User talk:Bilseric

Hey there, it's the person who posted the lastest few messages on Nikola Tesla's Ethnicity/Nationality talk page. Since you seem to be interested in the topic, I will be gathering a massive amnount of evidence over the next few weeks in favor of Tesla's Croatian Ethnicity and Nationality. Depending on how much evidence and sources I find, I may attempt to file an edit request. Do you want to help me? I believe there is a great amnount of evidence to be found, and I will eventually go about creating an official document of declaration, with all the evidence documented. If you are willing to help me, then feel free to respond back here. Cheers! Runsva2001 (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Runsva2001. I've been well familiar with that article. If I can help with wikipedia rules and advice, I'd be glad to help. I'm also familiar with a lot of sources posted on the talk page.

Look, the situation on that article is the following. Several well established editors have edited the article the way they want and they are pretty reluctant to change anything, to the point of personal attacks. I've experienced it myself. Those editors are now ignoring you. If you become more noticeable and there's a chance you might draw attention of other uninvolved editors, they'll quickly appear. If you want to continue with your request, I advise you not to engage them. They'll taunt you with non-sequiturs. If you want you can open a RfC. That's the best way for uninvolved editors to see the discussion. Opening a discussion as you have, on the talk page, is not noticed by uninvolved editors. What they will try to do, if you open a RfC, is, since there are several of them, is to vote against you, and do what's called a "snowball closure" (close the RfC on the basis of vote count, which is kind of against the spirit of Wikipedia where we should aim to reach a consensus), before any other uninvolved editor can join to disagree with their opinion.

Hello, thanks for responding. I understand the situation is complicated, and that is why I do not aim to file any sort of claim soon, as I need a lot of time to conduct a lot of research (I may not even be able to do it, as I'm personally very busy right now, but that's the plan anyways). I have not opened the RfC, because I simply wanted to get a feeling of the landscape and how editing in Wikipedia even works. It's my first time anyways. Once I feel ready, I will file the RfC claim, but only after I am certain that many new editors have been engaged, and if I manage to actually do the research. The talk page I have posted was simply just "scouting" if you want to put it that way. Runsva2001 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, note that wikipedia is focused on secondary sources. I.e. books and articles written about the subject matter, opposed to the original research. For instance , you can't claim that Tesla was born in Croatia solely on Tesla's own statement (one guy in the discussion even claimed that Tesla lied when he said so). That's a primary source. You need a secondary source. Let's say, Tesla's biography that is published. However, when you have secondary and primary sources to back up those secondary, you should have a strong case. You can also use primary sources in discussions. The other thing is the SYNTHESIS. For example SYNTHESIS would be - Tesla was born in Lika, Lika was part of Croatia, thus Tesla was born in Croatia. Although it seems straight forward, you can't make such assumptions. You can use it in discussions, but your request should be based in published secondary sources. Bilseric (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is honestly a little bit strange to me, as to why Wikipedia wouldn't be focused on primary sources. It would make sense to me that sources such as Tesla's own statements would count for at least something, but I guess there is something I don't understand yet. Thank you for the guidance on how to construct my secondary sources to back up my claims, I will put that to good use if I find time for research. Runsva2001 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way Wikiepdia works. It sums up secondary sources. I wouldn't be wasting too much time doing original research. If you have primary sources to back up your secondary sources that's a positive thing. However, base your claim on secondary sources. Bilseric (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this voting system works when it comes to proposals for page editing? Is it timed, or does it simply end when a threshold of voters have voted? Runsva2001 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are edited by consensuses. Consensuses are not esablished by voting but by the strength of the arguments and sources. Bilseric (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you did say that there is some sort of voting process involved in the approval of an RfC, correct? I may be misremembering... Runsva2001 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People give their votes on the RfC's purposal, however in the end, votes shouldn't quantitatively contribute to the decision. Well, unless there's a snowball closure , which they did to my RfC. 95.178.235.127 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, I don't know what you need to "prove" or why would you need to gather "massive amounts of evidence". The subject matter is quite simple. There are sources to support your request, and in any other normal article there would be no problem to edit the article even without a discussion. The problem is made by several editors and you don't have to prove anything to them. It's not their article, and surely it's not their job to suggest historical facts through a Wikipedia article, whether your request goes through or not. You should aim to engage objective and previously uninvolved editors. In my opinion, they will surely follow the sources. Bilseric (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well since these editors you mentioned refuse to let opposing points of view seep into the page, and since they use the "snowball" tactics you mentioned, that means I have to go above and beyond in order to make some sort of impact. My plan is to gather so much evidence that it would be impossible to simply discard my proposal, but instead it would force an honest discussion, which is what Wikipedia is ultimately about. Eventually, no matter how long it takes, the truth will come out. Maybe not necessarily due to me, but someone else will. Trust me. They can ignore me for now, but eventually, they will see the light of the truth. :) Runsva2001 (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can write me here. I come now and then and watch over a few articles. I don't edit much, nor I am interested in Tesla. My interest is to make Wikipedia a better place. It was made so that everyone can edit, not that a few editors can "own" an article and ban everyone who disagrees. And as I said, I don't have problems with the current wording in the article, however, I have with the intention to deceive the reader. Take Tesla's birthplace for an example. There are number of secondary sources stating that Tesla was born in Croatia. There's a primary source as well, of Tesla himself stating so. However this group of editors "chose" to put into article the wording "present day Croatia". There's nothing wrong with that in particular. Croatia, present day Croatia, Military Frontier, Lika. This is all correct. But if you look what the editors advocated for, that Tesla was not born in Croatia, but was in present day Croatia, the intention to choose that wording is obvious. Their goal was to claim something that is contrary to what the sources say, and their excuse is that they simply choose one wording of the many ones that the sources mention. If they all had a stand that Tesla was born in Croatia, but that the article is better fitted with "present day Croatia", I wouldn't have any problems to choose a wording for the article that doesn't necessarily mention Croatia as such, but simply Austrian Empire. That's why I try to explain to the people like you who start discussions that Wikipedia article isn't necessarily correct not that it states facts. It's a summary of secondary sources. Bilseric (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are not interested in Tesla per-se, however I am. I'm not disputing the wording of his birthplace, I am proposing to either rebrand him as "Serbo-Croatian" OR to split up his nationaility and ethnicity in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article. Currently he is simply listed as "Serbian-American" in the first sentence, without any other sort of specification. Since most people do not bother to read a Wikipedia article past the first few sentences (speaking for personal experience as well here), that gives all the readers the completely wrong impression of Tesla and his nationality. I believe the editors know that, and that's specifically why they wanted to have the first sentece as it is right now. Listing him as "Serbo-Croatian" would provide far more detail in just the first sentence. That is what I personally have a problem with. All I'm planning on doing, if I find enough time, is to simply compile a huge list of sources that reference Tesla as Croatian, to show that there is an equal amnount of sources stating he is Croatian as much as he is Serbian. Well, that's my plan at least. Runsva2001 (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it doesn't really help my case the fact that, every so often, there are angry Croatian keyboard warriors that just read the words "Nikola Tesla Serbian" in the first sentence and immediately head to the talk page to rage at the editors without any sort of proof, because they have been taugth their entire entire lives that Tesla is Croatian and this is the first time they see an opposing viewpoint. :) But it's okay, I think I'll be able to actually gather some evidence. Runsva2001 (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are well familiar to the editors who strongly oppose any connection Tesla has to Croatia. I don't believe that it matters to them. This article needs fresh editors. Bilseric (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how would one go about engaging these new editors? Runsva2001 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC would be the best way. Bilseric (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe that, upon seeing a new RfC opened, new editors will feel compelled to check it out? Runsva2001 (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfCs are seen on the RfC dashboard and there's a likelihood that new editors will join. Requests that you have made are seen only by a handful people who are not willing to discuss anything. That's why they are ignoring you. 95.178.235.127 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]