Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Tesla's own opinion regarding his homeland

Apart and regardless of the ongoing discussion about his place of birth, Tesla's own opinion that Croatia is his homeland should be explicitly stated in the article. I will just briefly repeat Tesla's own statement: "I was born in Croatia". [1]. Also, his other statement from 1892. : "I see it as my duty, as a son of my homeland, to help the City of Zagreb in every way by advice and deed" , May, 24, 1892. , Zagreb [2] In my opinion, the context of the whole article somewhat diminishes Croatia, while Croatia is a big part of Tesla's life. Croatia is mentioned only 2 times as Tesla's birthplace, in a misleading phrase and below the picture of his birth house. That does not reflects the importance Croatia had as Tesla's homeland. I think that Croatia should be mentioned in the very beginning of the article, and the whole context of the article should reflect Croatia's importance in Tesla's life. Asdisis (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

You are presenting primary sources and interpenetrating them as Tesla's views. You should try referencing to a secondary source. Several books, including I think Cheney, cover this topic. Also see: WP:PSTS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

From wikipedia: "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.

As it is said: "...primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation...". This source is primary but it is containing a direct quotation from Tesla himself. Quotation which reflects his own opinion. The source is valid. The interpretation is clear and understandable.Asdisis (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought the letter itself was the primary source and the published version a secondary one. But what does Cheney say? Does she discount the clear statement in that 1934 letter? I agree that Tesla's views about his nationality may have changed or matured. But I'm still unsure how much "interpretation" is required to understand that letter. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As noted above by User:Asdisis above, Margaret Cheney (2001) says: "Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia..." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, please note that we are discussing about Tesla's personal opinion, and not the geopolitical situation. I clearly stated that this discussion is a separate one. The quote from Margaret Cheney (2001) does not tell anything about Tesla's personal opinion. The only needed source to establish Tesla's own opinion are Tesla's own words. I presented the only needed source. This shouldn't became a continuation of the above discussion about the place of his birth. Asdisis (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I accept that Cheney might have separate and disparate views, between her understanding of the location of Tesla's birthplace and her understanding of Tesla's own view. (But I think that's unlikely). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A view that that this "reflects (Tesla's) own opinion" is an opinion (of an editor). Tesla did not say he was Croatian, he said "I was born in Croatia". And taking just two primary sources when there are many secondary sources is WP:CHERRY. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." (WP:PSTS). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So it seems we need to look to Cheney, then. But I don't see any editorial influence, by NYT, in printing a letter that says "I was born in Croatia". Do you think, FoBM, that Tesla saw himself as a Croatian? I would have thought you;d have a better idea than most of us here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No, that absolutely isn't the case. You have completely misunderstood the topic. I refer you to again read the topic of this discussion and the Wikipedia guideline I copied here. First of all, we are not discussing weather Tesla is Croatian. I agree, that would be an editors interpretation of presented quote. Tesla's quote was not analyzed, synthesized or interpreted. Asdisis (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

hmmm you copied an essay, not a policy, please refer to the policy I cited. Interpretation of what goes into an article is the domain of secondary sources, not talk page opinion. I am saying read all of the reliable sources on the topic to see if this is even mentioned and give the best interpretation of those secondary sources. We actually do not need to debate primary sources, we have secondary sources. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

So, what do they say? You have probably read most, if not all, of them? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have skimmed through material on this topic but it wouldn't be my place to flesh it out (I am not making the proposal). This interpertation seems to show a Tesla who didn't care if there was a "Croatia", he just wanted his homeland unified. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you paste the quote here, I do not understand what you are referencing. Thanks. Asdisis (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

My bad, Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, page 303, page on that search page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, again I do not see what you are referencing. Could you please paste the quote and the source here. Asdisis (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, page 303

• The deepening political turmoil in Europe in the mid- 1930s did not spare Yugoslavia. The Serbian ruler, King Alexander, who had established a Yugoslavian dictatorship following a move toward separatism by Croatia, was assassinated at Marseille in 1934 by a Croat terrorist. Tesla promptly wrote to The New York Times in defense of the "martyred" monarch. Seeking to minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats, he described King Alexander as "a heroic figure of imposing stature, both the Washington and Lincoln of the Yugoslavs ... a wise and patriotic leader who suffered martyrdom." ............ Alexander was succeeded by his son, the young King Peter II, under the regency of Prince Paul. Tesla accordingly transferred his loyalty to the boy king, who would grow up prematurely in a world aflame.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a valid source. This references the article Tesla wrote, that I referenced. I agree with this interpretation of the whole article. Tesla does minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats. However, that interpretation does not tell us anything about the question relevant to this discussion. Although Tesla minimize the historic differences separating Serbs and Croats, he does clearly state that he was born in Croatia, which reflects his opinion that his homeland is Croatia. The source gave the basic interpretation of the whole article Tesla wrote, it did not tell anything about Tesla's opinion that Croatia is his homeland. I don't think that this general interpretation can help us in this discussion. Again, thank you for the valid source. Also, note that this source explicitly said that Tesla was born in Croatia : "Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia...". This is consistent with both the above discussion and with Tesla's personal opinion. Asdisis (talk) 07:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat. Primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. This is the case here. If you find any other source relevant to this discussion be free to post it here. Until then, I conclude. Asdisis (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, it appears you are trying to directly equate "homeland" with "birth place". They're often not directly the same in English. Homeland carries notes of allegiance, heritage, and familial historic ties (fatherland). It says far more than just "birth place". For instance, I doubt that senator John McCain would refer to Panama as his homeland just because he was born there (maybe "birth land"). He very strongly self-identifies with the United States. So your "born in" reference can not be used to support a "homeland" phrase in the article. Then your other reference looks like your own personal interpretation into English, where you have Tesla saying he is a son of his homeland. Even if this was a professional interpreter, we have to keep in mind that all cross-lingual interpretations are rough approximations at best. We would have to balance that approximate interpretation against many more detailed references that contradict it, like this one that explains Tesla's father was a minister in the Serbian Orthodox Church; the family "tenaciously" observed Serb ethnic traditions, and lived as "transplants" in Croatia.1, along with Fountains quoted reference above, and many other similar references. Then another concern would be that Tesla, in that "homeland" quote, could have very well been referring to the wider Serbia + Croatia combined; there is no evidence we can use that he meant Croatia only. There is really no doubt that it would be unencyclopedic and personal, original research for our article to make Croatian homeland claims. Instead we have to just stick with what the majority of the best sources say. If they say "birth place", then we say "birth place"; and not try to twist it into the similar "homeland" and get bogged down in the cross-cultural competition for Tesla as a native son. --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that modern day Croatians are much readier to champion Tesla as a national hero, than he was himself to espouse that country as his only true "fatherland"? I'm begining to think, from what FoBM tells us, that he was more committed to the cause of freedom from foreign domination than to the cause of any individual nationalist agenda. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion is based on the first quote. Tesla himself stated he was born in Croatia, he lived his early life in Croatia. That makes Croatia his homeland, according to his opinion. His other quote just confirms it. I agree that the relevance of the other quote can be debated. However it is not questionable that Tesla is referencing Croatia as his homeland in that statement since the quote was made in 1892. This is a long time before Yugoslavia, so your claim has no sense. The quote was made during the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. [3]. The context of that statement is clear. Furthermore, his own statement from the time of Yugoslavia , 1934. clearly distinguishes Croatia as a place of his birth although the quote was made years after Yugoslavia was established. Your objections are based on your interpretation, while my claim is based directly on Tesla's statement. Also, note that i haven't yet made any request for editing. I just presented a valuable and reliable information which should be included in the article. Asdisis (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please reread, lol. As I said, "born in" does NOT equal "homeland", especially in the context of a "transplanted minority" with different ethnic traditions than the Croats.1 If your source says "born in", then why can't we just also say "born in"? Why do you want to twist it into "homeland"? What is your motivation for making this subtle, but very important change away from what the reference actually says?--Tom Hulse (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, read again my previous answer to you. Asdisis (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla may have said Croatia as his birthplace in that interview simply because he was a Yugoslavist, an apologist at that time of the liberation of South-Slavic territories under AUstro-Hungary and their union with Serbia. So a person whith his beleafs would certainly prefer to say Croatia than Austria in a casual interview. But that is so very far from making an entire phantasy of how that means he is a Croat, Croatia is his homeland, etc. Also, from the source provded by Tom Hulse, you can clarly see that Tesla defended the Serbian King and not the Croatian nationalists that assasinated him. ~This discussion is going nowhere as Asdinsis wants to add something to the text which is not at all backed by any source. FkpCascais (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have seen enough to decide it's "an entire phantasy". It looks a little more equivocal to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation does not follow Tesla's statement. Without any source to confirm your interpretation Tesla's statement should be written into article. Note that we are not arguing that Croatia is Tesla's homeland, but that Tesla himself considered Croatia to be his homeland. He was born and lived in Croatia all his early life (that is again Tesla's opinion). Both, during Austro-Hungary, and Yugoslavia Tesla mentions Croatia as his homeland. The fact that he himself considered that he was born in Croatia makes Croatia his homeland, because he also spent his early life there. Thus in this case "born in" equals "homeland". His earlier statement confirms that. There is nothing to debate about Tesla's own opinion, because he clearly stated that opinion himself. Previously presented source does not tell us anything useful to this discussion. I will make the necessary request in a few days so there's plenty time to find further sources.Asdisis (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You have 2 sources, none of which says anything what you claim they say, and you are trying to maximally twist them in order to fit your pretended interpretation. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, exactly. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Both statements were made by Tesla himself. I did not twist anything. I haven't made any interpretations. I only used words Tesla himself used. Yes, I identified birth place and homeland. This is because Tesla himself used the term "homeland", and because the reasoning explained earlier. To repeat the reasoning, he was born and lived his whole early life in Croatia. Just to note that in 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was established. When Tesla was 12 years old, the age people start to associate themselves with some entity. Maybe you can see now why Tesla associated himself with Croatia, because he lived in Croatia. I'm sorry to say, but your objection are irrational. To say it this way, Tesla's connection to Croatia should not be hidden. It must be mentioned in the article. Asdisis (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to say Tesla was born in Croatia, since that political entity did not exist at the time. Tesla's cultural heritage was primarily Serbian, not Croatian, so the attempt to push Croatia to the forefront is not neutral. Tesla wished for unification of Serbs and Croats, as he felt connected to both. He was not a nationalist for either side. This Wikipedia biography is not going to be the place for nationalism. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, read the topic of this discussion again. You completely missed the point. Asdisis (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, so "that political entity did not exist at the time"? I think Josip Jelačić might have disagreed with you. You're suggesting that Croatia was somehow wiped off the map after the Illyrian movement? But I tend to agree with you that Tesla was not a "nationalist" as most people might understand it. He became a US citizen at age 35, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no real suggestion on specific changes to the article, so this discussion isn't particularly useful. We used to have a paragraph that explained the relations between Tesla and his origins through a handful of references to what Tesla did or said about it, and how it was interpreted afterwards, but Fountains completely removed it a year ago because the paragraph was rather imperfect. This clearly did not make the issue go away, so we should definitely restore something about it. I searched Google Books looking for specific secondary-source information about the issue, and found a few tidbits: this mention of how Serbs and Croats both took Tesla worship to more or less embarrassing levels, and this biography that uses Tesla as an example of using not Austrian or Yugoslav but Serbian origin, but has no problem stating Smiljan, Croatia to be his birthplace. Even combined with the info from the removed edit, this is still all on the level of a footnote, but in a 137KB article, we have no major reason to omit that footnote. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see how anything you said has to do with this discussion. Neither of the sources deal with Tesla's personal opinion about his homeland. There is a clear distinction between Serbians and Croatians on the one side, and Serbia and Croatia on the other side. Many Serbs lived in Croatia. Many Serbs live in Croatia today. To all of them Croatia is their homeland, not Serbia. This is an answer to your confusion with the 2nd source you presented. I agree it would be useful to find secondary sources to confirm Tesla's own statements. However if they are not found or presented in the reasonable time span editing should be done on the presented sources. If other sources are found later, a new request can be made. Asdisis (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did make a proposal for a specific change, to quote the 1934 NYT letter, but consensus suggests this would be WP:UNDUE. I think adding a footnote or paragraph(s), as you suggest, would be a very useful compromise and might also satisfy Asdisis. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a consensus. But it is hard to do that when the other side diminishes valid sources, and yet it did not present any other sources to support their claim. Yes, it should be reflected in the article and from the context it should be clear that Tesla, although of Serbian origins, has Croatia as his homeland, as do many Serbs had and have, even today. Tesla lived in Croatia all of his early life (that is Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia). My suggestion is that the sentence: "Tesla himself considered Croatia to be his homeland" should enter the article. Furthermore the context must reflect the importance Croatia had to Tesla. Also, if someone of you could help me, and point to the reason Tesla's telegram got removed from the article. I'm not quite familiar with how the things work around here. Thanks.Asdisis (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, it is obvious that English is not your first language, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you should not so boldly ignore clear explanations from native speakers about the subtleties of our words. You refuse to give up your silly insistence that "homeland" = "born in" in this context. Here is more proof: what is the reason you are arguing so passionately that we must say homeland instead of "born in"? If they are really the same, then you honestly wouldn't care. But there is something about that homeland word you really want, isn't there? You want it because it brings more honor to Croatia than merely "born in", and that would be fine if the sources actually said that. Examine your heart. If you are honest, you will see that your desire to use "homeland" is actually proof these words are different and can't be interchanged at random.

On your second source, the one using the word "homeland", it does not matter which countries existed then or which one(s) of them you hope he was talking about. We just have no way to be sure which entity(s) or areas he was talking about, especially as a transplanted minority with different ethnic traditions than the Croats. Any supposition on your part is original research. That ref can not be used in any way to support the statement that he viewed Croatia as his homeland (in fact, even your arguments on this ref prove that you realize that "homeland" is whatever each of us personally wants to think it is, not just where someone else says we were born). You said we haven't used sources (I didn't think we had to since they all agree), but here are some that all say "born in" instead of "homeland", including the last in Tesla's own words: 12345 Notice how the first ref very neutrally discusses how both the Serbs and Croats claim him for a native son, without taking sides. This is encyclopedic, neutral, informative, follows what our references say, and is a good example for our article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I already explained why the term homeland has to be used. It is the term Tesla himself used. It reflects Tesla's connection to Croatia. Term, born in does not reflect Tesla's connection in an adequate way. For instance many people who were born outside USA, and immigrated at their young age consider USA as their homeland because they grew up there. The term homeland reflects Tesla's feelings towards Croatia. Homeland is not a place where someone was born, its a place where someone spend the early years of his life and a place to which he associated. A place someone considers to be a part of. I see you understood exactly. In your words "it brings more honor to Croatia than merely 'born in'". I have explained it in my own words above. So to repeat, Tesla used the exact term himself, that is why i think it is important to use the same term. In the second source I presented, Tesla thinks of Croatia, there's no other entity he could think of. I agree it would be a leap to conclude that by itself. However, the first statement, made in Yugoslavia clearly state Croatia as a place of his birth. Also i would like to mention his telegram , which i have not been mentioning so far because it got removed from the article, and i haven't yet found out why. It will be mentioned in the request which will follow this discussion. I haven't made any original research. I presented primary sources. To repeat : "Primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation.". This is the case here. So to be clear. Homeland is an entity where someone established himself as a person. For Tesla that is Croatia.

Again, I repeat, none of the sources you presented fit to this discussion. The do not deal with Tesla's personal opinion. They do not tell anything about which entity Tesla considered to be his homeland. Please join with those sources the above discussion about the place of Tesla's birth. This sources are valuable to that discussion as they further support already presented sources. Thanks. Asdisis (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you now agree that "homeland" can have a different meaning than "born in". All 5 sources are directly relevant because they show how reliable sources describe his birthplace. None, including your two, say that his homeland was Croatia. You need to use your opinion to make that jump. Only 1 source even mentions "homeland", but let's be clear that it does NOT say it is Croatia. It is your opinion only that he must have meant Croatia. We can't write articles on your opinions nor mine, just references; please, please read WP:NOR (this is exactly what you are doing) . Please consider that when a Serbian ethnic transplant living in Croatia says "homeland", he could have easily meant 1)the exact country he was standing in at the time, 2) the foreign lands of his forefathers that he ethnically identifies with, or 3) a combination of the two or 4) something else. He just didn't define his homeland and you don't get to insert your opinion about what he meant into the article. We will only say what the sources say, no more, even if it is your opinion it "must" have been what he meant. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained it well in my previous comments why the term "homeland" should be used. As I said, Tesla's personal opinion does not have to match with geo-political situation on the area he was born, which your sources describe. We need a source that interprets Tesla's opinion. Join the above discussion with your sources. I think they will be much appreciated. Second source, viewed with other Tesla's statements does not have any dual meanings. Viewed separately it can have dual meanings, but viewed with the other sources, it is clear which entity Tesla meant. Also, note that I will incorporate Tesla's telegram in which Tesla also used that term in the request. I agree we shouldn't give our interpretations and we must base our conclusions on the valid sources. That is exactly i have been doing. I can't say you have also done that. You stated only your opinions, and the sources that do not belong to this discussion. To sum the whole discussion, we presently have only 2 sources I stated in the initial post. Also I will further add Tesla's telegram as a source. The conclusion has to be based on those sources. Asdisis (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you will now use a combination of sources to induce opinion, as you don´t have even one claiming what you pretend. FkpCascais (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no other entity than Croatia Tesla could have been thinking of. Of course that if subjected to someone's opinion, that is why we must look other sources. I stated that I base my conclusion on the 1st source, Tesla's statement that he was born in Croatia. This makes Croatia an entity where he was born and established himself as a person. In 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was created. From that point there is no doubt Tesla lived in Croatia. In his opinion, he was also born in Croatia. To him, the area of Croatian military frontier was Croatian land. This makes Croatia his homeland. That is why I suggested a sentence "Tesla considered Croatia to be his homeland.". I haven't interpreted anything, and i haven't stated anything but Tesla's own opinion. So to repeat, Croatia is Tesla's homeland because he was born there and spend his early life there (this is his own opinion, not the geo-political situation). The only thing that remains is why I used the term "homeland". I used it because Tesla used it himself in his other statement. That term reflects his feelings and opinion. As Tom Hulse put it, the term "homeland" brings more honor to Croatia than merely "born in". I haven't derived Croatia from 2nd statement. I explicitly said that this statement looked separate can not derive Croatia as his homeland. And furthermore, I repeat that I will introduce Tesla's telegram as a source as soon I investigate its reliability. That Telegram contains the exact phrase Croatia-homeland and leaves no doubt what Tesla meant. I would appreciate if someone could paste here the reasoning Tesla's telegram was removed from the article. That would me very helpful. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to any edit based on Tesla commenting on his homeland, or commenting on his Croatian or Serbian heritage, unless it is covered in detail in multiple reliable secondary sources, per WP:DUE. Similarly, I would also not include Tesla's comment, "My mother was the greatest woman Serbia ever produced." or "When I was in the polytechnic college in Serbia, I became an inveterate gambler." - MrX 01:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with MrX.

Asdisis, I think everyone understood quite well what you pretend, no walls of text are making any difference anymore, you were clear. So sorry, but I simply cannot agree with you. Yes, Tesla may have considered Croatia his "homeland" but he was also very aware of his Serbian ethnicity, and by then, the Yugoslav ideals were already very much disseminated, specially ammong educated Serbs, Croats and others living in Austro-Hungary. As we know, Tesla was a Croatian Serb Yugoslavist, and he fully supported the ideia of uniting Austro-Hungarian lands of Croatia, Slovenia, Slavonia, Dalmatia and Vojvodina to sovereign Serbia and forming a joint state. So he may have easily said that he would help events in his "homeland" in Split, Sarajevo or Belgrade, not only Zagreb, if he was asked about. That only source doesn´t give us right here to add some passionate idea between him and Croatia. It´s simply far from enough. Lets talk straight honestly: the region Tesla was born was not independent despite me knowing how great efforts are made in nationalist circles in Croatia to promote the idea of an almost independent major Croatian Kingdom by then. But no, the region was in constant turmoil allways occupied by Austria who, in their interest, created there several subdivisions, giving sometimes to some of them some local power in order to avoid rebellion because romanticism and ideals of liberation were already present in the population since early XIX c. (see Yugoslavism). So, we obviously need to see the correct historical perspective at that point, and Tesla later in his live allways clearly showed support for Yugoslavia and Serbian king, and never defended Croatia and their regional autonomical aspirations within Yugoslavia. FkpCascais (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, no walls of text can make someones case stronger. The case must be based on valid sources. I do not understand what you mean when you say "pretend". I quite well explained my suggestion. I answered to all other comments and further elaborated all uncertainties. I suggest you read my last comment again, because it seems you haven't understood it completely. I explained that I do not base my proposal on the 2nd statement. And again i repeat that we are not discussing geo-political situation of Croatia in Tesla's time, but Tesla's personal feelings towards Croatia. Since it seems nobody will post here why Tesla's telegram was taken out from the article, i will probably include it as my source in the request. Its validity will be discussed there.

MrX, I think i explained my case very well. I will make a request. I repeat that Croatia is somewhat diminished in this article, and that has to be corrected. Your personal opinion on what would you include in the article is just that, an opinion. I have a different opinion, and valid sources. I also explained why this primary sources are valid. I accept your argument that the decision should be based on reliable secondary sources. I suggest we find those secondary sources that will confirm presented primary sources. In the absence of secondary sources the decision should be made on the presented primary sources. I explained why, because they are in support of a direct quotation. No personal interpretations have been made. Especially the interpretation of Tesla's telegram. If, in the future, secondary sources are found by someone, a new request can be made. I think our discussion here can finish. I will leave some time for us to find secondary sources before i make a request. Asdisis (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Does this entire thread (and even the one above) belong elsewhere: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity? (see template at the top of this Talk Page). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As i can see from a quick look, this discussion was not discussed before. His birth place was discussed. However i want to state that this discussion was on a far higher intellectual level. It's based on valid sources, and it can't be compared with the previous discussions. Asdisis (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to appraise the "intellectual level" or novelty of this discussion, just suggesting it might be in the wrong place. I realise it's all been prompted by a statement in the article, but the subject matter of this dicussion thread seems to be quite clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hogwash, lol. This is ridiculous circular arguing with a heavily biased individual that won't accept consensus. You've given zero sources that say what you want in the article. Instead you try to "infer" the truth in a way that everyone agrees is original research (and most think is plain wrong). Can't you see the supreme irony of how in the next discussion up above, you are so adamant that nothing can be inferred about the meaning of the word Croatia and they must absolutely use only the specific literal wording in the sources despite what may have been meant, yet here you are doing exactly what you criticize above. It is also ironic to the point of being funny that you agree homeland/born-in have different meanings so you can sell the importance of making a change, but then you turn around and say they are the indentical in the same post so that you have permission to change the wording of what the source actually says. Can't you see how outrageous that is? Does your nationalism have no limits in logic? It is just so simple, simple, simple: your sources do not say Croatia was his homeland, your opinion about what the ref "must" have meant is irrelevant babble. --Tom Hulse (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Methinks Asdisis is a Croat, and one from Zagreb :)

No, I think its logical to state at some point that Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland, but only if sources are provided stating that explicitly. We could quote him, though.. that's permitted per WP:PRIMARY. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would accept consensus. In the previous discussion I'm going in that way. This discussion haven't yet become a request. In any way i thought that you do not want to accept consensus. I've given valid sourced that i haven't interpreted. I haven't been doing original research. I do not see the irony. I have been working on a consensus in the above request. I haven't been adamant. Not in the above discussion, nor in this one. I explained why in Tesla's case the term born in also means that Croatia is his homeland. To repeat, because he also grew up and established himself in Croatia. The complicated situation Croatia had been in the time of his birth was resolved already in 1868, and even before the area Tesla was born, Military zone, "galvanised Croatian national sentiment" (source is listed above). I argue that a place where someone was born and established himself as a person makes that place his homeland. That term Tesla himself used. He also explicitly said that Croatia was his homeland in his Telegram. Director, as I can see, Tesla's telegram states that explicitly, however i do not know why it was removed from the article. Asdisis (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The man was born in what was generally considered "Croatia" in unofficial parlance, and "Croatia proper" today. That is to say, from a less formal point of view, it is correct that "Tesla was born in Croatia". However, from a strictly formal point of view, such a statement suggests he was born in the contemporary Austrian state of Croatia (which comprised one part of said region), as opposed to the military frontier (which took up the rest).

Its a bit complicated, but as this is an encyclopedia, I think we should insist that anyone wishing to discuss this issue be at least marginally familiar with the basic state of affairs in that part of the Austrian Empire in 1854. And we should not cater to the "unwashed masses" through utilizing a simplistic approach, shoving all this under the rug. -- Director (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director please, this arguing does not belong in this discussion. This discussion is regarding Tesla's own opinion about the place he was born. To quote you "The man was born in what was generally considered Croatia". His opinion does not have to be based on political and administrative situation at that time. People form their opinion on national sentiment of a certain area. Please join the above discussion with this argument. Asdisis (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that perfectly. I also understand you are missing some basic information regarding how sourcing functions. You can not find a quote of Tesla saying "Croatia is my homeland" - and then introduce a statement of "Tesla thought of Croatia as his homeland". You need a secondary source that states that, not him.

You can either understand what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is, and what WP:SECONDARY sources are - or you can essentially be ignored along with your unsupported demands. If you want this article to state that "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland", you need a secondary source that says just that. Not Tesla - a secondary source. Why? Well because you are not a historian or published biographer or any sort. That's how the project functions. -- Director (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I haven't been analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating material found in a primary source.Asdisis (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but you have. Interpretation: "Tesla says in this telegram that Croatia is his homeland - therefore Tesla must have regarded Croatia as his homeland". -- Director (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong. The sentence "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland" is not an interpretation. The sentence "Croatia is Tesla's homeland" would be my interpretation. Do you see the difference? Asdisis (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not wrong. The sentence "Tesla regarded Croatia as his homeland" is an interpretation of the primary source. You can not take telegrams from a hundred years ago and use them to make claims about Tesla's personal views and opinions. Only historians get to do that, and only when they're published can we use them. That's how the project works. As is said, you can either accept that, or just keep talking pointlessly. -- Director (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. If someone says "I'm proud of my Croatian homeland" then the above sentence is not in any way an interpretation. Also since some people have problem with born-homeland, i will probably make a request "Tesla regarded Croatia as a place of his birth". It will probably extend the construct that will be the result of the above discussion. Asdisis (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

People's words and their opinions are different things. For a hypothetical example, if you thought I might give you 50,000,000 euros for your experiments - you might say things like "I am proud of my Tanganyikan homeland" (just an example). Now, I'm personally sure Tesla did regard Croatia as his homeland, but I would never write something like that in the article - if a secondary source didn't say it. Because it takes historians, and proper biographers, to interpret whether that which people say corresponds to what they think, and to what degree. because they know the circumstances, and the conditions of the period, and understand Tesla's thoughts and opinions better than you or I. Understand?

You are free to search for a secondary source. But if you've decided to go with "option #2", please don't be offended if I ignore you completely here on the talkpage, and revert you in the article without fail. Regards -- Director (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, you are also free to search for secondary sources. As I noted before, I agree that decision should be made on the valid secondary sources. I urged everyone to find secondary sources that will support the presented primary sources. I also already noted that, in the case no secondary sources are presented, the decision will be made on the presented primary sources. If later secondary sources are found, another edit can be done. Asdisis (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody needs sources except you, as you are the one proposing changes. In case no secondary sources are found for the changes, they will not be introduced (naturally). In no case shall your personal interpretations of the primary documents be introduced as fact. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Director (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, he cares not for logic or for Wikipedia, only for the fulfillment of his nationalistic crusade. I think we are all wasting our time pretending he will reason logically. I finally found the discussion on the telegram removal, here. Although I'm sure our Croatian friend here will not care if it is truly a forgery, or care about Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia; only if he can find a way to force us to use it. Besides Director's careful explanation of the need for the secondary source, let's be very clear that there has been not even a primary source cited here at all where Tesla says Croatia is his homeland. Only one saying he was born in Croatia, one saying he had a homeland (but not where exactly that included), and one forged telegram. --Tom Hulse (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It just so happens I make it my business to counter "nationalist crusades", as it were. This place is just lucky its so mainstream.. nonsense like this would be enough to cause a serious edit/flame war in your typical Balkans article. For the record, though, I'm Croatian too :). -- Director (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"Tesla himself saw his place of birth as Croatia" (NYT letter as ref). Yes on no? Text or footnote? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

NO, you would have to research all of Tesla's statements and give them the balance they deserve..... errr... and that would be WP:OR. YES to "Tesla is claimed by many national and ethnic groups" (material found by Joy.... ^ up there somewhere) and added to "Legacy and honors" section, then knock out allot of the honors, its a borderline trivia list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That counts as 1 NO, then. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not function by vote. -- Director (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

... think you could probably safely remove your last two words there. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Director, you don't have to sound so WP:OWNY, because I agree (for once), Christ, this is a stupid fucking argument. Morbidly curious about how Balkan editing worked I decided to take a peek. Jeeee-zus! No wonder everyone gets so batshit. This could simply be solved by finding a few books that make reference to this particular region in Croatia during this time period using (or not using) this format. Asdisis, I do agree this is a question of style and you do need to show this is not the convention stylistically. Also, have some sympathy for the reader, who is probably coming to this article because he/she wants some quick, digestible answers. A convoluted description of the location is likely to baffle and alienate--Atlantictire (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

I would think it's fine, because it is a secondary keeping the wording very close to the primary. I wouldn't have a problem with that wording, as long as it is relevant to the section and is appropriate for the context where you want to use it. :)

Asdisis, who has supposedly only been editing Wikipedia for 5 days, says: "... in the case no secondary sources are presented, the decision will be made on the presented primary sources", contradicting a 50K+ Master Editor (Director) with confident authority on how this situation will be handled. Hmmm. Has anyone else noticed that this guy can not be a brand new editor his account suggests. This smells like a sock puppet, or at the very least a clear violation of Clean Start policy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yah, seemed like a sock from day one.

And chalk one up for Atlantictire's WP:HOUND, a point or two more and you win a fabulous prize (fabulous for me, that is). Save the transparent stories for your attempts at sock fraud, and stop following my contribs. You also don't seem to know what WP:OWN is about, jeeeeeez... -- Director (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

So glad this discussion has not degenerated into a mud-slinging row with pointy accusations and counter-claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that will teach me to notice that Director may actually be right about something. Silly me.;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I admit i do not yet fully know the rules of wikipedia. However, there is no need for ad-hominem attacks. Article can be edited based on primary sources and in the lack of other sources it will be edited on the presented primary sources. Asdisis (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please, keep this discussion on the intellectual level is has been so far. There is no need for ad-hominem attacks. I agreed we should find secondary sources that support the presented primary sources. Asdisis (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Folks, lets remember that Croatia kicks off the World Cup today in the opening match with Brasil. Seems old Nikola must bear some of the burden :D -- Director (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain yourself from that kind of comments. This discussion have so far been on high intellectual level. You have started to drag it into pointless argument. Asdisis (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't made any requests so the question of valid sources can't be answered yet. If we do not find valid secondary sources my request won't interpret Tesla's words. It will only include Tesla's quote in the article. I thank Tom Hulse for providing the discussion about Tesla's telegram. I will study it and include that source if there have not been any reason for its removal (valid secondary sources). I also think that some of the people object my suggestion because they have a contempt towards "nationalist crusades". I strongly protest against that. Some people have shown that they are not objective but biased. I won't be dragged into pointless discussion based on ad-hominem attacks and personal contempts. I will concentrate on valid sources. I will also stop discussion with those who presented no sources, suggested no alternative proposal, and contributed nothing to this discussion apart from their constant objections to every suggestion. As in the previous discussion,I will limit myself to those comments that present valid sources concerning this discussion. Other comment, I will ignore. The edit will be done based on the presented sources so there is no point in discussion weather Croatia opens World cup with Brasil today.Asdisis (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, this is a high intellectual level discussion. The highest of the kind. What´s a matter with you, didn´t you recongised it from the begining? FkpCascais (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I thank you on your support. Up to recently this discussion had indeed been on the highest level of the kind. Let us keep it that way. Asdisis (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem, thank you. I was being intellectually ironic. FkpCascais (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please, stick to the topic of this discussion. I already repeated several time that this discussion is not about Tesla's birth place. Please, read the initial post in this topic again. Comments that do not belong to this discussion will be dismissed from establishing a conclusion. I urge you again to help this discussion by finding relevant secondary sources that will support the presented primary sources. The request will be made after the above discussion finishes, then we can discuss concrete proposal. I thank you in advance. Asdisis (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• Quote: Tesla has always considered himself a Serb from Croatia, and he had never denied that in his personal data.

Source:Hrvatska revija, 1963.

Asdisis (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may just throw something into this discussion. Margaret Cheney's biography 'Tesla- Man Out of Time' is considered to be a fairly reliable reference source. On page 259 it is written that Tesla would apparently say "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia." Now in this case we may reasonably assume that 'fatherland' means 'homeland'. We need to be careful because this quote was not written by Tesla himself. Author Margaret Cheney had received a letter from professor Bogdan Raditsa written on February 19, 1979 in which he states that Tesla would say "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia." This could be considered for inclusion in the article under the appropriate section backed by the telegram sent to Vladko Macek, as an additional reference where Tesla wrote that he was equally proud of his Serbian origin and Croatian homeland. That is of course if the Telegram is authentic as there has been some suspicion regarding its authenticity.Michael Cambridge 15:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

As i have understood. There aren't any suspicion regarding authenticity of Tesla's telegram that aren't the produce of original research. My stand is that Tesla's telegram should be taken in consideration. That is because it, and its contents have been included in many secondary sources. I will present some of them to support my claim. Until the request is made this discussion is only a guideline that shows Tesla's own opinion on the question of his birthplace. I thought of including Tesla's own opinion in the article but i haven't found a suitable place to do so. One thing i think that should enter the article, apart from Tesla's stand about his homeland is the sentence that both Croatians and Serb consider Tesla as one of their own. I don't remember the exact sentence but someone has presented a source that contains that sentence. Asdisis (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would just like notify everyone that a definite answer had been reached regarding Tesla's birthplace. I think that the discussion about his birthplace had been of high quality and that the definite answer that Tesla was not born in Croatia should put an end to all other requests of that king in the future. Since Military frontier had been unified with Croatia in 1881., and that was after Tesla was no longer living in Smiljan, we also have a definite answer that Tesla had not lived in Croatia at any point in time. His own views about Croatia are irrelevant and probably can be interpreted as a clear support to Yugoslavism, as suggested by someone. The closure of the previous discussion puts an end to this discussion. I thank you all for participating. Asdisis (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You don´t need to be mad or ironic about this Asdisis. What can I tell you besides that we really can´t say that he was born in Croatia if in fact the village of Smiljan at time of his birth was not part of K. of Croatia but part of the Military Frontier. We can´t forge that. First you tried to add Croatia as his birthplace based on some sources (as you can see there are even books which say he was born in Montenegro, so there goes out of the window the argument that we should follow sources regarding his birthplace). We have to see historical data about the precise territory Smiljan belonged to at time of his birth. Then you tried to argue how Military Frontier was part of Croatia, which is also wrong (I still think you didn´t understand the difference between CMF and MF). Military Frontier was a much wider territory than just the one under Croatian cultural influence and had a pretty diversified ethnic composition. It was actually within the MF that Yugoslavism gain traction as it was within that territory that Croats, Serbs and other South-Slavs found themselfs lving together and shared a common interest in wanting to break-away from Austria/A-H. Tesla is just a very fine exemple of an inhabitant of the MF. Then he lived in Karlovac (also within MF) and he got a scholarship from the MF. MF was not that ignorable at all as you think (you said basically "Oh, it was just part of Croatia under military rule, something like UN occupied territory"). So there was no way that you were going to gain support in ignoring Military Frontier and just swiching it with Croatia as the subdivision of Austrian Empire where Tesla was born in. Then, during his life, there are few occasions where he mentions Croatia, all of which you brought them here, but are you aware how much links he had with his Serbian heritage? All that is missing as well. Why? Because that is not what was important for what he is notable for. The ironic thing here is that him being a world-wide known figure in a most positive way, many people in Croatia want to bring him closer to Croatia, but if by any chance we were talking here about a negative figure, a person interpretng things your way could easily portrey him as a hard-core Serbian nationalist: born in a traditional Serbian religious family, started a Serbian culture club in Graz, was close and allways supported the Serbian (Yugoslav) royal family, etc. You made a huge effort to, at some way, expand Croatia´s role in Tesla´s life, however none of your proposals seemed correct or acceptable (so much that you didn´t even got support from the Croatian editors either), as you always asked far more that the sources and the neutrality would allow. Encyclopedia is about verifiable facts, and not about atributing ideals to someone trough a combination of cherry picked sources and a twisted interpretation of them. No one here dislikes you or Croatia, and if you would have made a reasonable proposal backed by majority of sources, you would have been supported. Kind regards, srdačan pozdrav! FkpCascais (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, stop assessing my motives, emotions, nationality and so on. Me trying to introduce Croatia to the article does not in any way mean I'm Croatian. I dismissed all that allegations numerous times. I'm not mad or ironic. I just followed the sources. I was also strongly guided by Tesla's own statement that he was born in Croatia. I accepted unanimous decision of ANI, and now I completely agree with you. There is no need to repeat the arguments from previous discussions which has been resolved. I feel that we had achieved something. We now have a discussion of high quality that considered numerous sources and gave a definite answer to Tesla's birthplace. Hopefully, that puts an end to that question. Asdisis (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's father, Serbian Orthodox priest

There is some inconsistency regarding Tesla's father. It is stated that he was a Serb Orthodox priest, and the given link leads to the page of the Serbian Orthodox Church where it is clearly stated that it was (re)established in 1920. I think this inconsistency should be resolved. Asdisis (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• The SOC became autocephalous in 1219 and existed ever since. The only thing that happend in 1920 was that the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro all got united. Everything is explained in the article. FkpCascais (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed before that unification. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro. The name Serbian Orthodox Church does not belong to 19th century. You yourself confirmed that.Asdisis (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

No. -_- The SOC did exsted. Where does it say it did not existed? FkpCascais (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I referenced the article and i quoted a sentence from there in my previous comment. Also, you yourself admitted that when you said that "in 1920 the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro all got united", and I add, under the name of Serbian Orthodox Church. SOC had not existed until 1920. You mentioned that "The SOC became autocephalous in 1219..." , and the article clearly says that "...The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča". Asdisis (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You really don´t know when to stop your nationalistic rant, do you? As you couln´t get more "Croatia" into the article, now you started removing Serbia... Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1219. And his father was Serbian Orthodox priest. FkpCascais (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It does not. It exist since 1920. Please, stop your nationalistic rant and accept the facts. Asdisis (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sources say that the Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1200[4][5] (approx.) . Asdisis, please, don't act on your own interpretations of history events. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Per the article on the subject[6] the Serbian Orthodox Church did not pop into existence in 1920, two Serbian churches united into the single Patriarchate of Serbia. Many sources list Tesla's father as Serbian Orthodox[7] [8] [9]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course it did not pop into existence. It was established by the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro in 1920. Please do not list cherry picked sources that contradict common sense. Asdisis (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

From the article Serbian Orthodox Church:

"The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro."

By "modern" they mean unified because before that it was divided but both were Serbian Orthodox Church. Please Asdinsis read: Serbian_Orthodox_Church#Modern_history. FkpCascais (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not try to make it complicated. The term Serbian Orthodox church does not belong to 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Patriarchate of Karlovci and the Metropolitanate of Belgrade were both Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I presented sources for the Serbian Orthodox Church existing since 1200. User Fountains of Bryn Mawr presented sources for Tesla's father being Serbian Orthodox. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think we need another RfC. Some people do not want to accept facts. I shall quote once more: "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Editing this article is very hard since some people have made it into a impenetrable fort. Asdisis (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I honestly think it is time to block you for disruption, edit-warring, clear nationalistic agenda and continuos WP:IDONTHEARYOU manipulative attitude. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the same of you. You were clearly disrupting previous discussions. While i presented numerous sources, you disrupted the argument with your nationalistic agenda and continuous WP:IDONTHEARYOU manipulative attitude. You presented no sources to back up your claims, and yet i had not ignored you, but wasted my time to find sources to disprove you. That was obviously in vane since you were driven by nationalistic agenda. You presented only few cherry picked sources (which you interpreted in your way which contradicted numerous sources), and had strong objections that contradicted numerous other sources. Your attitude was a clear example of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I may be guilty of edit-warring, however you intentionally lead me there, since you knew that I'm a new user and I do not know all the rules yet. That you have skilfully used against me continuously the previous month.Asdisis (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Is Tesla's father a Serbian Orthodox priest

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.

---

Should Tesla's father and his grandfather be listed as Serbian Orthodox priests, or just "Orthodox priests" since Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed in 19th century.

• Quote from Serbian Orthodox Church : "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Patriarchate/Metropolitanates that existed in the 19th century are listed. Asdisis (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Having the previous RfC in mind, consensus will be determined by the number of votes. Asdisis (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also, all discussions regarding Tesla's connection to Serb/Croats are highly nationally biased. It seems that this article had been transformed into an impenetrable fort of Serbian nationalism. Asdisis (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Please note ----> RFCs are not votes, please read the guidelines. The question is, is there a reason to go against Tesla sources? Could the source on Tesla be wrong? Well.... yeah, one thing I have noticed in "Tesla research" is that one source tends to copy another and allot copy Wikipedia. Is the claim "Serbian Orthodox Church" a Wikipedia thing (mirror)? - Seifer has it before Wikipedia in 1998[10] although the claim is "Serbian Orthodox priest". Is it a "John Joseph O'Neill" thing? Allot can date back to his (only) contemporaneous Tesla biography. He has the claim "Serbian Orthodox Church" in his book (page 11), may be a 1944 claim, depends if (when) he rewrote that section. 1907 Chambers's Biographical Dictionary "Tesla Nikola born in 1857 at Smiljan In Servia the son of an Orthodox priest"[11] A short 1901 bio has "parish priest of the Greek Orthodox Church"[12]. There seems to be some kind of Orthodox Serbian Church referenced by name pre 1920 re: 1877, 1881. Need some real hard sources to counter whats out there. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please copy the quotes from the sources that date before 1920. The problem with the sources after 1920. is that they are based upon modern view (retrospective view). The same thing i explained in earlier discussions. From today's point of view it could be said that he was a priest of Serbian Orthodox Church because SOC is successor of those named Patriarchate/Metropolitanates. However in 19th century, Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed. That classification thus goes retrospectively. The same thing is with Military frontier and Croatia. Although Military frontier became a part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia in 1867, people were reluctant to retrospectively describe Tesla's birthplace as Croatia because he was born in 1856. The same issue we have here, because SOC had not existed in the 19th century, however, looking retrospectively it can be said that SOC existed but was divided. You mentioned some sources that date before 1920., however you should supply the quotes. That would help, and possibly resolve this RfC. Also, i know that consensus is not determined by the number of votes, however I have see that the practice is different, so I just wanted to note that. I won't call my friends to come and vote. However I find that some editors are teamed up under the same agenda. Their opinion will prevail since I'm alone. I suggest to them the same pattern used in above discussion. Present as many inconsistent sources and call the sources "all over the place" and conclude that there is no consensus to edit. Practice showed that votes will be accepted over sources in that situation. Asdisis (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• Asdisis intention here is to claim that Serbian Orthodox Church didn´t existed until 1920. However, the only thing that happend in 1920 was that separate parts of the Serbian Orthodox Church, namely the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade, joined by the Metropolitanate of Montenegro, all merged. Earlier the Ottomans abolished the SOC in Serbia, and the SOC clergy separated either to the Patriarchate of Karlovci or the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and thus were separated for a period, but both were Serbian Orthodox Church by all means. Also, Tesla´s father came from Serbia itself. So I am not sure what is in question here... was it perhaps Mongolian Orthodox Church priest? Anyway, Asdisis seems to target the word "Serbian" specifically. FkpCascais (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please make a distinction between an adjective "Serbian" and a name "Serbian orthodox church". The "Serbian Orthodox Church" had not existed before 1920. , and you have just admitted that. Also, you clearly have nationalistic agenda. Asdisis (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep the current wording. major biographical sources such as O'Neill and Cheney use Serbian Orthodox Church/priest/minister. Other sources such as Jonnes say "Eastern Orthodox minister". Many other sources also say "Serbian Orthodox". The case for the church not existing during the time of Tesla's birth has not been adequately made, nor would it be able to be made without original research.- MrX 19:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

You had no problem disregarding major biographies(ones you named now and ones listed in the article) in previous discussion. The case is pretty simple. SOC had not existed before 1920. I should phrase you and state that sources are "all over the place". Some say priest, some say Orthodox priest, some Serbian priest/minister, some Eastern Orthodox minister, some priest of Greek Orthodox church. I also note the previous explanation about retrospective view. The case was not made inadequately. Patriarchate/Metropolitanates that existed in the 19th century are listed in this discussion. SOC had not existed. Sources also do not agree and are all over the place. Your attitude is biased. In previous discussions you discredited the sources you call upon now. Also, do not use cherry picked sources. Asdisis (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Two sections above I posted "Sources say that the Serbian Orthodox Church exists since 1200[13][14] (approx.) ". You haven't replied to that comment, and you haven't provided any source that disproves the existence since ~1200. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I had answered. Look up the quotation i posted with this request. To repeat: "The Church achieved autocephalous status in 1219 under the leadership of St. Sava, becoming independent Archeparchy of Žiča. Its status was elevated to that of a patriarchate in 14th century, and was known afterwards as the Patriarchate of Peć. This patriarchate was abolished by the Ottoman Turks in the 18th century. The modern Serbian Orthodox Church was re-established in 1920 after the unification of the Patriarchate of Karlovci, the Metropolitanate of Belgrade and the Metropolitanate of Montenegro.". Also I noted that some of present day sources can use retrospective view. History of Serbian Orthodox Church goes back to Archeparchy of Žiča, however the term Serbian Orthodox Church had not existed in 19th century, and it is wrong to state that Tesla's father and grandfather are priests of Serbian Orthodox Church. The discussion about the history of SOC is not for this discussion. The only thing that is important is that SOC is a term which had not existed in 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"The only thing that is important is that SOC is a term which had not existed in 19th century". Asdinsis claim is totally made up. All Orthodox churches were known by the nation they represent, and Serbian Orthodox Church is known as Serbian Orthodox Church ever since 1219. The fact that it had a Metropolinate in Belgrade (capital of Serbia, thus the orthodox church the Metropolinate represented is obviously Serbian orthodox church) and the Patroarchate of Karlovci, which represented the Serbs in Austro-Hungary, has nothing to do with anything regarding what Asdinsis says. They were both part of the Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same arguments. I answered those arguments. Before 1920. the term SOC had not existed.

1219. - Archeparchy of Žiča

14th century - Patriarchate of Peć

19th century, Serbia - Metropolinate in Belgrade

19th century Austro-Hungary - Patroarchate of Karlovci

19th century Montenegro - Metropolitanate of Montenegro

1920. - Yugoslavia - SOC Asdisis (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You just listed the seats of the Serbian Orhodox Church in different periods. I add a correction to your list: in 1920 where you wrote SOC it should be Patriarchate of Serbia, that was the name. But they were all SOC. (PS: I will avoid answering further in order to give space for other editors to participate more). FkpCascais (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Asdisis. You quoted a wikipedia article. We never use wikipedia articles as reliable sources, because it leads to circular sourcing.

You say that the Archeparchy of Žiča was not the Serbian Orthodox church. I don't see any reliable sources for this claim. I cited two reliable sources that contradict this claim. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize I have so many posts, but I have to answer once again. Sources are provided in the article I referenced. That is anyway so basic claim that doesn't need more than few minutes to be verified. Your sources do not contradict that claim, they just use retrospective view, as I explained. And again, the official name and an adjective "Serbian" are two different things. You're clearly confused about that. If you suspect that something I said is wrong you should provide valid sources. The above post is my main argument. I haven't gone into arguing whether an adjective "Serbian" can be given to those listed Patriarchates/Metropolinates. That's irrelevant for my claim. The claim is very simple. Tesla's father was not a priest of SOC because in 19th century SOC had not existed under that name. Political situation was much different than in 1920. in Yugoslavia. He was an Orthodox priest of Patroarchate of Karlovci which was independent. I will also add a claim ( however, I do not base my case on it) that Patroarchate of Karlovci can not be called "Serbian" because it was located in Austrian Empire. The fact that many Serbs were under it does not make it "Serbian". Metropolinate in Belgrade could be called "Serbian" by adjective because it was located in Serbia. However, even that needs to be discussed because of Ottoman politics. Also your sources are cherry picked - see posts by Fountains of Bryn Mawr and MrX, and my answers. Some sources say priest, some say Orthodox priest, some Serbian priest/minister, some Eastern Orthodox minister, some priest of Greek Orthodox church. Asdisis (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, keep the current wording. I would be open to changing it if a majority of the most reliable sources treated it some other specific, individual way; or if a couple reliable sources discussed this as a "mistake" in other sources; but I don't see either of those. We have to be careful to not rigidly make our own personal assumptions that 'if they were know as Patriarchate of Karlovci in 1880, then they could not possibly have thought of themselves also as the Serbian Orthodox Church'. I agree with above that it would be original research. I see many sources, including the Wikipedia article Serbian Orthodox Church treating them as both during this time. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yes -- List them as priests per the sources. I don't see any credible reasons to undermine existing sources that refer to them as priests.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood RfC's question. The suggestion is that they be listed as "Orthodox priests" and not as "Serbian Orthodox priests", since SOC had not existed before 1920. I added a clarification to the initial question. Asdisis (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment So let me get this straight, Tesla wasn't born in Croatia because Smiljan became a part of the Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia in 1881, but his father was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church which was formed with that name in 1920? Tzowu (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the name Serbian Orthodox Church was not made in 1920, that is just wrong Asdinsis suposition. FkpCascais (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please everyone see Orthodox Church organization and see how they are all divided among nations. The Serbian "section" (call it whatever) became autocephalous (was created as independent) in 1219. Ever since it had several patriarchats and metropolitanates (see List of Eparchies of the Serbian Orthodox Church). There is no doubt that both Patriarchate of Karlovci and the Metropolitanate of Belgrade were part of the Serbian orthodox church and what happend is that they existed simultaneously at that period. The Belgrade Metropolitanate had jurisdiction in Serbia, and the Patriarchate of Karlovci had jurisdicion in Austro-Hungary (as it included significant Serb population specially in Vojvodina, Military Frontier and Banat). What also happend is that the Kingdom of Montenegro renounced its independence and declared union to Kingdom of Serbia in 1918, thus, subsequently, the Metropolitanate of Montenegro also joined the Serbian orthodox church. All that happend in 1920 is that Serbian Orthodox Church became centralised, as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created and now all 3 sections were within one single country. FkpCascais (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And the comparison with the previous discussion about Croatia is wrong, because in this case, Serbian Orthodox Church is like Austrian Empire, and the patriarchate and metropolinate were its internal divisions (as Croatia, Military Frontier, Banat, etc. were subdivisions of Austrian Empire). See the difference?

Yet officially those were not parts of the Church with the name "Serbian Orthodox Church". Their believers may have called themselves Serbian Orthodox, but its official name was the Metropolitanate (or Patriarchate) of Karlovci, an autocephalous church that did not have jurisdiction only over Serbs. In official Austrian documents (such as censuses) the Eastern Orthodox Church was listed as the "Nicht unirt Griechisch" and "Nicht unirt Armenisch" (Greek non-uniate and Armenian non-uniate).[15] What happened in 1920 is that 3 autocephalous churches were joined (or re-united) into one that was named Serbian Orthodox Church, not that 3 sections of the Church called "Serbian Orthodox Church" were just abolished and centralized into one. In La voix de Montenegro from 1920, following the establishment (reunion...) of the SPC, its written that the Serbians proclaimed the Patriarchate of Karlovci as all-Serbian. [16]

The comparison is not wrong, as we saw Nikola Tesla said that he was born in Croatia, yet in 1856 Smiljan was not officially part of the Kingdom of Croatia so the majority concluded that the wording about his birthplace should not be changed (although the division of the Military Frontier which Smiljan was part of was called Croatian Military Frontier and was among local population regarded as Croatia). Now as for his father, he was an Orthodox priest, he may have even called himself a Serbian Orthodox priest (although we have not seen evidence of that yet), but his Church was not officially called "Serbian Orthodox Church" during his lifetime, not by his country and not even by his own metropolitan. Tzowu (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

SOC was created after WW1, after the whole territory was in Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The situation in 19th century was different. Patriarchate of Karlovci was located in Austrian Empire was independent and was not called Serbian Orthodox church. To call it Serbian Orthodox church would be very inaccurate since it was located in Austrian Empire which would not allow that from political reasons. You clearly have nationalistic agenda thus you want it to be called SOC, although that was not possible in 19th century in Austrian Empire. Asdisis (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

thumb|right|Map showing the organization of Orthodox churches in Austria-Hungary in 1909. Presented churches are Serbian patriarchate/metropolitanate of Karlovci, Romanian metropolitanate of Sibiu and Metropolitanate of Chernivtsi for Bukovina and Dalmatia.

From what I know the Patriarchate of Karlovci was not a Patriarchate for all Orthodox beleavers in A-H, but only for Serbs. The Romanians had a Metropolinate in Sibiu. FkpCascais (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For all on the area marked on the map, including Smiljan. Asdisis (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - We know Tesla´s father was Serbian Orthodox Church priest. The only thing we don´t know is if he belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci or the Metropolitanate of Belgrade. It is not that much important either way. FkpCascais (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Tesla's father as all Orthodox priests in Austo-Hungary belonged to Patriarchate of Karlovci which was independent from Metropolitanate of Belgrade which maybe could have an adjective Serbian. Patriarchate of Karlovci was not "Serbian" not by official name, not by unofficial classification. It represented Orthodox population in Austro-Hunagray which in 19th century was not composed by only Serbs. Note that 1920. is after AU seized to exist, and after Serbia pushed for all those of Orthodox faith (a considerate number of Vlachs of Croatia) to classify themselves as Serbs. Of course that was not the case in AU in 19th century. The case is very simple, SOC had not existed before 1920. and it would be very inaccurate to call independent Patriarchate of Karlovci which was in Austro-Hungary to be Serbian. Austro-Hungary would never allow Patriarchate of Karlovci to classify itself as Serbian church. No, it was independent and can not be classified as Serbian in 19th century. Asdisis (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems you beleave that the Patriarchate of Karlovci was some sort of independent Austrian Orthodox Church (or Austro-Hungarian OC later) but that was not the case. See the map I posted above and the description in the commons file. FkpCascais (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you believe it was not independent. It most certainly was not dependent on Metropolitanate of Belgrade nor Metropolitanate of Montenegro. The map does not tell anything about dependency or that Patriarchate of Karlovci was Serbian Orthodox church. Asdisis (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• Week "keep it the way it is" because the sourcing is week. We seem to be citing two basic sources here, a Wikipedia article and John Joseph O'Neill's 1944 Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla (page 11) (its obvious most other "Tesla writers" uses O'Neill as the blueprint for their books). Wikipedia is not a source and O'Neill can be a pretty poor source for things he didn't know much about. He had the general knowledge of any reporter and knew what he heard, most of the time. But he was not an expert on religion and not a big fact checker. The wording right now is based a bit on WP:SYN:this group lived here and were this, this became that, so they are that ("A and B, therefore C). I prefer DonaldRichardSands edit because it doesn't make a claim in Wikipedia's voice. "If a reliable source has published the same argument" re: that group was considered "Serbian Orthodox Church" back in the day, post it below and I will change this to "keep". May be too much work for my two cents ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2014 (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 6 August 2014

It should be noted on Nikola's death section that although his official death report stated the cause of death being age; he was found in a chair with clearly defined red finger outlines on his neck, indicating strangle from an unknown perpetrator. This can be verified through several independent investigation reports through their respective archives. 2602:306:BD6F:8AD0:129A:DDFF:FE61:7B13 (talk) 06:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)Caulin Dooley

 Unlikely - Please provide reliable sources to support the requested edit.- MrX 11:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lengthy Arthur Brisbane Quote

Three long paragraphs about ...monkeys have small thumbs, Tesla is tall, Tesla is tall, etc. Why is this here? What does it add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.2 (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It also states weight/height a third time at section start and says his eyes went from dark to light twice. Its a bit of a WP:QUOTEFARM and should be cleaned up. The Whole section "Personal life" is some 31 paragraphs long, that seems a bit excessive. It all could be shortened and some more WP:QUOTEFARM could be cleaned out of there as well. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree also.- MrX 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2014

He was listed as #2 on "Greatest Croatian" in 2003 source:http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Greatest_Croatian Tristo4Fun (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide specific wording and state where the material should be included. Also, a reliable secondary source would be helpful. Wikipedia articles can not be used as references per WP:CIRCULAR.- MrX 18:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sources are provided on Greatest Croatian article. This can be added to Nikola_Tesla#Legacy_and_honors section. You could be more helpful to new users instead of simply declining the request. Asdisis (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is noted at Greatest Croatian that the only source is a Nacional (weekly) poll and that this is a self-poll. So this drops down to the level of WP:OR/WP:TRIVIA. If a reliable secondary source took notice of this poll maybe it would be worth adding but an OR observation that there was a poll does not reach the level of encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate more on the self-poll and give some arguments to that claim? I disagree with your claims, although I'm not familiar enough to put any concrete arguments. It seems that you are, so please present them. I'm afraid to say that we've seen more than enough unfounded objections to include anything related to Croatia to the article. Especially from you. Asdisis (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read Self-selection bias as to why polls where the participants chose to call in/log in and vote have very little research value. On the wider scale, even if a poll was done randomly (scientifically), interpreting a primary source such as that is the realm of reliable secondary sources (WP:PST). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the methods the poll was done. That is why I asked and again I ask you, since you seem to know more than me. If the methods are flawed that I agree it shouldn't be included. With the second claim, I absolutely disagree. The poll would not be interpreted in any way. Asdisis (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. This poll result is trivial and is not worthy of inclusion in this article.- MrX 14:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

A NIKOLA TESLA REMEMBERANCE DAY JAN.7TH!

To remember tge genius of thge great inventor Tesla! On the 72nd anniversary iof his death Jan.7th, 1943. Theres to be a NIKOLA TESLA REMEMBERANCE DAY JAN.7TH, 2015!THANKS!Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D. ULC Founder GLOBAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE DAY held on Tesla birthdate JUL.10TH since 2005! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.0.241 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

first paragraph--"immigrate" should be "emmigrate". You immigrate from, but you emmigrate to.24.176.31.34 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

24.176.31.34 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)Charles Brower

 Not done - This causes a lot of confusion and argument in Wikipedia. To précis the advice here

Emigrate means to leave one's country to live in another. Immigrate is to come into another country to live permanently.
The choice between emigrate and immigrate depends on the sentence's point of view. If the sentence is looking at the point of departure, use emigrate. The point of arrival? Immigrate.
Emigrate means you are exiting your current homeland: Immigrate means you are coming in to a country to live

So, as the article states: Tesla immigrated to the United States. - Arjayay (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2014

I was reading the Nikola Tesla article and couldn't help noticing the writing under the picture of Nikola Tesla: 'Tesla wearing a folk costume, c. 1880.'. When I clicked the link it redirected me to the Serbian National Costume article. Well, get your facts straight Wikipedia, cause that costume is NOT Serbian at all. If u actually searched for Serbian folk costumes, you would notice that the pants are dark green with no stripes or anything on them, and they are a bit wide on the sides just above the boots. The actual folk costume Tesla is wearing is actually Albanian folk costume, and the pants are called 'Tirqe'. That is because the Albanian country in the past, had it's territories even in the modern day Croatia. Whether Nikola Tesla was or was not Serbian, that costume is Albanian. If you don't believe me search for 'Albanian folk costume' and you'll see. Or you can search only for 'tirqe', they come in different colors, mostly white, but also in black or brown, depends on which part of the Balkan you live. So, please change it, or if you don't change it, at least remove the link to the article 'Serbian folk costume'. You can actually visit the article and see for yourself if any of the pictures there match the Tesla one. So I ask of you to actually consider this request and do some research before you misguide people who actually don't know about Balkan folk costumes.

Aulonaa (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 16:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

That is Serbian folk costume. Serbs have a variety of folk costumes. The green pants are just one of the costumes, far from being the only one. The Albanian tirqe has nothing to do with this story. The phrase "That is because the Albanian country in the past, had it's territories even in the modern day Croatia." shows the level of knowledge about history the user has. By the way... NiCola? lol... FkpCascais (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• New edit:

Please accept these as more reliable sources concerning my request above: - Here are some early postcards of Albanian Costumes. You can see the resemblance of the pants and the vest. Please note that the postcards with the Male Albanian costumes are further down the page. Link: http://www.albanianart.net/postcards/postcards.html - Folk singers from Gjirokaster, Albania. They are wearing Albanian folk costumes. The link is actually for wikipedia itself. Link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Gjirokast%C3%ABr_National_Folklore_Festival#mediaviewer/File:Gjirokast%C3%ABr_folk_singers_1988.jpg - Another Albanian folk costume. You can see the resemblance of the pants and brez (traditional belts worn by Albanian men). Link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Traditional_Albanian_clothing#mediaviewer/File:Kostume_popullore_-_Flickr_-_Shkumbin_(3).jpg Link : http://www.albanian-folklore.com/costumes/pictures/picture-380.html Link: http://www.albanian-folklore.com/costumes/pictures/picture-256.html Link: https://www.flickr.com/groups/425761@N22/pool/with/4894702516/ - And last the Wikipedia page in English and Albanian about Albanian folk costumes. Please note the part that says 'tirq', in the 'Pants and upper body covers' section in the second link: Link: https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veshjet_tradicionale_shqiptare Link: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Traditional_Albanian_clothing#cite_ref-3 - Books about the Albanian folk costume: Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=vc3fAAAAMAAJ

     http://books.google.ca/books?id=F1tRbwAACAAJ 
Aulonaa (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

edit request

It should be noted that Telsa was supected to be suffering from serious deterioration of mental facilities in his later life and all references to theories and claims he made during that time should note this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.49.1 (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - Please recommend specific wording, placement, and provide supporting sources.- MrX 00:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

A section on the "Tesla cult"?

I'm wondering if there should be a section on Tesla's current legacy and reputation, particularly the "Tesla cult" that has grown up around him? For example the many myths that circulate about him, that he invented the fluorescent lamp, transformer, loudspeaker, microwave transmitter, laser, and his putative involvement with the Philadelphia experiment and HAARP, 1 to cite a few.

Maybe the section can discuss the reasons why he is regarded with so much more fascination than other scientists of his day. Explanations I've heard are that in an age when science is a bureaucratic "team" pursuit dominated by huge corporations, he represents the romantic Victorian ideal of the lone gentleman-scientist hero. Also his anti-establishment image, created by his battles with "robber baron" industrialists. Also the eccentric "mad scientist" trope, which was partly created from Tesla when Hollywood in the 1930s found the snapping sparks of Tesla-type high voltage equipment was the ideal backdrop for SF movies such as Frankenstein. And also of course his diligent self-promotion and creation of his own mystique. It seems to me some of this belongs in the article, as Nikola Tesla in popular culture doesn't go into this, it is just a list of pop culture references. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The old lead of this article used to perpetuate some of these myths re: "Tesla contributed in varying degrees to the establishment of robotics, remote control, radar, and computer science, and to the expansion of ballistics, nuclear physics,[7] and theoretical physics." Add to that the common belief he invented AC and tore up his AC contract to save Westinghouse. W. Bernard Carlson may have info on the cult, haven't looked. RS like that would need to state it for us to state it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. It gives a place for things that are commonly associated with Tesla (aside from pop culture refences), but have not proved to be true. the problem seems to be where to find reliable sources for unverifialble material. and what in this case even is a reliable source.Quiet Wanderer (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2014

108.182.48.124 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC) It is insulting to call Nikola Tesla "Serbian American" scientist for several reasons: 1) Tesla never had Serbian citizenship. He was born in what's today Croatia, and at the time of his birth was Austro-Hungarian Empire. Therefore he had Austrian and Croatian citizenship, as any other citizen of the Croatian territory. 2) He was not a Serbian citizen, and the term used for his ancestry is "vlah". There is a big difference since Vlah has ancestral connections to roman colonists. 3) he was baptized as an orthodox christian, but declared himself as an agnostic. Often in territory of the ex Yugoslavia, religion and nationality were used interchangeably. Since Serbians are predominately orthodox Christians, Bosnians Muslims and Croatians Catholics, colloquially one would call an orthodox christian a Serb regardless of his actual nationality. 4) Both Tesla's parents were born in Lika, a region in Croatia. Hence they also had Croatian and Austrian citizenship, but not Serbian. 5) Term "Serbian American" is tactic of "great Serbia" propaganda, with a belief that wherever there is 1 Serbian, it is Serbian territory, and whoever belongs to orthodox christian church is Serbian. This belief was one one of the reasons behind wars in ex Yugoslavia in 1990s, and ethnic cleansing.

The sentence in the lede is supported by four separate sources. The first source says “Although living in Austrian Croatia, both of Nikola’s parents came from Serbian families…” and calls him a “Serbian inventor”; the second source says “Tesla, an ethnic Serb...”; the third source calls him a “Serbian-American engineer”, as does the fourth source. Are you disputing that each of these is WP:RS? Do you have alternative sources? Your point (5) sounds like a subjective conspiracy theory to explain why you personally are insulted by this description. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this quote from Tesla?

Does anyone know whether this quote is an actual quote from Tesla?

“ If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. ”

It can be found for example as a wall quote on Amazon, and although it seems reasonable that the quote actually comes from him, I haven't been able to find any more reliable source that verifies that it does. I asked the same question on Wikiquote (here), but I don't know if anyone have seen it. —Kri (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Best I can figure out the quote comes from a guy named Ralph Bergstresser, who claimed to be an aid to Nikola Tesla, appointed by President Roosevelt or some such thing[17] and heard this from Tesla in 1942[18]. Bergstresser was pushing some far fetched healing aid called "Purple Plates" he claimed were based on the papers of Tesla.[19] Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Hello, I noticed a slight grammar issue with the main bio page for Nikola Tesla.

Location: under heading, MIDDLE YEARS (1886 - 1899)

under subheading AC AND THE INDUCTION MOTOR

paragraph two

sentence one (as displayed)

One of the things Tesla developed at that laboratory in 1887 was an induction motor that ran on alternating current, a power system format that was starting to be built in Europe and the US because its advantages in long distance high voltage transmission.

I believe a higher degree of fluidity in this sentence may be achieved by inserting "of" between "because" & "its". Schnager (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed — xaosflux ^Talk 02:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you- MrX 02:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Eye color

There was a paragraph discussing Tesla's eye color, saying he "claimed" that use of his brain had caused his eyes to become gray. I left the comment from Brisbane to speak for itself. Tesla did believe some unusual things, but it's speculative to think this wasn't merely a joke. Roches (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla discovered the Rotating Magnetic Field

According to Harvard University Professor of History; William L. Langer, who compiled and edited 'An Encyclopedia of World History', page 555, Nikola Tesla discovered the rotating magnetic field which was what made the long distance transmission of electric power possible. http://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/william-l-langer174.1.40.37 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And the source at Rotating magnetic field says Galileo Ferraris probably did. When trying to weigh RS you should take into account whether the source is reliable for the statement being made, re: a work specifically on the "electrification in Western society" vs a a general "An Encyclopedia of World History". When sources disagree you describe the disagreement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

starry eyed

in personal life, they make it sound like he was in love with a dove.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvilInThisWorld (talk • contribs) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You are exaggerating. Perhaps you got that idea from his citation. The fact is that everything written is truth. Tesla had a special sympathy towards pigeons and cared very much for them. That part about his relation with pigeons was even shortened, but Tesla actually nursed numerous injured pigeons and, at the hotel he was living, the hotel service were bringing him on daily basis food and other stuff he needed for the pigeons. Besides the ones he nursed when injured at his hotel room, he also had one that he saved that he treated as a pet, and he developed some special care for her (the one described in the citation). Just make some googling - Tesla Pigeon - and you will see. FkpCascais (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015

Nikola tesla is no serbian nationality.

78.2.207.15 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. He is not serbian but Serbian. It is quite a phenomenon to see the amount of Croatian based IPs deniying Tesla was Serb. No real request here. Really unfortunate we have to have this article semi-protected because of it. FkpCascais (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• FkpCascais, don't go there. It's simplest just to state "Consensus has long since been established that Tesla's nationality should be denoted as being Serbian", rather than getting into any nationalistic commentary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

People need to know the difference between nationality and ethnicity. Nikola Tesla's nationality was American. His ethnicity was Serbian, and his place of birth was Croatia. Tesla wrote "I was born in Croatia". Written in his Tribute to King Alexander, New York Times, October 19, 1934.Michael Cambridge 06:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)

menu layout is indented too much

The latter points of 'personal life' are mentioned as subpoints of Sleep Habits, which they shouldn't be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.185.130 (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015

Please change this Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist

by this

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic: Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Croatian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist of Serbian origin ,

Accordingly, but just technically, this

His patents earned him a considerable amount of money, much of which was used to finance his own projects with varying degrees of success.

should be changed by this:

His patents earned him a considerable amount of money, much of which was used to finance his own projects with varying degrees of success

References

Deternamor (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - The Serbian/Croatian wording has been discussed at length. Consensus supports the current wording. Please see the archives. Regarding your second request, the full citation is needed because it is not defined elsewhere. - MrX 19:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a great article (as written). -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This subject remains somewhat unclear. There are sources that describe Tesla as both Croatian, America,or Serbian scientist, and probably some as Austrian. I, personally do not see any point into completely ignoring sources that describe him as Croatian scientist, and there are considerable amount of that sources as well. Of course the question is here who is biased, someone trying to introduce Croatia/Serbia or any edit on the subject, or those who oppose it sometimes without arguments. Some people simply accuse others of being biased or of persuading nationalistic agenda simple because they are trying to introduce something new in the hot topic. I think sufficient time had passed and maybe I start a new discussion on that topic after I go trough previous discussions and gather all sources and separate objective and biased/unfounded opinions, as well as investigate and present new sources that weren't part of previous discussions. One thing is sure, present formulation completely ignores Tesla's other nationality, which is also an unclear question, since Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier, which suggests Tesla had Austrian citizenship, however after 1881., I think that people living there become citizens of Croatia, not all but major part. So the present formulation either omits Austrian, or Croatian scientist and combines ethnicity with nationality (Serbian American). The most correct formulation in my opinion would be Austrian/Croatian(whichever citizenship Tesla had before he become American) American scientist of Serbian ethnicity. There is another alternative, a retrospective view, which is pretty normal in the literature. There are many sources that describe Tesla as Yugoslav scientist based on that approach. However, I fear that from today's point of view the formulation would be Croatian scientist, and that isn't an option considering that majority would have to agree on that and majority is obviously against anything connecting Tesla to Croatia, even if those objections are unfounded/biased(as seen in the discussion about Tesla's birthplace). As I said, there are two opened questions and there isn't really an answer. I tried to investigate myself but I haven't found any good primary source, and the secondary sources are often repeating each other, and do not have a reference or any other support to the claims they make on that subject. Simply authors were concentrated on different subjects, not Tesla's ethnicity, nationality and so on. The best sources for that topic would be Croatian and Serbian, however it seems that there are not too much documents to work with, because I haven't found anything useful. For instance let's take the topic of Tesla's ethnicity into consideration. Everyone will agree Tesla was Serbian, however there are not too many primary sources to support that. Many will talk about the song he requested for his funeral, or repeat Tesla's statements(which are for the most part not referenced properly, and so on). Also, there is an open suspicion on Serbia as a state that some documents are hidden from the public(Tesla's supposed diary). All in all, I would like to have an open and objective discussion about either of those topics, however that isn't possible here, as I found out. Asdisis (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)