Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Military Frontier should be updated to Croatian Military Frontier

The main article about Nikola Tesla often mentions Military Frontier, but to be more precise it should be written Croatian Military Frontier because the Austrian Military Frontier had multiple districts spanning from Croatia to Romania including the Croatian Military Frontier. You can see more in detail about the subject in this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Military_Frontier

At the time of Nikola Tesla birth and his elementary and high school education, Smiljan & Karlovac were a part of Croatian Military Frontier which was under administration of Austrian Empire. In 1881. Croatian Military Frontier was incorporated into Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. Afordic (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is perfectly correct. Tesla was born in Croatian Military Frontier. You can try and make an edit request, but you'll find out that some editors here have a problem with the "Croatian" part of the Military Frontier. There is a long narrative present at this article that Tesla can be either "Croatian" or "Serbian". Some time ago the Serbian narrative came up top, and quite some "Croatian" narrative words were removed from the article. I'm of the opinion that Tesla is as much Croatian scientist as he is Serbian or American. I would say the sources agree, only some editors don't, for whichever reason. Bilseric (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted at a time the article text read:
Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia), on 10 July [O.S. 28 June] 1856.
In the meantime, an edit was made by Tamerlanahayav (talk · contribs) [1] that would have changed this to:
Nikola Tesla was born an ethnic Serb in the village of Smiljan, within the Croatian Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia), on 10 July [O.S. 28 June] 1856.
This was immediately reverted by Theonewithreason (talk · contribs).
Some of this was discussed in the the 2014 RFC at Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 3, but this nuance was lost as it seems a lot of people involved in these topics have apparently been tendentious single-purpose accounts, so I don't think it makes sense to continue discussing this in this thread. --Joy (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally do not see a problem with specifying which Military Frontier Tesla was born in? It's factually correct that he was born in what was then the Croatian Military Frontier. Why can this not be amended? Tamerlanahayav (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several people commented back in 2014 that it's excessive for the typical reader who doesn't care for this level of detail, as it's a distinction not typically raised by English-language Tesla biographies and instead sounds like a modern-day talking point. (The latter impression was reinforced by a steady stream of flamewars since.) --Joy (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

citizenship in Austria-Hungary Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

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

@Bilseric in a previous discussion we mentioned a source you linked to:

  • https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/clanak/183344 Kosnica, Ivan. "The determination of Citizenship in Croatia-Slavonia 1849-1880." Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, vol. 51, no. 3, 2014, pp. 697-713.

This is what I meant by the paper which doesn't seem to mention anything about the Military Frontier at all. That's why it's very hard to see how this would be a useful paper to cite in the Tesla article. It doesn't mention the article subject nor does it address the terms used in the article about the subject, so it would require WP:OR from our readers to figure out what we mean, and that would be a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's note for the record a few quotes from the document @AzorzaI posted in that previous discussion:

  • https://openlib.tugraz.at/download.php?id=5fbe2f740ec5f&location=browse Nikola Tesla and the Graz Tech. Edited by Uwe Schichler and Josef W. Wohinz. Graz University of Technology/Library and Archive. 2019. doi:10.3217/978-3-85125-687-1

On pages 14 and 15 they specifically delve into this matter:

Nikola Tesla was born at Smiljan, in the Lika border region (in today’s Croatia) on 10 July 1856. At the time of his birth, this region was part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. Accordingly, the following formulation is to be found in his later patent applications (in the USA):
‘Be it known that I, NIKOLA TESLA, of Smiljan, Lika, border country of Austria Hungary, have invented…’ (Patent No. 355, 786, dated February, 9, 1886).
‘Be it known that I, NIKOLA TESLA, a subject of the Emperor of Austria, from Smiljan, Lika, border country of Austria-Hungary, residing at New York, in the county and State of New York, have invented…’ (Patent No. 455, 069, dated June 30, 1891).
His parents were Serbs. He came to see himself as one, even after he acquired American citizenship in 1891.

So this source would actually directly support the mention of Lika in the text (rather than focusing on the Military Frontier). I'll see if I can add it. --Joy (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good source to gain better understanding about the subject matter. Indeed, it doesn't mention Military Frontier, however, it does state that legal acts are applicable to all lands of Hungarian crown. And, as I argued earlier, in the legal point of view, Military Frontier was a part of Croatia-Slavonia. Maybe I'll send a mail to the author to ask whether he has some other work which deals more with Military Frontier itself (legal status , etc.). Today, I went to search for more sources and I see that the same author has several of them on this subject. Here's one on English Croatian Law on Regulation of Local Citizenship. There are, as well, other good sources from the same author, but I couldn't find them. I could only see the title and the summary. I'll post them if I find them, eventually. Also, note that Tesla wasn't naturalized until 1891, past when Military Frontier was abolished. He was a subject of those legal acts up until 1891. The sources mention that the question of citizenship was determined through a number of legal acts from 1848 up to 1880 (if I remember correctly the law from 1880 was the last one and valid until 1918 and still in use in Yugoslavia). I would think that, after reading the source, it should be understandable why Tesla's passport was issued by "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia". After all, the source does state: "...local citizenship was very important element of someone's legal identity in Austria" (page 88)
Yes, I'm familiar with the mention of Lika and "border country" in Tesla's patents. I'm not sure if there's a significant relevance to mention it in the article. Bilseric (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I would say that there's no significant relevance to any of these legal statutes to be mentioned in the Tesla article, because they do not directly relate to the biography at hand nor would it be obvious to the average English reader how it indirectly relates to it. If the preponderance of Tesla biographers don't discuss this, neither should the encyclopedia article. Including such a thing would be effectively promoting a historical legal concept, and that's simply a disservice to the readers interested in reading an encyclopedic Tesla biography.
On this note, we have articles about the Triune Kingdom and about the Trialism in Austria-Hungary, where the encyclopedia describes the facts of the matter related to this. We do not, however, go out of our way to add such didascalia to every tangentially related article about topics from the same time periods.
Fundamentally, an encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. Please stop suggesting that it does the latter, because this is quickly becoming a waste of our volunteer time and effort. --Joy (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that the fact that Tesla had a passport is of similar relevance to the article as the fact that he had a baptismal record - it's a bit of clerical information that won't really interest the average reader. On that note, I'm going to suggest dropping that baptismal record picture in the main talk page now. --Joy (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sources that directly relate to Tesla would be needed to make an edit to the article. However, this source can help understand subject matter (and as such should be used on the talk page). Tesla sources often don't deal with nationality or ethnicity in great detail. Many of them are even purely incorrect. That's why it's helpful to have a source which specifically deals with the question on nationality, even if not directly related to Tesla.
I'm a proponent of having facts and sources straight and then make a decision whether article would benefit, or it's too complex for the reader, or irrelevant. From that point of view, Tesla's passport and baptismal record are of great value to me, as it this Kosnica source. I hope that I have provided some value and have elevated the discussion to a higher lever.
If someone in not agreeing with the article content, the talk page should provide more info, and one could understand why the article has the content it has. At least, this was my approach and value, that have I tried to provide here.
Everyone has different interests and approach to editing Wikipedia. I do understand you point of view about the article content and value your opinion. I hope that you can see that, after you mentioned Kosnica source, I have tried to find better sources. I have spent several hours doing so and I hope you can value that too. Bilseric (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about an encyclopedia article about the topic, not a scholarly monography about the topic. It's a summary of general knowledge, not a repository of all relevant material about the topic. For more information, please refer to the policy of WP:What Wikipedia is not, in particular the parts about scientific journals and indiscriminate collections of information. --Joy (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you have started this whole section called "citizenship in Austria-Hungary Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia". I've just answered. Shouldn't your comment be directed towards yourself, not me? It seems pointless to me that I should "defend" your own section from your own comments. This isn't really topic related and I'll drop out of this discussion. All the best. Bilseric (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Military Border Legal Status

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

I realize some time has passed when this was discussed. Recent edits to this talk page brought me back and Joy with his previous section had sparked my interest into researching for sources. Maybe, if I have more time, I'll do some more research which would provide some value.

For now I stumbled on the source which surely will be valuable as this was discussed years back. Some time ago someone posted the Horvat source which was widely discussed. There were some remarks regarding Horvat source, for example user Chetvorno had remarks in this comment [2]. Today, I found another secondary source which mentiones the exact subject matter. Unfortunately, again, it's not on English. I'll provide the tralsation:

"Manifest...was signed by the Emperor...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 [3].

Previous remarks was that the Horvat source is too old (I cannot find edit to that remark but it vaguely remember it). Chetvorno mentioned: "statement made by the King in 1850. Whatever it says doesn't imply it actually happened". (which, in my opinon wasn't correct even for Horvat source, as secondary source can make a statement in the form of a quote to the primary source, as we can expect the secondary source providing the context whether "it actually happened" ). This source provides the same statement which is not in the form of a quote thus concluding the matter on this point.

I do need to point out this isn't a Tesla source and we don't need perpetual discussions about that. Bilseric (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that Valentić (1978) article is interesting, but if you simply keep reading past that paragraph on page 48, on page 53 it's explained how a few months after that March 1850 document, a new Temeljni zakon Krajine was announced in May, and it did not include most of Croatian demands. This is fundamentals of WP:V - you can't just cherry-pick one part of a source and ignore the rest of it.
The above post was effectively a violation of the anti-advocacy provisions of WP:ARBMAC. I might no longer be uninvolved here, but I would advise to treat this message as a final warning. --Joy (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. It doesn't referr to the proclamation I mentioned. It talks about demands described on the same page, which is something different. Of course, I haven't tryed to cherry pick. I have posted the whole source and it can be discussed whether my quote is out of the context.
I do see one more quote that you haven't mentioned. For the purpose of being objective, I will mention it, as I have noticed it on the same page: "New Krajina constitution is proclaiming the whole Military Border being a part of the imperial army. Accordingly ... population of Krajina...is the subject of the army and in under the regulation of austrain military law. ". This doesn't either negate the previous proclamation as it is not reffering to legal status of Military Border as the previous proclamation does. It does reffer to administrative aspect (see below). Bilseric (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after reading again. "Demands" that you are mentioning are definately not related to the proclamation. The quote I provided is using the formulation "Military Border being a part of imperial army". "Part of" doesn't make much sense as those to entities can't be part of another. However, the context is explained in the following sentence by saing: "According to this law the population of Krajia ..belongs to the army". This is purely related to administrative aspect, not legal , and as the previous quote that I have provided says, administration is separated from legal status. Although, the source says "part of imperial army" from the context of the source it's clear that , what is actually meant is, "under army administration". Bilseric (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, no such thing you are mentioning I can see in Horvat soure. Here's a link to page 160 where is mentioning provincial constitutions. Few pages earlier the 1850's proclamation is mentioned. [4]. I feel that I've done my share of due diligence here, and have provided the full context of the quote from 2 different sources. Bilseric (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by this. Where does the Horvat (1906) book say that the March 1850 proclamation was more important than the law passed in May? (Also, even if it said that, we'd need an explanation of why should we prefer the older historian's work to the younger one's.) --Joy (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Horvat say what you have been asserting? Your interpretation of the Valentic source is not correct. I pointed that out and provided Horvat to back that up. Then I went to provide 2 additional Tesla sources per your request. I feel we have enough sources here, any everyone is free to read them. If you have problem with Croatian language, I posted 2 Tesla biographies on English. Bilseric (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy maybe you have missed to notice that Tesla sources also mention the legal status of Military Border. Chetvorno has posted this source in the upper discussion:

"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

This is a secondary source and a Tesla biography thus not SYNTH. It is the best source from wiki point of view. Furthermore we have 2 historical sources which do back up this and put more depth. You and others had doubts about SYNTH and the complexity the historical sources bring. To is very easy for the reader to understand. It is a Tesla source. I really hope that you can value the effort I have put into every doubt and remark you had by bringing secondary sources and directly quoting them. Bilseric (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting yet another source on this subject matter that is a Tesla biography. Joy, has provided the source here: [5]. The source reads: "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.".

I hope this 4 sources will be helpful. I could add the primary source of Tesla himself stating that he was "born in Croatia", but let's stick to secondary sources. Primarily by 2 Tesla biographies and then only secondary to 2 historical sources Bilseric (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amenable to the more general argument that this area was considered a part of Croatia by Tesla biographers, but that's a separate argument from this more specific first one about statutary changes. It would be helpful if this wasn't all melded together as one big hodgepodge with so many walls of text. --Joy (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone need to read this? What matters are the 4 provided quotes and the sources. And I will bold those quotes. Bilseric (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ancestors and surname etymology

While re-reading this recently, I noticed we have some weird vague statements about "ancestors" and how the surname Tesla came about. Both of these are referenced to O'Neill (1944), and linked to the Google Books copy of that, which says on page 12:

The Tesla and Mandich families originally came from from the western part of Serbia near Montenegro. Smiljan, 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.

There's quite a few issues here:

We don't have many specifics about this original location, nor when was this original time.
At the time of Tesla's birth (1856), the Empire was not actually yet called Austro-Hungarian, because that term came into widespread use only with the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, a decade later.
The 'dependent province' was presumably the Military Frontier, which isn't named, despite naming quite a few other specific topics.
The dependent province is listed as part of Croatia, which would be against the local consensus here that the Frontier was still sufficiently distinct from Croatia at the time to not be called its part.
The term Slovenia is used instead of Slavonia. Admittedly a reasonably common typo, but it's not exactly great that nobody proofread that.

The next paragraph, in turn, says:

Tesla's surname dates back more than two and a half centuries. Before that time the family name was Draganic (pronounced as if spelled Drag'-a-nitch).

While this seems like an interesting detail, is something that had apparently happened in the early 1600s really relevant to Nikola Tesla's biography? And, with the level of inattention to detail displayed in the preceding paragraph, would we even be able to trust the precision of such a claim?

A bit later on page 13 there's:

There is a tradition in the Draganic family that the members of one branch were given the nickname "Tesla" because of an inherited trait which caused practically all of them to have very large, broad and protruding front teeth which greatly resembled the triangular blade of the adz.

So the source is... retelling family lore that is removed 250 years in time from Tesla's actual family? Or did a member of a living branch of the Draganić family tell him that? There are no inline references in the source itself to explain where the author came up with this.

All in all, I'm not sure this is a great source to use, and especially not one that should be used to reference WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims relevant because of the sensitive topic area, as of the implications here are a tad bit bizarre - it makes it seem we go out of our way to mention connections to Serbia from 250 years before Tesla's time, and also how his people have crooked teeth, but at the same time steer well clear of saying how Tesla grew up in Croatia even if our crooked-teeth source had zero qualms saying so.

This all helps explain why Croatian nationalists are so triggered by this text, but the larger problem here is that this is now such a weird narrative, it's just below the standard of an encyclopedia. --Joy (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Avoiding commenting on any nationalist implications, just on the basis of the dubious source and WP:UNDUE WEIGHT I don't think those trivial sentences belong in the article. --ChetvornoTALK 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book actually has an article, Prodigal Genius, but doesn't mention much about reviews, this should be investigated. --Joy (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was since mentioned in Talk:Nikola Tesla#Prodigal Genius. @Fountains of Bryn Mawr given what you wrote there, which parts of the story about ancestors and surname etymology should be kept, if any? --Joy (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was ping'ed here, two cents. The sources here seem to be "off the top of someone's head". We are talking about a messy part of the world, politically, that no one was probably keeping up with. We probably have O'Neill writing about things he is not going to research, not worth his time. We may have quotes from Tesla trying to recollect political setups from his early childhood. And we may have Tesla telling tall tails about teeth at one of his birthday parties, maybe miss-quoted by O'Neill. So yeah, I would skip quoting any of that as fact, It could be quoted as someone's opinion, if "who said what" could ever be run down. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should move this discussion to appropriate topic. Sources often state Austro-Hungary instead of Austrian Empire. They do not deal in depth with historical aspect of Austrian Empire at that time. This is understandable. Yes, I agree, presumably , the dependent province is Military Frontier because the description fits what historical sources say. The province indeed is listed as part of Croatia and Slavonia. Please not that this isn't against consensus. The consensus had only determined the wording in the article. I didn't notice the typo between Slovenia and Slavonia until you pointed it out. Maybe others haven't either, so it slipped. But, we can all agree it's a typo.
You can remove the trivial sentences about crooked teeth or the Draganic family. We don't need to find out whether that is correct or not, as it's irrelevant for this article. But, but please, don't disregard or tie those parts with the sentence "at the time of his birth was a dependent province held by the Austro-Hungarian Empire as part of Croatia and Slovenia", because this is supported by other sources as well, as listed in this discussion [6]. Bilseric (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joy , I will point out the lack of objectivity and disregard for other sources you are aware of. Bilseric (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What lack of objectivity? --Joy (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't imply this secondary source states anything that is wrong. It has some mistakes and typo-s, but those can be seen in other Tesla sources and are understandable. Nothing this source says is "wrong" based on the things you have said, you need to provide much more to make such claims. You are even aware of other sources which on some assertions you made support what is said in this source. This is not objective at all to disregard those sources. If you find something irrelevant for the article, have that discussion, not the discussion you are trying to have. Bilseric (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently a book by a reputable author who personally knew Tesla and it makes various curious claims while not citing its own sources. Why would it be automagically beyond reproach? --Joy (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it. From Wiki point of view, this is secondary source and the author had done OR. It's not needed to provide footnotes for every single claim in the book. If we go by , "this claim doesn't have a footnote" , we can remove large parts of Wikipedia. I provided you with the way forward. Don't claim something is wrong with the soruce, but make a case why something is not needed in the article. From what I have read, it will accomplish the same without necessary discussion. You haven't even provided a clear request in the form "Replace A with B.". Bilseric (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made in unclear what you actually what to do, but from I can see, you will certainly not remove this sentence from the text "Tesla's ancestors were from western Serbia, near Montenegro". This is well sourced and a long standing content. Tesla's Serb ethnicity is well established and the consensus had determined that it's notable enough to be stated in the lead. There's no reason to have it in the lead, than remove this sentence from the body. If you want to remove it, a broader discussion is needed thank this. As for "crooked teeth" , go ahead, no complaints from me. Do not imply anyone was "triggered" by the referred text. It has been in the article for years without edit warring over it. Bilseric (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these are pointless assertions. "It's been bad for years" is not a justification to keep all this random didascalia in. Why are we discussing edit warring, when no edits have even happened? The fact that people have been going into senseless fights over this text with nationalist undertones, and that something could be triggering all that, is just my observation of the situation. If you felt it's specifically targetting you or anyone else in particular, I'm sorry, it was not meant that way. --Joy (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parts you are trying to remove had never been contested by anyone. No one had ever been "triggered" by those. I fail to see your motivation here. Thus I'm not seeing why it would need to be removed. Also, you pointed out several things and I'm not sure what parts we are even discussing. Please provide clearer request in the form "Replace A with B". Bilseric (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained how this all amounts to pointless content already, and my motivation is likewise stated clearly in the conclusion of my initial message. --Joy (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this [7], I'm leaving this discussion. Bilseric (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


FYI: User:Bilseric has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. There was suspicion at one time that he might be a sock, so editors should be on the lookout for other socks --ChetvornoTALK 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be associated in any way with this, so I'll write via ip. Let me get this straight, pretty much everyone who had pro Croatian point of view got blocked. You pretty much ignored any discussion here. Your whole involvement here in the past month was aimed to block this user. Now you are attacking the blocked user by suggesting he'll sock. Anyone who posts an edit request is pointed to years' old consensus disregarding all the sources posted in the years after. Consider closing this topic for good ,if this is the way you'll behave. There's a strong evidence of bad faith from all 4 of you involved in this events, not just him. His case is solved, but your manner will remain. That's why I have stayed away from this article. I strongly suggest others do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.168.116.18 (talk) 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello, previously unknown anonymous user! If you're so intent on trying to keep some sort of a score, please don't miss the fact that with User talk:Spirit Fox99#May 2024 was likewise put on a block ultimatum after a wonderful little rant against me as a "Croation nationslist". What you're observing here is not some sort of a grand conspiracy against a pro Croatian point of view, it's just the volunteer editors of English Wikipedia having to deal with anonymous people violating all sorts of reasonable policies. Speaking of which, most of your statement is also a bizarre rant unsupported by facts or reason. If you wish to actually contribute to the encyclopedia, please do so without these kinds of harmful diatribes against imaginary enemies. --Joy (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm observing is bad faith from all 4 of you, no grand conspiracies. To be honest the least from you, but nonetheless. I can count personal accusations myself ,and this one that promped me to post this is just so plain. Not to mention that the whole thing started with D's personal accusations against B, followed by fake apology, immediately after which writing mails to admins requesting to reopen years old sock investigation, which is now mentioned by C. No one is innocent here, all 4 of you. You know what messages were exchanged. You got the mail I'm talking about (as did User:Vanjagenije and User:Bbb23), so please don't act so innocent with me. D was working on B's ban long before B made any personal accusations. No, he started with it ,as soon as B posted his first comment mentioning D. I said too much already, goodbye.
Sorry, what? You're reading into Doug Weller's confusion at #Participants on that subpage must give a policy-based reason why the terms used in the article are incorrect, or their comments will also be removed without reply from that page., and that's where the whole thing started? You don't think it started several years ago when Bilseric originally started posting endless rants about this topic?
Honestly, this is legitimately puzzling. You think the assumption of good faith should be automagically revoked from the administrators who had to clean up this gigantic mess? Yet, we should assume good faith from you, who refuse to even identify yourself under a nickname?
Eh, whatever, I've entertained this flamewar enough already. This is essentially a misuse of the article talk page in order to air arbitrary grievances. --Joy (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nikola Tesla isn’t American

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity&oldid=1226441576"