Nikola Tesla has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 4, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 6, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted November 7, 2010 Peer review Reviewed February 12, 2017 Good article nominee Listed July 17, 2025 Good article reassessment Kept A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 10, 2017. Current status: Good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Physics: Biographies / History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. This article is supported by History Taskforce. Electrical engineering Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Serbia: Belgrade Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Belgrade task force (marked as High-importance). Radio High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Austria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Yugoslavia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yugoslavia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yugoslavia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YugoslaviaWikipedia:WikiProject YugoslaviaTemplate:WikiProject YugoslaviaYugoslavia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Croatia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. New York City Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History of Science Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Robotics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Veganism and Vegetarianism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia Philosophy: Philosophers / Social and political / Contemporary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Social and political philosophy Contemporary philosophy

	Other talk page banners

I would like to clarify sourcing and wording in the Family background section.

Several secondary sources (e.g., Margaret Cheney, *Tesla: Man Out of Time*, and Marc J. Seifer, *Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla*), as well as Tesla’s own autobiographical statements, describe distinct intellectual influences from both parents.

Some claims currently attributed to Tesla’s mother may go beyond what the cited sources explicitly state (e.g., claims of eidetic memory or specific mental training), while Tesla’s father is directly described by Tesla and biographers as possessing exceptional memory, literary ability, and engaging in rigorous mental exercises with him.

I’m seeking consensus on how best to align the article’s wording with what the cited sources explicitly support. CallMeVerificator (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edit [1] actually did not cite those sources, rather it removed references to those sources and instead linked to a memorial society and the autobiography. It also added claims that directly contradict secondary sources by citing the autobiography. This is... very confusing. --Joy (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to citing sources, I would like to bring up that what is cited as one of the sources under Nikola Tesla in Wikipedia—"Prodigal Genius"—is a secondary source from 1944, which is a year after Nikola Tesla's death. And "Prodigal Genius" has been critiqued by an academic historian, Hugh G. J. Aitken.

I'm citing the following from "Continuos Wave"—a footnote from chapter 4. "There is no adequate biography of Tesla. Of the two available, the earlier— John J. O'Neill, Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla (New York, 1944)— is preferable, but devoted Tesla fans, of whom there are many, will also wish to be familiar with Margaret Cheney, Tesla: Man out of Time (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981). For Tesla's anticipation of Marconi in the field of radio invention, see Leland Anderson, "Priority in the Invention of Radio: Tesla vs. Marconi," Antique Wireless Association Monographs n.s. 4 (n.d.)."

The-Continuous-Wave-1900-1932-Aitken-1985.pdf

According to Aitken, there is no adequate biography of Tesla. CallMeVerificator (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we already know that Prodigal Genius isn't great, cf. Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 12#Prodigal Genius. At the same time, I don't quite see the relevance to this discussion, as your edit did not touch the citation to O'Neill in that context.

Likewise, if Aitken preferred O'Neill to Cheney, it doesn't make sense to prefer Cheney here. Besides, he wrote that in 1985, while in the meantime we got Carlson (2013). What does that source say about this topic? --Joy (talk) 21:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to argue. All I wanted to do is state fact over fiction. "My Inventions" is a book put together from articles printed by Electrical Experimenter in 1919 which were written letters sent in by Nikola Tesla himself. The edits which I posted were statements from "My Inventions".

Since you are trying to prove that somehow secondary sources supersede Tesla's own words, it is obvious that you are against revision, and prefer Nikola Tesla's page the way it is. The reason as to that preference—fiction over fact—is a mystery to me, but your preferences will not affect Tesla's history or legacy.

Have a good day. ~2025-42700-54 (talk) 03:34, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PSTS for the relevant policy on this matter. --Joy (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you saying incorrect things to this user? If "My Inventions" is a published secondary source, not a primary source. Also , even primary sources are allowed to be used. ~2025-43129-36 (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An autobiography is a WP:PRIMARY source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I didn't look further then the above comment, but still, it seems that the letters are the primary source and the published secodary source is just using the letters. Well, if it just prints the letters, then it might as well be considered to be close to primary source. I don't know whether some other interpretations are given, but authors are in no bind to give any interpretations if they choose so. They can just quote primary sources. A while ago we had a debate over Horvat's source and a sentence where this secondary source had presented a fact in the form of a quote from a primary source. If this is the same situation then this isn't primary source at all, or at least in parts. And you missed my second point. Primary sources can be used and you can read all about that in Wiki guidelines. The form would be: "In his autobiography Tesla has attributed .... to his father.....etc". ~2025-43232-79 (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the authors don't "give any interpretations", then it's not a secondary source. Quoting primary sources without commentary/interpretation/etc. is just WP:LINKSINACHAIN and still primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, not in all cases. For this case , I could agree, however , primary source can be used. You turned down an editor who clearly isn't familiar with wiki guidelines with false information. ~2025-43317-99 (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating exactly the same thing as a primary source, without making any intellectual contribution to it, is a primary source. Your agreement with this fact isn't necessary; it remains true no matter what you believe.

This source has been rejected not because it couldn't be used theoretically, but because editors of this article have been struggling to comply with the policy requirement in WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". An article that overuses primary sources isn't WP:Based upon secondary sources. Therefore, editors are rejecting the addition of even more primary sources, full stop. If you could identify a "trade" of sorts (take out these two primary sources, in exchange for putting in my one primary source), then that might be interesting to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will hav¹e to cite secondary sources because analysis of primary sources by us editors is not permitted. We already had to lower the amount of primary sources, so let's keep it clean. StephenMacky1 (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK so we had another set of edits about the circumstances of Tesla's death, and the mentions of his nephew Sava Kosanović. It does not exactly seem clear why the US authorities didn't trust the nephew to take hold of Tesla's belongings.

So I googled this, and this Večernji list article came up - [2], written in 2020, saying there were several controversies about that. They cite Carlson's and Seifer's biographies early in the text.

• The nephew was in some sort of a conflict with Konstantin Fotić, the ambassador of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the US, who is described as a supporter of the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović. Tesla died in early 1943, during a point in the World War II in Yugoslavia when it may have been known to the US authorities that some Chetniks were collaborating with Nazi Germany, like in the 1942 Kozara Offensive or Operation Alfa, though this is not made clear by this source.
• There was some sort of a conflict with or within the Serbian Orthodox Church about the funeral. One story is that because Tesla wanted to be cremated, apparently this caused the bishop Dionisije Milivojević to refuse to participate. Then they cite Bogdan Radica, who was a Croatian and Yugoslav diplomat at the time, saying Kosanović actually refused to allow Dionisije because the latter was an extremist. He instead had Dušan Šukletović, a Serbian Orthodox priest who was the rector of the Serbian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Sava (New York City), perform the service, while Protestant bishop William T. Manning presided over the ceremony at St. John the Divine.
• Radica is also quoted as saying the representatives of the Royal Government in exile at the funeral included Bogoljub Jevtić, Branko Čubrilović [sr], Franc Snoj and Ivan Šubašić, and that Konstantin Fotić was the formal representative of the government because his embassy paid for the funeral. So two prime ministers and two ministers at least.

So maybe there's something to be further researched and further summarized in the article, because it's apparent that Tesla's death was a big deal not just because of some sort of a potential of his work falling into the hands of American adversaries, but also because of a seemingly intense interest shown by the allied Yugoslav authorities. --Joy (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Večernji list is not reliable source, actually far from it. Theonewithreason (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even suggesting that we cite them directly, rather noted their sources and how their article just illustrates how there's more to this story of the nephew and the funeral. Did you actually read what I wrote, or did the mention of a Croatian newspaper just trigger you? --Joy (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing generally against Croatian newspapers, but the fact is that newspapers are not wp:rs especially not the ones far right like Vecernji list, you as a experienced editor should know that. Theonewithreason (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the obviously sensationalist title, which is sadly par for the course with newspapers these days, the article isn't actually far right. They're generally right wing but mainstream for the most part; there has never been a blanket determination of a lack of reliability because their coverage is usually fairly mundane. Your fervor here does remind me of the Večernji list comment section. --Joy (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out @Joy and @Theonewithreason. I added the Kosanović detail a few months ago, drawing from 2013 Carlson biography, as I was aiming to explain how the investigation came about. I wasn't aware of the background discussion in Croatian sources and I am not up on the diplomatic controversy; Carlson, to my recollection, doesn't cover it.

I've just revised sentence order to make it easier to follow why the review came together, at least according to the English sources. Since the FBI document release in 2018, a few reliable sources have discussed the OAPC investigation. They give more detail but don't change the biographers' assessments, so I didn't think they merited inclusion. I've added a footnote noting that the classified memo is available and pointing readers to those secondary sources. That addition could be kept or removed, depending on what supports neutral presentation. Nickknack00 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted most of this since it was a reword that made things a little less clear and added a direct WP:YESPOV re: Tesla's effects "would" go to his nephew Sava Kosanović. Original text and source didn't make that claim. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded this based on - if it cites Carlson, it needs to clearly reflect Carlson. No comment so far on above points. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]