Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Lead Re-Write

I'm always interested in decluttering, dejargonizing and streamlining articles. This one, IMHO, sorta reads like a crazy quilt of various editors' specific obsessions.

I've rewritten the lead so that it's more concise and clear (hopefully).

Tell me what you think. I will add the references if it's a go:

lead re-write

Nikola Tesla (Serbian Cyrillic): Никола Тесла; 10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian American[2][3] inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system.[4] In 1884 Tesla emigrated to the United States to work for Thomas Edison in New York City. In 1885, he sold George Westinghouse the patent rights to his AC induction motor and transformer, thus igniting the infamous “War of Currents” between Edison and Westinghouse. Tesla formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing, in 1886 and set up laboratories in New York City and later Colorado Springs. His singular fascination with high frequency electrical phenomena produced inventions such as the Tesla coil and numerous innovative experiments involving wireless devices, radio signals, illuminated gas-filled tubes, and x-rays. Tesla’s unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project was an ambitious though tragically ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission.[5] Tesla's inventions and showmanship made him world-famous.[6] Although he earned considerable sums from his patents, he never accumulated much wealth as he used his profits largely to finance costly projects. He lived for most of his life in a series of New York hotels. The end of his patent income and eventual bankruptcy led him to live in diminished circumstances.[7] Tesla’s habit of making public statements on topics such as interplanetary communication and supernatural phenomenon earned him a reputation in popular culture as an archetypal "mad scientist."[10] He died on January 7, 1943. In 1960, in honor of Tesla, the General Conference on Weights and Measures for the International System of Units dedicated the term "tesla" to the SI unit measure for magnetic field strength.[12] Since the 1990s, his reputation has experienced a resurgence in popular culture.[11] Tesla’s work and reputed inventions are also at the center of many conspiracy theories and have been used to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories and New Age occultism.

I think it's an improvement. I'm going to take a stab at copy editing the death section.- MrX 18:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The Edison article is fantastic. Just beautiful summation of his significance in the lead. IanWills did that, and any input he'd care to give would be very much welcome.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD revert. I reverted 2 edits by Atlantictire. Most of it seems to be an improvement but some of the facts are wrong. I can list them if needed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, then just fix the facts. MrX is copyediting too, and I don't see his edits getting reverted ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD. You are removing too much from the lead. It should summarize the article, not WP:PUFF. Tesla did not "sell" his patents to Westinghouse, they were licensed, and that was 1888. I have seen no claim this "ignited the infamous "War of Currents". "In 1886 Tesla formed his own company, Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing" <--- out of sequence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it more like the Edison lead, which is an elegant summary of Edison's notability rather than a coatrack of factoids. Let's collaborate instead of edit warring!:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)--

Sorry to put on the BRD break but you summary read like a cliff notes version of the Tesla Myth. It did not even follow the article under it. Please stop for now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Then make some constructive suggestions, because now I promise it's something that only the geeks who wrote it will read!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I can get you sources for the War of Currents, because that was a huge event in the technological history of everything and Tesla played a pivotal role in it.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "geeks". Tesla's life is pretty "geeky". And it is not the version you read in popular culture re War of Currents. Many things wrong with your version.... the basic of which is it does not follow WP:LEAD. Besides the mistakes above you can't skip big events in Tesla's life like Wardenclyffe. The lead used to be pretty WP:PUFF and you took it back there a bit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's just remember we're not writing this for people who are already obsessed with Tesla, or are even interested in electronics. It's for a general audience. I don't know what you mean by WP:PUFF, but yeah, it shouldn't be an onslaught of technical jargon only electronics geeks will recognize. It's the lead! Look at the Edison article. It doesn't punish its readers for not sharing Edison's obsessions. And how is being "like Cliff Notes" a bad thing? This is an encyclopedia, for pete's sake.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I am not seeing it. It at least has to be right. Please list what parts of the lead are too "geeky". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The parts where nobody wants to read it, i.e. the whole discombobulated thing!--Atlantictire (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: you comments here and here, you need to create a lead that summarizes the article per WP:LEAD. Please do not state views based on popular culture notions (that do not appear in the article BTW). If you think something major is missing you need to add it to the article first before you add it to the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Where are my views on popular culture in the lead? Maybe you're not familiar with what all of that electronics speak was actually referring to, but I just translated a bunch of it into concepts your average person might actually recognize. Other than the War of Currents (which you and I are going to find sources on, correct?) where does my version add something that isn't already in the article. If it's in my version and not the article, then that's also true for the old version.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

And FYI, there's a bunch of stuff in the old version what isn't discussed in the article at all that I did take out.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Other than parts of it being flat out wrong you hit on minor parts of Teslas life, like War of Currents and things he did not work on, like radio (he worked on wireless, not "radio" per say), and missed the big part of his technical career---> high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I said "high frequency electrical phenomena". How is that incorrect? Forgive me for thinking we might be able to focus mainly on applications in the lead for the sake of the layman. You need sources my friend. I'll get some on Tesla's work with radio signals. In the meantime, here's a whole bunch of stuff on the War of Currents 1, 2, 3, 4<---who's "flat out wrong" again?--Atlantictire (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Some pointers. References belong in the body, not the lead, so "sources" are there, read the body. If you think the lead should be something else then you need to change the body, with sources, with consensus. References should be scholarly and on the topic ... err, I can't give you any more advice on that other than read WP:RS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and even said that myself and explained that I put it in because it is in fact a highly significant element of Tesla's biography, and the article's failure to mention it is a serious omission. There are things in the current version of the lead that are definitely not in the article, so you're not really being fair here. What's more, you said I was "flat out wrong" about Tesla's involvement in the War of Currents. Aside from not being very nice, that's incorrect. If I were you I would try to collaborate and not quibble, and maybe even apologize. I am absolutely open to putting things back in the lead, but I will advocate for writing about them in such a way that shows consideration for the average reader.

I feel like I keep saying let's comprise and collaborate and you're trying to find excuses for why we shouldn't. Oy!--Atlantictire (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections. The flat out wrong stuff is the "license", "date", "company" and ascribed invention stuff. Per War of Currents if we delve into RS (such as The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia[1]) we see the "war" started with Westinghouse's Buffalo AC system, two years before Tesla got into the business. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's just get something straight: you're not quibbling and are in fact trying to collaborate, correct?--Atlantictire (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

errr... I have always tried to collaborate. I see the problem re:"Average reader", it has been in the back of my mind for some time, and I have actually been doing a cleanup in ALL the periphery articles..... I know.... its the long way round. Here is the problem. Tesla was up to something from 1890 on. It ran him bankrupt and got him labeled a crackpot. He may have deserved those monikers. Its his real story. The article dances around it to the point of being obtuse. That part needs to be cleaned up.... it would help the summary of his life in the lead. My two cents. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the book you're sighting gives 1885 as the start date for the War of Currents, and my re-write says Tesla sold his patents for the AC induction motor and transformer to Westinghouse in 1885. Seems like what I wrote could have been fixed by changing the word "sold" to "licensed," not reverting. :-)

Yeah sure, dig up some sources on what Tesla was doing after 1890 and we'll take a look. And thanks for the tidying up work you've been doing so far.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla "licensed" his patent in 1888, and it was not Tesla Electric Light & Manufacturing (that was some little venture Tesla got booted out of in a year), and we are now 3 years before Tesla got into the war of the currents with allot of engineers in some place called Europe making most of the major developments in AC. But I quibble ;). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong! Jeeze, I knew I wasn't crazy. Maybe he did license some patents in 1888, but he sold the ones for the AC generator to Westinghouse in 1885. 1, 2, 3. Swing.... and a miss.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Lesson here: show good faith to Atlantictire. Atlantictire looks for sources before editing. ;-)--Atlantictire (talk) 02:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

We always got this article or Induction motor, written by many editors with (way to many) references, you may want to look at that. Also I don't think the guys at IEEE are smoking rope[2] ;). Lesson #1..... allot of the stuff on Tesla, even the print stuff ... can be very wrong. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, on further inspection, I see some books saying the patents were sold in 1885, and some saying they were sold in 1888. I haven't found any that says they were "licensed" but that doesn't mean there aren't books that do.

Do you have sources saying that Tesla wasn't instrumental in setting off the War of Currents? Because despite all the conflicting dates I'm not finding any that say that. Not saying they don't exist.

And don't worry, I'm not an ANI monster and I don't take any of this personally. You can totally tell me when I'm being an autocratic dweeb. Say, "Atlantictire, you're being an autocratic dweeb."

It is Friday night and we're arguing about Tesla. Good lord, we're geeks!--Atlantictire (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, is this the WP:PUFF version of the lead that was, uh, improved? Take out the second to last paragraph and it seems fine to me. The syntax is far less tortured, it covers the essentials and it doesn't read like somebody tried to make themselves feel smart by name-dropping concepts that are likely foreign to people who don't already care about electronics and Tesla. You don't have to talk about "mechanical oscillator/generators" and "electrical discharge tubes" in the lead. No really, you don't. It's much kinder to talk about recognizable applications rather than widgitery, and Tesla is in fact so notable because of the familiar applications of his work.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

All I can really do give is pointers and maybe recomend reading this article? Its pretty well referenced. There are allot of popular notions about Tesla that are simply wrong (Tesla invited AC, Tesla invited radio, Tesla invented free energy, Tesla duked it out mano a mano with Edison in the war of the currents). Tesla's license[3] was a pretty famous deal, as well as his "ripping up the license" many years later. More info on the Tesla myth at Debunking the Tesla Myth and maybe here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not "giving pointers." Pointer: don't respond to people who are giving you links to books and published research by telling them to read earlyradiohistory.us or edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked if you're trying to sound like an Expert who Knows What He's Talking About. I have read the article and there's absolutely no reason the lead needs to use terms like "oscillators" and "electrical discharge tubes" in lieu of more familiar applications. None.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I supply one source on the actual topic (Empires Of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, And The Race To Electrify The World), and you supply 3 sources, (1, 2, 3), not specifically focused on this topic with short glyphs on the history. You really need to read WP:RS re: how some sources are way more reliable than others. If terms like "oscillators" and "electrical discharge tubes" seem to have no reason to be in the lead then expand their description in the lead. Tesla was not working out of "fascination", he had a goal of producing a wireless AC system, those were just instruments towards the goal. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, I gave you sources about The War of Currents when we were talking about Tesla's involvement in the War of Currents. I gave you sources about the patents when we were talking about the patents. You gave me websites to make some blanket defense of the lead. Forgive me if it's starting to seem like winning is more important to you than being honest. Either appreciate good faith attempts at collaboration or keep making reverts. I'm fairly generous about not setting editors up for 3RR, but only up to a point.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, Fountains of Bryn Mawr and I are having trouble collaborating. I ask him to clarify what he means by factual errors and he complains about puffery. I ask what he means by puffery and scolds about lead protocol. It's hard to pin down exactly what he's saying, but from what I gather statements like "Tesla experimented with radio signals" actually mean "Tesla invented radio" and "Tesla was fascinated by high frequency electrical phenomena" implies "Tesla invented AC." Somehow discussing "illuminated gas-filled tubes" as opposed to "electrical discharge tubes" is POV Tesla worship.

He keeps saying I'm too wrong on the facts to edit this article. There are conflicting claims in the literature about Tesla, but I am attempting to present him with quality secondary sources. For my trouble, I'm scolded for not knowing the difference between reliable and unreliable sources and then told to read edisontechcenter.org/tesladebunked.

My concerns are about concision and clarity, and I'm completely willing to acknowledge he probably knows more about Tesla than I do. I want to work with him, but I think he's saying I'm not allowed to touch the lead.

Help?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest starting with Fountains of Bryn Mawr's statement "Most of it seems to be an improvement but some of the facts are wrong." and working from there. The lede should be 100% consistent with the rest of the article and should summarize all of the major points; successes and failures. If there are disagreements about the major points are, that needs to be worked out. I would recommend proposing smaller edits, whether they be additions, copyedits, or deletions. If they are likely not to be controversial, just be bold, otherwise post them here and wait for consensus.

I have a couple of content specific comments: The third paragraph has some trivial detail and could benefit from better wording. Perhaps the second sentence and the last two sentences can be salvaged. I propose something like this:

Tesla was renowned for achievements and showmanship, eventually earning him a reputation in popular culture as an archetypal "mad scientist." His patents earned him a considerable amount of money, most of which was used to finance his own projects with varying degrees of success. Tesla lived most of his life in a series of New York hotels, through his retirement. He died on 7 January 1943.

For the fourth paragraph, I propose something like this:

Tesla's work fell into relative obscurity after his death, but has experienced a resurgence in interest in popular culture since the 1990s. In 1960, in honor of Tesla, the General Conference on Weights and Measures for the International System of Units dedicated the term "tesla" to the SI unit measure for magnetic field strength.

I removed the "His work and reputed inventions are also at the center of many conspiracy theories and have also been used to support various pseudosciences, UFO theories and New Age occultism." as it is not content already in the article and seems to be original research.- MrX 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

- MrX 23:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That's cool and those are good edits. I've edited with many an engineer and sometimes (sometimes) they think a wikipedia article is an occasion for nerds to speak in arcane nerd code to each, the rest of humanity be damned. Just so we're clear: it is not.

Whoever wrote the Thomas Edison lead wants people to care about Edison. Whoever rotted the Tesla lead this past year wants him to be the private property of nerds.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Smiljan, Northeast Serbian-Orthodox quarter, Lika, Croatian Military Frontier, Austria-Hungary (modern-day Croatia), while arguably the most correct designation, is obnoxious. It is massively contemptuous of the reader. Similarly, I'm just not convinced that the way to fix the lead is to expand its explanation of oscillator/generators and electrical discharge tubes.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr without "pointers" or lectures on wikirules or lessons on the pitfalls of Tesla historiography or any evasions not otherwise specified, could you please explain what in the lead from a year ago that I linked to is 1.) factually incorrect and 2.) WP:PUFF and/or POV? If I seem uncivil it's because yes, I think you are being evasive and yes it is trying my patience. I apologize. And sure, there is "no deadline" but it's not very nice to hold up editing because you'd rather not collaborate, and I hope that's not what you are trying to do.

Also, consensus MrX if it's just the three of us who care about this and everyone else would rather talk about the Croatian Military Frontier, can we go ahead with edits? I'm fine with doing them piecemeal.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will make the changes and if someone disagrees with them, they can join this discussion.

I think this can be better

Tesla went on to pursue his ideas of wireless lighting and electricity distribution in his high-voltage, high-frequency power experiments in New York and Colorado Springs and made early (1893) pronouncements on the possibility of wireless communication with his devices. He tried to put these ideas to practical use in his ill-fated attempt at intercontinental wireless transmission; his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project. In his lab he also conducted a range of experiments with mechanical oscillator/generators, electrical discharge tubes, and early X-ray imaging. He even built a wireless controlled boat which may have been the first such device ever exhibited.

If Tesla's experiments and inventions were innovative, notable and compelling we should try to convey this and write about them in way that's accurate and NPOV but doesn't strike your average reader as wonk wonk wonk nerds talking to themselves don't care zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I keep saying this but is there a way of phrasing this--perhaps in more general terms or with reference to familiar applications--that's interesting in the way the Thomas Edison lead is interesting?

"Accuracy" doesn't require the most excruciatingly fussy exact wording we can come up with because we're being jerks. That's Smiljan, Serbian-Orthodox quarter, Lika, Croatian Military Frontier (Croatia Proper), Austria-Hungary (modern-day Croatia).

Concepts likely to be foreign to people who don’t already care about this stuff that we don’t need to force them to read about in the lead because we are not jerks:

• electricity distribution

• mechanical oscillator/generators

• electrical discharge tubes

The Wardenclyffe Tower wireless communications bit is notable and compelling, but is the wireless controlled boat really the best we can do in terms of notable inventions people might relate to? It sounds a little trivial, and if he worked on wireless technology more generally we should probably say that.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem, Tesla's innovations re: high-voltage, high-frequency power led to, and have, no familiar applications, so this simply wont read like an Edison article, that's not the way Tesla rolled. What he wanted to to was vibrate the entire Earth electronically and use that as a communication and power delivery system. <-----that's all the stuff above boiled down. "mechanical oscillator/generators, electrical discharge tubes, Wardenclyffe" all go with that. It was not "wireless" as people see it today, it was wireless that used the planet Earth in place of wires. That has no familiar applications, and was never built on since physicist could see it would never work. A wireless controlled boat on the other hand is one of the most striking applications to come from that period, its arguably a Tesla first. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why the English speaking world's most prestigious and serious-minded publishing companies are still putting out history books that are either about Tesla or devote whole chapters to him if he was a just some gifted flake whose inventions no one can relate to. Everyone loves oscillator generators! Is this all really just a giant anti-Edison, anti-Galileo Ferraris smear? If so, seems like a wonderful opportunity for a tech historian to make a name for himself. Why hasn't that happened yet? Probably because the Masons stashed the incriminating documents in a vault somewhere.

No, you are wrong. The lead should attempt to establish why people still care about Tesla. As a comprise, in the last sentence we can list all the arcane widgetry the geeks have come for.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

War of Currents and POV

Like I said, I have no dog in this fight other than wanting to make this article more accessible and less stilted stylistically. Nonetheless, I am starting to have concerns that it may also have problems with NPOV.

I don’t want to quibble so I’ll say off the bat that “instigated” "ignited" may not have been the correct or most precise verb when discussing Tesla and the War of Currents, but no, I did not put War of Currents in the lead because I’m a massive Tesla fanatic. I put it there because every single source I looked at on Tesla and Westinghouse seemed to front-end it.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but there seems to have been tremendous controversy over the years in this article and in the War of Currents article over the WP:WEIGHT of Tesla’s role in the War of Currents. This, IMHO, is a far more serious issue than the Croat/Serb controversy. If the article truly attempts to minimize Tesla’s role in a way that is patently revisionist, it’s probably a matter that should take priority.

At present, the War of Currents is not even mentioned in this article. Its talk page is riven with angry comments about either the minimization or exaggeration of Tesla’s role therein. Poor Binksternet provided 13 different sources at one point in 2012 to protest the removal of a paragraph on Tesla.

From my dealings with Binksternet, he’s very generous and non-confrontational. I’m very willing to see things through until reliable sources and scholarly consensus prevail, which unfortunately can sometimes rub people the wrong way.

That book Fountains of Bryn Mawr cited, the one about the War of Currents, its title is Empires of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse and the Race to Electrify the World. On page 163 it says:

“By bestowing his new all-important AC induction motor upon George Westinghouse’s rapidly expanding electrical empire, Tesla was eliminating the one great remaining advantage of Edison’s DC system. The War of the Electric Currents was about to be joined in earnest."

Granted, it gives 1888 as the date for this, and other sources I’ve seen have said 1885. Of course this confusion over dates is something we ought to try and sort out, but for Pete’s sake… if Tesla had everything to do with why AC won out over DC, that is a fact of monumental significance and to purposefully omit it would seem almost calumnious.

You will find in my sources that Tesla's motor was instrumental to AC's victory and that Tesla himself actively aided Westinghouse in promoting its triumph, most notably designing electrical exhibits for the 1893 World's Columbian Exposition, an event Westinghouse illuminated.

Again, not a massive Tesla nut. Just somebody who read this article and went yeah, kinda reads like an edit war casualty.

sources

The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870–1920 Maury Klein, Cambridge University Press, Sep 3, 2007 page 95 “Other exhibits designed by Tesla dazzled onlookers with the mysteries of electricity. The [1893 World’s Columbian Exhibition in Chicago] succeeded in providing Westinghouse with a compelling advertisement for ac power” E.g. not only did Westinghouse get the patents for his AC induction motor from Tesla… Tesla was actively attempting to help Westinghouse win the War of Currents. Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age W. Bernard Carlson, Princeton University Press, May 7, 2013 Chapter 9, “Pushing Alternate Currrent in America” Empires Of Light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, And The Race To Electrify The World Jill Jonnes, Random House LLC, 2004 page 163 AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War Tom McNichol, John Wiley & Sons, Jan 6, 2011 Chapter 6 ,“Tesla” Tesla, Master of Lightning Margaret Cheney, Robert Uth, Jim Glenn, Barnes & Noble Publishing, 1999 Chapter 3, “The War of Currents” Not my fav, but Cheney was a valid source the Croatia discussion so no quibbling because it has pictures or “glyps” (I don’t even know what that means, tbh)!

Unless someone can find reliable sources that it doesn't belong, I think War of Currents ought to go in the article and the lead. Honest discussion that debates sources without resorting to word games would be greatly appreciated.

--Atlantictire (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've reviewed enough sources to know that this is an important aspect of Tesla's legacy. I would caution us to use solid sources, present contrary viewpoints (if any), and to stay away from sensationalistic wording. Some of the content can be copied from War of Currents. I would prefer that we trim the 'Early years (1856–1885)' section and add the War of Currents content in it's own section. I am somewhat against calling it War of Current though, as that seems to be a pop culture affectation (correct me if I'm wrong).- MrX 21:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with all of that except maybe calling it something other than War of Currents, but only because that's what the Wikipedia article on the topic is called. Of course, I say this not having been witness to all the ways in which hairs can be split on this issue.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Checking in now and then. "Unless someone can find reliable sources that it doesn't belong, I think War of Currents ought to go in the article and the lead". Nope. thats not the way Wikipedia works per WP:BURDEN. You have to find reliable sources to support content, not ask someone else to disprove your edit. Points that are weak....... "birthday parties" are a big part of Tesla's later years, that is where almost all his pronouncements came from after 1930. Tesla did not have "vary degrees of success", he ran him self broke and was bankrupt after the turn of the century. These are weak points in the article, so should be fixed before going into the lead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone understands that content needs to be sourced. I think what Atlantictire was saying is please present any sources that contradict or refute the sources that are present above and in the War of Currents article. Tesla had numerous patents, several of which are in use today. He was highly respected and was financially successful for at least part of his life, so I think it's reasonable to say so in a summary of the article's content. Meanwhile, feel free to jump in and help fix the content that you believe to be weak. - MrX 01:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

War of the currents should probably be expanded. I am not sure what was ever in this article about it (before my time). I removed a section heading "War of currents" because it had no content underneath it. The problem with the claim that the licensing of Tesla's AC induction motor "igniting the infamous "War of Currents."" is it is not in the War of Currents article and is directly contradicted by sources such as "The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia"[4]. "Tesla had everything to do with why AC won out over DC" is a simplification to the point of being wrong so we don't risk any "calamity" there ;). When it comes to "common knowledge" about Tesla we can't just "source" it, we actually have to use RS on the reliable end of the scale, otherwise Tesla ends up being the inventor of alternating current. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I had looked at The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia and decided not to include it. Not because it contradicts my sources, but because it's redundant and a tertiary source.

Tesla's contributions were essential to the of victory of AC over DC and as MrX said it's a major part of his legacy. --Atlantictire (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree that the war of the currents content should be added. The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business: An Encyclopedia article contradict most of the (reliable) sources that I've seen in that it recasts the "war" as one involving arc lighting versus incandescent lighting. That's OK though, we have plenty of good sources to work with. - MrX 13:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going look at what the sources have to say about Tesla and the AC induction motor, because right now that section reads like someone insisted on inserting a bunch of WP:UNDUE on other inventors. This is an article about Tesla, not the AC induction motor, so it might suffice to say there's currently some dispute as to who invented the motor (if that's even true) without all this petty naming of other inventors because we are SO OVER the Tesla hype.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This can definitely go as WP:UNDUE and anecdotal "and during Tesla's demonstration English engineer Elihu Thomson stated he was working on an induction motor."- MrX 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looked at the Ferraris sources

I think we can safely say that neither http://edisontechcenter.org/ nor Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook are reliable scholarly sources

There is no mention of Galileo Ferraris in The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications Tesla, yes.

Creating the Twentieth Century: Technical Innovations of 1867-1914 and Their Lasting Impact says: "Tesla… was not actually the first inventor to reveal publicly a discovery of the principle of the rotating electromagnetic field and its use in an induction motor. Galileo Ferraris presented the same insight to the Royal Academy of Science in Torino on March 18, 1888, and he published his finding in April, a month before Tesla’s May 16, 1888 lectures…. but Tesla was far ahead in developing the first practical machine."

The claims about the working model of Ferraris’ motor are either tertiary or more than 50 years old.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson has the Elihu Thomson citation[5], also here[6]. Empires Of Light and Seifer cover this neck and neck invention. There is WP:REFBLOAT and it could be streamlined but the fact that this was an ongoing search for a workable motor is noted in many sources and should be cited. For a textbook covering the induction motor, Tesla, and Ferraris have a look at "The Induction Machine Handbook[7]. edisontechcenter.org is footnoted and a much better source than about 90% of what is used on this page. Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook is an IEEE publication, you know, the place Tesla gave his talk? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the illuminating sources. I withdraw my objection to that content. (ETA: I agree that we have a lot of poor sources in this article, and given that the article receives 8000+ page views day, we should remove any bad sources and dependent content mercilessly. - 16:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC))

But no way is this a reliable source. A significant part of the article is unattributed and the "Who Invented the Polyphase Motor?" is attributed to "A perspective by M.W., part of the Engineering Forum." Let's please use really good sources for this content.- MrX 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Wayne, can you quote from one of your reliable sources where it definitively says that Ferraris had a working prototype for the AC induction motor in 1885.

Also can we take the stuff on Shallenberger and Thompson out? It's not relevant. If the consensus in the sources is that Tesla had the first practical motor, do we really need all of the but what about these other guys?--Atlantictire (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Also Fountains, that second source is "juvenile nonfiction."--Atlantictire (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX, I agree. Right now some kid is getting harangued by his teacher for his Tesla paper. "This is why I told you not to use Wikipedia!!"--Atlantictire (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Per The Genesis of Industrial America, 1870–1920, the Columbia World's Fair was a front in the the War of Currents and a decisive victory for Tesla and Westinghouse. pg 95--Atlantictire (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to look at earlier versions of this article to see if at one time these two stand-alone sentences may have had whole paragraphs or even sections:

Tesla demonstrated wireless energy transmission (Tesla effect) as early as 1891.[54][55]

In 1891, Tesla patented the Tesla coil.[56]

--Atlantictire (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ferreris 1885 can be simply searched ----> (google books). "Tesla effect" is, I think, a turn of the (20th) term that comes from copy/pasting copyright free material from that time. It is no longer used, probably explained as EM. Tesla coil belongs in a better written section. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That's nice. This isn't an article about Ferraris. What's more, the sources that had been used to substantiate the claim of his having had a working prototype motor in 1885 were total junk. Since I'm not the one wanting to put it back in the article, it's not my job to find sources. If I were you, I'd let it go.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored with one textbook ref and a "Tesla" ref. Wording was off as well, Ferreris famously did not develop a workable AC motor, he thought it was a toy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, the biggest concerns are that it's WP:UNDUE, WP:BUTITSTRUE (at best, because the sources are still dubious) and WP:POV. Nonetheless, you are still using poor sources, and in fact some of the same poor sources. You used Control Techniques Drives and Controls Handbook again and The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications, which makes no mention of Farreris as I have already demonstrated. One of your new, "better quality" sources was not scholarly research, but another handbook, "Ion Boldea, ‎Syed A. Nasar, The Induction Machine Handbook."

Unilaterally making these edits when you know they will be controversial without first stating your intention on the talk page demonstrates a contempt for other editors and is WP:OWN. Continuing to use poor sources shows a lack of regard for scholarly consensus and WP:RS. Most distressingly, you appear to be advancing a WP:FRINGE POV, which is that other people deserve credit for things Tesla doesn't deserve credit for the things he is famous for and his work is largely irrelevant. There are plenty of examples of you saying this very thing on this talk page.

Please revert your edits so that nobody else has to and discuss it on the talk page. POV pushing is highly pernicious, and it's something I take very seriously. I will seek mediation if this continues.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources being "dubious" seems to be in your mind. Many many many sources cover the development of AC and motors in the 1880s including "Tesla oriented" sources such as W. Bernard Carlson, Seifer, and Cheney. Froehlich/Kent is not a supporting source I added and is used to backup the fact that Tesla and Ferraris gave papers in 1888..... errr.... no one disputes that. The other sources such as "The Induction Machine Handbook" are standard secondary sources on the subject and are doubled with a "Tesla" source that give even more detail on the subject. You seems to be lobbying for this article to be based on common knowledge. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of common knowledge. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Just a few comments upthread you're citing a work of "juvenile nonfiction" and www.edisontechcenter.org, a site with a POV attack article called "Tesla Debunked." You are reverting to edits with obscure handbooks and sources that don't actually cite what they've been used to cite. Pardon me if this seems like more word games. It is frustrating the heck out of me.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I just went through a highly traumatic episode with a masterful WP:CPUSH civil POV pusher. Taking the time to verify sources, only to be given more dubious sources does wear me down. So do constant evasive word games. So does taking the time to find high quality scholarly research only to be continually countered with websites and obscure handbooks. So does first discussing all my edits on the talk page and waiting for consensus, only to have the editor unilaterally change them back to the same objectionable content without discussion. Fountains of Bryn Mawr, I am letting you know: right now, I am frustrated. I would like you to afford me the same consideration that I've afforded you. At least have the courtesy to discuss an edit or revert before making it.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't heard it before, you should be discussing edits and content, not the editors, on this talk page. I think you have gotten "consideration" in spades. Better sources needed? Better sources supplied. Content too deep for this article, should be in its parent article? Content boiled down (it should also be added to the parent article but don't think we got that far). If you are taking it personal or are overwhelmed by other editing duties I can not help you there but you have my sympathies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have seen at least three sources that state that Ferraris demonstrated the rotating magnetic field concept in 1885. Tesla commercially developed the concept, and was the first (as far as I can tell) to create a motor without commutators, which is a significant innovation. I have reworded the content to try to make a little more concise.- MrX 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are high quality sources that support this, and this can be included in such a way that is not WP:UNDUE, I do not have a problem with that and thank you for stating your intention first. If it is in fact in Carlson that's much better than The Induction Machine Handbook - 2001, which is also currently cited.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, You don't get to just ignore me. MrX is not the only person you are editing with. We need to discuss this editing behavior. What do you want to do about it?--Atlantictire (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A lot of what you've just said is patently false, and you know it. Last time I brought it to your talk page, you told me to bring it here. Just so we're clear, which do you want?--Atlantictire (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it works this way, please see your talk page. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What Carlson's Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age actually says about Ferraris

After testing the AC system of Gaulard and Gibbs at the 1884 International Electrical Exhibition in Turin, Ferraris decided to ‘’study’’ transformers. A this time electrical investigation did not fully understand the relationship between the incoming (primary) current and the outgoing (secondary) current in transformers. Borrowing from his knowledge of mathematical optics, Ferraris theorized that there ought to be a phase difference of 90* between the primary and secondary currents in a transformer. He then hypothesized that if there was such a phase difference, the two currents should produce circular motion, just as two light waves out of phase by 90* created circular interference patterns. To test this hypothesis, in 1885 Ferraris constructed an experimental apparatus consisting of two coils placed at right angles to each other. Between the two coils he placed a small copper cylinder of a pivot, and when he connected the coils to the primary and secondary of a Gaulard and Gibbs transformer, Ferraris found that the cylinder rotated. Ferraris was pleased that his apparatus confirmed that there was a phase difference between the primary and secondary currents in a transformer, and he freely shared his results with other electrical investigators in conversation and correspondence. Ferraris did not publish the results of his 1885 experiments until 1888 and did so only after reading about Thomson’s induction repulsion motor. In his 1888 paper, Ferraris reviewed his findings about the phase difference in transformers, commented on how his ideas could be used to cause Argo’s wheel to rotate and suggested that it might be possible to use his principle to develop a wattmeter. He also reported on how he had created two out-of-phrase currents by placing and induction coil and a resistor in two branches of the circuit, the same technique that Tesla had used in his split-phase motors of 1887. But most important, Ferraris discussed whether a rotating magnetic field could be used to create a practical motor. Ferraris had build a small motor with a copper cylinder or the rotor and had connected it to a dynamometer to measure how much mechanical work the motor performed. In these tests, Ferraris discovered that as the speed of the motor increased, the amount of work decreased. Resorting again to mathematical physics, Ferraris determined that as the motor’s speed increased, the induced currents in the copper cylinder created not only a magnetic field but also a great deal of waste heat. According to Ferraris’s analysis, when the cylinder reached maximum speed, the induced currents would produce equal amounts of mechanical work and heat, and, as a result, the motor would become inefficient and start to slow down. Based on his test and mathematical analysis, Ferraris concluded “that an apparatus based upon the principle [of a rotating magnetic filed… can have no importance as an industrial motor.” Over the years there has been ample debate over whether Tesla or Ferraris should be recognized as the inventor of the AC induction motor. To some extent, the confusion was created early on by the fact that the first reports in English of Ferrariss’s 1888 paper left out his analysis of the waste heat produced an thus created the impression that a practical motor would follow from his investigations. But as we have seen, Ferraris drew exactly the opposite conclusion in his paper: he did not think that a practical motor could be developed using a rotating magnetic field. Instead, Ferraris should be credited with being the first to investigate how AC can create a rotating magnetic field. Even more important, Ferraris should be given credit for introducing the notion of phase in discussing alternating current phenomena. Thanks to Ferraris’s mathematical analysis, electrical engineers were able to quickly grasp the ideas behind the AC and polyphase currents. Nevertheless, it was Tesla who built the first practical induction motor.

Please read the source carefully so that we do not have to go back and forth with quibbles and corrections.

As of yet, I have not succeeded in making a single edit to this article, although I have been trying now for days. Every single one of my edits has been reverted thus far.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, it would be an extremely encouraging show of good faith if you would allow me to use this information to clarify that Tesla was unique in not only building the first practical induction motor, but in believing that one could be built. Ferraris did not. It is a testament to a singular kind of inspiration and resolve and it's why the Tesla article has 8,000 page hits per day and the Ferraris one doesn't. Let's not muddle this with a bunch of misleading WP:UNDUE.

I would definitely object to creating a lengthy description of what exactly specifically in extensive detail Ferraris' contributions were, only because we have an article on Ferraris and in this one that would be WP:UNDUE. If Ferraris is important to you by all means add detail to the article on Ferraris.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)--

This does not seem to change what the article currently says. I can not see what extra wording would be added. This just states Ferraris did the real theoretical work on how an induction motor could be built. Tesla built a much more functional one independently, and was the first to patent it. Tesla seemed to get past the heat problem, how could be a good add but do we have that? Nether can be put above the other on a scale of "practicality", a practical motor would come later and be built by other people[8]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Because Tesla believed in the possibility of a practical AC induction motor and Ferraris didn't. That changed the world and it's huge.

That said, I very much appreciate that you responded to my proposal seriously and thoughtfully. Thank you.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to take out unnecessarily specific info about Ferraris, such as the month and day of his paper and exact location of his demonstration. Carlson doesn't actually say that he demonstrated his motor in "Turin." These are historical facts, and a handbook is not a work of scholarly historical research. What's more calling Ferraris's motor a "working motor" may be misleading without further clarification. I'd like to clarify that he did not believe in or intend to build a practical motor. That is what Carlson actually says.

I'd like to be able to edit this article.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I support those edits. - MrX 13:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Turin and the date is not disputed by any reference and all reliable sources on the subject note this odd co-invention at the same point in time. Please do not discount sources based on the title (don't judge a book by its cover?). They are judged by how scholarly they are written and by how much they are cited re:WP:GOOGLETEST re: The Induction Machine Handbook 411 citations, and Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age 2 citations, for example. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's inconsiderate to verify a claim with a google search result when everyone else is giving you very specific references and quotations even, the biggest problem here is this is WP:BUTITSTRUE. We don't need to know the exact location or exact date for Ferraris's paper and demonstration of his motor, because this is not an article about Ferraris. The issue here is the extent to which Tesla deserves credit for building the first practical induction motor. You don't get to cite a source to verify that Ferraris built a proto-motor and then reject what that very same source says on the very same page about Tesla having built the first practical motor. That's WP:CHERRYPICKING and characteristic of WP:POV pushing. Either the source is valid or it isn't. If you don't think Carlson is a valid source, then you can't use him to support the claim about Ferraris.

It disturbs me that you just don't seem to notice yet that what you're doing isn't working. Please ask yourself, is it worth jeopardizing the credibility you've built up over the years in order to preserve a version of an article that is not supported by the sources? What's more important: getting your way on this specific issue or continuing to be seen as an editor who is capable of collaborating and respecting scholarship? Everyone else seems to want to follow the sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Atlantictire for bringing up this problem. My position is still that we must tell the reader about Tesla's role in the War of Currents, because of all the books which discuss it. The issue is so prominent that its absence from the lead section will be confusing to the reader, not to mention a dereliction of our duty as editors. I fully support any changes to this biography that restore a proper mainstream balance (not a revisionist 'balance') to the lead section and article body. Binksternet (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup per layout

I rearranged the content/sections on "war of currents" and the induction motor re:on topic heading/content. The induction motor is a pivotal invention for Tesla (noted many times[9][10][11][12]) and should have its own section heading. "War of currents" related material moved to section. Removed "Tesla effect" since its an antiquated (1907) term. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. I'm wondering if we should eliminate the 'American citizenship' section and combine its contents with another section, that way all of the sections will be about his accomplishments, and not about his trip to the immigration office.- MrX 17:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The article War of Currents was explicitly named in the previous version. It should be re-inserted. Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's still linked via the redirect War of the Currents, which seemed to me to be the most prevalent form. I won't stand in the way of anyone changing it to War of Currents or War of the Electric Currents, as long as we try to keep it consistent throughout the article.- MrX 18:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the tangent, but I just want to point out that Fountains of Bryn Mawr gets to make edits without first getting anybody's permission, but unless the editor is an admin he's not affording other editors the same courtesy. All other edits must go through him first, and they will most certainly get reverted if he disapproves.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a tangent. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when it's starting too look as if WP:PUSH is happening, you may need to WP:IGNORE in order to highlight the problem. Especially if the editor isn't demonstrating that he has any empathy for your distress or any willingness to compromise. May I remind you: I have yet to make a single edit to this article that has not been reverted by you. What do you want to do about this?--Atlantictire (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Everyone is equal here. We can all make edits, and anyone can revert them if they disagree with our changes. It's then up to the BOLD editor to make the case for the content, and gain enough support (consensus) for the edit to stick. Gaining support would probably be more likely if we keep personal comments to minimum. Mutual respect can go a long way toward fostering a collaborative editing environment.- MrX 19:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not the issue. I've been trying to get Fountains of Bryn Mawr to collaborate but all I get from him is no no no nothing can change, that is unless you chime in. He lets you edit, even when he disapproves, but not me. He's willing to be conciliatory towards you, but not me. That's because he thinks he can get away with it with me, as I am new to the article and do not have the same privileges that you do.

I've first discussed all of my edits on the talk page and he has either chosen to ignore the discussion, waited for me to edit, and then reverted or he has reverted after discussion, even though he's the only one who dislikes the proposed edits. It doesn't bother him that he's used or is using a lot of poor quality sources, he has no problem quibbling or telling to you read "Tesla Debunked" at edisontechcenter.com, and it doesn't bother him that other editors have voiced support for my edits.

This is a whole bunch of do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And as for anyone can revert, no, I'm not going to edit war with Fountains for Bryn Mawr. Reverting is a distressing thing to do to someone, and he'll revert and revert instead of compromising.

It's not considerate to ignore a talk page discussion and revert afterwards. It's not considerate to hold yourself to a lower standard of verifiability then other editors. It's not considerate to only collaborate with admins. It's definitely not considerate to do all these things then expect "civility."--Atlantictire (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit which seems to be revert to this version is just as incorrect in the facts it presents. Galileo Ferraris would not be a lead engineer or inventor experimenting with AC technology, he was doing theoretical work, not building technology. Ferraris' motor did not have a commutator, it was also a brush-less design. Reworded again. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"other engineers and inventors developing and patenting polyphase AC transformers and generators"

You know that I have Google books too, right? Read page 118 again. "Nevertheless, the development of an economical polyphase system comprised of both motor and generator was not carried out alone by any of these inventors.” It says other inventors made "claims" and "contributions." Your are STILL trying to make it sound as if someone developed a viable AC system before Tesla. WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Are you ever going to stop being wrong?--Atlantictire (talk) 05:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

MrX has suggested that if I were more cordial to you that you would be more conciliatory. In fact, other editors have been coming to your talk page and Tesla related talk pages for years to politely object about edits that are dubious and misleading. You have ignored them and continued to make counterfactual edits that diminish Tesla. I lose patience with editors who exploit WP:CIVIL. I'm here to say stop the bullshit NOW.--Atlantictire (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... gotta read the whole paragraph. "any of these inventors" refers to none of the listed inventors (including Tesla) produced an economical polyphase system. They all had parts of it, no one had the whole. AC was under developement from the 1850s and the first AC systems predate Tesla's entry into the field by two years (see Alternating current - History). All these AC systems (including Tesla's) had limited viability, for example Tesla's was not viable for the streetcar project Westinghouse put him on and Westinghouse only manege to produce an electric fan and a mineshaft donkey engine from Tesla's motor design. Next sentence (that you skipped) ---> "Electrical manufacturers would take the lead in that endeavor.", author is referring to AEG/Dobrovolsky et al. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You just don't know when to stop. The fact that Tesla's motors didn't work with street cars HAS NOTHING to do with whether or not he developed the first practical AC motor. You don't care that you're wrong. You don't care that it upsets other editors. You don't care that articles are not supposed to be yours to own. What is wrong with you? Are you just not smart enough to even realize when you don't know something

Guys, if the internet for you is all about acting out some fantasy version of yourself in which you're super smart at science, please take that shit to a message board. Here it's called "ruining Wikipedia." I'm done. This is me, after a week of this, at the end of my rope. I apologize, FOBM.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

AC and the induction motor

I have reworded a couple of sentences in this section for clarity, but removed this (in red) as WP:UNDUE:

"The motor worked with a polyphase current (two or more AC lines feeding out of phase alternating current) that created the rotating magnetic field that drove the motor. He received a US patent for the motor in May 1888. At that time alternating current power systems were starting to be built in Europe and the US because of AC's advantages in long distance high voltage transmission with other engineers and inventors developing and patenting polyphase AC transformers and generators."

In my opinion, this last sentence is tangential and not important to understanding Tesla. As long as we don't make peacock claims about Tesla being the first/best/biggest/baddest, then there is no reason to explain the history of alternating current in such detail. I took out the definition of polyphase, assuming that interested readers can click on the wiki link if they want to learn more.- MrX 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Three reasons for the rewrite by me before your removal to talk.

• 1. MOS:JARGON requests that technical terms be defined in text in the article: do not force a reader to follow the link to understand a term. (Assume the reader is reading a hard copy with no wikilinks).
  2. Readers will come to this article assuming Tesla invented AC (and the article currently does not tell them any different). The point in time in AC development should be explained.
  3. The reason why AC was preferable/being developed has been in the article for a while and should still be there.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I have a version of that section that explains the advantages of AC right away in the first paragraph (long distance transmission, ready conversion to different voltages). I didn't post it, because I didn't want to edit war and I wasn't confident it wouldn't be reverted or re-revised. But yes, that is better.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

"But yes, that is better." Which "that" are you referring to?- MrX 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You version. It's less misleading. There's no danger that anyone with at least a 5th grade reading comprehension will come away from that thinking Tesla invented AC. Sorry, I'm too fed up with this. Patience: gone. Gonna recuse myself for the evening from Wikipedia.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: I'm flexible about the jargon, if others agree. I did consider rewording that part, for example replacing 'feeding' with 'supplying'. I can't get on board with the premise that people come to this article assuming that Tesla invented AC (unless they are electrical engineers, perhaps). I think people come here because they read or viewed videos that portray Tesla as a mad genius who made huge coils, that spewed 20 foot longs bolts of lightning, and that could alter space and time. I think Tesla's role in the commercialization of AC is important and historic, but I don't think it's a major theme for his biography.- MrX 21:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Judging by whats on the number one viral site on the internet, The Oatmeal, in black and white in many many books, and every Tesla question I have seen on Yahoo Answers, a whole lot of people think Tesla invented AC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we have to rely on our reliable sources and follow the relative WEIGHT in those sources. Your quandary is that the many many books that claim Tesla invented AC, works directly against the content that you wish to include. The sentence, at least as written, is not faithful to the collective Tesla biographies, as far as I can tell. It also introduces a topic in a way that seems to rebut a claim that was never made, which teeters on the edge of WP:OR.

I hope we are not writing this article to address the positively poor information dispensed at various sites like Yahoo Answers, or various fan sites across the internet. Show me some scholarly mainstream debate about Tesla inventing versus not inventing AC, and I will reconsider my view on this. - MrX 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My "quandary" is that we should state the obvious and define jargon. He worked in the formative years of electric power development (near the very beginning of AC development), its in the lead in short form, it should be in the body in long form. It should be there because of WP:OBVIOUS. We should follow WP:JARGON. We can skip stating his position in the development of AC if you want. Readers can always infer that from whats given, or yeah..... we would have to explain he did not blow up Tunguska, create free energy, have J P Morgan yelling "where do you put a meter on this thing?" at him, dematerialize a ship in Philadelphia, or build a particle beam weapon in his New York apartment in the 1930's (oops, do we say that? ;)). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, FOBM, what you're proposing is misleading POV. Tesla designed and built the first practical AC induction motor. It really is that simple. MrX, we may need to have a RfC on this as we did on Tesla's birthplace.--Atlantictire (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:YESPOV and Check your facts no. It would not be a "true" statement and we do not state seriously contested assertions as facts (per policy). We could present the sides but that makes the section longer and go off topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The main issue I have with the parenthetical explanation of polyphase current is that it really doesn't work well to explain to the lay reader what it is. Anecdotally, I tried to explain this very concept to my neighbor a couple of days ago when a lightning storm cause one phase to cut out, causing our air conditioners (but not other appliances) to stop working. Their response was a blank stare of confusion. I would expect that our average reader does not even understand alternating current, so how could they be expected to understand 'out of phase current'?

Since there is no claim in the article that Tesla invented AC, the most neutral presentation of the material would require omitting content about contemporaneous AC research and development. I'm open to an RfC, or perhaps others will join this discussion so that we can establish a clearer consensus.- MrX 13:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see agreement on "The reason why AC was preferable/being developed" / "Tesla's role in the commercialization of AC" / "advantages of AC" leading to the sentence "At that time alternating current power systems were starting to be built in Europe and the US because of AC's advantages in long distance high voltage transmission" or some form of that. Opposed to RfC because it would be an RfC on something clearly spelled out at WP:YESPOV. This is not the place to rehash Wikipedia policy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support RfC (if it comes to this) because this is the consensus among Carlson et al.--Atlantictire (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Carlson does not support first to "design"[13] and no consensus amongst sources, way to many sources call this an independent co-invention[14][15][16][17][18][19] (last two declare both designs not "practical"). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. Someone else? Re-read the entire passage upthread from Carlson. It's under the green hat.

If you want to waste your time reading through all those links FOBM just provided and explain to him how they don't at all support his claim that Tesla doesn't deserve credit for designing and building the first practical AC motor be my guest. I've been playing this game for almost a week now, and it's somebody else's turn.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we ought to state in the first paragraph what the AC fuss was all about. I would add information about the advantages of AC and take out the bit about the Peck Brown profit sharing agreement. We do learn 2 paragraphs later about the sums Brown and Peck negotiated for Tesla, and right now the priority is to understand "why AC" without overburdening the paragraph.

Here's how I'd re-write it:

In April 1887, Tesla formed the Tesla Electric Company, financed by New York attorney Charles F. Peck and Alfred S. Brown, the director of Western Union. They established a laboratory for Tesla at 89 Liberty Street in Manhattan so he could work on his alternating current motor and other devices for power distribution. Unlike direct current, alternating current is readily converted to different voltages and is transmissible over long distances.

I checked references on the paragraph I was adding to and found them inaccurate. I rewrote the this paragraph (and reverted it back) because it is factually wrong. Per Carlson, Seifer and other reference checks, Brown was not "the director of Western Union", he just worked there (and helped to set up a rival company), Tesla worked on improvements for existing motors and generators, DC devices, AC devices, a Thermo-magnetic motor, etc - it was not just to work on AC, and they did not "share equally" in profits. AC was not the primary reason for the business venture (Peck was not particularly interested in AC). This article is a BIO to accurately describe Tesla, some ins and outs of his business relationships are part of that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FOUNTAINS OF BRYN MAWR DEFIES TALK PAGE DISCUSSION REVERTS AGAIN--Atlantictire (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Jonnes (p. 114, 159) Brown was high-level engineer, not a director nor a supervisor.- MrX 21:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Carlson (page 80) Brown kept changing hats in a telegraph turf battle/patent war. Going from Western Union to general manager of rival company Mutual Union (under Peck) (probably where "director of" came from), back to "superintendent" for Western Union in a settlement where Western Union leased Mutual Union's lines. Looks like he was supervising what he built and Western Union had to buy, but we could always pull off his hats and call him a "telegraph engineer". BTW he was also an inventor. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, "director" is what it said in version of the article I was working with. I didn't put that in! I merely tinkered with the wording, clipped off the last sentence in the first paragraph and added a sentence to the end. I haven't put anything in the article in days, matter of fact. All this is telling me is that this entire article probably needs to be fact-checked. From now on, instead of re-wording a sentence I will check every aspect of it for factual accuracy as well.--Atlantictire (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Nobody likes to be reverted. This is especially true if an editor has taken the time to do some research and has provided a reliable source(s) to support their additions or changes. What I suggest is that editors do not revert sourced content but instead come to the talk page and discuss the issue, gain consensus and then remove, revise, replace the content as needed with agreement from others. If an agreement can't be reached then try WP:3O or WP:RFC or a noticeboard etc. When we revert another editor it immediately creates an atmosphere of friction. So better to avoid creating that effect at the start of a discussion and preempt the back and forth of WP:BRD or WP:3RR. I think all editors on this page are here in good faith and want to improve this article. Accusations of bad faith and misconduct and ownership are likewise unproductive. Please speak to each other as you would like to be spoken to; with patience and respect. Keep in mind your common goal and create something great. Peace!- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

I kindly ask the help of an advanced Croatian history expert and/or a Nikola Tesla biography specialist. The infobox information is surely incorrect, since Austro-Hungarian citizenship did not exist (for details check Austrian Empire/The Status of the Kingdom of Hungary section). Since it was true also before and after the Austro-Hungarian compromise, at the same time Kingdom of Croatia were also legally part of the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen, also before and after - of course since 1868 as Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Literally with some legal conditions like personal-union, etc., part of Kingdom of Hungary (although before the compromise, regardless of the legal status, it was directly controlled from Vienna, but this was also true for Royal Hungary, regardless it was legally a Regnum Independens, it is common if the crown is held by a King from a different house, but it never meant to consider the Austrian Empire as one state, but a type of conglomeration of states with a common King)

It's a bit hard to visualize this, since I want to reflect it the time when Tesla was born. I am also aware not all former states/regions "conquered" by the Austrian Empire had the status as a separate state in the Habsburg Crownlands, like Kingdom of Hungary had. So I want to know exactly - not just by the prediction where Tesla was born/lived - what citizenships he had or did he resigned any citizenship before acquiring the American one.

Please someone tell if Kingdom of Croatia had a similar status by citizenship like Hungary in 1856...or if not and we assume between the time he was born and after acquiring the U.S. citizenship, and assuming he did not change citizenship on his own will, then he was a Hungarian citizen (if we regard the legal hereditary status) or an Austrian citizen (if regardless of the legal status of Kingdom of Croatia as part the Lands of the crown of St. Stephen, Hungarian citizenship was not applied there for any reason) this period.

I'd say the infobox's citizenship section just enlisting some empires/states Tesla stayed, and in reality it does not tell us anything about his former citizenships, even if we ignore the date of birth and death, we only know about the date of the compromise and the abolishment of AH.

Please someone make it clear, because he surely wasn't a Austro-Hungarian citizen,such did not exist. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

If you look at the third paragraph at Austria-Hungary#Structure and name, you might reasonably conclude that his citizenship was Hungarian between 1867 and 1891. But according to this he could have also chosen to be Austrian. Meanwhile, I will simply remove that content from the infobox, and it can remain a mystery until we have a conclusive source that explicitly states what his citizenship was during that time.- MrX 22:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I found several reliable, primary sources.

1. Tesla held Austrian citizenship when he was naturalized as a US citizen. (Source: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington, D.C.; Soundex Index to Petitions for Naturalizations Filed in Federal, State, and Local Courts in New York City, 1792-1906 (M1674); Microfilm Serial: M1674; Microfilm Roll: 268; Roll Description : T-236; T-360; Ancestry.com. U.S. Naturalization Record Indexes, 1791-1992 (Indexed in World Archives Project)).
2. His passport application in 1891 lists his birthplace as Austria (Source: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); Washington D.C.; Passport Applications, 1795-1905; Collection Number: ARC Identifier 566612 / MLR Number A1 508; NARA Series: M1372; Roll #: 378; Volume : Roll 378 - 14 Jul 1891-31 Jul 1891; Ancestry.com. U.S. Passport Applications, 1795-1925).
3. In his petition for Naturalization in 1889, he renounces his allegiance to Austria. (Source:Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York (700-702); Ancestry.com. New York, Naturalization Petitions, 1794-1906; Original data: Petitions for Naturalization, 1793-1906. ARC ID: 5324244. Records of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Record Group 85. National Archives at New York City, New York, U.S.A.)- MrX 03:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, this information are a huge step forward, and it's almost very sure from his birth until 1891 he was an Austrian citizen. If someone knows did he earlier resign/acquire any citizenship, please share and also I'd like to hear a Croatia expert between 1856-1867 what citizenship the people in Kingdom of Croatia had. If we have all this missing information, the infobox's citizenship section should be changed in a way not the corresponding country names are listed (it might change meanwhile the citizenship remains), but like i.e. Austrian (?-29 July 1891), American (30 July 1891 – 7 January 1943)(KIENGIR (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC))

I'm involved in other discussions during which i stumbled across information that can help this discussion. I think that people living in Military frontier had Austrian citizenship. According to Vasilije Krestic, those people, after the abolishment of Military frontier became Croatian citizens. I think that its worth investigating that way because after 1881. Military frontier was completely abolished and was returned to Croatia. If I find some valid sources I will post them here. For now, I just wanted to give a pointer to anyone involved in this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet, from his letter to The New York Times in 1934,[20], it's quite clear that Tesla himself thought: "I was born in Croatia." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Tesla Ethniciy in Lead

Please, respect the ongoing above discussions. After they finish the lead can be rewritten, because it depends upon above discussions. Thank you. Also, there is a problem with sources next to "Serbian-American inventor". Source listed at [3] isn't valid and has to be removed. Also i can't find the claim written in the article in source listed at [2]. I have nothing against the claim, but it must be supported with valid sources. Maybe someone can find a direct quotation from source number [2] that supports that claim. I found a lot of sources claiming Tesla was both Croatian and Serbian and American inventor. I'm busy with above two discussions, but i will join this one and focus on the questions that rely on above two discussions.That is because I'm deeply involved in above discussions and I have investigated a lot of sources, thus I can be of some value here. Asdisis (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The article can continue to be edited during the RfC. Is there some aspect of the changes so far that you disagree with? As far as the source you mentioned, why do you believe that the BBC article is not a valid source? I was able to find Serbian-American in the Burgan source.- MrX 15:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, still it would be advisable to respect the above discussions because a lot of sources has been presented. Generally news articles can't be considered a valid sources. Also, BBC's article does not in any way support the written claim. There are far better sources that could support that claim. Thank you for the new sources, I also think that history channel can't be a valid source. This is because there exist an extensive collection of books that specially dealt with Tesla. I will post the sources as soon as i investigate a little further. However i can say that many sources mention Tesla as Croatian and Serbian and American inventor. I stated previously that Tesla had strong connections to Croatia. That should be mentioned in the first paragraph. Although we have disputes about the place of Tesla's birth, I think that no one disputes that Tesla lived in Croatia most of his life. If we want to use term "scientist", than we have to discuss one thing. Tesla had Serbian origins , however when the term scientist does not go towards someones origins. Let's say that we have someone born in America who became a scientist and his parents are Polish. Most biographies would mention "American scientist of Polish descent". The term scientist goes towards someones nationality. I think someone had already made a request that "Serbian-American scientist" should be changed with "Austrian-American scientist." My suggestion would be "Croatian-American scientist of Serbian descent" or "Croatian born Serbian-American scientist". Asdisis (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

We're leaving the wording about Tesla's birthplace alone while the RfC proceeds. Everything else can be edited. News articles are valid sources per WP:NEWSORG. I think we can remove the BBC article as a source, since none of the text is dependent on it.

Tesla most certainly did not live in Croatia for most of his life. He lived most of his life in the United States. The term scientist is not related to where someone is born, or their heritage. It just happens to be a grammatical construct. If there is a dispute that, instead of Serbian-American, it should be Croatian-American, Austrain-American, Hungarian American, or Yugoslav-American, then that is a subject for a separate discussion, or an RfC.

Most editors here want to improve the entire article, not bend it to their preferred nationalistic POV. This discussion section is about improving the lede to make sure that it summarizes the main points of the article, and to make it clear, concise, informative, and grammatically correct. Feel free to start a new section to explore the Serbian American question if you believe a preponderance of reliable sources support different wording.- MrX 18:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but BBC's article does not support that claim. It should be removed. I saw better sources that can support that claim. I'm sorry for my mistake, I meant that Tesla lived in Croatia most of his early life. I said that because some argue that he was not born in Croatia. But it is clear that from 1868. Tesla lives in Croatia even by their claim. I think that most of the sources look towards someones nationality for the term scientist. I'm also trying to improve the article. I'm directed by Tesla's own statements that reflect the importance Croatia had in his life. I already explained that Croatia is diminished in this article. I said I will present valid sources. I won't start a new discussion. This discussion is concerning the lead, and I suggest that Tesla's connection to Croatia should be mentioned in the lead. What do you thing about my suggestions? Asdisis (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said I am opposed to expanding the content about Croatia in the article, especially in the lede and especially with cherry picked sources.- MrX 21:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Asdisis, I sympathize, but I think it's time to let go. A picture of Tesla's birthplace is there, the name of his hometown is linked twice, a link to Croatia is there. There is absolutely no danger that anyone who reads this article will fail to notice Tesla's connection to Croatia.:-)--Atlantictire (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but that doesn't matter, valid sources will speak for themselves. Both Croatia and Serbia should be mentioned in the first paragraph. To someone familiar with Tesla's life that should be obvious.Asdisis (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think i presented a lot of sources in above discussions. I don't think that can be considered cherry picking.Asdisis (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are absolutelly cherry picking sources as you limit your sources to those mentioning Croatia because that is all that you want to see. No, Tesla was not a Croatian scientist, was not born in Croatia, Smiljan was not a Croatian village at time he was born, and you are not trying to improve the article, you are just trying to Croatisize the article. I really think you are becoming disruptive by now and I am considering reporting you giving the ammount twisting reality and nationalistic POV-pushing you are making here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, can someone please close the threads above. The ammount of no´s Asdisis receved are quite clear. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, find sources i neglected to mention. If your claim is true there should be overwhelming number of that sources. Otherwise, your accusation is unfounded. Your claims are incorrect, as I showed with valid sources. I think that your unfounded accusations are disruptive. I stated my intentions clearly. Yes I am trying to reflect the importance Croatia had in Tesla's life. Constant objections and ad-hominem attacks on my behalf will not be productive on your side. I suggest that you instead invest your time into finding valid sources. Best regards. Asdisis (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sources for what? There are already plenty of sources saying he is a Serbian-American scientist born in Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire. You seem to fail to understand the basics here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I explained that Croatia is a broader term and that the sources you mentioned are not in conflict with sources that explicitly mention Croatia. Asdisis (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes they are. Croatia is one thing, Military Frontier is another. A middle ground consensus was reached by adding Croatian Military Frontier. Your insistency to add Croatia by any means is disruptive already. FkpCascais (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "middle ground proposal"? The only consensus so far is to make no change at all to the current wording.- MrX 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Preciselly. FkpCascais (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I confirmed my claim with sources. You should do the same if you want your claim to be taken seriously. Asdisis (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• The name of this discussion is somewhat wrong. Tesla'e ethnicity is Serbian, that is already mentioned in the lead. My suggestion is that both Croatia and Serbia should be mentioned in the lead. To anyone familiar with Tesla that is obvious. However, since some people have personal contempts towards Croatia, I will find valid sources to support my claim. Asdisis (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Some sources:

Quote: "The dawn of the 20th century produced some of the greatest names in Croatian science.Nikola Tesla was born"

Source: Croatia By Zoran Pavlovic

Quote: "Nikola Tesla (l856-l943) was a brilliant and eccentric Croatian scientist. "

Source: Great Inventors and Inventions By Bruce LaFontaine

This is only a representation of the sources or, as some call it, cherry picked sources.

However, from the sources I studied i can tell that Croatian sources mainly speak of Croatian scientist, while Serbian sources of Serbian scientist. I will repeat my suggestion that Croatia should be mentioned in the lead. Tesla was connected to Croatia equally much as to Serbia. Some guidance for that can be the above discussion about Tesla's personal opinion about Croatia. Not to paste all sources here, I will just refer you to the sources presented in above discussions. Tesla comes from Croatia and that should be mentioned in the first sentence as I suggested. "Croatian born Serbian-American scientist". Asdisis (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean, except few, only Croatian sources claim him as Croatian. Also, the formula you are proposing is against WP:OPENPARA, and he was not born in Croatia but in the Austrian Empire in the Military Frontier. FkpCascais (talk) 14:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Tesla's ethnicity is Serbian. I'm claiming he can also be called Croatian scientist because he was born and he lived in Croatia his early life. I said that previous discussion can be a guideline. Tesla himself stated he was born in Croatia. Also, there are no disputed that Military frontier belonged to Croatian national circles. I don't think you are right. My suggestion is not against WP:OPENPARA. I do not understand your objection towards mentioning Croatia. Tesla had strong connections both to Serbia and Croatia. Just to show what I mean, I point you to: Rade Šerbedžija. You can see he is called a Croatian actor even though he is Serbian. I already said there's a problem with the present construct. It mixes nationality and ethnicity. Also, note that "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Asdisis (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I object the way you want to include Croatia by any means. Its clear from your own words that your only intention os to promote Croatia in this article. I do not object to mention that he was raised in K. of Croatia. But at time of his birth, Smiljan was not part of K. of Croatia, it was part of a different administrative unit named Military Frontier, and no, Military Frontier did not belonged to Croatian national circles (in what sense?). I object your simplification by POV-pushing, I object to all your proposals in which you allways want more for Croatia than the real situation is. Also, many facts about Tesla links with Serbia are missing or are very little expanded and you just want to equalise by 1:1 Serbia and Croatia in this article, which is not that simple. Just as you do your own conclusions, I also conclude that Tesla only mentions Croatia because of his desire, as Serb from a territory that came to belong to Croatia, that by occasionally promoting Croatia in interviews and so, that will help in the Croatian aspirations of independence from Sustria and subsequent union with Serbia in a creation of some Great Serbia/Yugoslavia which would include Croatia and the place he was born. But I will obviously not promote that idea in the article and I support the inclusion in the article of only clear and correct facts: where he was exactly born (not what that place was culturally belonging to and if Croatian sabor claimed it or not), what he exactly did, and so on. While you allways push everything a step further with OR and pro-Croatian idels and way of seing things. Also, its becoming extremelly arrogant on your behalve to claim that I and others don´t have sources. There are plenty of sources claiming the basic facts already included in the article and no one needs to search sources claiming the opposiite of you because you still failed to find conclusive sources for what you pretend to claim. Maybe the best way for you is to make a new thread and say a precise edit you want to insert and the exact sources you think back your edit, and then we´ll see, because by now you are not even clear about what exactly you want, besides p+ushing Croatia by any means in the lede... FkpCascais (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Croatia is very important part of Tesla's life. It needs to be included in this article. I already explained that Military frontier had always been de jure Croatia. Apart from Tesla's birthplace, it is undisputed that he lived in Croatia from the age of 12 when in 1868. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was established. Even years before people in Military frontier were connected to Croatia, because Military frontier was not another entity within Austrian Empire. I see that you got it right. I want to equalize Croatia and Serbia in this article. I base my intention on Tesla's personal opinion. See the above discussion. Tesla also mentions Croatia explicitly as a place of his birth in the time of Yugoslavia, thus your conclusions are not accurate. I disagree with you claim about the sources. That dispute will be resolved by WP:DR. I think i clearly stated my intentions. The only request so far is to change the misleading construct about Tesla's birthplace. It is obviously misleading because you, and some other people negate Croatia as his birthplace. I presented sources that support my claim. I also added sources that support my claim that Military frontier de jure belonged to Croatia. Since it seems that no consensus can be achieved, we will do according to WP:DR. I will leave some time before initiate that, according to Wikipedia suggestions. I thank you for WP:OPENPARA manual, we will do according to it. In my opinion, it seems, that this manual was not respected.Asdisis (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• I will make a request from this discussion as soon as we resolve the above discussion and have a definite answer that Croatia is Tesla's birthplace. With all that have been said in above discussions i think that the WP:OPENPARA will be in favour of my suggestion. Both Tesla's ethnicity and birthplace are relevant to its notability. There is no reason to mention one and not the other. Asdisis (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to "equalize" Tesla's Serbian ethnicity with his Croatian residence. The two things are not "equal" at all. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think by "equalize". I said both Croatia as his homeland and Serbian ethnicity should be mentioned because they are relevant to Tesla's notability. He is a Croatian Serb. Asdisis (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You said "Tesla was connected to Croatia equally much as to Serbia" and "I want to equalize Croatia and Serbia in this article." The first statement is not true (he was culturally Serbian), and the second statement will not be carried out here. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you meant to equalize his homeland and ethnicity. I do not see how those two can be equalized. Tesla was was born and lived in Croatia. It seems that some people do not want to accept that. To anyone familiar with Tesla's life it is known that he had strong connections to Croatia. You can see that in his statements and acts. Tanks to Tesla Croatia had the second hydroelectric power plant in the world. His statement about his duty to help his homeland tells about a strong connection to Croatia. I think that the whole context of this article should reflect the importance his homeland had to Tesla. I was guided by Tesla's own words. After the above discussion finished, Croatia will be added to the lead. The term "Croatian born" is suitable I think. Asdisis (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you think Dispute Resolution will turn out? I expect you will discover in that venue the same resistance to your views. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

After the above discussion gives a definite answer to the question of Tesla's birthplace, I do not think that anyone will oppose this request. It's a simple clarification. I will be done according to WP:OPENPARA suggestions. Asdisis (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to add these sources to this discussion. Sources are listed in the lead by the sentence i suggested to be edited. I think that these sources, which are already listed in the article are enough for edit. I will make a request as soon as the above discussion finishes and gives a definite answer that Tesla was born in Croatia. Then we won't have to argue about Tesla's birthplace in this discussion. As you see, every single source listed by the sentence i suggested to be edited are in favor of including the term "Croatian born".

Quote: "Nikola Tesla lived in a small mountain village in Austrian Croatia"

Burgan, Michael (2009). Nikola Tesla: Inventor, Electrical Engineer

Quote from the article: ""I am happy that we are here today to celebrate Tesla, a Serb, a son of Croatia and a citizen of the world," President Mesic "

"Electrical pioneer Tesla honoured". BBC News. 10 July 2006. Retrieved 20 May 2013.

Quote: "Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan, Croatia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire."

"Nikola Tesla". History Channel. Retrieved June 15, 2014. Asdisis (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• Due to the closure of the the previous discussion, no requests for edit will be made. Tesla was not born in Croatia nor he had any connection to Croatia except his support for Yugoslav ideas and general support for all Slavic people to unite with the homeland of his ancestors, Serbia. Asdisis (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)