Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

Opening that can of worms again...

It is sad that this is what generates most debates about this man, but I cannot help feeling that describing Tesla as a "Serbian-American inventor" is grossly dishonest. He accomplished nothing in Serbia or thanks to Serbia. He received basically no support from Serbia and Yugoslavia, nor even much appreciation until he gained worldwide fame in another country, on another continent. Is it really unacceptable to describe him as an American inventor in the lead sentence and as a Serb in the next sentence, per WP:OPENPARA#Context? Surtsicna (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

"Serbian-American" is a phrase denoting/stressing the ethnic origins of an American (Tesla, a naturalised American). In short, Tesla was an ethnic Serb and American inventor. A simple truth, not acceptable to some people, you included. --Taribuk (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your "simple truth" is exactly what I wrote in the last sentence of the first comment ("an American inventor in the lead sentence and as a Serb in the next sentence") so of course it's acceptable to me. WP:OPENPARA#Context says very clearly, however, that ethnic origins should not be mentioned in the lead sentence. Madonna (GA) is not defined as an Italian American singer, Barack Obama (FA) is not defined as an African American politician, Bruce Willis (GA) is not defined as a German American actor, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a Serb ethnicity is being put forward, ignoring the fact that "Serbian" is also a nationality. WP:OPENPARA#Context notes previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. Since every biography on Tesla notes he was "Serbian-American" and covers his early life (when many events happened), it is "relevant to the subject's notability". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We have to read WP:OPENPARA#Context carefully and understand it correctly, in the spirit of the Wikipedia Fifth pillar. Surtsicna main point is: "Serbian-American inventor" is grossly dishonest. He accomplished nothing in Serbia or thanks to Serbia. Apparent logical fallacy based on misinterpretation of the quoted phrase.--Taribuk (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition, Tesla was a member of the Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and Art as of 1894, which is enough to accept the "Serbian-American" in the sense Surtsicna does not want.--Taribuk (talk) 12:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if we are to regard "Serbian" as a nationality and "Serb" as an ethnicity, which is correct but often confused, then we have to take into account the fact that Tesla was not a Serbian national. He spent a total of 30 hours or so in Serbia. If we are to equate nationality with ethnicity, then you have to admit that there is no point in making a distinction between them in the Manual of Style.
I don't understand your argument that every biography on Tesla notes that he was Serbian-American; it appears that only 2 out of 14 biographies cited as references in this article describe him as such. One refers to him as an American scientist. One even describes him as a "Croatian-born (naturalized American) electrical engineer". It does not appear to be so clear-cut. Surtsicna (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't tally sources, we weigh them, going by what is in the best sources (and we do not go by what is in a Wikipedia article as a source). Tesla, Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, Tesla, Master of Lightning By Margaret Cheney and Robert Uth, Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla By John J. O'Neill and Wizard: The Life and Times of Nikola Tesla : Biography of a Genius By Marc J. Seifer all describe Tesla's origins as "Serbian". Since Tesla spent almost 30 years of his life somewhere else (and formulated some of his inventions in that "elsewhere"), we can not call him simply "American". All sources tell us Tesla is a hyphenated - American and the best sources tell us what that is. Its something that is not going to change unless there is a very strong secondary counter source (actually several very strong secondary counter sources). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna This Google search shows over a hundred "Serbian-American" adjectives assigned to Tesla in over a hundred references. As to your "He spent a total of 30 hours ": From Fritz E. Froehlich, Allen Kent: The Froehlich/Kent Encyclopedia of Telecommunications: Volume 17 - Television Technology, CRC Press, Dec 1, 1998 page 37:
He stayed six weeks in Serbia; lecturing, visiting family, and receiving a decoration from King Aleksander I. He also visited the famous Serbian poet, Zmaj Jovanovich, whose work Tesla (a poet himself) idolized.

Question: Surtsicna repeats Asdisis. Can we assume Surtsicna = Asdisis and stop his spamming here?--Taribuk (talk) 06:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that Taribuk disagrees with Fountains of Bryn Mawr on whether to tally or weigh the sources...
Anyway, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, there is no dispute that Tesla was a Serb. My concern is that hyphenating Serbian with American is a misleading conflation of two different things; one denotes his ethnicity and not his citizenship, and the other his citizenship and not his ethnicity. He was not Serbian in the same sense as he was American, nor vice versa. Tesla did accomplish a lot "elsewhere", but Serbia is not anywhere in this "elsewhere", which is what the hyphenation suggests. Alternatively, it suggests that he was an ethnic Serb as well as an ethnic American. The Manual of Style also clearly advises against emphasizing the subject's ethnicity in the lead sentence unless it's what makes the subject notable. And since all biographies discuss the subject's early life (if anything about it is known), it would then appear, by your argument, that everyone's ethnicity is "relevant to the subject's notability". That is obviously not the case. In my humble opinion, claiming that a genius such as Tesla is notable due to his ethnicity is ridiculous.
To Taribuk, the brave knight defending her or his nation from its omnipresent enemies (such a 19th-century pursuit!), I have nothing more to say. Well, I do, but I will resist the urge. Surtsicna (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

American is not an ethnicity. If someone is a hyphenated - American then they have to have come from somewhere. In a part of the world were citizenship is very fluid, well, they will picked his closest relationship. Sources on Tesla picked Serbian-American [1][2]. At that point we follow WP:V, it is an uphill battle requiring better sourcing to overturn that. We can not add our own views to an articles simply because we believe them to be correct. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Pay attention to these logical fallacies: "it suggests that he was an ethnic Serb as well as an ethnic American", "claiming that a genius such as Tesla is notable due to his ethnicity is ridiculous". So, Surtsicna suggests and claims and said that his/her suggestion and claim are ridiculous! Are all those Tesla's biographers nuts just for using "Serbian-American" attribute when mentioning Tesla? In addition, Tesla being a Serbian Royal Academy of Sciences and Art member was entitled to a monthly salary for over 38 years (1894-1943). That way Serbia, and after Kingdom of Yugoslavia, supported Tesla's work and research financially. That way Tesla was a Serbian researcher and scientist.--Taribuk (talk) 06:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid you did not understand my point, Fountains of Bryn Mawr. "American" is indeed not an ethnicity. It refers to Tesla's citizenship. "Serbian" does not (and cannot) refer to Tesla's citizenship or indeed to his place of birth but only to his ethnicity. In the syntagm "Serbian-American inventor" , "Serbian-American" can refer either to two countries or to a mixed ethnicity. To me, it definitely looks like a reference to two countries. A hyphenated - American does have to come from somewhere. Tesla did indeed come from somewhere, and that's not Serbia.
I see no indication that your premise ("every biography on Tesla notes he was 'Serbian-American'") is actually correct. In fact, I have shown that it is not. Not every biography says that. It's also verifiably not true that "all sources tell us Tesla is a hyphenated - American". I gave you two examples of sources cited in the article that tell us something else. First you refer to "every biography" and "all sources", but when that is proven wrong, you say that we weigh sources rather than tally them; but there is no explanation as to why the two sources describing Tesla as "Serbian-American" outweigh the two that describe him otherwise. And then we are back to literally counting the sources again. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

As to how to weigh sources, please read WP:RS. The rest of it is not something that would survive a RfC, you present an argument based on a POV without counter sources. That simply won't fly and is pointless to keep going around in circles about. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I would like to change this in Serbian-Croatian-American inventor

I don't have nothing against Serbs or Americans, but at least be fair enough to put Croat in.

There are some hidden evidences in Nikola Tesla's museum in Belgrade where he said for himself to be Croat and how he was happy that Croats call him like that.

Proof can be found in Petar Vučić's(Croatian writer) book "Govor hrvatima o ispravnom putu" on page 43 where Tesla himself claimed his ancestors are noble families Kalinichi and Draganichi.

Also, Croatian historian Ljubica Štefan, while she was in Belgrade, saw the unpublished diary of Nikola Tesla with this sentences:

“Sretan sam što me Hrvati smatraju svojim, jer su moji predci hrvatski koljenovići, Draginići iz Zadra. Kao hrvatski plemići Draginići su došli u Liku u XIV. stoljeću i tu ostali. U Liku su moji predci došli preko Novog Vinodola. Predci moje majke, Kalinići, također su hrvatski plemići i oni su iz Novoga Vinodola. Moj pradjed stjecajem okolnosti morao je otići u Bosansku Krajinu (Turska Hrvatska) - tamo se oženio pravoslavnom djevojkom i prešao na pravoslavlje. On je imao isturene prednje zube pa ga je narod prozvao teslom, prema alatki kojom se obrađuje drvo i otuda je moje sadašnje prezime TESLA. To je, zapravo, nadimak. Moj djed je bio časnik u ličkoj regimenti, a moj otac pravoslavni prota.”

In translation:

"I am happy that Croats consider themselves my own because they are mine predecessors of Croatian knees, Draginići from Zadar. As Croatian nobles Draginići came to Lika in XIV. century. My ancestors came to Lika over Novi Vinodol in Lika. My mother's ancestors, Kalinići, are also Croatian nobles and they are from Novi Vinodolski. My grandfather had to go to Bosanska Krajina (Turkey) - there married an Orthodox girl and went to Orthodoxy. He had been stretched out front teeth, so people have been called by tesla, according to the tool used to handle wood and hence my current surname TESLA. That is, in fact, a nickname. My grandfather was an officer in Lika regiment, and my father is Orthodox priest." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matijafratric (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC) Citing Croatian sources is not something to brag about since it's very possible that they are biased. Croatian writers do tend to invert the truth especially when it comes then in handydzaja (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Can of worms #2

First, they call him Yugoslav-American, second, they call him Serbian-American, third, they call him American with Serbian ethnicity. He was an imigrant to America. His contribution was mostly in America. But he was born in Austro-Hungary(modern day Croatia). I have nothing against Serbs, I respect them as a powerful nation with great contribution in the world. But why is mentioned that he is Serbian-AMERICAN, and not Croatian, or at least Austo-Hungarian(which he was). If he declares that he is proud of his Serbian origin and Croatian fatherland, it would be more correct to call him "Croatian-born Serbian inventor". Matijafratric (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

One remark: He was not born in Austria-Hungary, this entity were created in 1867. To call him "Austro-Hungarian" would be problematic, since there is not known him having Hungarian citzenship ever or any Hungarian origin.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018

(moved from Talk:Nikola Tesla#Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018 per 16 June 2015 RfC consensus --Chetvorno^TALK 18:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC))

Nikola Tesla-was a Serbian-American,can you change this phrase to Serbo-Croatian,because Tesla's mother was Croatian and he was born in Smiljan in todays Croatia,and was never part of Serbia,just because his father was Serb doesn't mean Tesla was Serbian,he has genes of a Serbian but that just makes no sense,if you are born in Africa and your father is Croatian it doesn't mean you are Croatian,soo please change that because it's not correct,or you can change the subject to Serbo-Croat-American inventor that would be even better,but dont leave it like he is Serb because he isn't. Here is the statement that he said...Nikola Tesla is Croatian Orthodox from Croatia! Here's the evidence, "I'm glad Croats are thinking of me because my ancestors are Croat's Draganić from Zadar. As a Croatian noblemen in the 16th century they came to Lika and the rest of them. In Lika my obstacles came through New Vinodol. My mother's ancestors, Kalinic, are also Croatian noblemen from Novi Vinodolski. My grandfather had to go to the Bosanska Krajina (Turkey), where he married an Orthodox girl and went to Orthodoxy. He had protruding front teeth, and the people called him Tesla to the tool that was treating wood, and so on, and my present name, Tesla. It's actually a nickname '. (Tesla's secret diary, published in 1977 at TV Zagreb, without a denial) There is other evidence. That's why plenty of lying and self-indulging more. Not all Orthodox (ethnic) Serbs! Gogi2323 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

..."but dont leave it like he is Serb because he isn't." ... yes right... and all you provide is an alleged thing from 1977 from a Croatian TV channel. To see its fake and Croatian made, we can just focus on the insistence Tesla allegedly said his both sides of family come from "Croatian nobleman"... Tesla would have neved expressed himself as such even if truth. The complex of noblemans and nobility is something so Croatian and not Tesla´s. If that diary even exists its such a clear forgery. This section can be erased. FkpCascais (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gogi2323:  Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gogi2323: Tesla's nationality is a sensitive subject which has been argued about for 11 years on this page. I suggest you read over the 9 archives listed at the top of the page. Even if your source ("Tesla's secret diary") was established as legitimate, it would not qualify on Wikipedia as a reliable source for Tesla's nationality. A person's own statement is not a reliable source on his nationality; many people self-identify with a nationality which is not their actual nationality. The only WP:reliable sources are trustworthy writings on Tesla, such as biographies. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Tesla never felt the need to peacock himself with claims of nobility (some other people, related to more recent times, do), right the opposite, Tesla whenever expressed himself about his origins he did it very humbly and naturally. One thing is truth for sure; for all humanity, Tesla was much more than a "nobleman". FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: Wait, one's own opinion doesn't count as towards nationality? Jerry (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No. A person's nationality is not his own choice, it is a legal status determined by national (or in case of conflict, international) law. --Chetvorno^TALK 23:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

Moved from Talk:Nikola Tesla § Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2018

per Talk page and 16 June 2015 RfC consensus. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please change "was a Serbian-American inventor" into "was a Croatian-Serbian-American", because his nationality was Croatian and his ethnicity was Serbian. Indeed, it should be "Croatian-born inventor", because, for example, for Albert Einstein Wikipedia says "German-born theoretical physicist", not German-American theoretical physicist" although Einstein get American citizenship after moving to USA, just like Tesla, nor it says "Jewish-American" since Einstein parents were Jews. I understand there is a pressure from some groups to acclaim Tesla as a Serbian-American, however this is not politically, and most importantly, it is not historically correct. Seugushi (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus on the talk page first before making a possibly contentious request, such as this one. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So strange that the author of this edit request claims to be an university professor and doesn´t know that Tesla was not born in Croatia. Tesla was born in the Military Frontier, a multi-ethnic province of the Austrian empire while Croatia-Slavonia was a province of Hungary. So two completely different territorial units. Tesla also never got to live in Croatia, he studied in Karlovac, at time also part of Military Frontier, then moved to Budapest, Graz, etc. The fact that the place Tesla was born nowadays belongs to Croatia is irrelevant for Tesla´s life. But unfortunatelly there seems to exist major uncknolledge of this facts in Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

@Seugushi: This is a sensitive issue which has been debated for 11 years here. The issue got so contentious that all discussions of Tesla's nationality were moved to this separate page. The current wording was adopted in an RfC 5 July 2014 and is supported by reliable sources. You can look at the RfC and read the 10 archives of discussion on this subject listed at the top of the page to see where the current wording came from. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno: I was reading this rfc , and It's a total mess. Anyways, it was so long time ago that new sources have appeared. The source I listed yesterday was not available back then, and it is the most credible one. I'm sorry to say, but we can no longer use this RFC as a reference because it goes against newer sources.Bilseric (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I can't read Croatian, but even if it supports your position a single source is not going to make a difference. There are quite a few other sources that say that at the time Tesla was born, 1856, this area was a possession of the Austrian Empire called the Military Frontier. The current wording says Tesla was born in the Austrian Empire in "present day Croatia" and I support that wording as accurate and in accord with sources like Tesla biographies (I am an American named Chris Burks and I have no background or connection to either Serbia or Croatia and no opinion on this issue). This issue has been debated continuously for 11 years and there are many editors that support the current wording. --Chetvorno^TALK 20:11, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Actually Militaty Frontier was a part of Croatia..." ... dear Lord, save us from such missconceptions please. I will repeat for one last time. Austrian Empire created a separate provice named Military Frontier. It was under direct Aurstrian rule. Croatia-Slavonia was a differente province within same empire, but under Hungarian rule (Hungary had special status within Austrian empire, and included rule over Croatia-Slavonia). So, besides being two totally opposite provinces within Austrian Empire (later renamed Austro-Hungary), each was rules by a different ruler (C-S by Hungary while MF by Austria). The Military Frontier was created by parts of other provinces in what was an internal rearangement of the Habsburg empire. Since it was on the border with the Ottoman Empire and wars were often waged, the area was scarselly populated, so Austrians incentivated the colonisation of the province mostly by Serb and Vlach population which was escaping Ottoman oppersion. So Military Frontier ended up being a multi-ethnic province with Croats and Serbs being majority. It was divided internally into several sections, one of them named "Croatian Military Frontier". But the adjective "Croatian" was merelly geographic, all rule in it was Austrian, and even German was imposed as primary language. Croatian-Slavonian deputies spend decades protesting in Budapest parliament claiming parts of territory of the Military Frontier, but was never given to Croatia-Slavonia during Tesla time he spend there. If it was Croatian why was then the primary agenda of Croatian-Slavonian deputies in Budapest parliament to give them rule over parts of the MF? Because obviously it was NOT Croatian! So, at time Tesla was born and raised there (Smiljan and Karlovac), it was part of Austrian Empire, province Military Frontier. Croatia-Slavonia was a different province which had no rule over the places Tesla was born and lived in. So saying Tesla is "Croatian-born" would imply he was born in Croatia-Slavonia, which is absolutelly incorrect. FkpCascais (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

If you didn't read the source, it gives a clear definition of Croatia, Slavonia and MF. It states that MF, Croatia and Slavonia constitute a single land with with disaggregated provincial and military administration and representation. We really don't need yet another opinion after 10 years. If you have a source you are free to post it. If you didn't notice, there's another source in that thread. It's a quote from Tesla : "I was born in Croatia". We can leave the readers to interpret that primary source in the light of the references secondary one. Bilseric (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn´t commented the source because it was already presented in the past, and you seem to missunderstand what it really means and is. The source is the transcript of the demands of the Croatian-Slavonian sabor (parliament) to the Hungarians. However, you (again) fail to understand that one thing are demands, another the reality. You need a source saying those demands were adopted. Croatian-Slavonian parliament was well known within A-H politics for its continuos demands, but unfortunatelly for them, Austria and Hungary had little regard for them, and usually just voted them down and kept the situation regarding C-S as pleased to them. Do you understand this? FkpCascais (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

"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." Bilseric (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I also have nothing against the present wording. It is accurate and according to sources if interpreted without bias. I'm pretty satisfied, however I have remarks about how some editors are trying to make others misinterpret it. From that aspect, I can't agree with the present wording. They would want other editors to read that wording as Fkp explained in the above post. This is clearly against the source I posted. I have an opinion that this source would indeed make a difference since it has a direct reference, which no other source has. It seems to me that the present wording, although correct and no problematic to unbiased reader was put into the article for the wrong reasons, to satisfy a biased opinion of a few editors. There's a simple way to solve the problem and to keep the article in the present state. Let all those who have pushed the present wording agree about this 2 facts. 1. Accept the source I posted. 2. Agree that Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier. I guarantee you that this won't happen. Although correct that he was born in Croatian Militaty Frontier, they would rather want to leave "Croatian" out and make misinterpretations like Fkp. Of course that this is dragging on for a decade. Bilseric (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chetvorno:, I'm sorry, but could you give a yes or no answer to the following question which is unrelated to Tesla, but a pure historical question? Was Smiljan a part of Croatian Military Frontier in 1856? Bilseric (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The province was named Military Frontier. It was divided internally into several sections, named geographically, which helped better Austrian military organisation in the area. Croatian Military Frontier was one of the subdivisions of the province, and indeed, Tesla was born in that subdivision. However, you, and several others, want to missuse this in order to imply Tesla was born in Croatia, or at Croatian-controlled territory, which was not the case. Biographies such as this one mention the city and country a person was born in, and, in cases of large complex countries such as Austrian empire was, a province may be added in between. Your proposal of replacing the name of the province by the name of the section of the province just to accentuate the missconceptions that Tesla is Croatian, is unacceptable. FkpCascais (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: @Bilseric: I am ashamed of both of you. As Wikipedia editors we are supposed to be better than this. We have the opportunity to contribute to the largest encyclopedia that has ever existed, the 5th most popular site on the Web, and the most comprehensive information source on the planet. And all you two seem to care about is WP:PUSHing your narrow national interest (see WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPA), and continuing a conflict that has gone on for centuries. And its all about a few words! Wikipedia editors must have a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and not let personal or political feelings bias their editing. I am a US citizen and I love my country too, but I leave that behind when I edit Wikipedia. In fact, I know the American and Western point of view is overrepresented on Wikipedia, and I try to be sensitive to that and write articles from a multicultural, world perspective (I'm not saying I succeed). --Chetvorno^TALK 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I am a folkdancer, and my favorite dances are from the Balkan region. I hope to visit your countries when I have the money. The complicated ethnic history of Serbia and Croatia have given birth to the most interesting, challenging, intricate, and beautiful dances in the world! I love them! The nationalism - not so much. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with posting a source which is giving an answer to this 10 yr old debate? I have nothing against the present wording as long as it us interpreted according to this source. Bilseric (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

If no one has any valid objections, I'll be adding this source as a reference to the article, to give a context to the construct "now in Croatia". Bilseric (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That source was already present in previous discussions, and consensus was clear. FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This source doesn't go against the consensus. I won't change the text of the article. However, a proper context has to be given. Bilseric (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the addition of Bilseric's source, as the existing sources are perfectly adequate to support the text. The source seems to be a Croatian Wiki article. Wikis are not WP:reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose Bilseric's recently reverted deletion of sources in the article. Bilseric, you need to get consensus on this page for changes to the portions of the article relating to Tesla's nationality or ethnicity. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems that we need a RfC to discuss this new source. I'll open it and invite everyone who participated in the past discussions. If the present sources were adequate we wouldn't have this thread and numerous of discussions. I own a full book as a reference, and the wiki article is just for your convenience.

Regarding the sources that I deleted, I may have done it in a clumsy way , but I will restore the consensus. Someone has added those sources againt the present consensus. The persons who added those sources are the ones who should seek a consensus, not me. Bilseric (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

May I ask , why are you not restoring the consensus, but are opposing it? Bilseric (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

That source was already presented. Its a primary source. We need secundary souces. The source is the text from provincial Croatian-Slavonian parliament (Sabor) which transcripts Croatian demands to Austrian and Hungarian authotities. Croat parliament made a demand for the provinces of Croatia, Slavonia and Military Frontier to constitute a "single land". Eight Austrian ministers signed a document which says "everything will remain as it is". Its a typical political move, Croatian deputies could say to their people "they signed!" while the Austrian ministers returned to Vienna bringing news to the Emperor that the text says that eveything would remain as it is. To see how much Austrians disregarded the text its enough to see that they didn´t even insisted in specifiying what parts of the Military Frontier were to be that "Croatian single land". The text says "Military Frontier" but not even the wildest Croatian nationalist demanded parts of central Romania (to where Military Frontier streched to) to be Croatian. It all stayed part of Military Frontier directly ruled by Austria and was not incorporated to Croatia-Slavonia for more then 30 years despite Croatian demands.

All in all, secundary sources say Military Frontier existed as Austian administrative unit until 1881 (so it was not given to Croatia in 1850 as Croat parliementarians demanded in the source you presented), and we know from Tesla´s biographies that he receved a Military Frontier scholarship (not Croatian-Slavonian), meaning he was under Military Frontier administration, and that at time he studied in Karlovac (also within MF and not C-S) the main language was German, not Croatian as it was in Croatia.

So, you totally distoring the historical accuracies by waving a primary source with interpretations you yourself make but that secudary sources indicate otherwise, and equally distorting the past consesus made in long discussions here claiming it says the opposite of what it says (as if people can´t go there and see them) is actually offensive, cause editors here are not that dumb, you know? FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not discussing with you the things that are obvious. This is a secondary source, which clearly defines what military frontier is after the king's proclamation in 1850. If you can't distinguish primary from secondary source, I can't help you. I'm sure others more objective editors will. It was never discussed, thus it has the merits to change the consensus, although it does not change the consensus, it goes along with it. Your interpretations here are irrelevant. I spent weeks reading posts like this. If you have any source to disprove this one, you are free to present it. Since this secondary source is directly referencing a primary source, the king's proclamation, it's obvious that there will not be a source which can disprove this one. The only way to disprove this source would be to have another secondary source which references subsequent primary source that this source omits to mention. This of course is unrealistic. If you were so worried about historical accuracies , you would have already corrected the edits that were done against the standing consensus, introducing Serbian Orthodix Curch to 19th century, sneaky through cherry picked references. This article lacks objective editors. I'm sure that you'll find 10 more reasons not to use this source, but you have no problems with Serbian Orthodox Church in the 19th listed in cherry picked references that is done against a standing consensus. I won't waste my time in discussions with people who are so obviously pushing their POV , even against a standing consensus. Bilseric (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

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). So, will you stop missinforming how I don´t have sources? Will you? FkpCascais (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly what the source I printed out says. "A single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation". I'll try to find some time this weekend to open a rfc, because this is going nowhere. You have no valid reason to object this source. How can you not understand that this source I pointed out is directly referencing the King's proclamation and is not mentioning that this proclamation was reverted. A better source can't be found. I seriously doubt that there was another proclamation in between 1850 and Tesla's birthday that this source wouldn't mention. Bilseric (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, you seem not to understand what is written, or you missunderstand it on purpose. The source says Military Frontier was a separate administrative unit until 1881. Completelly separated from the province of Croatia-Slavonia. Exactly the opposite of what you pretend. FkpCascais (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your source does not say 'completely separated'. That is a claim made by you. Your source says 'The separate military government'. This is exactly what my source says 'disaggregated provincial and military administration'. You are on purpose and without any source trying to ignore 'a single land' from the definition provided by the 1st source. Bilseric (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

All secundary sources confirm there was no "single land" that puts Military Frontier and Croatia-Slavonia into one administrative unit. Croats wanted parts of Military Frontier to be given to Croatian administration, but that didn´t happened all the way until 1881, when Tesla alredy left and emigrated. So Tesla never got to live in Croatia-Slavonia or Croatia of any kind, much less was born into any sort of. Military Frontier was an independent administrative unit until 1881, all secundary sources confirm it, and your one single source (Wikisource btw) talking about some alleged "single land" never happened prior 1881. FkpCascais (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

So what is that you really want after all? FkpCascais (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

And you will be able to present those sources in the RFC. Bilseric (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

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

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 [4]. 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)

• 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, Binksternet. 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: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)