Talk:The Inventions, Researches, and Writings of Nikola Tesla

I am posting this in an attempt to solicit recommendations for changes and possibly a major rewrite of this book article. I have a copy of the Barnes & Noble hardcover reprint. I have an unusual background that lends itself to descriptions of technical books

I will be using Marc Seifer's book and possibly some of the books from the Schaum's outline series as references for the rewrite. I prefer to use the outline series as references instead of physics and electrical engineering textbooks because of their wide availability and relatively simple explanations of difficult topics.

I believe the book article needs an extensive rewrite simply because it does not adequately describe the contents of the book. One example which should be sufficient by itself is that the overview states that the book contains five lectures by Tesla and then lists five of the chapter headings from the book. This is simply incorrect information. While the book contains information from Tesla's lectures, it is actually a compilation of Tesla's researches in the ten years prior to the book's preparation. The book actually contains forty-three separate chapters and includes one on Tesla's display at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. Martin's introduction is dated December, 1893.

Even the introductory section is misleading because it states that it is a "comprehensive compilation of Tesla's work " when it is only on his early research.

Historyphysics (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This ==Expansion== A general book article includes:

1. A brief lead (introduction) to the book and its writers.
2. A book synopsis.
3. Information about its publication.
4. A balanced analysis regarding its reception (abiding by neutral point of view).
5. Noteworthy citations and sources.

I'll be adding these elements to the article. J. D. Redding 20:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., additional tips can be found at the project page.)

Sounds good. Note though, that this is not an article about Tesla's work. It is an article about a book about Tesla's work. Most of the "see also" links you keep trying to insert are relevant to Tesla's work, but they are not relevant to an article about a book about his work. For comparison, appropriate "see also" links for this article would include links to articles on other books about Tesla, links to articles about Tesla's life and work, and perhaps links to articles on other relevant books (biographies of other researchers of that time, etc.) Please stop inserting this list of peripherally-relevant topics over and over. It is not suitable for this article.--Srleffler (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Which of the following are you objecting to?

General

electromotive force

Electricity

alternating current, direct current, ampere

Magnetism

magnetic induction, magnetic circuits, magnetic poles, electrostatic induction

Physics

eddy currents, disruptive discharge, torque, phosphorescence, isochronous, angular displacement

Devices

Tesla motors, oscillator, armature, binding post, field coils, coils, circuits, torque motor, condenser, incandescent lamps, secondary coils, induction coil, induction device, solenoid, helix

People

J. J. Thomson

Have you even read this book? These are links to articles about Tesla's life and work ... please read the book. J. D. Redding 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to every single one of those. None of them are suitable "see also" links for this article. They are not links to articles specifically about Tesla's work, but rather links to subjects Tesla happens to have studied. If this were an article about Tesla's work, they would be fine, but it is not. --Srleffler (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have similar potential objections to the #Further reading sections; only those which are relevant to the book, not to the body of Tesla's work, should be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Further to my comment above: not only do most of the linked articles not mention Tesla, many of the links point to disambiguation pages. You should not be adding "see also" links to articles without having checked them first, to see what they point to. --Srleffler (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the linked articles not mention Tesla, that is a problem of the linked article not this article. As to the links point to disambiguation pages', substitute the appropriate link (it's called a 'process of expansion'). J. D. Redding

news release?

Who does this article reads like a news release? What is written that it is in an overly promotional tone? It's in a neutral point of view and is being expanded and supported by references/citations. Please explain or the tag should and will be removed.

It's not advertising, so don't mark it for speedy deletion. J. D. Redding 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's not suitable for speedy deletion, because it's not entirely advertising. It's mostly advertising, though. If it were entirely advertising, I would have tagged it with {{advert}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gonna remove it ... as the tag has nothing to do with your objection. And if you read the link in the tag, it has nothing to do with anything in this article.

News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. [...]

This is a article over a notable book. Please don't spam tag this page with irrelevant tags. Thanks.

J. D. Redding 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, again. The article reads like a press release, and has dozens of WP:PEACOCK terms. Some may be justified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever ...

Replaced the tag with "cleanup", as that is the true aim of your objection.

The terms are necessary and appropriate. Citation supporting this will be added in the future. J. D. Redding

Further disputes

1. Is Tesla actually considered an author of the book. Amazon says "no", Google books says "yes".
2. Are there any sources for the peacock material in #Overview or #Publication?
3. Are the "biographies" quoted as references actually reliable? Are those from reputable publishers called "biographies" or historical fiction?

I'm sure I'll think of other concerns. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

1. It's composed of Tesla's lectures. Martin was the editor and added additional info.
2. I'll be adding sources for the material in #Overview or #Publication.
3. Know anything about Tesla's "biographies" quoted? They are reliable and are from reputable publishers of Tesla's "biographies" ...

J. D. Redding 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) << Doesn't want to argue with people ignorant over the topic

1. It's still an interesting question. Perhaps a small note could be added.
2. OK, awaiting sources, but I'm sure you agree that they are needed. They read like WP:PEACOCK terms, but, again, the terms may be justified.
3. I know that pseudo-biographies of Tesla exist. I don't know whether the ones you reference are real biographies or pseudo-biographies.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A footnote in the 'overview' would be the appropriate section for a 'small note'. Or, if it is desired to be made explicit, that it can go in that section as a paragraph.

I agree the sources are needed ... and I am sorry that you don't know about the true biographies of Tesla, apparently. There are around 4 excellent biographies of Tesla, IIRC ... I can get a list of them for you if you want. J. D. Redding 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

About #1, above: Amazon often seems to get the author credits wrong, on books with unusual or complicated authorship. --Srleffler (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag notice cloud spam

Can the tagger or someone else please answer these questions over the article...

1. How are the references unclear?
2. additional references or sources for verification?
3. Its quality may be compromised by peacock terms?
4. Should be expanded?
5. too many quotations for an encyclopedic entry?

Can someone explain what other different or consistent style of citation, footnoting or external linking can be used?

I agree that it need more references. But that is only to say that it needs to expanded. Hell it's only been a day or two since the new material was put in. Geez ...

As to quotations ... it has two main quotes? WTF? Please explain or this should be removed ...

Lastly, please list any "peacock terms"' that the article possess so they can be addressed.

Thanks.

J. D. Redding 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For {{refimprove}}: As noted above, there are pseudo-biographies of Tesla. We need to verify that the biographies you have quoted (are quoting) are real and not faked.

Peacock terms include:

• pioneering
• Tesla is recognized as one of the foremost electrical investigators and inventors.

• probably true, but needs a reference

• At the time of publication it was the "bible" of every electrical engineer practicing the profession.

• probably FALSE, but the reference needs to be verified.

• No attempt was made in the book to emphasize the importance of his researches and discoveries.

• maybe just POV, rather than PEACOCK

• But with the conviction that Tesla blazed a path that electrical development would later follow for years to come, the compiler endeavored to bring together all of Tesla's work. Aside from its value as showing the scope of Tesla's inventions, the book was and is of service as indicating the range of his thought, and the vigor and originality of his mind.

• Now that reads exactly like a press release. Some of the previous sentences read something like a press release, but that's SO obvious....

• "ever pressed forward"
• Thomas Commerford Martin was praised by his contemporaries as having executed a brilliant stratagem in closing the deal to publish a book which would be a landmark in the electrical sciences.

• needs a reliable reference or a contemporary reference

I'm willing to have "quotations" removed.

It would be helpful if you replaced your specific sitation style with {{cite book}}, for the books, or perhaps go to harvard citations, as you have multiple references to the same book.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I probably missed a few peacock terms.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll start working on the "terms" listed ... modifying or citing the instances ...

I been formatting the book references in a MLA sytle. A switch over to harvard citations [ala., author, pg #] and then list the book in a "general information" part of the reference section could reduce the page bulk and could be easier ...

The quotations are relevant and shouldn't be removed.

J. D. Redding 19:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misinterpreted my "quote" comment. I removed the "quotefarm" tag for the moment. If the article becomes mostly quotes, I might re-add it, but, for the moment, the quotes are acceptable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I misinterpreted anything ... but I have reworded or cited the passages that you have pointed to. If there is not objection, I will shortly remove some of the warning tags. J. D. Redding 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The "bible" quote is actually supported by the cited reference. I checked that one last night. --Srleffler (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

top tesla bios

3 biographies that are top quality ... the last is Tesla's autobiography ..

1. Seifer, Marc J., Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla: Biography of a Genius. New York: Citadel Press/Kensington Publishing, 1998.
2. O'Neill, John Jacob, "Prodigal Genius," 1944. Paperback reprint 1994, ISBN 978-0914732334.
3. Cheney, Margaret, "Tesla: Man Out of Time", 1981. ISBN 0139068597.
4. Tesla, Nikola, "My Inventions" Parts I through V published in the Electrical Experimenter monthly magazine from February through June, 1919. Part VI published October, 1919.

J. D. Redding 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh you can add this one too ...

• Lomas, Robert (1999). The Man who Invented the Twentieth Century. London: Headline. ISBN 0747275882.

J. D. Redding 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Help us out a bit, both here and in the article: book titles should be in italics, and titles of articles, essays, scientific papers, and web pages should be in quotes. Book titles are written with every significant word capitalized. Other titles are written (on Wikipedia) with just the first letter of the title capitalized. Your references will be easier to interpret if you abide by these conventions. --Srleffler (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References also should include the publisher, for books. This is especially important on Wikipedia, as it aids in evaluating the reliability of the reference. The O'Neil book appears not to be a reliable source.--Srleffler (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize-winning author O'Neill's bio was the 1st major one of the man.

g.Books page ... http://books.google.com/books?id=lUinLd93GrMC

It is a reliable source. It is used as a touchstone of later biographies too. J. D. Redding 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. The reprint you cited is published by a flaky publisher, but they are not the original publisher of this work.--Srleffler (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The publisher should not be a concern if it's the real book; the author is the main concern For example, if maxwell's treatise were republished by 'acme pub. co,' or 'flacky and shaky Inc.', it's the book's text that's important. J. D. Redding 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC) (PS., you don't have to explain to me about WP:RS history and the rants that went along the the development of that. I been around since it's inception.)

I see. You have probably forgotten, then, that it is primarily the publisher that determines the reliability of a source, and not the author. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that, to be considered reliable, a source must have been published by a third party "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If a noteworthy authority on a subject (even a Pulitzer Prize winner) publishes a work on that subject himself, or with an unsuitable publisher, the work is not a "reliable source" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, although it may be still be usable as a reference.

The publisher of this reprint of O'Neill's book concerned me, but I'm willing to assume based on your comments that the work was originally published by a more reputable publisher, and that the text has not been altered by Brotherhood of Life Books. That's good enough.--Srleffler (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not forgotten. I dissent [and was around and dissented when the 'guidelines' , as that is what they are, when they were crafted and the "ignore all rules" policy make other so-called policies revert to that level ultimately). Anyways, to align with the socialist mentality and general line of WP [what's the socialist collective phrase, the soviets did it in their congresses; pass laws and move on ... democratic centralism] ... be that as it may, though, the noteworthy authority on a subject (such as a Pulitzer Prize winner) publishes a work on that subject with an "suitable" publisher (YMMV on 'suitable') with a reputation for "fact-checking" (eg., make sure it's not altered) and "accuracy" (eg., ensure duplication of original material), the work is a "reliable source" as far as Wikipedia is concerned [many publishers fit this category] ... it is usable as a reference. It ultimately goes to the original unaltered authoritative source of the material which is the author himself [at least for historical items] ... if the work is of Einstein, Newton, Darwin, or Tesla and it is reproduced by a five-n-dime publisher (such as google.books, google.scholar, and google.patents) the work itself is reliable.

But, agreeing to disagree and focus on more specifics ... O'Neill is a reputable author and his material is used by other biographers. To not rely on his material is insanity (or in the least idiocy); especially when other scholars and experts use his material in connection with Tesla.

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 07:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on the reliability of the O'Neill reference. A reliable source, once established as such, does not cease to be reliable merely because it is republished by a different publisher (assuming the text is not altered). The works of Einstein et al. would remain reliable sources if republished. Their reliability, however, does not rest on the authority of the authors, but rather on the fact that their work was previously accepted and published by third parties with a reputation for fact checking (book publishers, peer-reviewed scientific journals, etc.) The important feature is always that the work must have at some point been reviewed by a third party who can be trusted to have checked it for errors, etc. Once that has happened, the work is a reliable source.

Note that WP:V is a policy, not merely a guideline.--Srleffler (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)