Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RfC: Nikola Tesla's birthplace (in need of objective editors)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm inviting you to participate in the resolution of one of the most long term discussions on Wikipedia.

Normally, an RfC wouldn't be needed for such a simple edit, but for anyone who's familiar with this article, it's known how hard this topic is. The lack of sources led to more than a decade of pointless discussions.

The purpose of this RfC is not to change the current consensus or the article text, but to put a further context to the current consensus. After several years since the current consensus was established, readers were constantly confused by the article text, which led to numerous change requests. Since then, one editor made a good research and found a source which settles the whole debate.

This source gives the exact definition of Tesla's birthplace. It is backed up by a primary source, thus making it the most strongest source on the matter.

The source gives this definition of Tesla's birthplace:

"After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." , page 157.

There are two parts of this RfC.

1.Rfc suggestion. The purposed change is to add the mentioned source as a reference to this sentence: Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village Smiljan, Lika county, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia), on 10 July [O.S. 28 June] 1856.[12][13]

References

2.RfC question

Was Nikola Tesla born in a single Austrian land composed of Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia per provided source.

Pinging some of the users who participated in the previous discussion: @Srich32977, Martinevans123, Director, Bermicourt, Joy, Peacemaker67, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Binksternet, Tom Hulse, Epicgenius, Atlantictire, Surtsicna, and Enric Naval: Bilseric (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Since there were some concerns that the 1st source doesn't mention Tesla, I'm adding an alternative proposal to use this source as a reference instead of the first one.

@Martinevans123, Bermicourt, Joy, and Peacemaker67:, could you put your agreement/disagreement with this proposal?

"At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina."Bilseric (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes as requester. Since this source is directly referencing the king's proclamation which was brought on 1850, in my opinion, it is the most strongest source on the matter. Bilseric (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes to the second question of the RfC. Nikola Tesla was born in Military frontier, and the provided source puts the correct context to the Military Frontier at that time.Bilseric (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes to the alternative purposal as well.Bilseric (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support, assuming you can provide an accurate translation of that source and also assuming that the King did not make any other relevant announcement between 1850 and 10 July 1856. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as per Martinevans123 below. Sorry, changed my mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

As this is a secondary source, we are safe to assume that it would be mentioned if such proclamation was reverted. The source doesn't mention that this has happened. This is the exact reason we are using secondary sources. Bilseric (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is reasonable. But it obviously depends on the coverage of that source. Perhaps you could provide a translation of the relevant part here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I read the whole section of the book and extracted the quote in the full context. Of course that we can't expect that the book will double confirm each claim. It doesn't mention that the kings proclamation was reverted in any kind. I'm sure that FkpCasciansis would mention that since he disagrees and can read the language in the source, if I was being deceptive and didn't translate correctly in the full context. I'm sure other editors who can read the language will join. You will see that there will be no complaints that I have put a cherry picked quote.Bilseric (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Then, for the benefit of those editors, like me, who cannot read Serbo-Croat, let's hope someone provides a translation. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: that text is from 1850 and is the document issued by the Croatian-Slavonian parliament. It says how Croatia, Slavonia and Military Frontier should become one single land all under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian emperor. But right next it is a sentence saying that everything is to continue just as it is. It is basically a declaration that was intended to calm Croatian demands but simultaneously giving Austrian ministers the assurance that nothing was going to change. And in fact it didn´t. Military Frontier was not given to Croatia-Slavonia in 1850, the date of the declaration, and kept its own governament directly ruled from Vienna. What Bilseric is doing is claiming what a transcript of an official document says is what happened, when in fact all secundary sources say Military Frontier kept existing as separate administrative unit for more then 30 years since that. So Bilseric is making claims based on primary source and ignoring secundary sources. He also lacks any further sources backing up this. Why would it be?... Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from the source in the full context instead of your interpretations of the source. I have read the source and this interpretation you made is incorrect. Bilseric (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCasciasis, don't be deceptive. This is not a text from 1850. This is a published secondary source from 1906, and I have spent some time to find a valid link since you had objections on the wiki source. Bilseric (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I have provided the translation in the full context. I can't be expected to translate the whole book. How much would satisfy you? Maybe I can find some time. But, It's illogical to assume that I'm being deceptive. There are people here who can read the source who disagree with me. If they do not complain to the context I have translated then this is a proof enough that I have put the full and correct context. Bilseric (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that you have a source that says that in 1850 a declaration was signed that said Croatia, Slavonia and MF should become one single land (although right next a sentence in the declaration says that everything is to be kept just as it is, basically bringing down the previous sentence). Now, what you need is a source confirming that in 1850 MF became single land with Croatia. And we know such source doesn´t exist. Because MF kept its own governament directly ruled by Vienna for 31 more years. So, for the time of Tesla, MF was ruled by its own governament, and not by Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

If anything you are saying was true you would put a quote from the source. And please, dont be deceptive. This is a secondary source, and I don't need another secondary source to confirm what this one says. Bilseric (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It was true the declaration said that, but it is not true it happened. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

So you say. If only you could write it down, publish and reference here. Bilseric (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis, your pretending of not seing evidence is becoming disruptive. I have no patience to add here the tons of sources that clearly say MF existed as separate aadministrative unit until 1881. Just Google "Military Frontier 1881" and see the tons of results. I already presented one strong source clearly saying MF had its own governament until 1881. That means it was not part of Croatia before that. The case ends there. FkpCascais (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I wasn't expecting you to translate the whole book. I would expect a translation of as much of the text as you think would be required to support your claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok I will try to find time to translate a few pages, since I will add this source to Military Frontier artie. It's too hard to do it on this article, since there are too many people looking for any kind of objection , it seems to me. As I said, it's a simple edit which should get no opposition, but this isn't a normal article. Bilseric (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't bother. A translation will not help. The source is not useful here. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

If it helps Martinevans123, I will do it. Should I do it Martinevans123? I think that the second question of this RfC is as much important as the 1st one. I don't want there to be any valid objections on the validity of the source. This way , this RFC can be used as a reference to other editors who want to find more about the area Tesla was born. Bilseric (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please don't trouble yourself on my account. I had forgotten what discussions here were like. And consensus seems to be very rapidly heading in one direction, I think. Off my watchlist for now. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• No. The source doesn't mention Tesla. We don't need it because we already have sources establishing Tesla's birthplace as the Austrian Military Frontier. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do you think this is WP:OR? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• It's more like background information related to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

It is background, that's why suggested to put it to the background of the article, as a reference. The continuous arguing on the talk page shows that the article sentence is confusing to the editors. A reference can fix that problem. We indeed have a consensus which says that Tesla was born in Military Frontier. This source puts a context to that. Alternatively, we can add this source to Military Frontier article and just put a link in this article to Military frontier.Bilseric (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• It seems to be just being used to determine which country Smiljan belonged to on 10 July 1856. It's not trying to say that Tesla was born there. Plenty of other sources do that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• This user intention is to make us addopt the "Single land" theory to insinuate that Military Frontier and Croatia-Slavonia were one land, and then next he wants to claim Tesla was born in Croatia. The facts are that Military Frontier existed totally separated from Croatia-Slavonia all way until 1881. Both were neigboring provinces within Austro-Hungary. But, to further more differenciate the two, Croatia-Slavonia was ruled by Hungary and had Hungarian as official language, while Military Frontier was ruled by Austria and had German as official language. Tesla was born and lived in Military Frontier until 1875, when he left to Graz (then Budapest, then USA) and his birthplace was only given to Croatia-Slavonia in 1881, 6 years later. So during Tesla time there, he lived all time in Military Frontier, and Croatia-Slavonia was just a neighbouring province, and the two were by no means "Single land". FkpCascais (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a theory. This is what a secondary source says. The theory is your claim that MF was "totally separated" from Croatia-Slavonia. This theory of yours is not backed up by any source and is directly opposed by my secondary source. We don't need your history lectiones. We have 10 years of those kind of lectiones unsupported by any source. You are free to back up your claims with valid sources.Bilseric (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The part of the text that says that is what the declaration that came out of that parliament said. But you lack secundary sources confirming events written there really happend. You are citing a primary source and supposing it happened, when secundary sources clearly say it didn´t for at lest 31 more years. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I put a link, and everyone can see that this is a secondary published source. What you lack is any source to the claims you are making. Bilseric (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? ...the unification of the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier with Croatia was published on July 15, 1881. Hungary in the Dual Monarchy, 1867-1914, by László Katus, from 2008, page 68. Clearly means it was not united (or put as "single land") in 1850, but in 1881. Also, as remarc, the words Croatian-Slavonian MF don´t mean it was Croatian-Slavonian (otherwise why would they unite if it was already theirs?) but it is a geographical description of the sections of MF. It was ruled directly by Austria before. FkpCascais (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what my source says. It was a single land with disaggregated administration and representation. In 1881 separate administration and representation was abolished. No new information here. In fact this event from 1881 is also mentioned in my source as well. I'll try to find a quote, although it's irrelevant to my point. Bilseric (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your source is from 1905, and just says what a declaration signed in 1850 had written. You should not make interpretations of declarations, which is what you are doing. All evidence says that MF and CS didn´t became any "single land" in 1850 and all stayed same (as a sentence in that same declaration says as well, basically bringing down the "single land" part). Your real goal of trying to convince people to addopt the "single land" declaration as fact, and then claim it means MF was part of Croatia and that Tesla was born and lived in Croatia, is wrong. You lack sources confirming that "single land" really happened. All you have is just that one declaration in 1850 said that, although includes also totally ambiguos wording as well. Meaning, you have nothing. Sorry. FkpCascais (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't add any interpretation. I quoted a secondary source. You are making interpretations and you are all over the place. "All evidence says", "the word united from that one source clearly means not single land" , "I lack a second source to confirm what the first one says", "de facto separated cant mean de jure united". Bilseric (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Asdisis, in 1850 Croatia-Slavonia and Military Frontier kept being two separate administrative units for further more 31 years. So no, Tesla was not born neither lived in Croatia. Sorry, but case closed. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank God. You are all over the place. Bilseric (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And you are wasting the community's time. You should stop bothering people here, or face a block for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please. Try to understand how this looks from my viewpoint. You said that my source isn't about Tesla, and when I posted a source about Tesla saying the same thing , you are ignoring it. From my viewpoint, I can not understand the reason why you are objecting so strongly. I'm currently at work, and I'm indeed wasting my time trying to objectively discuss. If you all have predetermined opinion, then be it, but let's at least leave some time so that someone new can see this RfC, instead of rushing the closure. Bilseric (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – Whatever your source says about what allegedly Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary agreed in 1850, it doesn´t mean it happened. No source says Military Frontier became part of Croatia in 1850, but rather sources confirm the opposite, that Croatia had no authority over any parts of the Military Frontier all the way until at least 1881. Further more, events from Tesla life confirm it. He went to school to Karlovac in 1870 and his grades and all documents scream "Military Frontier" all over the place with no mention of Croatia of any kind. The classes were in German because German was the official language of the Military Frontier (in Croatia-Slavonia it was Hungarian). Also, Tesla receved a scholarship from the Military Frontier in 1875 to study in Graz, Duchy of Styria, meaning that if MF was still giving scholarships in 1875 it means it was still very much existing and active. In conclusion, when the parts of MF where Tesla was born and grew-up were passed to Croatian-Slavonian authority in 1881 (not earlier) Tesla had already left to Graz 6 years earlier, which means that Tesla was not born, and never even lived, in the province of Croatia. Before 1881, during the period Tesla lived there, MF was a reality, while Croatia, known officially as Croatia-Slavonia, was a neighboring province, a fact that makes further wrong to say that he was born in Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Exemple of source confirming what I am saying: The Habsburg rulers menaged to free most of Croatia from the Turks by 1699. The Treaty of Carlowitz, signed in that year, acknolledged this. The newly freeded areas of Croatia regained domestic autonomy, including their own Diet, or legislature. However, the Habsburg rulers continued to exercise direct control over the area of the "Military Frontier" because of its strategic significance. The separate military governament for the "Military Frontier" was not finally abolished until 1881. The tradition of the frontier remained long after 1881. (Nordic, Central, and Southeastern Europe 2015-2016, by Wayne C. Thompson, page 432). FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a remark, in Croatia-Slavonia Hungarian was not the official language, on the contrary, according to the agreement the Hungarian state language could not be applied, because not just the autonom cases, legislation, administration, jurisdiction, education, but the language of the common government and affiliations were also exclusively Croatian. Evem in the common sessions and delegations with the Hungarians they had the right to use only Croatian.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

As far as I remember, the right of using Croatian as official language instead of Hungarian was quite of an issue. There were times that Hungarians even imposed Hungarian to be teached in schools instead of Croatian, and most things such as road or rail signs were in Hungarian. Anyway, the issue is that in Croatia-Slavonia the languages were Croatian and Hungarian, while in Military Frontier the official language was German. That is why classes in Karlovac high-school when tesla atended were in German. Regards KIENGIR! FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

FkpCascais, true there was some attemtps to make Hungarian also official, but all these attempts have failed in the end, thus Croatian was exclusively official. I really did not intend to intervene this issue - I don't have more accuerate information on MF - CS de facto/de jure situ -, but you probably already know my struggle for precisity. Regards also!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC))

Your source says 'The separate military government'. This is exactly what my source says 'disaggregated provincial and military administration'. Thus, we didn't find anything new with this source. However, my source is directly referencing the kings proclamation and it adds another claim of 'single land'. Your claim about "it doesn't mean it happened" is invalid. I have a secondary source saying it happened. If I had a primary source, you could of course argue that we don't know if the proclamation was reverted or if "it happened". However, the secondary source says it happened. This is how wikipedia functionaries.Bilseric (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The source says Military Frontier had its own governament, which brings down any "single land" of MF and CS before 1881. Croatia-Slavonia had their own governament and territory, while Military Frontier their own. The two were separate administrative units within Austro-Hungary until 1881. By then, Tesla had alerady left 6 years earlier, so he never got to live in Croatia-Slavonia. FkpCascais (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is clear on the matter and I really don't have to respond to your made up definitions. However, just for your information, a de-jure single land can be de-facto separated.Bilseric (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilseric, if you are trying to connect Tesla's birthplace to Croatia, as FkpCascais asserts, then I am against it. Tesla was not touched by Croatia in any significant manner. And if this is your goal, then the attempt to use a reference completely devoid of the name 'Tesla' is a violation of WP:No original research, as was suspected above by Martinevans123. Binksternet (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Binksternet: just look at thread above. His very entry to the discussion was: "Actually Militaty Frontier was a part of Croatia at the time Tesla was born there. The source for that is listed in this thread [3]Bilseric (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)" From then on it is just ways to convince people to accept the "Single land" theory, disguised here. FkpCascais (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't edit the article in any kind by myself. I chose to open a RfC. In this RfC I have clearly defined a suggested change to the article. Bilseric (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Binksternet , "Tesla was not touched by Croatia in any significant manner" , who's to say what's significant. I'm sure that Croats would find it significant the fact that Tesla's passport was issued by the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia [1]. Or the fact that Tesla himself said: "I was born in Croatia".[ https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Tribute_to_King_Alexander] . Your opinion may be different, but we are dealing with sources here, and I have provided a source here and this RfC is clearly defined. Bilseric (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is a tribute to the Serbian king in turbulent times when Kingdom of Yugoslavia was on the spotlight because of demonstrations and demands of descentralization by Croats while Serbs were supportive of the king. What Tesla pretended was to say that there was people from Croatia that supported the king, and he could say that because by then his homeplace was incorporated into Croatia. -_- You understand that very well, stop missusing such events. FkpCascais (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Although I posted this primary source here, I didn't interpret it. I was answering on a specific statement from another editor. I thank you for providing your interpretation of it. I'm sure everyone has their own interpretation. I'm looking forward to the day you publish that interpretation so we can use it as a secondary source. In the meantime, let's stick to the topic of this RfCBilseric (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per FkpCascais (need sources on Tesla, not loosely interpreted OR), and per a constant same-ol' same-ol' problem---> readers were constantly confused by the article text, the readers seem to be a series of SPA's and (blocked) sock-puppets, so smoke here, no fire. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a lot of sources and a consensus established in the RfC that Tesla was born in MF. I really see no reason why to prevent a reference explaining what MF is. To me it's the same as prohibiting a link leading from Tesla article to MF article. If it's not introduced here, I will surely introduce this source to MF article effectively doing the same thing. The link from Tesla page to Military frontier already exists. Bilseric (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose what you need for this is sources that say that Tesla was born in a single Austrian land composed of the Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia. Otherwise the article should just reference him being born in the Military Frontier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

"At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina."Bilseric (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - the 2 existing sources are perfectly adequate. Bilseric's proposed source doesn't mention Tesla, and inferring Tesla's nationality from it is WP:SYNTHESIS. I don't understand what the purpose of this RfC is. If we want more sources that say explicitly Tesla was born in the Military Frontier, there are plenty of others. Bilseric seems to be a WP:single-issue editor whose only activity on WP has been to WP:push for saying that Tesla is "from Croatia". It looks as if FkpCascais is right, that this RfC is an effort to "wedge" WP:original research into the article containing language that supports his position. Inferring a person's nationality from some quote by a political leader taken in isolation is clearly WP:original research, and bogus original research at that. We've seen this kind of thing many times on this page before. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Its either one user, or a group of them, which simply refuse to accept evidence and keep on trying to "Croatisize" Tesla by all means ever since the old debates years ago which ended with Asdisis and several other accounts indef-banned. Remember? I spot them very easily cause I see immediatelly where they pretend to take all the talking. In that previous thread where the 3 of us participated I hoped you would recognise it as well, but anyway, you gave them WP:AGF. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't remember that Bilseric was part of that 2017 debate. That debate also covered pretty much the same ground and Bilseric used the same 1850 quote from the King rehashed here. Seems to be a case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. If anyone is interested in reading it for background, it is here. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Objections to Point (2) - Although most editors are obviously against both points, Point (2) above has not been discussed much. For the record here are my objections to Point (2): Question, "Was Nikola Tesla born in a single Austrian land composed of Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia per provided source."

It is proposing a general policy declaration for this page based on a single source, the Horvats quote, in exclusion of any other sources on Tesla's nationality. First, the Horvats source has been rejected as WP:OR among other reasons, so accepting this point is OR. Second, why does the article need a policy declaration? This is a politically motivated WP:POV effort to try to get language wedged into an RfC which Bilseric thinks supports his political goals. Since the statement can be parsed "...Tesla born in...Croatia", although it doesn't say that, if accepted this RfC will be used endlessly in the future by nationalists to argue that the consensus of editors accepted the opinion that Tesla was "born in Croatia". As MrX says, we should not let this article be made a coatrack for nationalists, either Serbian or Croation, to hang their political opinions on. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Please. Don't lie it's based on one source when I have provided this one as well that goes along Horvat. And don't put your opinions about Horvat source as established facts. "At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina."Bilseric (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Carlson's sentence is stating that, at the time, Croatia as a country didn't legally exist, the area was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, so that was Tesla's legal nationality. Carlson's previous sentence says "Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljian in...what is today Croatia.", just like the wording in our statement. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh my. I need to make a separate post at the end so it's more visible. It will have the same tinestamp because I'll do it in the same edit. Bilseric (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment why were only some of the previous participants pinged? How was this list selected? It seems to me all previous participants of the last RFC excluding any blocked or banned editors should be notified or some other neutral selection otherwise there's a strong risk of WP:Canvassing. Nil Einne (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I tried to ping everyone, so I opened a previous discussion and took names. Did I miss someone? I have also created this RfC template so other editors with fresh viewpoint can join in. Hopefully they will not be scared away like Martinevans. Bilseric (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Not sure he was "scared away" exactly, more "fed up by being canvassed by an anonymous IP at his own Talk page". Thanks and goodbye. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The names you missed from Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 3#RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? seem to be @MrX, 23 editor, and Canuckian89:. Michael Cambridge and Asdisis were I presume intentionally excluded. Anyway the main reason for my concern was your initial message said "some of the users who participated in the previous discussion". 'Some' would suggest you didn't try to ping them all. If you did but simply missed some that's fine. I'm surprised you missed MrX given how extensively they appeared in that discussion and they were also the initiator (which was what added to my concern), especially since you found Tom Hulse who wasn't a participant but simply thanked. But if you used a script perhaps it was confused by the space between the : and their username or maybe the lower case "user:". Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and snow close - This cherry-picked source from 1906, published by Matica hrvatska whose "main goals are to promote Croatian national and cultural identity", is not about Nikola Tesla. The current wording in the article ("Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village Smiljan, Lika county, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia)...") is already a more detailed description of birth place than we include in just about every other biography on Wikipedia. This article is not a coatrack for promoting Croatian or Serbian national identity.- MrX 🖋 12:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How can we snow close when you and other 3 editors opposed on the grounds that we need a source about Tesla, and I have provided that source. Shouldn't that resolve your concerns? RcF is not about vote count but about the quality of arguments. Furthermore , the RfC didn't suggest we should change the article text. The current wording is fine, I agree , and we are not discussing the current wording at all. I suggest that we leave this RfC open for a little longer. I would like to get at least the same number of new editors, not only the ones that already have a former preconception from the previous discussions. Bilseric (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a new fresh point is needed, because you are here saying that the source is cherry-picked, obviously referencing some previous knowledge. Can you post those sources that would point that the one I put was cherry picked? I would like to review those sources. Bilseric (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Snow close because no one but you supports your proposal and given that all such previous attempts to convince our readers that Tesla was born in Croatia have failed spectacularly, this is very, very unlikely to achieve consensus. Just like you found an obscure pro-Croatian source from 112 years ago to support your view, I could easily produce multiple patent applications signed by Tesla in which he states that he was born in Yugoslavia.- MrX 🖋 14:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Again. We are not discussing Tesla's birthplace. That has been already discussed. If you could post sources on the matter of this RfC, please do so, instead of speaking that you can do it. But please, don't be posting sources on Teslas birthplace. Again, this is not the topic. Especially not primary sources, as you are suggesting. Bilseric (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Umm, yeah we are:

1.Rfc suggestion. The purposed change is to add the mentioned source as a reference to this sentence: Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village Smiljan, Lika county, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia), on 10 July [O.S. 28 June] 1856.[12][13]
2.RfC question - Was Nikola Tesla born in a single Austrian land composed of Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia per provided source.

- MrX 🖋 14:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Its incredible how dishonest is Bilseric. Of course his main goal is to say Tesla was born in Croatia, that is the hole thing about this fantasy of "single land". I am really outraged why Wikipedia allows this disuption to go on. FkpCascais (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said, "The purpose of this RfC is not to change the current consensus or the article text, but to put a further context to the current consensus. ". In another words, we all agree that Tesla was born in Military Frontier. I just want to put a reference to that article sentence which would in one sentence say what Military Frontier was at that time. I shouldn't be getting so much opposition for such a simple edit. Bilseric (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No, we agree that Tesla was born in the Austrian Empire, just like it says in the article. Nobody cares about this arcane geopolitical minutiae. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

That's also fine. I agree. But why are you trying to prohibit a source which gives a little more context to be put as a reference, like the 2 ones I put forward. Are those 2 sources saying something incorrect? Only FkpCascaisis (and Martinevs agrees) is claiming that of 7 editors here. I can not understand your objections. I tried to answer them with sources. I offered to review more sources. What could I do more? I think that I have done enough, and that we should leave this RfC open so others have time to join, instead of rushing the closure. Bilseric (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Please. I care. FkpCascaisis cares. Don't say that nobody cares. I can link numerous discussions of people caring. If you don't care, why are you trying to prohibit a simple reference ? It won't bother anyone. Bilseric (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Because that source of yours doesn´t say what you pretend it to say. You are missinterpreting it, and that is why you dn´t have any other sources claiming that "singlee land" fantasy, while there are plenty saying the opposite. So no, MF and Croatia were no "single land" in 1850. And Croatian editors you pinged don´t support you cause they know it. FkpCascais (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If that was truth, we would have it already included long time ago at all respective articles, and that issue would certainly be covered in scholar secundary sources. You are totally making OR with a source that just cites what a declaration from 1850 had written but doesn´t say it happened. FkpCascais (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"It want bother anyone" ahahahaha you are really sick... FkpCascais (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

But you are the only one here saying this. The second question of the RfC didn't get covered at all, nor the alternative purposal. Why not to allow more time so others can join? Why to rush closure? Bilseric (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Which source says the opposite? You at least put one source, but that one in my opinion says nothing opposite. If you have plenty of sources that say something opposite, why don't you just put one which is in your opinion the strongest?Bilseric (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ALL sources say Military Frontier WAS NOT part of Croatia at any point prior 1881! So there is nothing to wait to. Your failure of Croatisizing Tesla has now turned into a tactic of tryinng to Croatisize his place of birth, it want fly. And you are disruptive log time now. FkpCascais (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is one ammong million: The Military Frontier (Militärgrenze) was a completely militarized region along the Austro-Ottoman border that existed from the first half of the sixteenth century until 1881. It was governed by military authorities under the direct command of the Court War Council (Hofkriegsrat) in Vienna. So no, before 1881 and during the Time Tesla was there, MF was not part of Croatia. ENDE, finitto, caput, el fin, kraj, koniec, because you don´t even have a source saying it was. FkpCascais (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what my source says "disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation". I see no opposition here. I'm sure I can find more sentences like this one in my source. But my source also says something that this doesn't, and I also posted source about Tesla saying the same thing as requested by other editors. I feel that my arguments are stronger. You and I obviously disagree, so let's let others touch on this 2nd question of this FT. Bilseric (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Your source is a text from 1905 which says that a declaration issued at Croatian parliament said Coatia, Slavoia and MF should become a sinlge land and blabla, but you don´t have a source saying any of that happened. And it want get you inserting Croatia ANYWHERE in Tesla article. So its the end. FkpCascais (talk) 16:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The 2 sources I have put forward say exactly what I had quoted. The quotes are in full context. I also agree that the queues you provided are in full context. I disagree with your interpretation. We won't come to any conclusion by ourselves. Ley's see how other editors see the sources we have posted. Bilseric (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilseric, just stop. Really. You are beating a dead horse. This idea of yours is plainly wrong, that Tesla's birthplace was connected in any significant manner to Croatia. It was not. Croatia had very little bearing on Tesla's life, and we are not going to try and prove otherwise. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Snow close - We need to end this. Although an RfC is not a vote, it is clear we are at consensus: myself, Martinevans123, Binksternet, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, Peacemaker67, and MrX against, only the initiator Bilseric for. There's also the possible issue of Bilseric WP:canvassing in violation of WP:RfC. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You are talking about canvassing, yet you want to close with no new editors joining. Ok ask for a closure by uninvolved editor and if he/she feels there's no need to get fresh viewpoint , let it be so. I tried my best, but this discussion perfectly show why people stay away from this topic. With no new people and predetermined opinions like this, nothing will ever change.Bilseric (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have never experienced a situation were 4-5 editors object asking for a very specific source to be put forward, and when that is done they fall silent (MrX objected on the same grounds even when the other source was already put forward). It's very strange how unified you think, and I feel very uncomfortable you trying to push that kind of a view for closure without allowing any previously uninvolved editor to participate. Can we at least have a previously uninvolved editor close this RfC?Bilseric (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop missinforming. You don´t have a source for nothing even close to what you pretend. What some declaration said in 1850 is irrelevant when you don´t have any further contemporary sources confirming those things happened (no, the second source, a Tesla biography saying Croatia was empires frontier is zero valid), and worste, all sources confirm the opposite, that MF existed as separate admin. unit until 1881. So your SYNTH of "MF is single land with Croatia since 1850, thus Tesla was born and lived in Croatia, thus he is Croat" will not happened not even in wildest dreams. You ignore all facts presented, and you ignore its 7 quite senior editors all against you. Without you admiting this I am affraid you will just wait for a next chance to come back here again, cause you are convinced you are wright and the entire world is wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to repeat yourself. I have already answered you on those things. I'm confident in my sources. If you are confident in yours, let's leave other editors to evaluate. Hopefully someone interested in sources will join. So far only I and you have debated the sources and we are on completely opposite grounds. I'm very dissatisfied with that. I can say this. I completely disagree with you, but you are the only one here who posted sources and was willing to debate them. We need someone else to debate the sources and agree with you or me and this RfC will have a proper closure based on sources. If no one else joins, at least the editor who closes should be previously uninvolved. He/she will be that 3rd voice. Bilseric (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilseric, what reality are you looking at here? There are more than just two voices here, not just you and FkpCascais. The other editors have looked at your proposed change and rejected it unanimously. So don't pretend there's no consensus, that the RfC closing admin will be the "3rd voice" here. What nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:Requests for comment:"If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.... Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." I'm afraid we are at that point, Bilseric. Your proposal does not even come close to meeting WP standards. Here are the objections raised above:

• The statement on Tesla's nationality already has 2 adequate sources (Cheney, O'Neill).
• The proposed Horvats source does not mention Tesla, and inferring anything about Tesla's nationality from it would be WP:SYNTHESIS and thus WP:original research.
• The Horvats source simply gives a statement made by the King in 1850. Whatever it says doesn't imply it actually happened. Inferring anything about Tesla's nationality from this is a WP:CHERRYPICKED WP:POV WP:SYNTHESIS.
• From other sources, the de jure government of the area at the time of Tesla's birth was the Austrian Empire (through its Military Frontier), which is what our article says.

--Chetvorno^TALK 20:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that you would like to close without 3rd uninvolved party. I obviously can't do anything if you choose to do so. But my objections and the reasoning is noted. You are pushing your uniform opinion and you don't want to allow someone who was previously unengaged to participate, since you realize that you have no arguments. There should be no such strong opposition to put a simple reference to the article. I thought the problem with this topic is the lack of sources, but now I think that this discussion perfectly illustrates what the problem is. Good luck with this kind of behaviour. If anyone in the future wants to read anything from this discussion, I suggest to read Peacemaker67 post and my answer to him. Bilseric (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's clear that canvassing has happened. But I guess that you aren't bothered with that when it goes in your favor. How would you feel if I were to now call 10 Croatian editors to agree with me? I didn't call a single one to agree with me , but you sure have a lot of willpower to prevent objective editors join in. Bilseric (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You canvassed several Crotian editors which didn´t ven bother to comment here, so don´t make fake threat. FkpCascais (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

My point is that 10 editors plainly agreeing with me wouldn't make my point any stronger, nor the number of you makes your case any stronger. It's not about the number count. That's why you are trying to push a closure without uninvolved editor. If you 5 are so confident in your case, why not letting an uninvolved editor close this? Wouldn't that make your case even stronger? Bilseric (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

To anyone who doesn't want to read everything. What is basically happening here is the following. The article has this sentence:"Nikola Tesla was born...in the village Smiljan, Lika county, in the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia).". Everyone agrees with this (it is the consensus and the present sentence in the article). I posted a source that says this:"Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was sometimes referred to as the Krajina". I suggested that we add this source as a reference to the already present sentence so that when someone hovers over that reference, he/she gets to see the quoted 2 sentences from my source. The first sentence is the same, the second one puts a little more context. Everyone strongly disagrees with this. I don't feel that is rational and I would like that someone who was previously uninvolved to give his/her objective opinion on this. The editors are trying to rush the closure. If no objective editors help here, they will manage to push this by force. Help. I want a formal closure!Bilseric (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2018

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why treat his ethnicity and nationality different in comparison to most famous people on Wikipedia?

I don't understand why we don't write something similar to Einstein's description "was a German-born theoretical physicist". Nikola Tesla was quite clearly born in the Austrian empire and later became an American citizen. Why not detail his origins in the "early years" section and instead write "Nikola Tesla (...) was an Austrian-born inventor..."? Heck, considering the controversies (especially considering he harborer feelings for Croatia as well and the argumentation of American citizenship considered to be supreme over other citizenship statuses) why not just skip it all togheter? And mention his ethnicity, nationality and citizenship in the "early years" section? Prophet of Truth and Knowledge 21:56, 14 January 2019‎ (UTC)

Prophet of Truth and Knowledge Per lead guidelines, mentioning ethnicity is done only when it had barring on that particular individual and/or his work. I'm not seeing which barrings Tesla's ethnicity had to his work. He was born in Croatia under Austrian Empire, and later gained American citizenship. His ethnicity as a barring factor is only pushed by pro-Serbian circles. In most of the books about Tesla, only a single mentioning of his ethnicity is done without any further analysis or even a reference. 141.136.252.159 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits

Moved from Talk:Nikola Tesla § Nationalistic edits

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I object to this edit, forced into the article for the third time today by Notrium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This edit seems like the nationalistic POV pushing that has beseiged this article for years, non unlike the single purpose editing of Asdisis. Notrium would be well-advised to stop edit warring and seek consensus for this edit on the sub-page devoted to that purpose.- MrX 🖋 00:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If you accuse me of making nationalistic edits, you should have some kind of argument for that. And when you make any kind of edit, especially a revert, you should support that with a reason in the edit summary. You have not said why would my edits be "nationalistic" or controversial or in any way bad. MrX Notrium (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We have had many, many single purpose editors trying make Tesla more Serbian or more Croatian by adding obscure, unencyclopedic details to support their POV. When your edits resemble those, and when you edit war to force your POV into the article, it is reasonable to assume that you intent to push a nationalistic POV into the article. "Croatian Military Frontier" is an obscure, obsolete geopolitical division that has no relevance to the subject's life. The only reason for shoehorning it in is to make Tesla appear more Croatian. Oh, and you also changed the proper demonym "Serbian" to the diminutive form "Serb", which further supports the assumption that you intend to push a nationalistic POV like many before you.- MrX 🖋 00:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The military frontier is as important for an article about Tesla as, say, Northern Ireland would be important for an article about somebody from Northern Ireland. There was an RfC which concluded that info about the Frontier should not go to the lede, but why should it not go into Early years? Notrium (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not an apt comparison, nor does it matter. The defunct military district has no relevance to Tesla's biography and does nothing but distract readers. Read WP:ONUS for why you' need to convince us that this obscure tidbit should be added to the article, not the other way around.- MrX 🖋 02:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:MrX. @Notrium: Tesla's nationality is an extremely controversial issue on this page. If you want to change any part of the article regarding it, you must get consensus first on Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity. The burden is on you, to justify the changes you want to make and get consensus, BEFORE editing the article. Your repeated edits, against consensus of 3 editors, is WP:EDIT WARRING and can get you blocked. If you continue I will take it to an administrator.--Chetvorno^TALK 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Serb vs Serbian

Moved from Talk:Nikola Tesla § Serb vs Serbian

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 05:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

About the move: I think this does not belong here under Nationality and ethnicity because it is more about the words Serb and Serbian than about Tesla's ethnicity. We all agree Tesla was a Serb, but I am trying to explain that Serbian is not a synonym for Serb Notrium (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

About the Serb (srpski) vs Serbian (srbijanski) issue, you (MrX) are very wrong. Serb is not a diminutive form of Serbian (LOL, where did you get that from?), please peruse the Wiktionary links in the previous sentence. EDIT: since you complained that Wiktionary is not a reliable source, let it be noted that the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, for example, agree with me; Serbian is for things related to Serbia, not a general synonym for Serb.

Tesla was not Serbian because he had neither been born nor ever lived in Serbia. The same is true of his parents, you would probably need to go pretty far back to find one who was Serbian.

Note that even the Serbian wikipedia does not call him Serbian (srbijanski).

Saying that Tesla was Serbian implies that Smiljani was in Serbia, which is a blatant falsity. Notrium (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not that Wiktionary is a reliable source, but both Serbian and Serb in the adjective form broadly mean the same thing. Regarrdless, we follow reliable sources, not editor's person opinions. The construct 'Serb American' is awkward. If you want to continue debating this and try to gain consensus for changing the long-standing text, you will have to do it here: Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity per the notice at the top of the page.- MrX 🖋 02:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, they do not. See the links to other dictionaries that I provided above. MrX Notrium (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Notrium, but the Oxford English Dictionary [2] supports MrX; it says that Serbian can mean either an inhabitant of Serbia or a synonym for Serb; a person whose ethnicity is Serbian. Your proposal to change the word from "Serbian" to "Serb" is a nonissue, and I oppose the change. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Care to explain why ethnicity is put into lead against Wiki guidelines? 2A01:C22:7A4D:F700:B838:E602:AE70:914B (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla is Croatian-American

Reliable Sources say that Nikola Tesla is Croatian-American. I suggest that these sources be respected and this fact be part of the article.Mikola22 (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

They won't even bother to answer you. If you push harder they will personally attack you as they did to numerous other editors. 89.164.193.48 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Tesla was Croatian

Nikola Tesla was Croatian,he was orthodox but it is religion and not nationality.Serbs don't have valid arguments so he will always be Croatian😉🇭🇷👋 Oel0302 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing buddy. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)