Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Min-Gag"

Seifer notes Tesla may have also traveled on through Zagreb to a small village on the coast of the Adriatic Sea called "Min-Gag."

This is now referenced to a page number, but it's still totally weird because that's not a known place name, this combination of words is not something typically used in local toponymy, I couldn't find it anywhere. Can we actually reference this to something meaningful? --Joy (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@StephenMacky1 thanks for removing this[1], but this now brings up the obvious question - is this Seifer (2001) source reliable for other claims, if we can't trust it for this? --Joy (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Good question. I am unsure. If the information is covered by other sources and it does not contradict them, it could be reliable for the other statements. The part about him gambling is present in other sources too for example. The article might need a GAR though since it still has some unresolved issues. Overreliance on primary sources at some parts, unsourced content, as well as unreliably sourced content. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. @Jclemens was the reviewer back then, but @Laurdecl who was editing it seems to have gone idle since. I just noticed that I had noticed the same two years ago in Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 11#GA?. --Joy (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You can take it to GAR, if you ask me. Some of the issues could have been resolved easily and earlier, not in two years. I might help too if I'm free. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

While I was a pretty involved GA reviewer in 2017, I really haven't kept up with the article since. It won't hurt my feelings if it goes to GAR, but thanks for the ping. Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Tesla sources, as per WP:RS, varies in reliability from bunk/money grabs to scholarly content. The author in question, Seifer, seems to fall in the middle, He seems to be interested in the topic and therefore puts allot of time into continual researching. Problem is he tends to re-arrange that materiel to match some kind of preconceived narrative. So he is a bit more reliable for his sourced facts than for his conclusions. In this case, "Min Gag" a small coastal town along the Adriatic between Rijeka and Zadar[2], from the reaserch of ( Dr. Nikola Pribic?[3]). Min Gag does not turn up but it may no longer have that name or its some form of translation. GAR is always worth doing. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

There's a database of former settlements in Croatia since before Tesla was born, publicly available for lookup at [4]. The coast between Rijeka and Zadar is part of three modern-day counties (Primorsko-goranska, Ličko-senjska and Zadarska županija), and none of these seem to contain mentions of Min or Gag, which makes this more likely to be an error.

One thing that comes to mind is that maybe they meant to use the hyphen to point to some location between Nin and Pag. It's two typos, one consonant in each word (!), but conceivable because of a visual similarity of m and n and p and g esp. in some sort of cursive, and the relative vicinity of these two places. Obviously, we can't compose encyclopedia articles based on conjecture... --Joy (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Prodigal Genius

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr how would we assess the O'Neill (1944) source Prodigal Genius? The book's article says the author was a close friend of Tesla. Is it a primary or a secondary source? The article has 26 references to it right now. --Joy (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a published secondary source. Bilseric (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

O'Neill needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He, like Seifer, seems to be more reliable for dates/facts than for his conclusions. You can find various assessments of O'Neill[5][6][7]. Cheney seems to think O'Neill was not all that close and his book reads more like he amalgamated Tesla's autobio, old articles, court documents, and snippets and claims from Tesla's birthday party announcements, which I assume O'Neill attended. Finding good RS on Tesla is hard, we really only have one academic historian of technology who wrote a book on Tesla, and that is W. Bernard Carlson. Sources get wonky fast once you look past him. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It still is a secondary source. Wiki guidelines can be found here [8]. Author can do OR and that is often the case as not all within secondary sources is based in primary sources. In we feel some claims from O'Neill are too much, better confirm them with other sources. I can agree, good source on Tesla are hard to find, especially regarding the issues from the separated talk page which are still contested after so many years due to lack of sources. Bilseric (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

baptismal record / birth certificate

The early years section currently contains this picture and caption:

Tesla's baptismal record, 28 June 1856. His name is written as Nikolai (Slavonic-Serbian: Николай) on the lower right side of the large paragraph.

This seems like a remnant of some sort of a WP:SOAPBOXy nationalist edit war between this and the passport that keeps getting mentioned at /Nationality and ethnicity:

I'd say this is largely clerical information that is of little interest to the average English reader, mainly because they can't actually understand much of the text written on either of them.

The picture also squeezes the text because there's another few pictures there, of the birth house (which also isn't of huge interest, but at least it's a small landmark that a modern-day viewer may encounter in reality) and of Tesla's father.

Does anyone mind if the picture of the baptismal record is removed? --Joy (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Unreadable at thumb and not an illustration of something in text body so no real MOS:PERTINENCE. Worth deleting. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If you feel it's argely clerical information or it queezes the text , I can agree. I, personally, am not noticing edit warring regarding this in the last several years...From that point of view, I would just leave it be. Bilseric (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, remove it --Chetvorno^TALK 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

U definitely mind. Putting it back. Spirit Fox99 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this message does not constitute an actual consensus-building contribution to a talk page. Your recent user contributions are all apparently very contentious, so I'm not sure what this is, but it sounds like more pointless trouble. --Joy (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The lab fire started on the ground floor not the basement

This page says the fire started in the basement but the linked source says ground level. I've read another old newspaper article that said it was the guards office, he came up from checking the basement and discovered it but I don't have the source. 2600:1702:43A0:C20:413:A7B8:8A12:5A08 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment Wellcome M0014782 - restoration2.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 8, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-07-08. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Secretlondon (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla (10 July 1856 – 7 January 1943) was a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and futurist. He is known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating-current electricity supply system. This photograph, taken in Tesla's laboratory in Colorado Springs in December 1899, supposedly shows him reading in a chair next to his giant "magnifying transmitter" high-voltage generator while the machine produces huge bolts of electricity. The image was created through a double exposure as part of a promotional stunt by the photographer Dickenson V. Alley. The machine's huge sparks were first photographed in the darkened room, then the photographic plate was exposed again with the machine off and Tesla sitting in the chair. Tesla admitted that the photograph was false in his book Colorado Springs Notes, 1899–1900.

Photograph credit: Dickenson V. Alley; restored by Bammesk

Recently featured:

• Dictyophorus spumans
• Celestine
• Raspberry

Sorry for the late notice. I have moved the POTD to July 10th (Template:POTD/2024-07-10) to coincide with Tesla's birthday. --PFHLai (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are below:

• There is uncited text throughout the article, including the entire "Legacy and honors" section
• At over 10,000 words, it is recommended at WP:TOOBIG that parts of the article be spun out and the text reduced.
• Some sections that can be removed are "Appearance", "Sleep habits", and "Working and dining habits": these sections are usually considered too much detail. The "Patents" section is also probably not necessary and can be incorporated into the "Legacy" section or removed.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that those sections should be removed, especially the three sections. They seem interesting but give no actual insight and have no encyclopedic value. They appear to be far too subjective. I would not mind if there is a GAR since there have been concerns about the article for a while now. StephenMacky1 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the "Appearance", "Sleep habits", and "Working and dining habits" sections are frequently sourced to a 1944 and 1894 source—these sections could be cut just from sourcing that poor. Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the above, I am removing the three sections listed. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pointless reversal

This isn't a valid argument, @Theonewithreason. Linking those two terms definitely violates MOS:GEOLINK (as I mentioned in this edit summary). Thedarkknightli (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would leave one specific link, such as Belgrade, Serbia, because that's the first time this term is introduced in the article and the average English reader would benefit from it - even if it's a national capital we can't really assume it to be immediately well-known as it's still typically in a foreign country and not every encyclopedia reader is a geography enthusiast. --Joy (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

From WP:GEOLINK, "For a geographical location expressed as a sequence of two or more territorial units, link only the first unit."

It gives bad examples (modified to match our context) like "Belgrade, Serbia" (ie 2 links)

and good examples like "Belgrade, Serbia" and "Belgrade, Serbia" (ie single link covering one or both parts).

Not sure why you think having no link is covered by WP:GEOLINK.  Stepho  talk  09:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I think he wants only the museum link to be left in, because by the same logic it's the most specific one.

meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream for this article in August says we had 3.4k clicks from here to the museum article and 150 clicks from here to the Belgrade article. It isn't a huge amount but it does help demonstrate the usefulness of the link for at least some viewers. --Joy (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point of view. I would not consider Nikola Tesla Museum as a geographical location. He could call in MOS:SEAOFBLUE but either way I'd say that the usefulness outweighs the awkwardness of linking to both "Nikola Tesla Museum" and "Belgrade, Serbia".  Stepho  talk  09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with Joy, linking the city too, since it isn't that much known to average American reader, maybe "Belgrade, Serbia" like described in MOS:GEOLINK, all though that was a bit awkward it was a stable version until today, we also have links to Smiljan, to Austrian Empire and to Croatia in the same line and all 3 are useful. Theonewithreason (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it should be noted that there is one recent relevant change in this regard - we used to have resting place coordinates linked instead. However, this was removed in an August 17th edit [9], with an odd edit summary and apparently by a now-blocked account.

44.8051°N 20.4707°E / 44.8051; 20.4707

So if the coordinates with a link are there, then we don't have a particular need to link the more general location. At the same time, the idea of precise resting place coordinates seems somewhat odd to me, so I wouldn't necessarily reinstate that. --Joy (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)