Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

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 [1]. 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 [2].

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [3]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm posting yet another source on this subject matter that is a Tesla biography. Joy, has provided the source here: [4]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Chetvorno^TALK 15:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [5]. Bilseric (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

What lack of objectivity? --Joy (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Because of this [6], I'm leaving this discussion. Bilseric (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

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 --Chetvorno^TALK 21:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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) [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Separate talk page

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [8]. 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)

Cyrillic script in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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