truth:

Teslea, opcina, plemena, katunar, sud, "voinuci", pronoiari, cnez, celnik, comes, primikjur are thoroughly documented as applied to Vlachs as trademark "qualifiers", even ethnicons.

Serbs have a history of taking local words and making them look like Slavic. For instance they also took ponos from Greek, hence ponosnici in the Nemanide chancellery papers starting with the early 13th century.

Yet another example of theft and re-appropriation of history: Vlastelini, the people of the place existed everywhere before the Serbs arrived, and were thus named by Southern Slavs, since they were ubiquitous for eons before the Slavs even entered the Balkans in the late 6th century, and early 7th century, with the Avars.

More such words passing from the Vlach language to Southern, Old and even Pre-Slavic are documented every day now:

Serbian kjelatori, for instance, comes DIRECTLY from Early Romanian and Vlach călători - classical (non-popular) Latin viator.

Actually, c?l?tor is derived from "cale" (=way, road), which is from lat. "callis" (=mountain path). If we're to be off-topic, at least be completely. :-) Bogdan | Talk 23:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This certainly didn't look like Latin, but was popular Latin, not Serbian, just because classical Latin had viator instead. Yet another example here: fientia documented as popular Latin, which exists only in Vlachian and Daco-Romanian - but I do not want to start boring you :O).

So, my friend, your élan national is commendable, but we must together say the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I will let you restore it, and then (if not restored), I will bring the documents to show how what you said hid the facts.

We will not go into an edit war!

We will, however, let the truth be known, and formulate it correctly, and completely, as good as we can, in common, for the record.

As I said, the Serb government, much unlike the Americans, did good to our Teslea, and the bombardment of Serbia by the Americans was a cowardly, criminal, war crime act.

Teslea will not forgive us for telling something else than the truth - and since we all admire him, let it be known. Hope this helps. - Yours, all - irismeister 08:12, 2004 May 19 (UTC)


For whoever kept Aromanian in front, my respect, heartful thanks and grateful credit, in the name of Teslea, and of our people! You are honoring us and the spirit of truth! Keep up the great work - this is one of the best Wiki articles around! - irismeister 12:58, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I can't believe I am wasting my time on this, but point by point: that Lika is inhabited by Istro-Romanians isn't confirmed even by Bogdan's map. That Tesla's father's last name was Tesla could be clearly seen in Tesla's birth certificate (fourth row of the main text, second and third word). First name of Tesla's father was Milutin; this is old Serbian name, coming from word "mil" (now "mio") which mean "dear" which could be confirmed by Serbian-English dictionary. That Teslea is an Aromanian last name is dubious; as I said, Tesla in Serbian means "adze" and is related word to other carpentry-related words such as "tesar" (carpenter) or "tesati" (to hew); does Teslea means "adze" or something similar in Aromanian I don't know because the word is relatively rare and not in dictionaries; however, "carpenter" in Romanian is "tâmplar" or "dulgher", according to English-Romanian dictionary. Old last name of Tesla's family was indeed DragiŪ Draghici is Romanian variant of that name. "Drag" means "Dear" in both Serbian and Romanian but it is clearly a Slavic borrowing into Romanian because it doesn't exist in Latin languages (English-Latin dictionary) but does exist in Russian which could be confirmed by English-Russian dictionary. Romanian phonebook does list 995 Draghici living in Bucharest, while SCG phonebook finds 200 (maximum search result) Dragić living in Belgrade. They also find one Teslea and three Tesleanu in Bucaresti

also one "teslan", one "teslariu", one "teslar" and 10 "teslaru"
In Belgrade, there are 23 teslićs. Even without them, the last name is predominant here. Nikola 00:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

while there are 30 Tesla families living in Belgrade. Gica indeed is a Romanian name but it appears to be a male name. According to Tesla's birth certificate, name of Tesla's mother was Georgina, which is a Serbian name (female variant of "George" actually) and Djuka is nickname of that name. Names of Tesla's sisters, Anghelina, Milica and Marica, are also common Serbian female names; Anghelina is a Christian name while Milica has same root as Milutin. Nikola 07:18, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

All those name are also valid in Romania. In fact, there is in the Bucharest phonebook someone called "Maricica Teslaru". :-)
Yes, but that is borrowed Slavic name, just as Bogdan. Nikola
You could also argue that I am ethnic Serbian, since my family name is "Djushka", akin to Tesla's mom and my first name is "Bogdan", which is entirely Slavic. :-) Bogdan | Talk 10:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I argue that since all names in Tesla's immediate family are either Serbian or Christian it was a Serbian family. One could guess that a Vlach family would name at least one of their children with a purely Vlach name.
Which is all speculation. Bottom line: Nikola Tesla called himself Nikola Tesla in his patents, his articles and his autobiography. As we have shown above, any attempt to trace his ancestry through his last name is ambiguous at best. And there are no sources tracing his ancestry in any other way - Google:Nicu Teslea returns one hit - a message posted on three Romanian message boards which is so similar to what was in this article that it could be well be a copyvio translation. Nikola 00:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Bogdan, it?s a long standing Serb nationalist policy to claim everyone in the Ex-Yugoslav territory of the Orthodox denomination is an ethnic Serb.GeneralPatton 17:55, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
But regardless of that policy, has Nikola Tesla ever indicated that he wasn't primarily of Serbian ethnicity and nationality? AFAIR he did not. Idle contemplation about the origins of his forefathers is one thing, what the man said is another. --Shallot 20:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Irismeister is a currently banned user, and you now have some insight as to why - David Gerard 17:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tesla's Vlach ancestry has been mentioned here long before he came in, he merely brought back the stuff Serb nationalists took out, for the sake of NPOV it has to be mentioned in the article. GeneralPatton 18:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Irismeister is still a loon, though. ;-) -- ChrisO 22:38, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
FYI I'm more of a boon, though ;-) -- irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
But it wasn't Tesla's doing, so that's off-topic! - David Gerard 23:07, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good point, David boy! So we've seen the evidence, the hard stuff and the circumstantial. What is your judgement of the situation ? - irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
Definatley.GeneralPatton 02:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, de-finat-ley (is it Latin or something ?) So anyway, does anyone still care to discuss facts on this talk page ? - irismeister 17:00, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Tesla msg?

This article is part of the

Nikola Tesla series.
Tesla, SI unit

Tesla patents

Duka Mandic (his mother)
Tesla patents
Wardenclyffe Tower

War of Currents

Egg of Columbus

Tesla coil

Wardenclyffe Tower

Tesla turbine

Teleforce

any suggestions on a msg? JDR