Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

This page is for discussions over Tesla's ethnicity, nationality, and/or birthplace. Previous discussions have been archived from the main talk page, which is now reserved for editorial discussions. This is not a repository for Serb/Croat comments violating WP:NPA: those will simply be removed.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

I swear to God these americans are thinking famous people are their nationality when they’re not! Nikola Tesla only lived in the USA. He is Serbo-Croatian. Born in Croatia, Serbian family. 💀 Hellopreppy (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla was an American citizen for 52 years and lived in the United States for most of his life. Cullen328 (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was a naturalized. Sources do say that he was quite proud to become American. Yes, maybe the lead isn't quite accurate because it emphasizes his American citizenship and Serbian ethnicity, neglecting that he was born in Croatia which was a part of Austrian Empire. It is a big part of his notability after all, as he wasn't an American citizen until age 35. However, the article does explicitly mention that Tesla was born in Croatia later in the text. If he wasn't naturalized the lead could say Serbo-Croatian. 78.1.202.178 (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me why is there a separate talk page just for nationality and ethnicity? What exactly is the problem here? I think that sources do cover this quite well. 1. Ethnicity - almoust all sources state Serbian as ethnicity 2. Nationality - Austrian then American

Also, Austria was a multicultural empire composed of several distinct parts. Usually, for people from Austria, usually their cultural land is mentioned, as not all people were austrains. For Tesla, it's mentioned that he was a native of Croatian part of the empire, as opposed to being Austrain or Hungarian.

All checks out. Maybe someone more familiar can explain what exactly is debated here?

78.1.202.178 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read some good topics in the last 2 archives about nationality. It wasn't Austiran before American.

Also some editors are disputing Tesla was born in Croatian part of the Empire, although the article says Military Frontier and Military Frontier article lists MF as part of Croatia. 95.168.105.16 (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you can't use Wikipedia as a source? 78.1.202.106 (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't intend to read previous discussions, and those are too long for you to read, I can't help you much.

Here are the sources: "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

"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. 95.168.105.16 (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading walls of trash discussions , like the one above. That's why I asked someone more familiar to direct me. Ok, thanks for the sources, but I still fail to see the point. The article already says that Tesla was born in Croatian part of Austria: Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in Smiljian in the province of Lika in what is today Croatia

Could you direct me to sources about nationality? 78.1.202.106 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly where the problem lies. Chetvorno and Joy are disagreeing with the "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". Just a warning, they are quite hostile to other editos who open such debates.

You have some discussion about nationality in Archive 15. But, there are no good sources as Tesla's biographies don't deal with that question. 95.168.105.16 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading some old discussions. Yes, I can agree that nationality is a bit difficult issue, and the lack of sources don't help. For birthplace editors often point to consensus from 10 years ago [1]. First , I see that the RfC question is misdirected. MrX suggested the change to Smiljan, Croatia, Austrian Empire. This led to a lot of discussion about the term Croatia being ambiguous. Second, I'm not seeing this 2 sources debated. This sources are newer. This merits a new discussion. Chetvorno and Joy, could you please provide the other opinion before I start a new RfC? What I'm seeing are 2 sources which provide additional info which would pretty much settle this continuous debates. I'm not sure why those weren't already introducted in the article. I would do it , but I suppose someone would revert to the present consesus, so I'll rather do it through this discussion. Thanks. 78.0.210.168 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Ten years have passed since the last discussion [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Yes to 1. And yes to 2. Tesla himself said "I was born in Croatia" [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• Absolutely not. There is no reason to emphasize Croatia in this manner. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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.. [4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [8] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Here are some sources to dispute you. Tesla himself said "I was born in Croatia" [9]. 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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [10], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]