Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

Nikola Tesla birthplace , review after 10 years

Ten years have passed since the last discussion [1]. The appearance of new sources merits a new discussion.

The present text in the article stands: "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)"

The sources provide additional context which describe the birthplace "at that time"

1. "Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia. At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina ..." Bernard Carlson, Tesla: Inventor of the Electric Age, p.13
2. "the village where Tesla was born, is in the province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia.". O'Neill (1944), page 12

The RfC questions are:

1. Was Tesla's birthplace a part of Croatia (at the time of Tesla's birth), which was at that time a part of Austrian Empire
   • As opposed to the interpretation given by some editors which opinion was that, although nowadays (in 21st century) a part of Croatia, Tesla's birthplace wasn't a part of Croatia at the time of Tesla's birth (in the 19th century)
2. Should we include that additional context in the article by adding the following sentece from source 1: " At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina"

Trimpops2 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: Based on some points other editors made I'll purpose this sentence to enter the article. Nikola Tesla was born into an ethnic Serb family in the village of Smiljan, within the Croatian Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia). At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia. It contains all info the previous one does and is directly supported by above sources. It contains Croatian Military Frontier subdivision as Joy suggested. It doesn't use native term Vojna Krajina. And I've added a link to Kingdom of Croatia. The source only states Croatia, but it would be more appropriate if the reader can have a link to the exact article. It's only a suggestion, and I'm fine with any suggestion which contain all info stated by the sources above. I've removed Slavonian Military Frontier which the sources list as a part of Kingdom of Slavonia, as that's too much info and not needed as Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes on both questions as opener. I think the addition of this one sentence would resolve this question and put a stop to purpetual discussions. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I formulated the RfC with 2 questions because I noticed that some editors were advocating for option 1.1, while their reasoning was that this info is not necessary, etc. If the sources are correct, that would be misleading. So, please answer to both questions. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to 1. And yes to 2. Tesla himself said "I was born in Croatia" [2]. It's a primary source, opposed to 2 sources above, but coming from Tesla himself, relevant to note. 95.168.116.19 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: The RfC opening is not neutral. Stating that the source provides "additional context" from the previous RfC is 1. not true and 2. not a neutral opening. The previous RfC elaborates on this exact topic very thoughtfully. --Azor (talk). 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional context for the sentence that is already in the article. Bernard Carlson states Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia (this sentece is already in the articel) and then Carlson provides "additional context" with the following sentece At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina. I think I have elaborated the exact context. The purpose is not to contest the previous RfC, but to provide the context "at that time" which this 2 sources provide. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Help me out here, because I'm an uninvolved editor. Where is the WP:RFCBEFORE about this question? I found a discussion from May about this topic, but a cursory reading doesn't seem to show any editor who disagrees with adding the proposed sentence to the article based on the sources provided. Please let me know if I missed something (who disagrees, and what are their arguments). spintheer (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

There were a lot if discussions, you can find them in archives. 93.141.183.145 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Spintheer: For 20 years, since this article was started, Serbian and Croatian nationalists have argued continually on this page about the sentence on Tesla's nationality (and ethnicity), trying to claim him. See the 12 huge archives at the top of the page. The arguments got so disruptive we had to move the discussion to this separate Talk page. The current wording was established by an RfC 8 June 2014, is supported by reliable sources, was confirmed by RfC 12 December 2018 and since then has stood against a stream of editors who wanted to change it. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, we saw the same low quality of discussion in 2014 as we are seeing today. The existence of nationalist talking points, and in turn editors being annoyed at that, has disrupted basic discussion on readability and toponymy. --Joy (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Previouis discussions are of very low quality. Not based on sources and full of WP:SYNTH claims. Also, people who disagree with factual 1st question were arguing that the article doesn't need to be updated, which lack objectivity, as their stand is not based on sources but on their opinion whether the article "needs" to have that info, which they dispute but have no sources. I find this RfC with 2 questions will better represent each stand. I'm sorry to see this is repeated again, but at least I'm trying to direct this RfC towards discussing sources, but again some users went to attacking others of nationalistic viewpoint and opposing without backing up their stand with sources. I can't influence others, but I'd hope that the closing admin will know how to evaluate the consensus. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Your level of engagement here is increasingly unhelpful. --Joy (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• No he wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia and No the additional text isn't needed. The present text is perfectly clear about what his place of birth was at the time, and where that is located politically now. Anyone wanting further details about the Empire, the MZ or modern Croatia simply has to follow links. The proposal doesn't clarify anything directly relevant to Tesla.Pincrete (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, one can follow the link to Military Frontier article and find that there was a huge discussion whether MZ was a part of Croatia. It was determined that MZ was a part of Croatia, and the article was updated with the sources. It seems that you didn't follow your own advice. Althouth Wikipedia isn't a source, I'll include the quote from that article since it's sourced there and has a whole discussion: "From 1850 the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia formally constituted a single land, but with separate administration and representation."95.168.105.14 (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What makes you claim he wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia, when even you refer to Military Frontier which says otherwise? Maybe you missed what Military Frontier states, but surely you have read the 2 Tesla biographies I posted above. Do you have any sources for your claim? Trimpops2 (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"The Croatian Military Frontier … came under the jurisdiction of the Croatian Sabor…. In 1627, they (the military zones) were placed under the direct control of the Habsburg military. For more than two centuries, they would retain complete civilian and military authority over the area, up to the abolition of the Military Frontier in 1881"

If any area is not controlled at all by a particular political entity (whether occupied or for other reasons), then for the duration it is not meaningfully part of that political entity. It may of course continue to be culturally part of the entity, and the entity may continue to claim the area. But we are addressing an English-speaking audience which wants primarily to know what the regime under which someone was born and raised was at the time, and where that is geographically now. Pincrete (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting historical sources and you are making conjectures wich form WP:SYNTH. It's ok to do it debates, but we can't put WP:SYNTH into article.

If any area is not controlled at all by a particular political entity (whether occupied or for other reasons), then for the duration it is not meaningfully part of that political entity. is purely your conjecture which is completely opposite to the above sources which state at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia. The provide was dependant and a part of. Opposite to your conjecture that it can't be a part of because it's dependant.

You are also neglecting the whole debate on Military Frontier article about whether MF was a part of Croatia, and it's consensus. The consensus based on sources is that "From 1850 the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia formally constituted a single land, but with separate administration and representation.". So, as you see Military Frontier and Croatia can be a single land , but with separate administration and representation, opposite to what you claim with If any area is not controlled at all by a particular... Trimpops2 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some editors from previous discussions who were pointing out WP:SYNTH problem when using historical sources and their argument that we should primarily base article content on Tesla biographies. This is why I didn't include historical sources and I have avoided to do WP:SYNTH based on them.Trimpops2 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

If any area is not controlled at all by a particular political entity (whether occupied or for other reasons), then for the duration it is not meaningfully part of that political entity. is not cojecture, it is the ordinary understanding in English of what being in a particular country/entity means. Someone born in America, includes that they were born in the area under US political control. If they were born in an area not under such control at the time, they weren't born in America! Whether the territory was not yet annexed, had seceded, was lost in war, or for other reasons is immaterial, they were born somewhere more specific, or other than 'America' in its political meaning. When we say someone was born in a paricular country, we are referring to the political regime in which they were born, as much as the geographical location. USSR, Greek Asia Minor, English lands in mainland France and elsewhere in Europe etc etc etc are all places where the regime has changed and it would be misleading to use present-day geographic descriptions to describe now-defunct or redefined regimes.

What does it add to the reader of an article about Tesla to get into debates about how Croatian the military frontier was? That info is best represented on the MF article, where its cultural character, history and administration can be covered in full for those interested. In what sense was the MF Croatian, if it wasn't under the control of a Croatian political regime at the time? Culturally, historically or linguistically perhaps, but that info is not conveyed to the reader by adding a link to a modern state. Pincrete (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

What does it add to the reader..., why are you arguing 2nd question when you have answered no to the first question? It's not needed.

is not cojecture. It is your conjecture, as we have sources that state the opposite At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

That info is best represented on the MF article. MF article already states that MF was a part of Croatia, so I don't understand why are you answering NO to 1st question and then saying that that info is best represented on the MF article. Obviously, that isn't the case, even in your example. Also, I disagree, Tesla was a notable person and his place of birth is best represented on this article. Far more people click on this article than on MF article. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what it means to say that MF was part of Croatia, but not under Croatian control (for many years)? There are parts of Asia Minor that some Greeks insist are Greek(but which have not been part of the recognised Greek state for many years), there are parts of former Yugoslavia which Serb mationalists insist always have been, and always will be Serb (but which are not at present under the control of Serbia). Ditto Albanian lands, parts of Ireland, all of Gibraltar, Falkland Islands and pretty much anywhere on the planet that is or was or has been disputed. Is that what we are talking about? If not what does it mean to say that his place of birth is part of a modern state, which did not exist at the time we claim he was born in it? I'm sure you mean something, but whether your meaning is conveyed by this text to the non-expert English reader is more questionable. Pincrete (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A country can define its inner relations any way it wants. Your examples are irrelevant. You can't compare those situation with 19th century Austrain Empire. There's no one set rule how a country can define its inner relations. On Wikipedia we go by the sources and the sources are quite clear. Austrian legislature clearly defines MF and what are its relations to Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. The problem here is that you find your interpretations as more important than what the sources are saying.

If Austrian legislature defined MF to be a part of Croatia-Slavonia, why are you arguing with me to explain it to you how it can be? The answer to you is, that it can be because that's how it's written in Austrain legislature. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If Austrian legislature defined MF to be a part of Croatia-Slavonia, why are you arguing with me to explain it to you how it can be?. Tesla was born in 1856, but "The Military Frontier was demilitarized on 8 August 1873. The Croatian Military Frontier existed until 15 July 1881, when it was abolished and incorporated into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" , so it was not part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, until 25 years after his birth. A country can define its inner relations any way it wants, yes of course it can, but it cannot (retrospectively?) dictate common English usage of common words. You still seem to want to claim the land was part of Croatia in some sense that isn't clear and appears to be counter-factual.

You are unable to say in what sense the MF was in Croatia (the modern state), but are adamant that it was and indifferent to clarifying the position of the CMF succinctly for the benefit of the English reader. Joy below acknowledges the problem and suggests using a "distinct historical term Croatia proper".

I could support saying that his place of birth was in the Croatian Military Frontier, but it is pure ahistorical nonsense to say he was born in a state that did not exist at the time of his birth. Oscar Wilde was not born in Ireland, in the modern meaning of the term. Boudica was an ancient Briton, but was not British in its current meaning, in both cases because the modern states simply did not exist in their lifetimes. Pincrete (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Tesla was born in 1856...Croatian Military Frontier existed until 15 July 1881...so it was not part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia This is WP:SYNTH based on your incorrect interpretation of historical sources.

MF was a part of Croatia before Tesla was born. MF article gives the year 1850, since then the new Austrian legislation had defined it as such. You are speaking of abolishment of military administration in 1881. That's something different from legal status.

You are unable to say in what sense the MF was in Croatia. I pointed to what sources say several times, and you have just ignored it. I posted 2 Tesla biographies and I pointed out what MF article says. Here is one more historical source from past discussios on how the Austrian legislature defined it. "Manifest...was signed by the Emperor...in 1850. For Croatian-Slavonian Military Border it was concluded...Croatian-Slavonian Military area will remain, as it was up to now, in union with it's mother land and will constitute with it one territorial area, but with separated provincial administration, separated border administration and separated represenation" M Valentić · 1978, page 48. Here Valentic provides a quote from Austrian legislature.

I don't even want to use historical sources , because of the problems of misintepretations. I just posted it to answer your question, but as I said several times, we should base article content on Tesla biographies, not WP:SYNTH interpretations of historical sources. So please, don't suggest that I'm making some kind of WP:SYNTH claims based on historical sources , just because I have answered you. I'm using strictly Tesla biographies without any potential misinterpretations of historical sources.

You are unable to say in what sense the MF was in Croatia. You are completely ignoring 2 Tesla biographies I posted in this RfC which do directly answer your question. Again read the sources from above: At that time, a portion of Croatia was the military frontier district of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the area was referred to as Vojna Krajina and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia

the modern state. Sources state that MF was a part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

I could support saying that his place of birth was in the Croatian Military Frontier That's true, but sources list MF as a part of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia.

to say he was born in a state that did not exist Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia very much existed. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's conclude this thread. You started with your conjecture on how a state can arrange it's inner relations. Then you went to use WP:SYNTH and misinterpretations of historical sources. You are constantly disregarding what 2 Tesla biographies are stating. You haven't based your claims on a single Tesla biography. You are mixing up 19th century Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia with modern Croatia. I think the closing admin will have enough info. Trimpops2 (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You still seem to want to claim the land was part of Croatia in some sense that isn't clear and appears to be counter-factual. No, I'm merely reporting what Tesla biographies are stating. You are the one making SYNTH claims opposite to the presented sources.

but it cannot (retrospectively?) dictate common English usage of common words Again, I'm just reporting what sources are stating. There are no problems with common usage, apart from your misinterpretations. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Just one correction. I should have refered to Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia instead of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Noone noticed, but just to be correct to the time period we are talking about. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Disregarding for a moment Trimpops2's specific phrasing, the existing phrase Foo, within Bar, in Baz (present-day Quux) actually has a link to the modern state of Quux. If we wanted to move away from that, linking the historical article that describes Bar combined with Quux would be the simple fix for both arguments (options #3 and #4 in the other subthread below). --Joy (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Joy, Binksternet, Chetvorno. You were very adament to point out WP:SYNTH in past discussions and not I don't see that you have done the same with Pincrete's comments. I'm asking you to stay objective even when it doesn't favor your stand. You were also adament that Tesla biographies should be used to build this article and not interpretations of historical sources. Again, you haven't mentioned that in Pincrete's thread. It's not just a "problem" to point out when it doesn't favor your opinion. Please comment on that. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't provided sources, since I am wholly reliant on those provided by the person(s) initiating the RfC. Therefore I cannot possibly have WP:SYNTHed the content of those sources. You repeatedly claim that sources say a certain thing but don't name the sources or quote specifically what is said in them, expecting us to believe unquestioningly the contents of the sources as you describe them. The Croatian Military Frontier article - which I can only assume to be correct, in the absence of sources contradicting it - says that the CMF was directly ruled by the empire, having been 'carved out' of the kingdom but distinct from the kingdom politically. You claim that it was somehow simultaneously in and of the kingdom. That is not even possible unless some 'joint rule' agreement exists.

Just as importantly, if it is acknowledged that Tesla was born in this anomalous historical entity called the CMF (now in modern Croatia) why does the reader need to know who historically laid claim to that entity, or indeed anything historically beyond minimal identification about what the CMF was and where it is now? The article is about Tesla, not about the region in which he was born and there is little to indicate the place of birth was of much importance to him or has been to his biographers. Pincrete (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I haven't provided sources, since I am wholly reliant on those provided by the person(s) initiating the RfC.. You are making opposite claims to the presented sources. You are repeadetly ignoring then and your claims are nowhere to be found in any of the presented sources.

Therefore I cannot possibly have WP:SYNTHed the content of those sources You have repeadetly used WP:SYNTH as I have pointed out. Not only used, but by using it , ignored the sources I pointed out and reached a wildly opposite conclusion.

You repeatedly claim that sources say a certain thing but don't name the sources or quote specifically what is said in them This is just crazy...I have pointed the sources in the RfC intro and I have provided the quotes. Then I have answered your repeadet WP:SYNTH claims with those quotes, and now you are saying I haven't named the sources and that I haven't provided the quotes???? Here are the diffs: RfC intro with sources and quotes [3]. Me pointing out RfC sources directly answering you [4], again quoting sources in my direct answer to you [5]. Again pointing and directly quoting sources in my answer to you [6].

The Croatian Military Frontier article The Military Frontier artilce already has Horvat source, which you are ignoring, and it has a whole debate whether MF is a part of Croatia which you repeadetly ignore. The debate ended up with entering Horvat into the article. What you are doing is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH by focusing on the military administrative aspect and ignoring the Horvat, Valenic and Hismus sources which are provided in this debate. You are cherry picking content from MF artice, using Wikipedia as a source and making WP:SYNTH claims from that, by ignoring every source provided in this discussion.

You claim that it was somehow simultaneously in and of the kingdom no I don't claim that. Read RfC intro and the sources again. As explained by all sources, CMF was a part of Kingdom of Croatia under military administration. Your own conjecture is that it can't be a part of if it's under military administration. Not supported by any source, and contrary to 5 listed sources in this discussion.

why does the reader need to know Of course, when so many argument and sources are against your view of 1st question, we come up to "why does the reader need to know". I have answered why. Because Tesla biographies are stating so. Ask O'Neill and Carlson. The real question here is why are you pushing for that content to be excluded when Tesla biographies state so and when so many sources do state YES to 1st question. I have also stated multiple other reasons why it needs to be included and I won't repeat them.

The article is about Tesla yes it is. His birthplace should be described per Tesla sources. Simple and consise as they do, and everything about your WP:SYNTH about "control" etc that your brought from MF article, reader can see on MF article. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hmm, this sounds like a continuation of other anonymous soapboxing from earlier this year. I suppose I'm happy that we were able to corral this at least, into a discussion of how to best present information from reliable sources, but it's still somewhat suspect because of the topic area. Perhaps we need to not limit ourselves to answering possibly tendentious anonymous trolling, and rather think of what's relevant to explaining Tesla's early years to the average English reader, not the average politically-motivated reader.

These places where Tesla grew up - Lika, Karlovac - are actually conventionally known as Croatia proper, and any politics are rather orthogonal to that. Missing that bit of context, while e.g. still listing the details of his siblings - never to be mentioned in the biography again - does seem a bit out of whack. We used to have a lot more random stuff in the early years section, it's improved since. I'm ambivalent about the phrasing proposed here because it's using the native term Vojna Krajina while we use English and say Military Frontier instead. --Joy (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In fact, the change could be much more subtle than adding another whole sentence, because our text currently says:

...village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia).

So we could just as well say:

...village of Smiljan, in Lika, Croatia, at the time within the Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire.

or:

...village of Smiljan, in Lika, at the time within the Croatian Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire.

or even:

...village of Smiljan, at the time within the Croatian Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire.

(The latter was previously proposed in a May '24 thread but without dropping the redundant part.) --Joy (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Those are all good suggestions. However, reading older discussions, I think that the sentence which uses the formulation "at that time" is much better, because many of users were using that terminology in the past discussions. The main points of discussions were about the territory "at that time", as simply saying Croatia nowadays was often interpreted, "but not Croatia at that time". In my opinion it's better to do it the way this 2 sources are presenting the info. It's consise and describes everything accurately.

I have also formulated this RfC in this special way with 2 questions. We must have a clear answer to first question before we can discuss the article content. This is a fallacy I often see on Wikipeida, most recently on Srebrenica Massacre article where people who deny the genocide had happened in Srebrenica were advocating the article shouldn't be renamed to Srebrenica Genocide, which is not objective. Some people who weren't denying the genocide had happened were supporting Srebrenica Massacre name based on common name argument, and I have nothing to complain there regarding objectivity. This is why I formulated this RfC with 2 questions. It's hard to discuss about article content if we don't agree on the 1st question of this RfC. This was the problem with past discussions which I'm trying to avoid. I would appreciate if everyone would follow the concept I have set up for this RfC. And I'd like to thank editors who voted so far for following the 2 question concept. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No, please don't bring in random discussions about whatever happens in other unrelated articles. Likewise, don't try to own the discussion format just because you started it - please read the policy on consensus. --Joy (talk) 08:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I can bring up examples from Wiki or outside Wiki to explain my position. No problems there really. Me starting RfC with 2 specific questions, explaining why I have choosen those questions, and asking others to answer has nothing to do with WP:OWN. I'm not acting like I'm OWNing, but rather I wanted to explain my position and motives. As I said, all your suggestions are good and I don't have anything against them. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Re: ..village of Smiljan, in Lika, Croatia How could Tesla be born in a state (modern day Croatia) that did not exist at the time of his birth? How could an average English-speaking reader, without local knowledge, deconstruct that. The suggestion is 'softened' by the second half at the time within the Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire, but the fundamental confusion remains. The other two suggestions seem fine on grounds of clarity and fulfil the 'then/now' criterion. Pincrete (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pincrete just like "Lika", "Croatia" is also an old geographical term, the confusion stems from it having a primary topic of a state today; we probably have thousands of such ambiguous references in Special:WhatLinksHere/Croatia (~94k total). Granted, there's a limit of how many new terms we should introduce per sentence, before it starts looking like a sea of blue links. If it's changed, I think I like the third option the best, as it's the most concise. --Joy (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I guessed that might be the case, however I think the reader would not necessarily be able to understand that a modern country name might also be an ancient regional name. This is a bit like 'Palestine' that has many meanings, political and geographic. Pincrete (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

The distinct historical term Croatia proper would make this more obvious, and it is in turn noted in the Lika and Military Frontier articles. Using the adjective "Croatian" is inherently less strictly connected to the state, as it's likely understood as more ambiguous by the average reader. So, adding that prefix to the MF link would seem to be just as helpful in order to introduce the term Croatia. On related note, we currently don't introduce the term Lika this early, hence the option #3 above. --Joy (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This just shows why the upper 2 Tesla biographies are better option. They mention modern day Croatia, as does the article, and in the second sentece they mention MF and its relation to Kingdom of Croatia and Slavonia. Mentioning modern day Croatia without adding the context this 2 sources do in the following sentece, is just confusing for the readers, as no other Wiki article is mentioning modern day country as the place of birth. It's irrelevant in which 21st century countries are the territories where Roman emperors were born. For Tesla, modern day Croatia is mentioned specially because of the context from the second sentence of 2 presented sources. It's confusing to use the 1st sentece and to ommit the context from the 2nd sentece. This is not done in any article on Wikipedia , hence 10 years of discussions and debates. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow this reasoning. There's plenty of biographies on Wikipedia where we say Foo was born in Bar, Baz (modern-day Quux). and the level of explaining the intricacies in the same paragraph varies per article. This is also fairly orthogonal to the proposals I laid out above, which are more about the Baz part in this case. --Joy (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have anything against your suggestions. All are factually correct, but I just think that two Tesla biographies are better option. There's no WP:SYNTH, the text is clear and understandable, and better represented in 2 senteces, one of which is already in the article. It accurately and consisely explains Tesla's birthplace. I was just saying that, when we have sources which explain the birthplace in 2 senteces, it's not objective to include one sentece and exclude the other sentece, specially because the 1st sentece can have double meaning. It can mean "born in what is today Croatia, but wasn't Croatia at the time Tesla was born", which some editors are arguing. And it can mean "born in what is today Croatia, and at the time of Tesla's birth was a part of Austrian Croatia". The second sentece explains that, and to exclude it and to claim the opposite is not what we do on Wikipedia if we are being objective. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Not all citing of sources is improper synthesis, WP:V doesn't require us to match source phrasing verbatim, rather it advises to summarize. It's not unreasonable for editors to say that the phrasing in both of those biographies is not concise enough for the encyclopedia biography. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. But the general info provided by the sources shouldn't be modified. None of your suggestions actually contain that info, although all are correct. It is WP:SYNTH to have sources with 2 sentences, then to exclude one of them from the article, then claim something which opposed that sentece. It was done deliberately against Wikipedia guidelines, because without that info one can claim that Tesla wasnt born in any variant of a political Croatia. I'm not set on the phrasing as long as the infos from the presented sources are present in the text. Your suggestiond , although are correct, are not containing info from the sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could reconsider your alternative suggestions thread, as it didn't get much traction. Only I and Pincrete participated in the talks, but haven't really agreed to any of your suggestions. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And if it's not concise enough, we can make it more concise, but sources mention Croatian Military Frontier to be a part of Kingdom of Croatia at the time Tesla was born. We can't remove disputed info on the basis that the phrasing needs to be concise enough. How about Smiljan, within the Croatian Military Frontier of the Kingdom of Croatia, in the Austrian Empire. Or we can completely remove Croatian Military Frontier since it is a part of Kingdom of Croatia and have. Smiljan, within Kingdom of Croatia in Austrian Empire. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Good lord, you're just continuing to add more and more walls of text. Please stop. --Joy (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Joy, I've previously missed your point above I'm ambivalent about the phrasing proposed here because it's using the native term Vojna Krajina while we use English and say Military Frontier instead. Yes I agree, we should use the term Wikipedia is using. I made a purposal, but the exact phrasing can be discussed, as long as it contains all info the sources present. As you stated WP:V doesn't require us to match source phrasing verbatim, rather it advises to summarize. I would suggest this 2 sentences to summerize: Nikola Tesla was born into an ethnic Serb family in the village of Smiljan, within the Croatian Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia). At the time of his birth Croatian Military Frontier was a dependent province held by the Austrian Empire as part of Kingdom of Croatia . post left unsigned by Trimpops2

• Yes to both. The sources are there and I'm not sure why RfC is needed for such a trivial thing. 5.39.134.145 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. There is no reason to emphasize Croatia in this manner. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  We don't have to add any particular emphasis, we just have to describe the geographic location in a less than unhelpful way. It's very mundane to say that this part of the Military Frontier was Croatian, not because of any political arguments, but simply because that factoid gives a better point of reference to the average reader, who may know a bit of geography to be able to place that, but isn't necessarily able to place all these other, more intricate toponyms. If adding an explanatory sentence can't be done without it being undue emphasis (?), I've noted other simpler solutions above. --Joy (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Although this user didn't answer the 1st question, from past discussions I can see comments like this This idea of yours is plainly wrong, that Tesla's birthplace was connected in any significant manner to Croatia.. [7]. By that logic, it's understandable that he has such a stand on the 2nd question. Joy, I don't know if arguing about the 2nd question is useful if the user has a strong NO stand on the 1st question. Binksternet, could you comment on 1st question, I have posted your past stand, but not to infer it, it would be good to comment. I don't think that this past stand of yours is supported by presented sources which do state and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. You have also complained in your previous posts that users were doing WP:SYNTH on historical source and that they haven't used Tesla biographies. This problem is not resolved. It would be great if you could recognize that. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

All of the Tesla biographies emphasize his Serbian heritage, culture and blood line. They place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. Croatian culture played very little role in Tesla's upbringing. His first schools were conducted in the Serbian variant of the Serbo-Croatian language, and then he attended Higher Real Gymnasium in Karlovac where German was spoken. Biographers such as Marc J. Seifer and John J. O'Neill describe Tesla as having come from Yugoslavia, which is what the area was called for seven decades. I don't see why Croatia alone should be emphasized when the area has gone through so many names. Seifer writes about how the Tesla family line came from Serbia, and how his father championed ethnic Serbian schools within Lika in modern-day Croatia, so that local Serbs could keep their culture apart from the Croats. The Military Frontier of Tesla's birthplace contained roughly equal numbers of Serbs and Croats. The majority of authors describe Tesla as Serbian (the "Serbian genius", for instance) or Serbian-American. Tesla accepted from Alexander I of Serbia the special title of Grand Officer of the Order of Sava. Tesla was 100% Serbian. I will not be budged on this point. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, most of this has literally nothing to do with this RfC and I won't bother answering. I'll only briefly say that Tesla was going to Croatian schools and was studying Croatian as native language. You can easily google his highschool diplomas. But this is not the topic of this RfC.

They place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. This is the fallacy that I pointed out in my RfC intro and several times in discussion. This interpretation is the best reason the 2nd question should be answered as YES. Because without the 2nd sentece from the sources , one can make that misinterpretation. You are ignoring sources I posted in my answer to you which read: and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your RfC is designed to funnel answers through your perspective. I will not do that. The question here is simply whether we "include that additional context" by emphasizing Croatia. Most of the literature about Tesla and his family de-emphasizes Croatia and instead underlines his Serbian heritage. So the idea of pushing more "Croatia" has no merit. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

To be polite, you are mistaken. This is the 2nd time that you have ignored the sources I pointed out. I've posted 2 sources and asked for content to be included. It couldn't be more by the book than that. The problem is that you disagree with sources, but have no sources of your own, but instead, you'd like to remove the content from the sources that you disagree with (this is called cherry-picking), so you could make claims that are opposite to that content, as you do, while attacking a perfectly fine RfC which should somehow benefit your stand. Totally flawed stand. Good luck with that. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be emphasis in describing where Lika is - in Croatia. The toponyms of "Lika" and "Croatia" have existed long before Tesla was born there, and before Yugoslavia existed. I don't quite understand why you'd want to relay basic information from biographers about his ethnic origin, but refuse to relay basic information from biographers about the geographic origin.

The idea that the biographers de-emphasize Croatia is apparently just flat out wrong, because we know from the aforementioned examples they don't omit it at all, rather they all explain it. The examples you mentioned, O'Neill and Seifer, aren't more authoritative than Carlson, and we've actually recently covered their very sloppy coverage of geography and history, in Talk:Nikola Tesla/Archive 12#"Min-Gag" et al and Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 16#ancestors and surname etymology. But even so, even these biographies don't shy away from explaining Lika and Croatia, so this is entirely moot.

Overall, there's no contradiction whatsoever between Tesla being 100% Serbian and having come from Croatia. To say otherwise seems to indicate a bias. --Joy (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They go from this position to their opinions in this RfC: Tesla was not touched by Croatia in any significant manner. [8]. Do you think you'll rationale with someone who has such position?Trimpops2 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the principle is to assume good faith. If you're entering this discussion without that, you're also in violation of the WP:ARBMAC standard of behavior. --Joy (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• No to both. Nothing new here. The existing text is fine, if people want to know about the Balkan history they can click the links. The article shouldn't become a WP:COATRACK for nationalist content. WP:LETITGO --Chetvorno^TALK 18:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Where do you get that Bernard Carlson and O'Neill are publishing nationalistic content? Those sources are extensively used in the article. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

And just a friendly advice to you and others who simply state NO to 1st question. It would be expected to provide some sources to back up your stand since it's opposing the presented sources. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Side discussion about pinging other editors

::Also, the same as IP [9] you shouldn't be soliciting others to join in such a way [10]. Consensus is not built by counting votes. You don't need others to post votes, you can post arguments and sources yourself. You should rather focus on my advice to back up your NO to 1st question with sources instead of soliciting others to vote. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC) And it's not objective to claim that IP has invalidated this RfC [11] by pinging others, when you have done the same before him. Better forcus on sources then to schemes like this "win" this RfC. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Joy you are admin. The IP has removed his comment pretty fast. Is the ping still visible to users who he pinged? I want this RfC proper and without such disruptions. Also, please comment on Chetvorno asking others to join through edit description. As I said, consensus is not built by the sum of votes, everyone can post sources and arguments themselfes and it will count. There's not need to solicit others to join. Trimpops2 (talk) 00:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Temporarily posted a list of Project:Serbia members, to balance the list of Project:Croatia members posted and then removed by 95.168.108.29 to attempt to restore some neutrality to this RfC. --ChetvornoTALK 01:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC) This is unbecoming of such a longstanding editor like yourself. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC) Since the crux of this issue is whether Tesla (or his birth place) is Croatian or Serbian, then it is perfectly acceptable to invite subject experts to join the discussion but in such a way that is an unbiased invitation. The simplest way to do this is to post a message at both WP:CROATIA and WP:SERBIA that there is a conflict and that subject experts would be welcome. But do not state your own position - just say there is a conflict. I can do this if you want since I don't have a position of my own.  Stepho  talk  01:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC) As I said, I don't think it's needed. Also, the "crux" of this issue isn't what you state here. Please read the RfC intro again. Trimpops2 (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC) I just thought that it would be helpful to ping WP:CROATIA editors. I didn't know it's prohibited. I removed the post very fast when Chetvorno said so. Now you tell me it's not prohibited? I don't know any of those editors. I didn't try to influence them in any way. I pinged them because they are probably more familiar with the history of Croatia. I didn't think that WP:SERBIA editors would have greater knowledge about the history of Croatia. I don't see how Croatian Military Frontier is related in any way to WP:SERBIA. It's not Croatia vs Serbia issue. I don't mind pinging WP:SERBIA as well. Anyone is welcomed. 95.168.108.29 (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC) For 20 years there has been a continuous edit war on this page, 95.168.108.29, between Croatian and Serbian nationalists over the sentence on Tesla's nationality. It got so nasty we had to move discussions of nationality and ethnicity to this separate talk page. The current wording was established by an RfC 8 June 2014 and been confirmed by another RfC 12 December 2018 and has been discussed continuously since then. Just last May two editors got banned permanently from Wikipedia for their disruptive comments on this page. Read WP:RfC and WP:CANVASSING. It is permitted to notify editors on Project pages of a Request for Comment, but it is a sensitive issue that must be done in a neutral manner to avoid all appearance that you are recruiting editors that support one side over the other. Obviously notifying editors on Project:Croatia and not Project:Serbia is not neutral, it is WP:VOTESTACKING. In this extreme case I feel notification is not needed; there is already a population of editors watching this page who have experience with this article and hopefully will express their opinion. I put a neutral announcement in one of my edit comments to alert them. --ChetvornoTALK 07:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC) All good arguments to have a proper RfC now. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes to 1 – The idea that Tesla wasn't born in Croatia is patently absurd and anyone suggesting otherwise is disqualifying themselves on the topic. Tesla was an ethnic Serb born in Croatia. Like many first generation diaspora, the man exhibited an affinity or appreciation for both his ethnic background and the country he was born in, and said as much when he ended up moving to the US and at other points in his life. The nationalist push tends to come from Serbian revisionists who think it has to be one or the other, and so entertain bizarre revisionist history about whether Croatia was or wasn't Croatia at various points, ignoring the fact that same logic would deny centuries of Serbian statehood and individual identity (given how long it was subjugated to the Ottoman Empire). The revisionism tends to cut one way, of course, but I digress. The dispute comes up outside the bounds of Wikipedia when, for example, Tesla was used on Croatian currency because the country considers him a historical Croatian figure, regardless of his ethnicity. (This analogy isn't perfect, but imagine if Welsh nationalists were upset to find out that Thomas Jefferson's image was used on US currency because he was a Welsh figure, and then began to argue he wasn't American because he was born in a British Colony, and therefore only the Welsh would be allowed to identify him as a national figure and it's nationalist propaganda to recognize Jefferson as American.)

However, No to 2 – This English language information page from the Nikola Tesla Memorial Center regarding his "homeland" [12] is thousands of words long and at no point folds back into relating how the place of Tesla's birth factors into his overall "life story", as it were. For the purposes of a website about Tesla's life and legacy, it's an tangent – interesting in its own right, but no more relevant for it. In the same way, there's nothing that suggests that affording the article more time to call attention to the geography of Tesla's place of birth will lead to anything immediately relevant. While I object to the way an editor suggested it's a WP:COATRACK for nationalist content, I'll independently suggest that it is just COATRACKing irrevelant content.

As far as the overall matter of Tesla's nationality and ethnicity, the article does look to have problems with POV, but to be honest, it's not really in the body of the article. It's a bit subtler at the bottom of the page – Tesla is included in 6 categories explicitly acknowledging his Serbian ethnicity, 8 explictly acknowledging his American identity, but only a single one acknowledging him as Croatian (the Serbs of Croatia category – in other words, implicitly suggesting he isn't Croatian?). I don't see any reason he wouldn't be included in similar categories as a Croatian engineer, Croatian inventor, etc. except as buying in to the Serbian revisionist idea that Serbian ethnicity is mutually exclusive from Croatian identity. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea that Tesla wasn't born in Croatia is patently absurd and anyone suggesting otherwise is disqualifying themselves on the topic. In what sense Croatia? The military frontier was directly ruled by the central Austrian authorities. A political regime called the Kingdom of Croatia existed along side the CMF, which the CMF was not part of. "Founded in the late 16th century out of lands of the Habsburg Kingdom of Croatia, it was initially a nominal part of that Kingdom, to be transferred in 1627 to direct imperial rule as part of the Military Frontier". That the place of his birth was historically known as the region of Croatia, may well be true, but is the sort of detail that has little bearing on identifying the regime Tesla was born in and the geographical location of that place now, which is what we ordinarily do. To do otherwise would lead to absurdities. Neither Solomon nor a modern Israeli were born in Palestine, irrespective of the historical name of the region for most of the last two thousand years.

I don't doubt the sources that say that the CMF was created out of the previous Croatian Kingdom, that the CMF eventually rejoined such a kingdom and the place has subsequently been incorporated into various Croatian political entities, including the modern state. But it is at best ambiguous, and at worst misleading, to claim that at the time of his birth the place was part of any political entity called 'Croatia'. Why would anyone even want to add that complication or 'lay claim to' an area directly ruled by Austria, and under very particular 'rules' at the time of his birth?

I haven't voiced any opinion on whether Tesla himself was in any meaningful sense Croatian since it's outside the scope of the RfC and because basically I don't know. But if sources and his own words don't identify him as Croatian, it would be pure WP:OR, based on a WP:FALSEBALANCE for us to do so either in text or categories. Pincrete (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The military frontier was directly ruled by the central Austrian authorities you already made a concession that a country can arrange inner relations any way it wants. Kingdom of Croatia existed along side the CMF, which the CMF was not part of, why are you still ignoring sources that directly oppose your claim??? and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. The source literally says "part of Croatia". in 1627 you are ignoring the sources that I pointed out. In 1850 the last legislature about MF was brought. You are still using WP:SYNTH which can't enter the article and when pointed out the flaws, you are just ignoring it and are repeating your own misinterpretations. But it is at best ambiguous, and at worst misleading, to claim that at the time of his birth the place was part of any political entity called 'Croatia' what is apsurt is that the source literally says so and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. It literally says "at the time of his birth" and it literally says "part of Croatia". It's pointless to discuss with you further. You have just repeated your previous points and I have now again repeated mine. Let's stop posting repeats and walls of text, it's not productive. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The 'country' that made the local political arrangements was the Austrian Empire, the ruling power. We can all play semantics ahistorically, Boudica was a Briton. A Briton is a citizen of the United Kingdom, therefore Boudica was a citizen of the UK (a country that didn't exist until one and a half millenia after she was alive!) I don't doubt that some sources may say that the CMF was part of Croatia, what you haven;t said and the sources themselves may not, is what Croatia means in this context. Croatia is simultaneously the name of a geographical region and the shorthand name of various historical political entities, including kingdoms and the modern state (much as Palestine or Britain or Ireland have been).

Equally important, what does this proposed addition add to our understanding of Tesla? He was born in an anomalous political entity ruled by Austria directly (which is now in modern Croatia). What does it add to our understanding of the man who claimed that anomalous entity in the centuries before or after the time he lived there? Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Tesla biographies clearly are speaking of political entities: and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. If you have doubts, I have pointed out Horvat and Valentic historical sources, but you have, of course, ignored it.

Here is one more historical source speaking of the same 1850 law: ...article 2 of the Fundational law for Military Frontier. In the first part of the formentioned article, the fundamentional law is taking over the clause from the Frontier constitution, that frontier and the provincial of the same name constitute together one land. [13] page 68. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Is someone born in Texas not a Texan because Texas is not independent and it would be original research to document him as such because we don't like the sources which do document him as such? Despite the fact publications from sources such as the New York Times, which is otherwise WP:RSP, identify Tesla as born in Croatian, you seem to think your logic is unquestionable when it does not make any sense whatsoever. In particular, please reconcile the following statements you've made as I don't understand why you think you're making a strong argument at all;

[1] I don't doubt the sources that say that the CMF was created out of the previous Croatian Kingdom, that the CMF eventually rejoined such a kingdom and the place has subsequently been incorporated into various Croatian political entities, including the modern state.

[2] We can all play semantics ahistorically, Boudica was a Briton. A Briton is a citizen of the United Kingdom, therefore Boudica was a citizen of the UK (a country that didn't exist until one and a half millenia after she was alive!)

with particular attention to the fact that Croatia as an independent entity existed both before and after Tesla was born, and existed as a non-independent entity recognized by the constituent empire it was a part of, and that Boudica died before the United Kingdom ever came into existence. I am not familiar with who is considered to be a 'Briton' beyond how you've defined it but it does not appear to me to translate or have any relevance to who is considered to be a 'Croatian'. 122141510 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

(Responding to a call to answer this question made on my talk) If someone were commonly referred to as Texan or Alaskan or Californian, then it would be apt for us to mirror that usage, we don't need to engage with pointless hypotheticals. Such terms would commonly be used for a variety of reasons, when for example the distinction is relevant/necessary, but that judgement is made by sources, not us.

It does not appear to be disputed that Tesla was born in the CMF, so for what good reason is much further detail required? Another editor (who I believe is Croatian and fairly conversant with Croatian history) has said that 'Croatia' has had several distinct meanings, as a region, as a kingdom and as the modern state. I have asked in what sense the sources endorse that Tesla was born in Croatia, or in what way they endorse that the CMF was actually in Croatia. So far there has been a deadly silence on that matter. We simply have the claim that sources say he was born in Croatia, contradicted by the CMF article which says that the CMF was outside of the simultaneously existing kingdom. Is the CMF like Schrödinger's cat that it can simultaneously be inside and outside of Croatia? I mentioned Britain and Britons because these are words that have had multiple distinct meaning in their long history of use (ditto Rome, Ireland, Palestine, other regions) and inapt use of distinct meanings easily produces self-evidently ridiculous assertions as the 'Britons' example shows.

I came here to respond to an RfC, I am dependent on info and sources provided by the participants, and the relevant articles. My judgement is that no useful purpose is served by exploring in this article the fairly obtuse question of whether Tesla was born in Croatia, or in what sense he was was born there. Article links give readers ample oppurtunity to explore the status of the CMF. I have given my opinion in good faith, you are free to disagree. Please don't badger me further on this topic. Pincrete (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have asked in what sense the sources endorse that Tesla was born in Croatia, or in what way they endorse that the CMF was actually in Croatia. So far there has been a deadly silence on that matter.. You were provided with quotes from 5 sources. We simply have the claim that sources say he was born in Croatia No, direct quotes were provided. contradicted by the CMF article which says that the CMF was outside of the simultaneously existing kingdom False, MF article places MF as a part of Croatia. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• No to both. I don't believe there is a need to emphasize this.

🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 14:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to both. No one has posted anything that would challenge posted sources. Wikipedia is built on sources, not opinions.31.217.16.206 (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Trimpops2 I would just like to say , great job with the 2 question approach. As IP above said, no one yet posted anything to support their disagreement with 1st question. 95.168.116.17 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, but the approach is based on sources. Arguing to remove the 2nd sentece given by sources, with the purpose of deliberately misinterpretating the 1st sentece is directly against Wiki guidelines. The same goes others , but Binksternet literally claimed They place Tesla in Croatia only because that's what it is called today. after I pointed the source out to him: and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia. This is a big no-no on Wikipedia. The same goes for other votes without sources. And this is done by editos with multiyear presence on this article. Binksternet has been on Wikipedia for 17 years. He knows that, but he still went and did it. No wonder why there are 10-20 years of disputes! If we'd have a formal closure today, I'd be very surprised if that kind of logic would consist a consensus. They can have a hundred votes NO, it doesn't matter against a single vote backed up by sources. I told them that in my response to Chetvorno. For now he and others ignored it. Let's see how it plays out. My only problem here is that I post too much and repeat myself. But it's frustrating when an editor with 17 years of experience on Wikipedia so deliberately ignores the source I pointed him out and makes such claims. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No need for ad hominem attacks here—such a tactic shows weakness.

I was merely pointing out your flawed stand. If you though it was an ad-hominem attack, I appologize, but I should be free to point out such flawed stands. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying your argument is based on sources (going back to 2020 when you were using Croatian IPs), but you aren't the sole contributor with sources at hand. Per WP:LEAD, the way we compose the lead section is by summarizing all the best sources. It is NOT composed by cherry-picking sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When I pointed out your flawed stand, you are pulling cherry-picking out of the hat without any arguments. And I'm now supposed to have the whole burden of proof how it's not cherry picking? Ok, I'll answer briefly. I have went through past discussions and this sources are all that describe Tesla's birthplace in relation to Croatia. No other sources that I found oppose. You are free to post them, but of course you haven't. The sheer "out of the hat" arguemnt of cherry picking is just showing how you are fishing for reasons, when in fact the real reasons are the ones you stated in your previous comment. Furhtermore, there are 2 editors who were present in past discussions going back 10-20 years, none of which agree with me, and they haven't pointed out cherry-picking. Very strong evidence that there was no cherry-picking. Out of many editors who participated so far, you are the only one who brought cherry-picking, and of course you haven't provided any backing for such claim. I think I have enough here. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

the way we compose the lead section is by summarizing all the best sources. If you have answered YES to 1st question and said NO to 2nd with this argument that would be different. Your problem here is that you are disputing 1st question which is backed by sources with arguments like this. Yes, of course your opinion would be that other sources which mention only 1st sentece are better, then you can make misinterpretations you did in your previous comment. I think I have enough, unless you again bring some new argument out of the hat. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud, it's such a great job, it enabled us to have this huge, largely unwieldy and at times incoherent discussion. I'm sorry, but this smells like a WP:SOCK violation. --Joy (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely not to both. Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing, which is well-known and more importantly, per bibliography. There have been numerous attempts similiar to this one, with sole goal being to emphasize Tesla's relation to Croatia or Croatians and that is WP:POV and WP:OR. This is not a neutral RfC and I'm surpirsed that it was not stopped days ago. WP:TEXTWALL is not helping this case. Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 21:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are some sources to dispute you. Tesla himself said "I was born in Croatia" [14]. Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier, this is not challenged by anyone and it's ridiculous to claim that Croatian Militaty Frontier has nothing to do with Croatia, even going solely by the name, let alone noting secondary sources above which describe the relation between Croatian Military Frontier and Croatia. You can also easily google for his passport and see that it was issued by the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia. It's ridiculous to say what you say and disregard all this. 95.168.107.4 (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

" Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing, which is well-known and more importantly, per bibliography." Croatia was the place he was born, lived in, and expressed a fondness and appreciation for later in his life, and the country recognizes him as a national symbol, including putting him on currency and there is a Memorial Center for him in the Croatian village which is entered into the Registry of Cultural Goods of the Republic of Croatia. Accusing the RfC of being non-neutral for discussing the merits of incorporating it into the article is not reasonable, and dismissing a difficult conversation as a wall of text isn't reasonable either – that you might be uninterested or unwilling in reading isn't sufficient to suggest no one else will, and TEXTWALL is itself an essay (and more importantly: not policy). AVNOJ1989 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Every single point which you raise has been refuted in the past. I have in fact read the whole conversation and I do find it interesting, so to say. Additionaly, editor Binksternet has rebuted all these claims quite easily.

Tesla's courtesy in personal correspondence with one Croatian poltiican (who was the first to use the same phrase about homeland) has been abused by some circles and individuals for decades. The fact remains that Croatia was not an independent state for some staggering 900 years and that Tesla's and his family's relation to it was, like it or not, quite limited, and that has nothing to with decisions made by one state or another to proclaim a historical figure to be their own. That's not my opinion or POV, it is per bibliography and references which we are currently using. That will be all from my side. WP:LETGO. Best. — Sadko (words are wind) 22:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If I felt anything I've said here has already been refuted I wouldn't have said them. Most of the arguments in the history of this talk subpage are not so much refutations as flamewars and historically confused back and forth, with your The fact remains that Croatia was not an independent state for some staggering 900 years being a decent example of that. It's not exactly incorrect, but bringing it up as if it refutes or speaks to anything in the conversation so far is confused. The situation Croatia was in as part of Austria-Hungary for the majority of the period of time is not unlike, for example, the subjugation and dissolution of Serbia under the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years in a row – I do not think we see any editors here attempting to negate Tesla's Serbian ethnicity because the idea of Serbian ethnicity was diluted under Ottoman empire, and I would be among the first to strongly object if anyone were to attempt to make such an argument. In the meanwhile, Croatia was never quite in as much a dire circumstance under the empire it was a constituent element of, so attempting to negate Tesla's Croatian character on the basis of ..an implication, I guess? that Croatian statehood was non-existent during the period Tesla was born invites objections along similar lines. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Mute point from previous discussions which he admitted were flawed, but is still repeating that flawed points. No one ever claimed Croatia was independent and the RfC clearly places Kingdom of Croatia within Austrian Empire. It's just a digression and something not worth discussing. They are just fishing for any reason they can. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

AVNOJ1989, do you see why this info is needed in the article? Now when sources have appeared that describe the relation of MF to Croatia, this editors would like to cherry pick one sentece and remove the other from the article to make claims like this.

Great point by IP. Joy, I would argue that this users who voted NO would also claim that Tesla wasn't born in Croatian Military Frontier. This shouldn't be contested at all, Lika was in Croatian Military Frontier, a subdivision of MF. And you can easily find Tesla's documents with Croatian Military Frontier written on, but I'll ask directly and you'll see that they won't even accept that. Sadko, please answer, do you accept that Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier? Trimpops2 (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Sadko weren't you banned from the WP:ARBMAC topic area a while back? Was this rescinded?

Suffice it to say that making these haughty claims about almost non-existing relation for Croatia is likewise applicable to Serbia, and focusing on only one like this reeks of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts. --Joy (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Correct.

The RfC is not about Serbia, now is it? That alone makes me wonder why would you make that bad comparison... Also, please assume good faith and do not present your impressions about other editor's intentions like facts. It's not okay. On a related noted, let's see, please, three separate topics which aim to highlight Tesla's connection to one group or political entity (which did not exists independently at the time) are opened within weeks, several IPs are commenting and backing each other: is that reeking of anything? My comments are per facts, bibliography and per WP:CIVIL and that's all which is important. I have stated my opinion, like a number of other editors, and there will be no back-and-forth on this one, no thank you. Have a good one. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted that Tesla himself has said "I was born in Croatia", and you will anyways stand by Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing? I even podted his passport issued by Croatia. Yes, you can state your opinion , but you are ignoring this compelling primary sources and every single secondary source from this RFC. Not something we do when building Wikipedia. I don't think such opinion will mean much for the end consensus. 95.168.121.44 (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Tesla didn't grow up in one meaning of "Croatia", but did in another meaning of "Croatia". He wasn't "Serbian" in one meaning, but was "Serbian" in another meaning. The comparison is actually quite relevant. --Joy (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• No to both. This is an article about Tesla and not about the Austro-Hungarian administrative division or the history of Croatia. The current level of detail is sufficient. Alaexis_¿question? 09:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The suggested content comes directly from Tesla biographies. You may think it's not needed, but the fact is that Tesla biographies state it. They state it briefly and the history of Military Border has its own article. On Wikipedia we summarize secondary sources, we don't cherry pick content we think it's significant, but leave it for secondary sources to make the determination what's important, relevant or sufficient. Especially in this specific case where sources are describing birthplace in 2 sentences where one of that 2 sentences is already cherry picked to the article and other deemed as not important in your opinion, despite the fact that this second sentence directly disputes your opinion on whether Tesla's birthplace was a part of Croatia. We don't cherry pick sentences out of context on Wikipedia.95.168.121.44 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already made this same exact arguments to others, no need to repeat it for everyone. The closing admin will sort it out. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• No and No. Just a push to insert dubious pseudo-history with a nationalistic bent. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

• Yes to both It looks like editors with previous involvement are all voting no. I haven't been involved prior. I'm not familiar with Tesla at all, but from what I can see, sources do support this suggestion. Is it possible to have any reason why some are voting no without any reasoning? I'm having trouble understanding that. For instance, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, why is it dubious pseudo-history with a nationalistic bent? It is well sourced. I really don't see any problems with sources. The article has 19 references to O'Neill and 62 references to Carlson. How is it then dubious pseudo-history with a nationalistic bent? Those are reputable sources. There are also numerous NOs, also without any reasoning or explanation. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  77.71.168.18 I included some other sources below, see Other sources, and also discuss why I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr that this is a "push to insert dubious pseudo-history". This single insignificant sentence has been argued about on this page continuously for 20 years, by nationalists. Look at the huge "walls o' text" that have been written on this page and it is obvious that some editors don't have a WP:Neutral point of view coming to this subject. The current wording, established by an RfC 8 June 2014, was confirmed by another RfC 12 December 2018. --Chetvorno^TALK 19:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• No to both The reading of Carlson is ambiguous. Certainly I read "At that time, a portion of Croatia" as refering to Croatia in the present, which would just bolster the argument for the current wording. The other sources is not new or anything that has come up in the last 10yrs, as it was published in 1944. As such there's no reason to change the current wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If you say Carlson is ambiguous, why are you dismissing O'Neill? To that, is being ambiguous the reason to say that the text is inaccurate? I personally don't find it ambiguous at all. At best, taken as is, it isn't correct to imply that ambiguity equals inaccuracy. What I mean, wouldn't be a better way be consider what O'Neill is saying to resolve ambiguity instead of dismissing it? This is at best an argument about which end text to have in the article O'Neill over Carlson. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure we should use O'Neill as it is 80 years old, see WP:AGEMATTERS, and at least contradicted by newer sources.

Carlson 2013 says on page 3 "Tesla had been born in 1856 to a Serbian family in Smil-jan, a small mountain village on the military frontier of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (in what is now Croatia)", this gives extra wait to the read that "At that time, a portion of Croatia" seen on page 13 should be seen as Croatia in the present tense. On its own it's ambiguous and ambiguity doesn't imply inaccuracy, but I don't believe the ambiguity resolve in the way you believe it does.

In addition Cheney, Uth & Glenn 1999 page 143 clearly says that "he was born in the area that today is called Croatia". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

O'Neill is used. As I said there are 19 references to O'Neill. WP:AGEMATTERS states: With regard to historical events, older reports, tend to have the most detail. There are no problems with O'Neill reporting historical events from 19th century in regard to WP:AGEMATTERS.

I think the opposite just by reading this 2 sentences from Carlson and O'Neill. They are speaking of today's Croatia in the first sentence when they say "todays" and they are speaking about Croatia in the 19th century when they say "at that time". Both terms are just saying Croatia. We can't just dismiss what they are saying about 19th century Croatia. I would say that in the first sentence the are speaking about today's republic of Croatia and from the second they are speaking of Austrian sub-kingdom of Croatia. The only other explanation would be that they are speaking of geographical terms as said by some others. O'Neill is definitely not using geographical term since he said "dependent province...as part of Croatia". This is speaking of a province being a part of another province. We also have some sources brought from Military Frontier article. There are 3 in this discussion. How have you evaluated them? 77.71.168.18 (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I disagree with you reading of Carlson and your reliance on O'Neill. I don't think there's much more to say here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

That's ok. I just wanted to know how you evaluate your view in regards to all sources we have here. As I understand , you find Carlson ambiguous, you are completely disregarding O'Neill because on the grounds it's too old. You didn't answer about your view on other sources. I countered with O'Neill being extensively used in the article. With WP:AGEMATTERS quote explaining that older sources on history matters can be used, and are sometimes of more value. With an explanation why Carlson isn't ambiguous neither as standalone, neither together with O'Neill and other sources. And with an argument that we can't draw opposite conclusions, if we find a sentence ambiguous, but rather search what other sources say, or use other sources, like O'Neill. Thank you for your explanation. I don't know why other's didn't provide any at all. Based on my reasoning, I will stay with my stand. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've stated how I've evaluated the sources, both the two presented here and the additional one found in the article used for this issue. The Carlson sentence is ambiguous, but his opinion from the rest of the work isn't. Cheney, Uth & Glenn 1999 are far more modern than O'Neill so I think their work is more relevant. That you don't like that evaluation is also again clear, and I have no intention of trying to change your mind. But I have given reasons for my evaluation and detailed the other source used in the article as to why I believe my reasoning is correct.

If you want to present other sources I would be happy to try and analyse them as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I just don't understand how can you answer either yes or no if you find one of 5 sources in this discussion ambiguous. Your argument goes towards not using O'Neill, but that's for a different discussion which you can initiate, but if O'Neill is used, I don't see why not use it in this case. Yes, it's better for 3rd party to assess this. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 16:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent my point on the sentences ambiguity, the point is that it's doesn't read the way the origin post represents it as shown by Carlson's writing elsewhere in the work. The ambiguity only comes from taking in isolation, and only then can it be misread in the way suggested by the original poster.

If you wish to present new sources please do, but nothing shown shows any need to change the current wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I just provided my review of presented sources. We obviously disagree. Best to leave for uninvolved party to review. However, if you start a new discussion about removing O'Neill from the article, please ping me. I'd like to provide my opinion on that. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

This started with you disagreeing with my review of the sources, I never replied to your review of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Although it would be helpful to hear from the original IP poster (who started the thread), and see if they have any update. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, now that we mention it, the date on the Carlson biography is 2013, and the previous RFC was in 2014, so technically none of this is new? :)

This all just continues to illustrate how it's fairly pointless to focus on the largely tendentious phrasing of an RFC and this largely arbitrary choice of sources, sentences, individual terms. --Joy (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As I see, the question phrasing and proposal is just copied from O'Neill and Carlson. Can you explain how can that be arbitrary? Maybe sources themselves are arbitrary chosen, but then, if you are aware that sources are arbitrary chosen, you should back up your statement with other sources. Just to say so, but not provide other sources which are explaining birthplace at that time in relation to Croatia, I can't form any opinion on that. I'm willing to change my opinion if you can prove to me that sources are arbitrary chosen. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Other sources: Here are some of the reasons I think this RfC should be rejected. While the two sources given at the beginning, O'Neill and Carlson biographies, support the changes requested, other biographical sources support our existing wording and do not say that Tesla was born in "Croatia" or the "Croatian Military Frontier":

• "Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb within the Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire ..." Emory Clark, The Biography of Nikola Tesla
• "Tesla was born to Serbian parents in what was then the Austrian Empire (now in Croatia)" Encyclopaedia Britannica online
• "Nikola Tesla was born a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire..." Tesla: Life and Legacy, PBS
• "Tesla... was born to Serbian parents near the western edge of the Austro-Hungarian Empire..." Margaret Cheney, Roger Uth, Tesla: Master of Lightning, p.3

These are substantially identical to our existing wording: "Tesla was born... within the Military Frontier of the Austrian Empire (present day Croatia)..." Military Frontier was the legal designation for the area while "Croatia" was not, it is a controversial term that is arguable. This is probably why the above sources do not use it. This is an encyclopedia article, not a biography; we don't need to include all the statements about Balkan history that O'Neill and Carlson make. We should keep the current fully verifiable wording which acknowledges Croatia adequately, and leave the discussion of Balkan history to the appropriate pages; readers can click the links.

Our single sentence on Tesla's nationality has been argued over on this page for 20 years (see the 16 huge archives above) by nationalists on both sides who want to "claim" Tesla for their countries. The current wording, established by an RfC 8 June 2014, was confirmed by another RfC 12 December 2018 and since then has been discussed continually on this page, without a consensus for changing it. Time to let it be. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

"Croatia" is not a controversial term, it's just an ambiguous term. When reliable sources don't mention it and instead mention something less ambiguous, there's no reason to believe that anything weird is going on there. The weird part here is how both the '14 RFC and the '18 one were started by editors who have since been blocked, and this one appears to fit the same mold. Just because we have these various anonymous trolls yanking our chain that doesn't mean we should start inventing controversy where there is none. --Joy (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to attack other editors. I can somewhat agree with Chetvorno that it's controversial and even you are acknowledging many previous RfC's. Please refer to WP:AFG before calling other editors trolls. I have asked you several questions and you have instead chosen to write such a comment. There is no need for personal attacks. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bilseric, is that you again? Come on now. --Joy (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if there's quacking it's best to leave such comments to SPI/ANI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. This kind of talk is inappropriate for talk page. I see you have employed it several times up to now. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

However WP:BLUDGEON would be worth a read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Chetvorno. I do still think that O'Neill and Carlson are the only sources speaking of relation to Croatia. To be fair, this RfC is asking whether that relation should be mentioned, and you are here arguing that it shouldn't. I don't think we should speculate why this sources are not mentioning the relation to Croatia, but they don't. However, I don't understand why you voted negative to first question. I don't think we should disregard that some sources are mentioning relation to Croatia and some don't. It would be fair to note that and still have an opinion that you are sharing now. My answer to you is. If we are going to mention modern day Croatia, we need to use O'Neill and Carlson to explain the relation to Croatia at that time. However, if we use different source and sentence that isn't mentioning Croatia, like "near the western edge of the Austro-Hungarian Empire" then we don't need to mention relation to Croatia as the relation to present day Croatia isn't given and no further explaining is needed. For the first question, I will have to stay by O'Neill and Carlson and say yes. I hope that is fair, and I hope to hear your explanation of why you have voted negatively to first question. I don't see any reason given by anyone to have a negative opinion on the first question, apart from editor ActivelyDisinterested, whose point I don't really understand nor agree with. Based on your reasoning here, and I correct to say that you should be satisfied with the positive result to first question and negative to second? Something only one editor has favored so far. Maybe that would be the best compromise? 77.71.168.18 (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll briefly repeat what I and others have said: While the two sources given at the beginning, O'Neill and Carlson biographies, support the changes Thank you for this concession. other biographical sources support our existing wording and do not say that Tesla was born in "Croatia" or the "Croatian Military Frontier" Other sources don't go into such details. But, it's OR to claim why those sources don't go into such details by saying This is probably why the above sources do not use it.. And it's certaily OR to "read between lines" and claim that Carslon and O'Neill are wrong, because other sources don't go into such details. Our single sentence on Tesla's nationality has been argued over on this page for 20 years this is just an argument why the additional context from Carlson and O'Neill is needed in the article. You and others who are making claims opposite to Carlson and O'Neill by cherry picking sources which don't go into such details and making OR claim that the reason they don't go into such details is because MF was not a part of Croatia is why we had 20 years of discussion. Let's stop acting like it's such a big problem to add a single sentece to the article, especially after admitting that the two sources given at the beginning, O'Neill and Carlson biographies, support the changes. No, the real problem here is obvious. This sources state something you oppose, but since you can't support your opinion with sources, you are choosing to cherry pick sources with less info and make claims that are directly disputed by O'Neill and Carslon. I would be very surprised if this single sentece which is directly answring the question that was disputed for 20 years isn't accepted into the article based on reasoning which directly clashes with Wiki guidelines. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment On the 'vague' point. As I see, only 2 editors had such points, but it's worth adressing. From the context, it's clear that authors are speaking of birthplace in the context of political countries/provinces. Carlson's first sentece is already linked in the article, as the context is clear. O'Neill also has the exact first sentece. O'Neill is even more explicitly explaining that he is speaking of political provinces. He saying province of Lika, and that it's a dependent province held as a part of...from context, obviously , part of another province. Carlson is less explicit, O'Neill is more explicit. I even see that 1 of the users who was having problems with vague term, had only complained about Carlson. Not making a point that O'Neill is vague. I didn't want to use sources from MF, but here I'll mention that Horvat from MF states: From 1850 the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia formally constituted a single land, but with separate administration and representation. From there it's even more clear that Croatia refers to Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia to Kingdom of Slavonia and Frontier to MF. Valentic is speaking of mother land Croatian-Slavonian Military area will remain, as it was up to now, in union with it's mother land and I found another that is more explict: article 2 of the Fundational law for Military Frontier. In the first part of the formentioned article, the fundamentional law is taking over the clause from the Frontier constitution, that frontier and the provincial of the same name constitute together one land. Looking at all this as a whole, there's consistency and all 5 sources agree. Lastly, I don't have anything against mentioning Croatia as ambiguous term and left for later resolution, but I think it needs to be mentioned because Carlson and O'Neill found it was needed to further explain the 1st sentece and the article contains that exact 1st sentece. Editors are making different conclusions from that 1st sentece and no one was complaining about how vague that sentece is standalone without further explanation given by O'Neill and Carlson. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

  When Carlson says 'in Croatia' he is referring to the country as it currently exists. This is clear from the fact that just a few pages earlier he says "Tesla had been born in 1856 to a Serbian family in Smil-jan, a small mountain village on the military frontier of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (in what is now Croatia)". Only by focusing on the sentence as originally presented without any context can it be read as meaning that it was in Croatia at the time. The author is expecting that readers will read through the book in order, and understand that the second mention is shorthand for what has already been explained. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I've just read all your comments and nowhere have you argued that Croatia is vague because it can mean 2 things: Kingdom of Croatia and Croatia proper which is a gephraphical term. I was answering that point above.

Your point is different. You are arguing that Carlson is always speaking of Republic of Croatia when saying 'Croatia'. However, he is using descriptions to make it clear about which period he is speaking about. He is saying 'in what is now' and 'in what is today' when speaking of 21st century and he is saying 'at that time' when speaking of 19th century.I don't think there's much more to add or discuss about Carlson. Better than to discuss what Carlson meant, is to look at what other sources are stating. O'Neill is even more explict: at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slavonia. This sentece is clearly in the 19th century speaking of Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia. You also have 3 historical sources, 2 from MF article and one I found, in my previous comment. Please consult other sources if you have problems with Carlson. That's the best argument I can give to your point. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My arguments are based solely on what the sources say. As to O'Neill as I said above there are multiple newer academic sources, and we should use those rather than a source from 1944. Especially if that is the only source that can be found to back up the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Your argument is your view of what Carlson is saying and neglecting what O'Neill and other 3 sources are saying. IP already told you and I'll briefly repeat in my own words. Your standpoint is flawed because you ignored O'Neill and 3 historical sources when reaching your conclusion. There are no other sources which oppose the info provided by Carlson and O'Neill. There are only sources that provide less info. You are free to argue on the 2nd question regardless and opt to have less info in the article. I already made my points why this additional context is needed, and your standpoint just proves my point. Without this additional context, editors are making opposite claims and the article is confusing readers. Just from this discussion it can be seen how many editors made the opposite claims to the presented sources, and have provided exactly 0 sources and quotes of their own. Sources with less info are not opposing sources with more info on the grounds that they have chosen to provide less info. We can't do OR and conjecture why they have provided less info. It's OR to enter into the article sources with less info and arguing something opposite to what the sources with more info are stating. Chetvorno, this is a clear case of OR This is probably why the above sources do not use it. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring sources, I'm prioritising more modern ones. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources which don't go into such details as Carlson and O'Neill can't be used to disprove info provided by Carlson and O'Neill. It's OR to speculate why those sources don't mention such details. If you want to claim something opposite , you need sources which explicitly say so, not sources which don't go into such details and make your own conjectures and OR. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm only claiming that the current wording is matched by the sources, and the sources presented here don't show any need to change that wording. It is up to any editor wanting to change the current wording to find sources justifying that change, not mine.

I have not claimed something other than what an aithor has written, I've said that the OP's interpretation of those words is wrong. That's not OR for multiple reason not least if which is that Wikipedia policies apply to Wikipedia, not sources or put evaluation of them. For instance if a historian wrote a blog post that would otherwise be unusable for the verification of content, it could still be used for their expert opinion in evaluating a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not claimed something other than what an aithor has written Then change your answer to 1st question to YES. Carlson and O'Neill contain that context, while other sources don't go into that level of explaining. We can decide between more info and less info, but we can't decide to have less info and claim something opposite to the sources with more info. Additionally, if so many people are so confused with the wording provided by sources with less info , so much so, to reach a totally opposite conclusion then what O'Neill and Carlson provide, then I'm using that as an argument that we need that one additional sentence from Carlson and O'Neill.

We aren't having so much intense discussion whether the reader can take one more additional sentece or not. We are arguing so much because some editors are claiming something totally opposite to Carlson and O'Neill: he wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia, Tesla's relation to Croatia in any way, shape or form is almost non-existing, dubious pseudo-history with a nationalistic bent, The point is that Croatia had minimal effect on Tesla's life and career.... The problem is that they don't have any source to back those claims, but are arguing that those claims are true and that the article doesn't need the info from Carlson and O'Neill. This is the definition of OR.

Pushing sources with less info to claim something opposite than sources with more info provide, isn't something we do on Wikipedia. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Then change your answer to 1st question to YES. No, what are you talking about that's a complete non sequitur. If I believe the OP is wrong in their reading of Carlson, why would I change my answer to yes. Carlson does not contain that context, as per my previous points. Claiming it does is a mistake. I am not ignoring O'Neill in any way, what is happening is that you are ignoring the other sources that have been presented.

Noone is confused with the current wording, the issue is that some don't like it.

he wasn't born in any variant of a political Croatia... No idea where you quote comes from, but it wasn't me. Also it doesn't matter the only thing that does is the current wording and the suggested wording. But you appear to be saying that we need sources to say we shouldn't use certain sources, this is reductive and simply not how it works. It's also has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OR.
Per the WP:OR policy Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. So unless you can point to content in the article, or content that is being suggested for inclusion in the article, that policy isn't relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

why would I change my answer to yes. Because of O'Neill and other 3 historical sources. O'Neill is to old for you , so somehow that makes it ok to make an opposite claim then stated by O'Neill. You didn't even touch on other 3 sources. what is happening is that you are ignoring the other sources that have been presented. No, they don't speak of MF relation to Kingdom of Croatia. I can't conjecture why. That's OR. If they don't speak of it, I can't use them to answer that question. The same as I can't use the Harry Potter novel to say: see, it doesn't speak of MF being a part of Croatia, it must not have been a part of. No, that's OR. Noone is confused with the current wording, the issue is that some don't like it. I provided quotes. No idea where you quote comes from, but it wasn't me Those are the quotes. Also it doesn't matter It does matter. We don't build Wikipedia on OR. Those claims are OR , but as we can't enter OR into the article, the next best thing is to remove some of the context the sources provide and/or cherry pick sources with less context, say that this context isn't needed and claim something opposite on talk page. But you appear to be saying that we need sources to say we shouldn't use certain sources I said, if we talk about MF relation to Croatia, then we need sources which speak of that relation. To use sources that don't speak of that relation and make conjectures and conclusions is OR and/or SYNTH. Trimpops2 (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

O'Neill is to old for you , so somehow that makes it ok to make an opposite claim No I've looked at the other sources. I'm going to stop responding now, as you just continuing to apparently deliberately misrepresent what I've said.

And no you understanding of policy is still wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No I've looked at the other sources This is called cherry picking. Those sources don't provide any wording on the relation between MF and Croatia and you can't use them to answer that question. Clear case of OR/SYNTH. That's why cou can't provide any quotes that directly answer the question. Your only objection about O'Neill is that it's too old (although it's extensively used in the article already). And other 3 historical sources you completely ignored. I think I have enough here. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we get some administrator intervening here? I am reading this and this Trimpops guy is badgering others for not agreeing with him, misrepresnting others' views, telling others what they should think and repeating himself over and over and spamming the page with text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.139.121.219 (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Final words pending formal closure

People have strong opinions on this question, and have used a lot of non-sequitors, OR, SYNTH and other flawed standpoints as pointed out in the discussion above, so in my final words, I'd like to focus on the sources presented. Looking at sources, there are only 5 sources which deal explicitly with the question (quotes from all 5 are provided), 2 are reputable Tesla biographers, Carlson and O'Neill , sources which are extensively used in the article. Other 3 are historical sources, 2 brought from MF article and one additional source that I found. Note that a discussion about the similar question has already happened on MF article, and the consensus was that: From 1850 the Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia formally constituted a single land, but with separate administration and representation. The 3rd historical source is a good source to complement Carlson and O'Neill: that frontier and the provincial of the same name constitute together one land. Sources presented by Chetvorno don't explicitly answer the question, but provide less info than Carlson and O'Neill. However, it's OR to claim what Chetvorno has claimed: This is probably why the above sources do not use it.. What we can summize is only that those sources opted to use less info. My opinion is that we can't use those sources to answer the question, because it would be OR. So basically, we have a group of sources which explicitly answer the question and a group of sources which have less info. I think this should be enough to resolve the 1st question. Second question is more opiniated. Again to fallback on sources. As seen from Carlson and O'Neill (and argued by others), when they mention present day Croatia, they also include an explanation of the area 'at that time'. There are other arguments above, and my most notable argument and the whole 2 question approach of this RfC was to resolve the misunderstanding the readers can have. It's obvious what the interpretation of the current text is pushed by editors who answered NO to 1st question. Their intention isn't as they argued "why is that additional sentence needed", but their intention is to have the text in the article which interprets according to their opinion of the 1st question, which is obviously incorrect and not according to presented sources. Someone said that we don't build Wikipedia on opinions, but sources and that's the best summary. It's time to stop misinterpretations and since sources are quite clear on the 1st question we need to include that info into the article. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

You warn against people violating WP:SYNTH, and then you go right ahead and commit the same error by bringing in some irrelevant conclusion that happened at Talk:Military Frontier with nothing about Tesla in the conclusion. You claim that five sources are the only ones worth examining, which is false.

What we have here is extensive WP:Tendentious editing, the promotion of Croatia as being more important to Tesla's life than it is. All such promotion comes from Croatians, and not from the literature. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

We don't build Wikipedia based on SYNTH, but there are no problems to complement Tesla biographies with historical sources from MF. No improper use of SYNTH here. You claim that five sources are the only ones worth examining. Yes, I claim that this are the only sources which directly answer the question asked. Instad of stating that's false, provide sources and quotes. We can't use sources with less info to speculate why they don't mention info that Carlson and O'Neill are mentioning. That's OR. All such promotion comes from Croatians, and not from the literature Carlson and O'Neill aren't Croatians and those are reputable Tesla biographers extensively used in the article. WP:Tendentious editing is what is coming from your side, as shown in the discussion. Trimpops2 (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, no one is disagreeing with you because they are Croatian. 95.168.120.22 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to repeat Tesla's statement: "I was born in Croatia" and O'Neill : "...province of Lika, and at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia". That should have been enough, but some people are putting their unsourced opinion up front. Hopefully, the uninvolved party will see through that and value sources over opinions and accusations that somehow Croatian editors are plotting with Tesla, Carson and O'Neill. 95.168.120.22 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to point out my answer to Pincrete above [15]. (and this whole thread of few posts) After a long discussion he stopped negating the improper use of SYNTH. I'd like to ask the closing admin to provide the clear explanation to my points about SYNTH, OR and cherry picking he and others have used as their arguments.Trimpops2 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion by Bilseric: IPs from Croatia

It appears we are getting votes from multiple IPs from Croatia, quite likely a violation of WP:MULTIPLE. This RfC is seeing throwaway IPs making comments. Involved IPs include:

• 5.39.134.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 31.217.16.206 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 93.141.183.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.16 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.105.23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.107.4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.108.29 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.116.17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.116.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 95.168.121.44 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that Croatian IP Special:Contributions/95.168.118.16 was blocked for six months starting in May, because of disruption at Tesla topics. That IP admitted to editing logged-out as User:Bilseric.[16][17] It's clear that Bilseric's WP:LOUTSOCKs have been trying to sway the results. Bilseric was indefinitely blocked in May. A series of Croatian IPs posted complaints about the Tesla topic one day prior to this RfC being posted.

As an aside, Trimpops2 has used the Croatian IPs Special:Contributions/89.172.65.187[18] Special:Contributions/78.0.210.168, and Special:Contributions/78.1.202.178.[19] I'm not saying Trimpops2 is involved in sockpuppetry, but the Croatian location is a factor in evaluating their stance on this topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm Croatian. The IPs are also fine to be Croatian. Also note that Joy is Croatian and he doesn't agree with me. Jalapeño is also Croatian and he disagrees. but the Croatian location is a factor in evaluating their stance on this topic I don't think singling Croatian editors out is fair. But in the lack of valid arguments and sources from your side I understand that you are trying to accomplish your goals this way. So on one hand you don't have problems with Joy and Jalapeño being Croatian and disagreeing , while having problems with IPs and me being Croatian. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but to claim the Croatian location is a factor in evaluating their stance on this topic is a big problem on Wikipedia. I will not report you, but please, don't ever claim that someone's nationality is a factor in evaluating their stance. This is not what we do on Wikipedia and I'm surprised an editor with 17 years of experience on Wikipedia could say something like that. Trimpops2 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This was totally uncalled for and borderlime racist thing to say. Yes,I'm also Croatian, if you have to know. Why are my arguments less valuable? I anyways didn't contribute much and have just repeated already stated arguments, so I don't see why you would have problems with my posts. I didn't even responded to any of your comments. Even without my comments, nothing significant would change, sources are still there and the same arguments were posted by others as well. And there are only 3 ips in this discussion out of 11 editors. 95.168.121.44 (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

He is just fishing for any reason. He started with "absolutely not" comment without any sources or reasoning. Then he wrote an essay about Tesla unrelated to this RfC. Then he ignored sources I pointed out multiple times. He is still ignoring them. Then he accused RfC of "funnel answers". Then accused me of cherry-picking sources without and any backing at all. Now he's doing this. Binksternet, you are all over the place. I see from past discussion that you have a very strong opinion about this, but understand that this is no way to build Wikipedia. Please address the sources and quotes I have provided and post sources of your own instead of fishing for any reason like this. I'm really giving you a good advice, because your objections like this will amount to nothing against the presented sources when determining the end consensus in the formal closure. I'm sorry you find that one sentece that is well sources will somehow negate Tesla's Serbian ethnicity. It won't. Many Serbs have contributed to Croatian history. Tesla isn't the only one, Croatian hymn was composed by Serbian composer. Rade Serbedija is a great Croatian actor of Serbian ethnicity, etc. Trimpops2 (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I doesn't matter whether Croatia is improved by Tesla having been born there, or whether other Serbs have also improved Croatia with their art and science. The point is that Croatia had minimal effect on Tesla's life and career, which is why we are not going to make any changes to the biography, especially not by emphasizing Croatia more than a passing mention. You don't have a consensus for change. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is that Croatia had minimal effect on Tesla's life No, this isn't the point nor the topic of this RfC. You have just described your motivation behind all this fishing around. I would be very surprised if the closing admin would put any significance to your input in this discussion. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet these IPs need to be looked into as socks. We have had a huge problem on this page going back years with nationalist socks trying to influence RfCs, not only User:Bilseric but also User:Asdisis. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet has a habbit of this. Here he is accusing user Notrium: single-purpose account Asdisis wa also in the habit of pointing out ad hominem attacks. I see Notrium is still active, so I suppose his accusations weren't founded. The bigger problem then IPs who haven't contributed much is his racist comment: Croatian location is a factor in evaluating their stance on this topic, but of course, you don't see any problems with that. Wikipedia is no place for racism. Trimpops2 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Your stand in this discussion is also questionable. You made an accusation that reputable sources, O'Neill and Carlson are publishing nationalistic content. You have also repeated multiple times in the past discussions WP:SYNTH problems, and now you are ignoring Pincrete's SYNTH when it favors your stand, although I called for you to address that. So, you acting like you are concerned with Wiki rules to be followed, but I have just now listed you 3 examples where you are not concerned with Wiki rules when those favor your opinion. How do you explain that? Trimpops2 (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

You are making this into a battleground rather than working to gain consensus for your desired changes. See Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process for more information. Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what's you are doing. Since you entered this discussion you are just throwing "reason" after "reason" to have your view "enforced", this being your fourth or fifth attempt. I'm done discussing with you. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Binksternet, you are the only one making this into battleground. Please seek to reach a consensus by discussing sources as you were advised before. Trimpops has collapsed this section, and I will collapse it again. I hope you won't revert again and that you will address the sources and points made to you by other editors. 95.168.121.44 (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2, WP:SYNTH is merging the content of two sources to reach a conclusion not stated in either. Silly example (using two sourceable statements to reach an absurd conclusion) Boudica was a Briton. A Briton is a citizen of the United Kingdom, therefore Boudica was a citizen of the UK - (sorry to use this example again) .

As I haven't quoted any sources, nor proposed any new content, it isn't even possible for me to have SYNTHed anything. If you are going to accuse me of something, at least bother to understand the charge you are making. What I have done is comment on the additional info proposed in this RfC (the precise text doesn't seem to have been made explicit). Sources haven't been presented to endorse the proposed text IMO, but they would anyway need to be very strong and numerous to justify the proposed addition IMO. Details about the history of the CMF, Croatia or the Empire belong on other pages. Pincrete (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources, WP:SYNTHNOT. SYNTH and OR are tied together. I pointed that out in my previous comments where you were using OR and/or SYNTH, using Wikipedia as a source, and cherry picking sources from MF article (you are still claiming that MF supports your stand, which is completely false), then reaching conclusions which are directly opposite to presented sources and quotes that I have provided. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to repeat my previous post. And I think it's not objective that Chetvorno, Joy and Binksternet who were adament in previous discussions to point out WP:SYNTH haven't pointed this clear case. You should have stayed objective and pointed this out, but somehow, when it favors your opinion, you don't seem to point out WP:SYNTH. Pincrete, As I haven't quoted any sources this is completely false. This is your quote from previous post Tesla was born in 1856, but "The Military Frontier was demilitarized on 8 August 1873. The Croatian Military Frontier existed until 15 July 1881, when it was abolished and incorporated into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" , so it was not part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, until 25 years after his birth. Not only that you are referencing to sources when stating that Tesla was born in 1856, but you are literally quoting a source when stating that CMF existed until 1881. Clear case of WP:SYNTH. Source 1: "Tesla was born in 1856". Source 2: "The Military Frontier was demilitarized on 8 August 1873. The Croatian Military Frontier existed until 15 July 1881, when it was abolished and incorporated into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". SYNTH conclusion "so it was not part of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, until 25 years after his birth". And as pointed out to you several times, this synth claim is directly opposite to O'Neill and Carlson who state at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slavonia.. At the time of his birth...part of. Clear case of improper use of WP:SYNTH. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insert SYNTHed text into the article, simply responding to the RfC with a judgement based on the info provided by others. I know very little about Tesla and even less about the CMF/Croatian history/use of terms to describe local historical regions. I'm reliant on the info presented here. I've made clear that people seem to agree that in some sense, (though in what sense isn't clear), Tesla was born in a region called 'Croatia', though the particular regime at the time was the CMF.

IMO the simplest way of rendering that is still to say Tesla was born in the CMF and go into details about what the CMF was on that article, especially as sources don't seem to give much emphasis to Croatia in describing his early years. Pincrete (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to insert SYNTHed text into the article Don't deflect. Your whole case is based on the improper use of SYNTH. And, again false, you are are arguing for article content based on this improper use of SYNTH which is contrary to presented sources. You are disagreeing with info that Carslon and O'Neill provide and you are arguing to remove it from the article. This constitutes OR. IMO the simplest way you can call it any way you want, it still constitutes OR. Here we agree, the simplest way to insert OR into the article is to remove the info that Carslon and O'Neill provide. We can't remove sourced content on the basis that we disagree with it and insert content into the article which strongly implies something directly opposite to the removed content. This is a textbook definition of OR. And we can't pick sources with less info and argue that the reason that they don't mention the info Carslon and O'Neill do, is becasuse that info is false. That constitutes both OR and cherry picking.. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Trimpops2 the accusation against you based on location alone may have been wrong, but even the initial sentence He is just fishing for any reason. is no less of a violation of WP:AGF, and going further into this kind of a tirade against them is simply inflammatory. --Joy (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Trimpops2 this is called Gish gallop, although you described it as fishing for any reason. It's not a violation of WP:AGF to call out the strategy by name. It's the 3rd point given by British journalist Mehdi Hasan on how to beat the Gish gallop. 77.71.168.18 (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Binksternet can you please make this argument about Bilseric IPs at WP:SPI? Nobody's going to run CheckUser on them or do a behavioral investiagation if it's just reported here.

If you want to involve Trimpops2 in this sort of a discussion based on location alone, that's a violation of WP:AGF; only cast aspersions against them a) if you see patterns in their behavior that indicate policy violations like improper coordination, canvassing, ... b) in the proper forum, mentioned above. --Joy (talk) 12:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bilseric#30 July 2024 but nobody else wanted to weigh in, and that investigation is now closed. --Joy (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Cyrillic script in the lead

May I ask why there's Cyrillic version of the name in the lead? As far as I know, Nikola Tesla wasn't a native speaker of Serbian , but Croatian language. Do we have any sources of him writing in Serbian language?

Trimpops2 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the article. Maybe this way the discussion gains traction. I just fail to see what someone's ethncity has with the language of that ethnicity.

For instance , there are many americans of many ethnicities who have been born in america and aren't speaking the language of their ethnicity.

An example: John Malkovich. There isn't Croatian version of the name in the lead "Ivan Malković". He isn't a native speaker of Croatian language. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Playing Devil's advocate, Malkovich was born in the US and therefore his identification papers (birth certificate, passport, drivers license) will all be purely in English. His maternal grandparents were Croatian immigrants, but he is also from English, Scottish, French, and German descent. Quite unlike Tesla.  Stepho  talk  23:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tesla was born in Austrian Empire. His all documents are on Croatian and German.

Yes, maybe I should have taken someone whose both parents come from certain ethnicity. But, the point stands even more expressed this way, are we then to write John Makovich's name in all ethnicity languages? This wasn't ever been the way on Wikipedia. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume that Tesla could speak Serbian, as Serbian is similar to Croatian (maybe less so in the 19th century then today), but then the question is, if someone can speak the language of possible many ethnicities he comes from, does this mean we should list all those languages in as native?

Even the term "native language" isn't correct as Tesla's native language is Croatian, not Serbian. We can't list Serbian as native. This is just factually incorrect. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

What I would like to see, are sources that he had extensively used Serbian language in his work. But even then, we can't list Serbian as native. His documents clearly list Croatian as native language. And before someone mentions Serbo-Croatian. This is purely a linguistics term that is newer then 19th century (if I'm not mistaken). Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Tesla was born into a Serbian Orthodox family in Smiljan, where he would have been exposed to Serbian culture and language, including the Cyrillic script traditionally used by Serbian communities. His letters and personal writings, some of which have been preserved, demonstrate his ability to communicate in Serbian, despite many of his scientific papers being in English or German. --Azor (talk). 20:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not negating that. But that can be said for pretty much everyone. He also spoke Croatian as his native language, Hungarian and German. But only Serbian is listed in this way. Why? Could you agree that it's misleading to have it written this way when Croatian , not Serbian, is his native langauge? Trimpops2 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Even listing ethnicty in the lead isn't usual on Wikipedia. Especially when ethnicity differs from nationality. But then to list the language based on his ethnicity is even more unusual. It's usually listed when the person's native langauge differs from English, or when the person is notable in other country. Tesla wasn't notable to Serbia, but Croatia. Just look at this example Slavoljub Eduard Penkala. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The concept of a native language can be understood in different ways depending on context. Tesla not only knew how to write in Cyrillic but also occasionally used it during his lifetime, which contrasts strongly with individuals whose native language is Croatian. His choice of Serbian for personal correspondence shows his proficiency and serves as one of many proofs of his connection to the Serbian language and cultural roots. --Azor (talk). 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

His documents list Croatian as his native language. I don't think there's much to discuss there. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you answer the question. If we take that Croatian is his native langauge as a fact, do you agree that listing Serbian in the lead is misleading as someone might thing that Serbian is his native langauge? This should be the bare minimum where we can agree. Trimpops2 (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea implicit in this post that someone who familiar with the Serbo-Croatian language and preferentially chooses to identify as speaking "Croatian", would then be 'contrasting strongly' if they write in Cyrillic is a very absurd one. I know many Croatians who are comfortable writing in Cyrillic – sometimes as a manner of courtesy when corresponding with Serbians. I know a Croatian who learned to write in Cyrillic before Latin by virtue of being born in an area of SFRJ where they were part of the Croatian minority in a Serbian majority area. You could read this as proof of connection that individual had with the aforementioned Serbian majority area they lived in and the influence they had on them, but to argue this necessarily negates – or 'contrasts strongly' – with their Croatian identity is invalid. Likewise, that Tesla was an ethnic Serb who was comfortable corresponding in written Cyrllic means you can conclude a similar 'negating' logic for Croatian identity or relevance is poor logic. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 03:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I was making a point that it's understandable that many people who are born in , let's say America, whose parents are of certain ethnicity will be able to speak the language of their ethnicity. I was asking do Wiki articles list their name in their native language just based on that fact. Here's an exaple Mila Kunis, born in Ukraine, but is American, can speak Ukrainian. I'm not seeing her name in Ukrainian Chyrilic. Trimpops2 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware what policy or guidelines would govern this. I have always understood that the purpose of these opening sentence transliterations/representations otherwise is not so much for the sake of cultural representation but to aid interested end users in being familiar with other representations of the name they are likely to encounter. However, is it entitled to be added there at the judgment of editors or is it only necessary when it is helpful for a number of sources cited in the article? Not many of the sources cited for this article appear to be written in Cyrillic (Serbian or otherwise) – but it's possible editors have transliterated and/or translated some of the text names.

Without being aware of the policy which exists, if any, the rationale may differ. I will continue to insist on editors preferring to adhere to Wikipedia policy and guidelines for controversial topics and editing because it allows end users and lurkers to better understand the rationale for inclusion or omission of information from articles. This would be a great example. Why is Никола Тесла present in the first sentence? I suspect I have much less problem with it than you do, but I can't speak to justifying its presence in a manner consistent with other articles, and I do not see anyone else able to speak to its inclusion in a compelling manner either. What is done in lieu? What guidelines or policies exist to assist editors in making a determination? Submitting historically illiterate counterfactuals instead of pursuing that (or any other more productive) avenue of inquiry is bizarre. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I aslo don't know what would be Wiki guidelines, that's why I asked. I don't have much problems with it, but I see that some editors like Binksternet are confused and state things that are not correct like His first schools were conducted in the Serbian variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. This is not the case, Tesla was studying on Croatian in Croatian schools, and one can easily find that he was listening to Croatian as native language by googling his highschool diploma. I'm not disputing that he spoke Serbian and was using chyrilic script. I'm not sure if the lead is the problem for such conclusins by Binksternet and others or the place to resolve it. I also think that Serbo-Croatian is the linquistic term that didn't exist in 19th century. I really don't have suggestions to make in this discussions, and I'm seeing that others are satisfied with article content and are not interested in discussing this, although I think the points I made are valid. And, to repeat, none of my points are about me having problems with Serbian language or chyrilic script. Maybe it would be better to conclude this discussion. I don't think it will lead to anything productive. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• This discussion is pointless. Croatian spelling of Tesla's name is in the very beginning of the first sentence (Nikola Tesla). It is even in bold letters. It is also in the title of the article. Nikola Tesla is his name in Croatian. It is stated in the beginning, before Serbian Cyrillic spelling, which is in the parenthesis. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

You haven't touched on any points I made. Why is Serbian singled out, and for instance Hungarian versions isn't here? He also spoke Hungarian. Also, ethnicities might use multiple languages. Are we to write someone's name in every single language someone spoke? Also, I have asked, wouldn't it writing this was be confusing for some editors who might think that Serbian is his native language when his documents lists Croatian? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not the way to build a consensus. I think that we first need to see what Wiki guidelines say here and then apply them to this specific case. Can we agree on that?

Can we agree about this specific case: Tesla was born in Austrian Croatia. His parents are as well born in Austria. His ethnicity is Serbian. His native language is Croatian , but he can also speak Serbian. He later learned German, Hungarian and English. If we can agree on this, what do Wiki guidelines say about the languages listed in the lead sentence? Trimpops2 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

So I'll ask you too the question. If Tesla's native language is Croatian, do you think that writing Serbian in this way in the lead is misleading for some readers who might this that his native langauge is Serbian? And on which grounds in Serbian singled out. Purely because of his ethnicity? I'm not sure other Wiki articles are singling out languages this way.

Furthermore, he spoke this languages per article: Serbo-Croatian, Czech, English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, and Latin. Where is his name in latin? Also, Serbo-Croatian, this isn't a linquistic term known in the 19th century. This way developed much later. Trimpops2 (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

His name in Latin is there, in the very beginning of the article. His name in Latin is Nikola Tesla, isn't it? Serbian Cyrillic is single out only because it is different from English spelling. Croatian, Hungarian, Latin, etc. are not singled out because they all spell his name the same way as English. Thus, it would be duplication. For example, we do not write "Albert Einstein (German: Albert Einstein)" because in this case, German and English spelling are the same. That does not mean we negate German language, that only means we do not want to duplicate. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

No, Nicolaus would be the latin name. This is the name on his passport. Hungarian it would be Miklós. Again , possibly some of his documents are on Hungarian. The question here is about Wiki guidelines. Which languages go to the lead. Why is Serbian singled out and in a way where someone might think that Serbian is his native language. Apart from that, the article is missing his native language and it's using the Sebo-Croatian term which has not existed in the 19th century. I'll make the edit in the article about that. Trimpops2 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between aphabets and exonyms. Please retain from any more disruptive edits. --Azor (talk). 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the points I made? Trimpops2 (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Because of his Serbian ethnicity and the great interest in Tesla in Serbia, I don't see anything wrong with giving his name in Cyrillic. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I made several points, but no one answered them. Trimpops2 (talk) 09:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought I had a deja vu when I saw this discussion... we had a very similar proposal recently in Talk:Josip Broz Tito#Native name in SC Cyrillic, and I can largely copy my answers from there:

The relevant criterion for inclusion is the answer to the question - is an average English reader going to commonly encounter the topic's name in this format / script, would it help them to have it noted here? As there is a body of work written in Serbian Cyrillic about him, it's fair to say it's possible that they'll encounter it, so we should keep it.

There is a much larger volume in Latin scripts (both English and Croatian), so the real nuance here is whether this is worthy of inline WP:LEAD placement or should it perhaps be in an annotation so it doesn't clutter the initial sentence. MOS:LEADLANG is applicable here, but it's a matter of editorial discretion whether this label and text is clutter or not.

--Joy (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

For the pondering of what might be clutter or not, let's compare the readership of these two articles: all-time monthly page views of Tito and Tesla. The Tesla article has consistently gotten around 3x more reader traffic, so I suppose there's some more merit to thinking the audience is very broad, and how they're that much less likely to actually encounter non-English sources about him.

I'm not aware of any proper research into this matter in other similar articles. The article is already 150 KB long, so using {{efn}} here might make sense if we also think of trimming other less focused content from the text. --Joy (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll read that discussions, but just to repeat my points and the difference between Tito and Tesla. Tito was , like Tesla, born in Austrain Croatia. Both have native language as Croatian. However, Tito was later a citizen and a leader of Yugoslavia where the official language was Serbo-Croatian. Tesla wasn't a citizen of Serbia. Serbian langauge was only one of several that Tesla spoke, notable by being a native language of his ethnic people. I asked whether that makes the language notable to be stated in the lead, because many people have more ethnic backgrounds. Is everyone who speaks the language of some of his ethnic backgound listed with those langauges in the lead. I also asked whether stating Serbian language by his ethnicity in the lead is misleading for readers who might think that Tesla's native langauge is Serbian, while his documents list Croatian. I have also posted one source where his name is stated in the latin language as Nickolaus. Trimpops2 (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please don't repeat things if you want anyone to actually want to read this. --Joy (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Category additions – Croatian engineer, Croatian inventor

I've already taken the initiative to remove at least one category tag which was not clearly supported or have apparent reason to be there after reviewing the body of the article [20], and does not tie into questions of his nationality or ethnicity, but for the additions I believe have merit to be added I assume I am better off enquiring about them here first.

I think Wikipedia would benefit from tagging this article with the Croatian engineer and Croatian inventor categories. He has already been tagged with relatively noncontentious categories such as People from Manhattan and People from Colorado Springs, Colorado and the rationale for those tags is apparent to me from the body of the article. I believe the body of the article as it already exists is sufficient to add the aforementioned tags regarding him as a Croatian engineer and inventor. Do any editors object – either (1) to the idea these are fair categories to add, or (2) that the body of the article as it already exists is sufficient to justify the addition of these categories, or (3) for any other reason? AVNOJ1989 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I'm starting to think that the article lead needs to be updated. Before Tesla was American scientist (of Serbian ethnicity) he was also a scientist and we will need to have a discussion based on sources to see which adjective we should use there. We can't just ignore the whole first part of his life. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to see how other notable people from 19th century Austrain empire are described on Wiki articles. I don't have time now, but if someone does, I think it would be helpful for such a discussion. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, it's already done. Tesla is categorized as a Serbian engineer, Serbian inventor], and 19th-century American engineer], among others, due to his Serbian ethnicity. Categorizing him as a Croatian engineer or inventor would be erroneous in two senses, since we categorize persons on the basis of ethnicity and second he wasn't born in Croatia but in the Austrian Empire. --Chetvorno^TALK 10:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We will have to address this sources [21]. We cannot pretend those don't exist. Trimpops2 (talk) 11:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

since we categorize persons on the basis of ethnicity. Given we tag him as an American engineer, American electrical engineer, American eugenicist, American futurologist, American humanist, American inventor, American mechanical engineer, People associated with electricity, People from Colorado Springs Colorado, People from Gospić, People from Karlovac, People from Manhattan, this is untrue. I'd invite you to go ahead and remove those tags if you're confident that you can push ethnicity as the sole categorization criteria, and not just those points on which partisan editors can 'get away with' because a disinterested wider audience is unaware or uninterested in the degraded state of communications on this page, such that incorrect statements like he wasn't born in Croatia but in the Austrian Empire are repeated ad nauseum. 122141510 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

122141510: Categories such as American inventor etc. are included because Tesla became a naturalized American citizen, his full ethnicity is Serbian-American. Geographical categories such as People from Manhattan, People from Karlovac, etc. are based on Tesla's residence in those locations. See the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Serbian-American" typically refers to a Serbian diaspora who is Serbian by ethnicity and American by naturalization. Tesla is not ethnically American, and "Serbian-American" is a valid identifier but cannot be said to be itself 'an ethnicity'. The addition as I have proposed is in reference to his birth and early life in Croatia – i.e., it is in reference to the geographic circumstances, as much as other tags are in effect reference to his geographic circumstances. My question is not an invitation to make multiple false statements but is instead relatively simply whether editors agree that the article as it currently exists would make it sufficiently clear those category tags are on the basis of his birth and early life in Croatia. 122141510 (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)