This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Detoner is a sock and a proved POV pusher. This whole discussion should be disregarded as it is full of his POV pushing claims that go against the consensus and that are false.89.255.92.42 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
A lot of claims have been made, but let's gather all sources here. I went trough a lot of text and gathered all sources I could find. I also went to see Military Frontier article and the sources listed there. After several hours of reading the source listed there I found something useful. All is provided below.
The borderland in Croatia was the oldest and most western part of this extensive defense system. Of all Croatian lands under Habsburg rule, 65.5 % belonged to the Military Frontier and only 34.5 % to Civil Croatia.
[1]
Serbian historian Vasilije Krestic on Military Frontier: "Regarding the birthplace of Nikola Tesla, the facts are the following: he was born in 1856. in Smiljan , Lika, which were in located in the Military zone. Military zone in administrative sense did not belong to Croatia neither Hungary, nor Austria, but was regarded as a separate entity which was under the direct control of the emperor and military command in Vienna. However in formal-legal sense Military zone belonged to Croatia" [2]
"The Military Frontier was a separate Habsburg administrative unit, directly subordinated to Vienna. During the 17th century its territory was expanded towards the East and new sections were created. By then, it stretched from Croatia proper in the west to eastern Transylvania in the east and included parts of present-day Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Hungary.[4] The area was settled primarily with Croatian, Serbian and German colonists (Grenzer/Graničari) who, in return for land grants, served in the military units defending the empire against Ottomans." - Historical Atlas of Central Europe, Paul Robert Magocsi, pag. 34 ... Explains it all without having to cite obcure revisionist Croatian or Serbian sources. FkpCascais (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the source, but I can't find the provided quotation. I looked at the page 34 and it can't be found there. Maybe you are looking at a different publication. I'm looking here [3]
Now to answer your inappropriate comment.
1. Obscure - the first source is listed in Military Frontier which you yourself mentioned. It's reliability can be verified by other users and was verified when used in Military Frontier article. It was also verified for other assertions - revisionist and Croatian/Serbian.
2. Revisionist - one of the sources dates to the year 1906. , so it seems you went too far with your allegations.
3. Croatian or Serbian - I hope you are not saying what it sounds like, both Croatian and Serbian sources are listed above, and now a foreign source you added.
4. implication - you imply that your source contradicts the others, when in fact they perfectly match, as everyone can see. Military administration is mentioned in all sources, but some give more elaborate description of the relation. The first source gives the kings order from 7th April 1850.
Also a quote from your source : "The first of the Military Frontiers (Vojna Kraina) was established in 1538 in Croatia and was initially under the authority of the local diet (Sabor) and Croatian ruler (ban). The Habsburgs provided financial support from the outset and in 1630. took over the frontiers administration". As you can see all the sources agree upon administration.
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Lastly I meant for this to be a collection of sources and not POV opinions. Also, do not forget to point to the provided quotation since it isn't on the page 34. At least not in the book i referenced here. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You can read the entire page 34. Not sure how you missed the phrase "... came under direct control of the central government in Vienna, not the local authorities." FkpCascais (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
See for exemple Britannica article about the Military Frontier. The article Military Frontier comes attached to "Historical region, Serbia" and redirects here, and talks about her within the article of Vojvodina. That much about the single "croatiasness" of the Military Frontier as you claim. This is what Britannica says about the Military Frontier: "The immigrant population was given grants of land and awarded privileges that included the right to elect their own leader, or vojvod; in return, the immigrants provided military service, defending the empire against the Turks. This region, called the Military Frontier, underwent a succession of changes in its political status during the 19th century. It was initially attached directly to the Austrian crown, but, following the defeat of an uprising by Hungarian nationalists in 1848, portions of Bačka, Banat, and Srem were united with it, under direct Viennese control, and given the title the Vojvodina. The civil and military regions were again separated in 1867–68: the Military Frontier remained attached to Austria, and the other segments reverted to the Hungarian crown. This section of the Military Frontier was abolished in 1873, and it, too, reverted to Hungarian control (although the name the Vojvodina continued in general use). It doesn't even mention Croatia and puts it under the article of nowadays Serbian province of Vojvodina. Specially important is to see how highlights that it was under direct control of Vienna. Not Zagreb (Croatian capital), or Belgrade, (Serbian capital) but direct control of Vienna. FkpCascais (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the second source you provided here, it is well known that the Military Frontier was a new territory created within Austrian empire from parts of other provinces within it, namely from parts of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Syrmia, Southern Hungary, Voivodina and Banat (all this depending on the historical period, because the borders of the MF changed in the Eastern part). So yes, the source only confirms that Austrians separated a portion of Croatia from the rest of Croatia and united it with Military Frontier. But that doesn't mean MF is Croatian, just that 65.5% of the province of Croatia was taken from Croatia and united to the MF. Actually proves my point, that that territory was passed to MF. The third source is just a journal article, not even sure who that person is.
Another source, The Contested Country: Yugoslav Unity and Communist Revolution, 1919-1953 by Aleksa Djilas, page 11, says: "In 1627, the Militar Frontier was removed from the control of the Sabor and put under direct rule of the Habsburg military, which would have complete civilian and military authority over it until the Military Frontiers abolition in the early 1870s." (actually only in 1881 Croatia receved total control over a portion of the Military Frontier). So ths source clearl says Croatia lost all control from the territories in the Military Frontier in 1627, the Sabor had only control in beginning, but that is 200 years before Tesla was born! You can read the rest of the page 11 and see the weak position of Croats and Serbs there.
Here you have a Croatian writer writing about it, Culture and Customs of Croatia by Marilyn Cvitanic, page 16. See near the bottom how she speaks how with the creation of the Military Frontier "Croatian nobility was severily compromised. ... The extent of this threat (the one of creating the MF) to the nobility is illustrated by comparing the size of Croatia, about 4,093 square miles (10,600 square kilometers) to that of the Military Frontier at 3,088 square miles (8,000 square kilometers)." She clearly distinguish the two (Croatia and MF) and even talks how MF not only wasn't Croatian but even made Croatia smaller and compromised the Croatian nobility.
Here is another source, althought this one isn't really scholar, but puts things quite succinctly and precise, DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Croatia, page 39, it says: "In 1587, he (Austrian emperor Ferdinand) established the Military Frontier (Vojna Krajina) which was administred by the military governor of Vienna. ... The liberated areas became border lands and remained so until 1881."
Anyway, none of this will get you to the "Croatian-born" wording in the lead, cause clearly Militar Frontier was one thing, and Croatia-Slavonia another. So, can you say who are you and what you pretend in this Nikola Tesla article with this same arguments Asdisis has used already? FkpCascais (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Please, do not give your POV interpretations. The page 34 of your source doesn't contain the provided quotation. Please fix that inconsistency. Rest of the provided sources do not bring any new information. The first source and the third source give the most elaborate description and incorporate the rest of the sources which give more specific info. Nothing here is in contradiction and the sources are in perfect sync. If you do not see that, then you are POV pushing. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
All this only proves what I said earlier that the province of Lika and the Military Frontier that passed through it traditionally belonged to Croatia. The territory where the Military Frontier was created and specifically the area where Nikola Tesla was born didn't belong to Austria before it was created nor did it belong to Serbia. It was always rightfully Croatian territory. This debate does not have to be an exercise in futility. Each editor needs to carefully examine his/her own conscience and do the right thing. The right thing to do is to accept that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia as he said so himself and state in the lead sentence of the article that, "Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian American..." It cannot be disputed any longer, the evidence is here for all to see. Let's lock it in.Michael Cambridge 11:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
came under direct control of the central government in Vienna, not the local authorities, it is there.
Cambridge, I provided reliable sources that clearly show how Military Frontier was not Croatia. And I have more sources saying that, want them? You are the one starting to be disruptive and constructing here OR and synthesis with your new "Lika theory", we don't care what Lika culturally belongs, it was not part of Croatia-Slavonia at time of Tesla birth and that ends your case. Either way, MOS disencourages the use of "X-born" formula in the lede, so even if it was truth it would be discouraged by MOS. So there you have in the article that Tesla was born in Smiljan (nowadays Croatia), and you even got one more mention of Croatia by saying Karlovac, Croatia, when in fact even Karlovac was not in Croatia at time but in the MF, and we removed "Serbian Orthodox Church" and wrote just "Orthodox priest" so to please you, so you are already having it your way, now it is clear your mission here is to put the word Croatia in the top of the lead, with clear intentions of giving a more Croatian impression to the readers straight away, sorry, but it want happened, and it is time for you to give up and edit some other issues or otherwise your behavior is just identical of the one Asidisis had and I will report you. FkpCascais (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I will ask you gentleman: The article already says that Tesla was born in nowadays Croatia, and everything found in the article are crude sourced undisputed facts. What is the problem? FkpCascais (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Stop answering every comment and stop with your POV pushing. A report should be made to remove your POV pushing from this page. The sources clearly state two aspects of the relationship, formal and administrative and your POV pushing is clearly visible. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome to report me at any time, but be prepared for WP:BOOMERANG. Have you finaly read the page 34 of the Historical Atlas of Central Europe by Paul Robert Magocsi? The citation is there. The first larger comment is a resume of some facts stated in the page (usually we cannot cite sources verbatim at wp because of copyvio) but I brought you here the sentence found there and that matters most for this discussion, the one talking about came under direct control of the central government in Vienna, not the local authorities it is on the left side, you will see it. Also, the Djilas source is quite clear regarding the two aspects you are talking about. Anyway, what is exactly that you want here regarding the Tesla article? FkpCascais (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Stop repeating yourself. It's being very disruptive. Your initial quote can not be found in the page 34 of the source. Please fix that or remove the quotation. The quote from the page you stress talks about administrative aspect. I already had copied the next few sentences in my initial response to you [4]. Please stop with POV pushing by repeating yourself. Continue with this behavior and I personally will report you, although Michael Cambridge should have done that already for personal attack against him. It is not my job to report your personal attacks towards other people but I will report your behavior if you continue with POV pushing by constantly repeating your misinterpretations of the sources. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Please go ahead and report me. The initial quotation is a resume of the page, and I wrote you verbatim next what it says regarding the control over the Military Frontier. Everyone can read the page and see what is written there. There are no doubts who is the one misinterpreting sources here and twisting them in order to fit their missconceptions. Now, if this is all, we are done. You have no consensus among shcolar sources neither editors backing for your desired change. Is there anthing else we can do for you or help you? FkpCascais (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The problem is this FkpCascais, if the Wikipedia article on the AC/DC guitarist Angus Young can state that he is a "Scottish-born Australian guitarist..." even though Scotland is not an independent country then we can state here that Nikola Tesla is a "Croatian-born Serbian American inventor..." We have the reliable sources to prove it. You are the one being disruptive here FkpCascais. It is time to face the facts and make the change.Michael Cambridge 13:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
That same proposal was recently discussed, asked and rejected. Is that all? FkpCascais (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not Tesla was born in Croatia seems to depend on what one means by "Croatia". Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, what do you each mean by "Croatia". --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Croatian Military Frontier is formally a part of Kingdom of Croatia, while Slavonian Military Frontier is formally a part of Kingdom of Slavonia. Kingdom of Slavonia is subordinate kingdom to the Kingdom of Croatia. That is why "Croatia" is a term used both for Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia as a joint term. This is the way the first source ([5]) uses that term. You can see that there is only one Croatian diet (Sabor) called (Croatian Sabor) and only one Croatian ruler (Called Croatian Ban). There is no separate Slavonian died nor Slavonian ban. Your stand confuses me. What do you exactly mean by the term "Croatia", and what do you think the term "Croatian Ban" or "Croatian Sabor" meant? Croatian diet was the only diet for Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia, so the definition of the term "Croatia" is evidently the joint term for both Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia since the diet nor the ban is not called Croatian and Slavonian diet/ban. I frown upon the methods of some editors that use the ambiguity for POV pushing. The claim "sources are all over the place" so the article should state "that and that" if POV pushing in its very essence. Also misinterpretations of the sources to make the matter seam more complex than it is in the purpose of deluding and a POV pushing in its very essence. The senior editors that are POV pushing have perfected that method very well. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
And you can very well see the maps in the article, the ones indicating in red the area of Croatia, and you can clearly see how Smiljan and the Military Frontier were not part of Croatia and were part of another Austrian administrative division named Military Frontier. FkpCascais (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, Maybe I should clarify my request. Please add to my previous message, "without going into your reasons for thinking that." --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly Bob K31416, Croatia at that period was Kingdom of Croatia, later Croatia-Slavonia, always a subdivision of the Austrian empire. However, on contrary from what these users say, Military Frontier was another Austrian subdivision, separated from Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, the military zone where Tesla was born was not under the direct control of the Croatian government, but under control of the Austrian Emperor. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Yes, that is what all the sources say. People, please stop repeating the general consensus. Everyone can see what the sources say for themselves. Let's not go to the domain of POV pushing. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. So can the single purpose "Tesla-Croatia" accounts accept the facts and stop talking the same things over and over, stop opening new threads about this same issues which were already discussed, and please stop accusing other editors of being paid and other similar offensive accusations? When editors are unable to disengage and accept consensus, it is considered disruptive behavior. FkpCascais (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Bob K31416, it has nothing to do with what I think Croatia is. I don't speak from my own authority on the matter and neither should anyone else. The only thing we can rely on is what the reliable sources say. Some reliable sources state that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia and some state the Military Frontier. It is up to us now to give Croatia the benefit of the doubt here. What I would like to know is why some editors don't believe the great Nikola Tesla himself when he wrote in his own words "I was born in Croatia.", in his Tribute to King Alexander. What did Nikola Tesla mean when he wrote "Croatia"? I am convinced that Nikola Tesla knew precisely where he was born and that is why he wrote Croatia. My question to you Bob K31416 and FkpCascais is- Do you believe Nikola Tesla when he wrote "I was born in Croatia."? There is no need to overcomplicate things hereMichael Cambridge 00:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
In the Tribute to King Alexander (where he wrote he was born in Croatia), see how Tesla words are taken into context in Tesla:Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney, page 303. Remind also that Tesla wrote the tribute by the time Smiljan was part of Croatia within Yugoslavia, so we don't know if he was referring to the fact that Smiljan was part of Croatia at time of his birth, or simply saying that by then his birthplace was in Croatia. Also, Tesla didn't just said that, you have to read everything what Tesla wrote there to understand why Tesla said that. You cant use primary sources if we have secondary sources regarding that issue. I already mentioned the context why Tesla wrote that, because Tesla wanted to potentiate the fact that there was people in Croatia (Serbs from what was already then Banovina Croatia within Yugoslavia, like him) that backed the Serbian king and didn't supported Croatian criticism of the kingdom and Croatian demands for greater autonomy or even independence that some aspired and promoted worldwide (as I mentioned, Einstein supported Croatian criticism of Yugoslavia and the king, and Tesla kind of answers here to those critics). Tesla wrote a tribute to a Yugoslav king that represented the Serbian rule in Yugoslavia and that ended up assassinated by a mixture of IMRO-Croatian terrorist group (see Alexander I of Yugoslavia). So you are taking Tesla words out of context and ignoring the rest he is saying where he glorifies Serbs and defends the Serbian king, and anyone reading the tribute can see that, I think I am not exaggerating at all. So resumingly, that argument of yours was already analised and considered insufficient for your desired change in the lede having in mind what reliable sources say and the fact that your edit request ("Croatian-born" in the lede) is extremely controversial and disputed and factually wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, the telegram where he allegedly wrote that sentence "equally proud of Serbian culture and Croatian homeland", appears to be fake, please read this Croatian article: IS THE TESLA-MACEK TELEGRAM AUTHENTIC?. There are many weak links there to your proposed change Cambridge, for the health of Wikipedia, it is much better to have here just pure, crude, certain, undisputed facts. FkpCascais (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
This POV pushing is getting absurd. After all you said about reliable sources, you now present a source like this? Really? A self published article on internet that claims Tesla is Croatian and that the telegram is a fake because Tesla states he is proud to be Serbian. The absurd goes further. The source you find reliable enough to put it here clearly states that "Tesla identified himself as being born in Croatia on his arrival at the Castle Garden Immigration office in Manhattan in 1884". It also states numerous claims you fiercely deny. So whats now? You are contradicting yourself. It seems you will stop at nothing in your POV pushing. You will even use pro-Croatian sources that clearly go against every reliable source that was used in the article. Reconsider revoking this as a reliable source or I will ask Bob K31416, Michael Cambridge, Chillum to consider making a joint report. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see that Nikola Tesla was glorifying Serbs in his Tribute to King Alexander and I don't really care what your interpretation of the article is. The point of the matter is that Nikola Tesla wrote "I was born in Croatia." Tesla did not say "I was born in the Military Frontier." Nikola Tesla clearly and unequivocally wrote "I was born in Croatia." This does not have to be an exercise in futility by withholding factual information by clinging on to status quo bias. This needs to be constructive in a way as to give credence to Nikola Tesla's claim that he was born in Croatia and the reliable sources that support the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia.Michael Cambridge 01:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
All you care here is to put Croatia in the first sentence, isn't it? You were already told by several editors log time ago that your argument here about Tesla words and the few sources are not enough. Since you refuse to listen and understand anything else, and you are already becoming inconvenient and offensive, we are not obligated here to endlessly listen to your same old story and loose time with you explaining to you things zillion times, so if you continue insisting you will be breaking a few Wikipedia rules and principles, that is for sure. FkpCascais (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: By time Tesla said that, in 1934, his birthplace Smiljan was part of Croatia within Yugoslavia, and the entire crown-lands of Austria administrative system, including the Militar Frontier, had been abolished by then for over 40 years already. So Tesla may have well have been referring to where Smiljan belonged then in 1936, and not necessarily saying the administrative unit which was in place in Smiljan at time of his birth. Simple logic. So no, his phrase, and some of the sources you found are not even enough for saying it in the article text, much less in the lede section. And don't you dare ever again accusing me of POV-pushing and offensively ask others to "examine their conscience", because there are RS in which Tesla expresses quite favourably towards Serbia and Serbs, and that information is missing in the article, and I am not pushing it in, but be sure I could if I wanted to, just keep on wanting to open the Pandora box here and we will end up adding in the article all he said about Serbia and Serbs (and I didn't even presented sources here regarding that, and there are many and strong ones, you are lucky I am not like you and not interested in bringing that nationalistic information here). So talking honestly, you should reall be happy with the current state of the article now. FkpCascais (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you are reading things properly here FkpCascais. I don't want to see the word 'Croatia' in the first sentence of the article. What needs to be seen in the first sentence of the article are the words- "Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian American inventor..." I find that I have to constantly repeat myself because you fail to read things properly. You say that I was told a long time ago that my argument here about Tesla's words and a few sources are not enough. No, I haven't been told that. I have a primary source, Nikola Tesla's Tribute to King Alexander and several reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources are presented as long as they are reliable. I am not the one here with the same old story as you claim. You are the one with the same old story. I have brought forward a new proposal and a re-examination of the reliable sources that are already included in the Nikola Tesla article, as well as two different sources, that being the one from Time magazine published in 1934 and Nikola Tesla's Tribute to King Alexander. I hope that this is my last post, because you are becoming quite painful here in your denial of the fact that Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia in the face of all the evidence. I don't deny that Nikola Tesla was born in the Military Frontier but I know that it was traditionally Croatian territory before it was formed, and it was still considered Croatian territory by many of the locals while it was in operation. Read a little about the history of Croatia and you will see that the territory where Nikola Tesla was born, that being the region of Lika, always belonged to Croatians ever since they migrated to the area in the 7th century, thus it is known as Croatia. Simple as that. None of this is my opinion but the regurgitation of information from reliable sources.Michael Cambridge 03:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
In a previous message I wrote,
"Whether or not Tesla was born in Croatia seems to depend on what one means by "Croatia". Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, what do you each mean by "Croatia"."
FkpCascais wrote "Kingdom of Croatia". Michael Cambridge declined to say.
Here's a followup question. Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, in the sources that say Tesla was born in Croatia, what do they mean by "Croatia"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Bob K31416, I replied to your question below FkpCascais' post from 22 June 20:56.I have explained by what is meant by Croatia as you said "without going into your reasons for thinking that." I was not giving my opinion as that doesn't matter. What matters is what the reliable sources state. You may answer the question in that post that I asked you if you wish. As to what the reliable sources mean by Croatia, I am not an authority on the matter but only the reliable sources are. I speculate they mean pretty much the same thing I have been explaining that Nikola Tesla was born in Lika which is a region of Croatia and always has been even before the formation of the Military Frontier, therefore by Croatia I presume they mean the territory that rightfully belongs to Croatia. Michael Michael Cambridge 04:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
(ec) Seems obvious that in this ocean of sources about Tesla, many authors simply want to focus on the important aspects of Tesla life as inventor and genious he was, and not thee birthplace, and the fact that the region suffered massive border changes, changes of tcountry, province and administrative units names, made it even more complicated for authors that didn't wanted to go in detail with this particular aspect of Tesla life. At the previous exhaustive discussion, MrX found among reliable sources even 8 saying Tesla was born in Serbia (probably authors said it because Tesla was Serb, or because the Military Frontier was inhabited by Serbs) and even 2 saying he was born in Montenegro (probably because there are other sources saying his family roots originate from Montenegro). The ones saying Tesla was born in Croatia, most are probably misssguided by the fact that Smiljan nowadays is located in Croatia, so ended up being logical for them to write the sentence "Tesla, born in Croatia", some may really have thought Smiljan was part of Croatia. However, we saw that there are some sources dealing more seriously with the matter of his birth place, and such ones go along the line of Military Frontier, Austrian empire. FkpCascais (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: "rightfully belongs to Croatia"... I have no words for this type of reasoning... Imagine if we would be editing Wikipedia having in mind what righfully belongs to whom, this would be a caos. So Tesla was born in Croatia because Smiljan "rightfully belongs to Croatia" and we should totally ignore the fact that Vienna created the province of Military Frontier and took territory from other provinces? Croatian parliament for more than 200 years asked Austria to give them part of the Military Frontier, but who cares, MF shouldn't have existed, it was all rightfully Croatian, lets ignore it then, right Cambridge? FkpCascais (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
FkpCascais, I am not going to dignify you with a response to that. I ask Bob K31416 to call upon other neutral editors and administrators to intervene here and come to their own conclusions based on the information presented here. I have reached the point where I don't care anymore.Michael Cambridge 05:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
People with mentality of historical revisionism and denial, and beliefs of "this land is righfully ours" can only dignify me by staying as far away from me as possible. Several senior editors already expressed total disagreement with your proposal, and none supported you, so your case is clearly closed. The consensus reached at Talk:Nikola_Tesla/Nationality_and_ethnicity/Archive_3 stands as the arguments presented were already discussed there. We have nothing more to talk. I will only respond here to questions of Bob K31416 or if any new evidence is presented. If you continue arguing the same arguments of the sort of "rightfully belongs" I will gather the patience to report you and open a serios discussion in a proper place on how to stop nationalistic POV-pushing on Wikipedia once after consensus is reached. I already have a hand full of rules and principles you already broke. Best regards "Cambridge" FkpCascais (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need to argue endlessly here about the same old things. If new evidence is presented then by all means respond to it. But after so much discussion I think it is reasonable to just ignore people who make the same points over and over that have already been rejected by the consensus of editors here. Responding to someone to is willing to argue forever but is not providing new information is not productive. Filibustering does not require a response on Wikipedia. Chillum 12:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
I had posed the question: In the sources that say Tesla was born in Croatia, what do they mean by "Croatia"?
FkpCascais essentially responded that they mean what is nowadays Croatia.
Michael Cambridge responded, "I presume they mean the territory that rightfully belongs to Croatia".
Michael Cambridge, In your response, what do you mean by "Croatia"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Historically Croatian territory.Michael Cambridge 13:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
Would that be the territory indicated in the map to the right by "Croatia", "Croatian Military Frontier" and "C. M. F."? Croatian Military Frontier in 1868 (from the article Croatian Military Frontier) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you can see clearly in the map you provided how the 'Croatian Military Frontier' encompasses the region of Lika where Nikola Tesla was born. Although I am not sure about the shaded area west of Zagreb, it seems to enter into the country of Slovenia but I could be wrong. So we have clear evidence here shown in the map of what is considered historically to be Croatian territory which is incorporated into the modern-day Republic of Croatia. We have overwhelming evidence to safely say that "Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian American inventor..."Michael Cambridge 22:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
"Following the decisive Ottoman victories, Croatia was split into civilian and military territories, with the partition formed in 1538. The military territories would become known as the Croatian Military Frontier and were under direct Imperial control."
Yes. With a mention that from 1538 until 1627, the civil Croatia had control over the CMF, however in 1627 lost it, and the CMF along with other military frontiers formed an administrative unit of Military Frontier which Vienna ruled directly all the way until 1881. During that time, Croatian parliament (Sabor) made several requests to Vienna to restore them the CMF but Austrians rejected them, and settled the area with Serbs, Croats, Vlachs, etc. Talking in simple words, Austrians did what they want, and Croats, with an imminent threat of being swallowed by the Ottomans and the fact that they themselves despite being a kingdom were just an Austrian province, couldn't really do much against it. So in history, when one refers to Croatia, inevitably is referring to the Austrian crown land of Kingdom of Croatia, and unfortunately for Cambridge, Croatia had no control whatsoever over Smiljan at time of Tesla birth, and Military Frontier was firmly ruled by Vienna. FkpCascais (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Bob K31416, you can not establish a consensus when the sources are being ignored. Michael Cambridge gives vague explanation that could be in the domain of the sources, but without further elaboration it is all vague, while FkpCascais went even further, to contradict his own sources. I gave the historical elaboration, and I'm not participating in the discussion about Nikola Tesla per say, but I'm trying to show that the sources should be followed. If some users constantly write comments against what the sources say, than that is POV pushing and should be disregarded. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the consensus has been established, since the FkpCascais was the only one objecting and he has recently provided a source he finds reliable, that clearly denies his objections. So there are 3 ways to interpret his source. First, the consensus has been established since the source FkpCascais finds reliable denies his earlier objections. Secondly, he had made a mistake and he should admit it and revoke the source. I asked him to do that. He had not done that. Thirdly, he is POV pushing so mush that he even uses sources that contradict his earlier claims. Lastly to mention, the source is totally unreliable and the fact that he considers it reliable and disputes much more reliable sources just show a pattern of behavior. I intended this section to be a collection of sources and again it turned to this abomination since one user keeps answering every comment and give interpretations like this that contradict the sources. I asked him not to be disruptive and now I'm asking you, the editors that participated in this, Bob K31416, Chillum, Michael Cambridge to answer this comment with your opinion on a joint report. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear IP... what are you talking about? What consensus you reached? What source are you talking about? I presented sources that clearly distinguish civil Croatia from the Military Frontier, we have reliable sources confirming Vienna removed Croatia control of the CMF section of the Military Frontier in 1627 and only returned parts of the Military Frontier to Croatia (by then Croatia-Slavonia) in 1881. The articles are clear, what I say is what the vast amount of reliable scholar sources say, the maps in the articles are clear, the refusal of your proposal on behalve of vast majority of editors is clear. Your comment is so out of touch with reality that it has some ironic parallel with the discussion here where you and Cambridge in same way defend some thesis so out of touch with what was the reality back then.
Bob K31416, what else can we clarify or bring source for? FkpCascais (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Michael Cambridge want's to introduce an edit and you are the only one that objects. You posted a source that you find reliable and that clearly supports suggestion made by Michael Cambridge and that clearly denies your objections. Thus I conclude that either consensus has been reached, or you had made a mistake, or you are POV pushing so much that you even use sources that contradict your stand. The source I'm speaking about is this one IS THE TESLA-MACEK TELEGRAM AUTHENTIC? that you had posted and that denies your objections and support the suggestion by Michael Cambridge. Again you fail to see that the administration is not the question here, as the general consensus is that Croatia did not have administration over Military Frontier. Once again, that is the general consensus. The dispute is regarding formal aspect, and the only sources presented on that matter claim Military Frontier formally belonged to Croatia. I'm not participating in the Nikola Tesla discussion so please stop with POV pushing and discrediting me on the basis of my stand. That is a clear personal attack. Your interpretations can't clarify anything since they are contrary to the sources. You are POV pushing administrative aspect against formal aspect against all of the presented sources. You also failed to point to the quotation you made earlier which can't be found in the source you referenced. Please read this2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Everything I said is backed by sources. I cant see how can you say MF formally belonged to Croatia when is crystal clear that between 1627 to 1881 it didn't. Who supports the change? Can you ask those users to come here and confirm that they support changing the lede to "Croatian-born" as you claim? I would appreciate. FkpCascais (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the text someone wrote in that website croatianviewpoint.com, I was obviously not using it as source, it is just a ridiculous nationalistic conspiracist website with zero enciclopedic value. I just brought it here as exemple of how even in Croatia there are people that are aware that the telegram was fake. The telegram is actually one of the very few arguments you have in wanting to add the "Croatian-born" sentence in the lede, as Asdisis and Cambridge constantly repeated the statement Tesla allegedly made there about him being proud of Croatian homeland. So there goes that argument down as well. And the website actually says one thing which is quite interesting and explains the sudden importance to Croatisize Tesla maximally, which is: "...considering the millions spent by Croatian taxpayers on the new Tesla Museum in Croatia,...". That explains a lot. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
"Belonged", "controlled" are vague words which demand further elaboration. Constant repeating of those and similar words go in the domain of POV pushing. Please give elaboration. According to you, what do the sources tell about formal and what about administrative aspect? Also please stop discrediting reliable sources and posting unreliable sources that even contradict your stand. Please stop giving your misinterpretation, everyone is capable to see what the sources tell. All that is called POV pushing and you had done quite enough of it here by answering every comment. Remember that you had reported Asdisis for this kind of behavior and you are obviously demonstrating the very same behavior. I already asked of editors participating here to vote on the suggestion of joint report. I've had it enough with this discussion. I haven't typed so much text in the last year. Please do not answer every comment here or you could finish up like Asdisis. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Since I'm being dragged in the Tesla discussion although I opened a section that does not deal with Tesla I will make my suggestion for Tesla's birthplace. Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia which was then a part of Austrian Empire. The reasoning is the following. We know what the first source tells us that Military Frontier, Croatia and Slavonia constituted a single land. [6]. We know that Croatia is a legal successor of that land per Croatian constitution. That way we do not have to deal with the concerns of Bob K31416, on what "Croatia" stands for and we don't have to deal with administrative disputes about who "controlled" Military Frontier. This is not anything new on Wikipedia and in my opinion it would resolve further discussions. It is virtually the same as Austrian Empire (today's Croatia), just Croatia is moved upfront. That's virtually no change at all. The present state is anyways interpreted in this way, because people do not know the deeper implication as explained by FkpCascais. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear IP, you make a lot of claims without any scholar backing and you ignore evidence showed to you. To demonstrate this, you said in the earlier comment that only I opposed the proposal and all other editors agreed with Cambridge and you had consensus. So I will repeat my question: What editors were you referring that support you? I appreciate you answer and say the names. FkpCascais (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
PS: Can you please find English language sources? Both subjects, Nikola Tesla and Military Frontier, are well covered subjects in English-language scholar sources. Is that such an exceptional claim that is only found in one source and it is in Croatian? FkpCascais (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a reminder, 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to draw conclusions. The use of any sources on nationality that don't mention Tesla specifically is forbidden as SYNTHESIS. Also any PRIMARY sources must be backed up by secondary ones, see WP:PSTS. --ChetvornoTALK 08:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Please stop answering every comment with your POV pushing stands. That kind of behavior got Asdisis banned per your request and you are now demonstrating the same behavior. Please stop with that. Please stop with misinterpretation of my posts. Please stop with discrediting both Croatian and Serbian sources that were posted here. Also I asked you clearly. What do the sources say about formal aspect and what do they say about administrative aspect of Croatia-Military Frontier relationship? 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Thank you. The reliable sources are stated above, so I haven't repeated them. A number of reliable secondary sources state Tesla was born in Croatia. Furthermore the secondary sources are collaborated by 3 primary sources. Tesla's telegram. Tesla's own statement he was born in Croatian, and Tesla's diploma. So this suggestion is based in sources and it is formed in such way so we avoid ambiguity. I know I'm an anonymous IP and that I have no chance of introducing an edit past all this POV pushers, but I was pushed to state it, since FkpCascais started to give his interpretations of my stand which were false. I started a section unrelated to Tesla with a goal to stop POV pushing and misinterpretation of sources on that subject. I was not participating in Tesla's discussion, but I was pushed into it. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Bob K31416 asked "Following the decisive Ottoman victories, Croatia was split into civilian and military territories, with the partition formed in 1538. The military territories would become known as the Croatian Military Frontier and were under direct Imperial control." Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, Do you agree with this? My answer is Yes. FkpCascais goes on to say that "...Vienna removed Croatia control of the CMF section of the Military Frontier in 1627 and only returned parts of the Military Frontier to Croatia (by then Croatia-Slavonia) in 1881." FkpCascais fails to realise that if something is 'returned', it must have first been borrowed or taken. Croatian territory is Croatian territory regardless of who is in control. It doesn't matter if the politics of the area is governed by an Emperor in Vienna, Austria. The village of Smiljan where Nikola Tesla was born was located on Croatian territory before the formation o the Military Frontier, the Austrians knew it was Croatian territory and that is why they 'returned' it to Croatian rule. Some like to call it the Military Frontier, others like to call it the Croatian Military Frontier, and some go so far as to call it the Serbian Military Frontier. But Nikola Tesla knew that where he was born was traditionally, historically and rightfully Croatian territory hence why he wrote, "I was born in Croatia."Michael Cambridge 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear Lord forgive me, but I really cannot resist not to comment this. Michael Cambridge, it is so unfortunate for Croatia and the Croats that you were born only now. Part of me really admires you. If you were born in the late Renaissance, you would have truly been a Croatian Garibaldi, persistently uniting with such enthusiasm and passion all the traditional and cultural lands that rightfully belong to Croatia! Fighting with all the heart against all evidence and adversities. Who cares if others ruled it, who cares if people are not Croatian, everyone must know it is all Croatia! In some other historical period you could have easily have been the Biggest Croatian of all times. FkpCascais (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There are serios concerns about the authenticity of Tesla telegram, Tesla diploma is in that website where we can see all the original documents from Karlovac highschool talking about Militargrentze and only that one paper in Croatian which, by the way, also says "Birthplace: Smiljan, Military Frontier" and next space "Homeland: Croatia" although it is curios how all original documents in German speak only of Tesla from Militargrentze and even support the fact that Karlovac was in Military Frontier (and not Croatia as it was saying in our article, I removed it cause it was unsourced). The number of RS saying Tesla was born in Croatia is clearly outnumbered by the ones saying he was born in the Military Frontier (8 RS even say he was born in Serbia), and the consensus from the previous discussion should prevail. Tesla own statement "I was born in Croatia" was made in a time when Smiljan was already part of Croatia within Yugoslavia, so we don't know if he was referring to the place at time he was born or at the present time of the statement, anyway this is a secondary source putting Tesla words in context. So a clear oppose to your proposal. PS: Stop accusing me of being a POV-pusher, everything I say I have RS for that, you are being highly abusive. I am not even going to say nothing after a good exemple that was your lack of response to the question I made you and showed how easily you make fake claims that later when asked you cant respond. You are attacking me because I am responding and bringing down your arguments, but that is not POV-pushing. So please focus on the content and stop being offensive towards me. FkpCascais (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Haven't we agreed that the source that shared concerns about Tesla's telegram is unreliable and should be disregarded? Please provide a quote from this source as I can not find it. The 3 primary sources are confirmed by a number of secondary sources of which only a portion was showed here. For instance this source was showed a long time ago: Tesla has always considered himself a Serb from Croatia, and he had never denied that in his personal data. Source:Hrvatska revija, 1963. Someone should really gather all the sources that are scrambled over all discussions on one place because they are being forgotten and ignored. Please stop repeating your interpretations. You have repeated them so much that it is being very disruptive now. Stop answering every comment and stop repeating yourself. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Another reminder. Tesla is not a professional geographer or historian. It may sound surprising, but Tesla's statements on his own nationality are not RSs for this article. There are many people throughout history who have mischaracterized their own nationality. --ChetvornoTALK 15:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Yes, that is why Wikipedia is not based on primary source, however in this case the 3 primary sources are collaborated by reliable secondary sources. And we are not talking about nationality here. And your statement is interesting because Tesla's nationality entered article based on the source that says "Nikola Tesla stated Austrian as his former nationality". So what is your answer to your own claim that "Tesla is not a professional geographer or historian so Tesla's statements on his own nationality are not RSs for this article" in regarding on the source that entered the article which you had supported? And for the last time, I'm not suggesting any change for the article. I expressed my opinion of whereabouts of Tesla's birth only because my stand was misinterpreted. I started a section dealing with historical aspects of Military Frontier and Croatia to stop personal opinions on that matter. Stop dragging me in the Tesla argument as I do not suggest any change to the article. If some new sources are posted regarding to the section I opened I'm happy to review them. I think so far, the sources are quite clear on the subject. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@2001, I am sorry, this discussion is so repetitive and exhaustive that I mixed up a source. This one is the one I meant (Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney, page 303) where she analyses his words at the Tribute to King Alexander from where the expression "I was born in Croatia" was taken from. FkpCascais (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
I don't see any part speaking of Tesla's statement that he is born in Croatia. Could you provide a quotation? If you are aiming towards your earlier interpretation I have to say that it is false. Tesla praising Yugoslav kind is not related in any way to his statement that his is born in Croatia. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk)
That is the point. It is not there. Margaret Cheney is a secondary source about the message Tesla transmited in that tribute. Find secondary sources that will say how Tesla considered himself to have been "from Croatia", because it is obvious Tesla may have said that for a series of reasons as the context is political and Tesla has the obvious interest there in expressing support for the king and responding to the criticism the king was facing from the Croats. FkpCascais (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
So there isn't any interpretation about Tesla's statement about the place of his birth, and you are using that source just because it is not shading light to that statement? The rest of this post is your own interpretation and the source doesn't support that interpretation. Unlike the most people here I'm actually reading the sources and I'm not taking people's own interpretations for granted. First you posted a source along with wrong quotation and you refused to point to the quote or revoke it. The you posted a totally unreliable source that contradict even your own stand and now you posted a source without any quote and your skip right to your interpretation. If you want to show what the source says, please provide a quote. So far you had only presented a source along with your misinterpretation without a singe quotation. I'm sorry, but that is POV pushing. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I just brought that conspiracist Croatian source as exemple of how even those know the telegram is fake. It was just an exemple, and I told you, so don't pretend now you didn't understood. We already had an entire thread about the telegram, no need spending more time with it. Regarding the rest, I provided reliable secundary sources for what matters and whenever needed, and I corrected the case when I mixed up a source. So get a grip on yourself and behave in a civil manner please. Looks that your lack of arguments is making you continuously attack me post after post. Please find secondary English-language reliable sources. Thanks, FkpCascais (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Let me get this right. You admit the source is "conspiracist", we had already agreed it is unreliable, and it remains in the sphere of original research, however you still use it as an argument that the telegram is fake, although there are numerous reliable secondary sources that mention the telegram? I have no doubt the previous discussion about Tesla's telegram was done in the manner you are presenting here, if you had participated with the sources you are pushing right now. Yes you corrected yourself, however the source still does not shed any interpretation about Tesla's statement about the place of his birth, and furthermore the source denies your interpretation. Please stop repeating that interpretation. You stated it once, I said it is a misinterpretation and that is enough. Your constant repeating can only be interpreted as POV pushing, so please stop. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Michael Cambridge and FkpCascais, Do you agree with this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. We have more and more evidence accumulating to prove that Lika has always been Croatian territory before either the Ottoman or Austrian Empires gained control. Bob K31416, do you agree that we have come to a consensus that Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian American inventor...? In this lengthy discussion, those who have participated and offered anything of any substance have mostly been myself,FkpCascais, 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 and yourself. FkpCascais obviously objects. Bob K31416, if you think that we have come to a consensus as I think we have, then I will go ahead with the edit fully referenced stating that "Nikola Tesla was a Croatian-born Serbian American inventor..." We have the reliable sources to support this wording presented in this discussion.Michael Cambridge 11:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
Yes Bob. Croatia was never an independent country since 1102 (Croatia in the union with Hungary) all the way till 1992. Before 1527 it was already Hungarian for more than 400 years. In that entire period between 1102 and 1992, Croatia was either part of Hungary, Austria or Yugoslavia.
Croatia lost its independence in 1102 and by the time of Tesla life had never recovered it back. That is what Tesla is referring in the Tribute to King Alexander in the second and third paragraphs where he glorifies Serbs and says "All true Croatians and Slovenes remember that gratefully". When the Serbian Army entered Croatia in 1918 and united Croatia and Slovenia with the Kingdom of Serbia forming a new kingdom with Serbian dynasty Karadjordjevic in power, Tesla considered that fact as if peoples of Croatia finally liberated themselves from foreign rule (Hungarian and Austrian) that lasted for almost an entire millenium. Like most Serbs from Lika and other regions that belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1918, Tesla shared the view that living in a Serbian dominated kingdom was liberation. However, during the 1920s and 1930s many Croats were disappointed and wanted real independence since they didn't shared the joy Tesla had in living in a kingdom ruled from the Serbian capital Belgrade by a Serbian king and dominated by the Serbian elite. That period had this clear cleavage between Serbs and Croats and Tesla took sides (do I really need to say which side?), so that is why ends up being so ironic Cambridge and others are citing the Tribute when they are ignoring the message he is giving there. FkpCascais (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Considering the long history of this edit conflict and the previous consensus established by the June 2014 RfC, I think any proposed change to the article should first be vetted by an RfC, Michael Cambridge. --ChetvornoTALK 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
To anyone who read Tesla' biographies it is very well known fact that Tesla did not took sides in the disputes between Croatians and Serbs. I can find a number of reliable secondary sources to disprove your interpretation, so this is yet another among many false interpretations. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
He supported the king. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Bob K31416, do not forget this: "While in the formal aspect the Military Frontier was part of Kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Slavonia (later Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia), it was under separate provincial and military administration." from the Military Frontier article. I've done that edit and it was accepted by 3 senior editors who are participating in that article. I see now that FkpCascais is trying to impose his POV pushing stand over there as well. But as my edit was accepted by 3 senior editors over there I don't think he will be successful, unless he invites other people to join him in the POV pushing. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that surce IP2001 is citing is actually not a source for what he pretends, but just the historian Rudolf Horvat citing verbatim a decition of the Croatian parliament in which they claim Croatia, Slavonia and Military Frontier were one and single entity (I suppose they refer just to the part of the MF they claimed, the CMF). However, we need secondary sources that would confirm that the claim of the Croatian parliament was accepted by the Austrian Emperor. We already saw secondary sources saying how Croatian Sabor claimed the MF but their claims were rejected by the Austrians. So ends up not even being a valid source for what the IP2001 pretends. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Why did you fail to provide a quote? Also, there is no need to have this discussion in two articles. I answered you here. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That statement is clearly in contradiction with other reliable sources. Can you please find an English-language source for that? PS: You are posting duzens of consecutive posts attacking me in each and every one of them. FkpCascais (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on intentions, behavior, and irrational claims it's too apparent that 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 is Asidis. Please, block this spammer!--72.66.12.17 (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
They certainly seem to have the same goal, they just differ in the strategy, and do have similarities in their way of conducting discussions. Unfortunatelly, I don't have an experience in reporting meat/sockpuppets, so I am not the right person to do it, perhaps someone could help. FkpCascais (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
No need to accuse everybody of being Asdisis. I share no similarities to his behavior. I have no intentions of editing the article, nor I had made any request, and I'm certainly not being irrational. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Military Frontier and Croatia relationship – break1
Margaret Cheney wrote two books about Tesla: Tesla:Man out of time first published in 1981 (republished in 2001), and Tesla, Master of Lightning published in 1999 and coauthored with Robert Uth.
"Nikola Tesla was born at precisely midnight between July 9 and 10, 1856, in the village of Smiljan, province of Lika, Croatia, between Yugoslavia's Velebit Mountains and the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea."
Eighteen years later in her 1999 book she went into more detail about the area that contained the village of Smiljan, and she didn't say that Tesla was born in Croatia, but rather that he was born in what is now known as Croatia. The following excerpts are from page 143.[8]
Here is the first paragraph of page 143, where I have put in bold font two sentences of particular interest to me.
"The Balkan Peninsula is situated directly between Europe and Asia Minor. This area's long and turbulent history has caused confusion about Tesla's nationality. Both Serbs and Croats take pride in Tesla. Ethnically a Serb, he is so important to the Serbian people that his image appears on their currency. But he was born in the area that today is called Croatia, though its borders have changed many times over the years."
And from the second paragraph of that same page 143,
"...Tesla was born in the border region of Lika, in a small village called Smiljan, a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire."
If I were to describe the situation regarding Croatia, Tesla's birthplace and ethnicity, I would say,
Tesla was an ethnic Serb born in the village of Smiljan of the province Lika, which was then in the border region known as the Croatian Military Frontier or Military Frontier. In 925 Lika was in the Kingdom of Croatia and this has changed many times over the centuries, depending on which alliance the Kingdom of Croatia belonged to or which country or empire controlled Lika. Tesla was born a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in what is now called Croatia.
Now I wouldn't be surprised if one could find fault with the above description, in fact I'd expect it. I think it's a difficult situation to describe.[9] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
That is pretty objective. I would like to ask just one thing. I'm interested in why are you disregarding the kings decision from 1850 which is confirmed trough reliable secondary source? It stands as the most elaborate description of Military Frontier, as it describes it from the formal, and administrative aspect. To repeat, "Military Frontier along with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." That is the most elaborate description without the vague terms like "control"..etc..This suggestion of yours consists of two parts. Tesla related part and a brief explanation of the historical situation. I think that sources dealing with Tesla are not quite relevant to explain the historical situation, as they often contain mistakes, and so on...I think your suggestion that consists of two parts is the way to go. The general consensus is "Smiljan, Military Frontier" and after that we can go to historical sources to write a brief historical description of Military Frontier. I didn't even think of that until this suggestion of yours. What do you think about it? 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Per the expanded text: The "history" belongs in a linked article such as Smiljan, Austrian Empire, or Croatia, not the Nikola Tesla article. The reader can follow the link and decide for themselves what was what when Tesla was born. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both of you. Actually, it wasn't meant as a proposed edit but just my summary of the subject. I haven't got to the point of deciding what to do about the article regarding this subject.
2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 – Links here for your source for "kings decision from 1850" and corresponding reliable secondary sources would be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
Bob K31416 , I already provided that source at the top of this section. I don't have a link to the primary source, but only to the secondary source that speaks of the kings decision. Here. The source is stated in Military Frontier article. It was used to write the article and it was verified as reliable by a number of editors who participated in editing that article. I can be of assistance to translate the whole passage that relays to the kings decision from 1850 so we have the full context of the quote provided here. It stretches over 2 pages in the book, so it's not that long to translate and it would give a full context. Maybe that would be a good idea, since FkpCascais had stated a false claim that the source relays to the proclamation of Croatian Sabor, where in fact it explicitly states it relays to the kings decision from 1850. If you are interested in the source you can look the discussion here. If you look at the discussion you will see that the assertion stated by FkpCascais is false. I asked him to provide the quote for his assertion 3 times, because I think it is completely false, but he did not provide any quote. Now, I won't say the word but I will ask rhetorically. How would you call an editor that says a certain source says something but fails to provide the quote after as much as three pleas and keeps repeating the claim. I had rest my case regarding that false assertion and you can find more in the linked discussion. I would certainly like to hear your opinion since you has established yourself as an objective person who follows the sources. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Stop making fools all of us, you have no sources for what you claim, all you have is a Croatian-language source in which historian Rudolf Horvat in the chapter 3 says which were the decitions and demands of the Croats, and says nothing about if they were accepted by the central government or not. Stop pretending you don't see the quotation marks of the Croatian king decition which clearly indicate Horvat is citing what was said in the Croatian parliament (Sabor) and it is not him saying that actually happened. (Exemple, I can say the Sun is greene, and someone says, FkpCascais made the decition "The Sun is Greene" but that doesn't mean the Sun is bloody greene!) So all you can do with the source you repete here days already is just to say that in 1850 Croatians made claims over MF and Dalmatia. Now please stop this charade and go and find sources. I guess since all you talk for days is this only source, you don't have any others, and indeed, how could they exist if MF was only incorporated into Croatia only in 1881, a fact actually said in a number of English-language sources. Can someone please take care of this disruptive IP otherwise this will never end? For God sake he has no sources and is making fools all of us for days. FkpCascais (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
What a cynical person. Comes here and says "Yes Bob K31416, it is objective, I agree... but..." and then he comes with all his POV clearly indicating that in what matters he doesn't agree at all and continues fighting even if by missinforming everyone about what says one foreign language source. He clearly understands everything there, it is in Croatian and he is Croat, he is just trying to make dummies all of you and counting no one understands what is there. I even assumed good faith and initially believed he really had a source and I didn't reacted for some days, until I didn't actually digged into it, and saw it really says nothing he claims it says! And we provided several reliable sources for this saying the opposite of what he pretends, and he always comes to me asking me for sources and saying I am a POV-pusher? This guy is total lunatic, he warns me he will report me for days now, go ahead and report me, since that is all you got left, a desperate kamikaze maneuver on your behalve, just go. FkpCascais (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
I already answered you here. I will just briefly repeat here that you refused to provide a quote for your assertion stated above. In the referenced response I proved your assertion is false.
You "assumed good faith and initially believed he really had a source and I didn't reacted for some days". Well this is really making a fools of someone. I had posted 3 sources at 23:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC) and you posted a comment at 23:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC) calling them "obcure revisionist Croatian or Serbian sources". You call that a good faith? And now you even admit you haven't even looked at them, even though I provided links? Is that a good faith?2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You know that the decitions of the Croatian king and Sabor meant nothing in the cases of territorial changes if they were not approved by Vienna, since Croatia was not an independent country, but just one among the Austrian crown-lands. So you need a source that says that the demands of the sabor were accepted regarding their request to give them Military Frontier and Dalmatia, and for what we know, Austrians only gave part of the Military Frontier to Croatia in 1881, 31 years later. So you have nothing and your answers are just lunatic. FkpCascais (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
I answered here. Let's stop posting double comments to this discussion. 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The way FkpCascais is behaving here seems rather erratic and immature in his desperate attempts to get his points across. We know you have reliable sources that state Nikola Tesla was born in the Military Frontier and we have reliable sources that state Nikola Tesla was born in Croatia. The simple question now is, do we go ahead with the proposed edit or not? So far, two of the four editors mainly involved in this discussion would like to see the edit made, myself and 2001, you object and Bob K31416 is not sure yet. There is really no need to go around in circles.Michael Cambridge 23:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
OK, great, so if you can call everyone and propose your "Croatia-edit" and see if they agree, that would be great. So if the don't agree with your edit, would you once and for all accept evidence and consensus? At least for now and until you don't gather off-wiki some sources. Yes or no? FkpCascais (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Michael Cambridge, you must refrain from personal attacks per WP:NPA. What you seek is against well-established consensus, and there is no sign in this discussion that enough momentum has been achieved by pro-Croatian editors to effect a change on the article text. In fact, the opposite sign is indicated by your resorting to personal attacks, which shows the failure of your argument. Nothing will change at the Tesla biography, so it's time to leave it alone. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Michael Cambridge, a number of editors don't want to be involved in your endless argument, but are concerned about the result. Any decision will be made by a full consensus. Obviously nothing said here has changed that consensus. --ChetvornoTALK 07:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
One of the points in my first message of this break1 section, which I think is significant, may not have been understood. So I'll try to explain it. In Cheney's 1981 book she essentially said that Tesla was born in Croatia. Then in her 1999 book, she didn't say that Tesla was born in Croatia. It looks like when she gave the issue more thought in her 1999 book, she couldn't simply say that he was born in Croatia. I think it's significant that Cheney, who seems like a well-respected biographer of Tesla, seemed to change her mind about Tesla being born in Croatia when she considered the issue more carefully. Please reread my first message in this break1 section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Margaret Cheney also wrote that Tesla used to say "I am a Serb but my fatherland is Croatia" - Man Out of Time By Margaret Cheney, page 318
That was Cheney's older book. She was presumably still aware of that quote of Tesla when she wrote her newer book, which didn't say that Tesla was born in Croatia. I don't think it's a matter of WP:UNDUE. I think it's a matter of an author trying to improve on the information that she had previously written. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so that's it then. I would like to thank Bob K31416 for taking the time to research the matter and coming to his own conclusions. I would like to thank 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 for his input, and I'd like to thank FkpCascais for putting up a good fight. I'd also like to thank Binksternet and Chetvorno for lurking in the background and keeping an eye on things. To conclude, we all know that Nikola Tesla was born on Croatian territory, therefore in Croatia as the reliable sources tell us but we don't want to publicly admit it. That's very clever isn't it? Let's just talk about it here behind closed doors that Nikola Tesla was actually born in Croatia as he said so himself. If Nikola Tesla were alive to see this, I think he would be in tears that his words have been so misinterpreted. How would you feel if you truthfully and unequivocally wrote in your own words, "I was born in Croatia." as Nikola Tesla did, and then someone comes along and tells you, no you weren't born in Croatia. I can see that the pursuit of truth is a lost cause when it comes to the Nikola Tesla article. I leave this discussion with my head shaking in disbelief. That's me done. Over and out.Michael Cambridge 10:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Cambridge (talk • contribs)
Michael Cambridge = 2001:41D0:8:90C6:0:0:0:1 = Asidis. Nikola Tesla was not born on a Croatian territory. Rather, his birth place became a part of Croatian territory after 1881. It's a high time to stop this spammer.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 11:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
M. Cambridge, you should show more respect towards numerous senior editors here, they are neutral regarding the dispute here, objective, and interested in Tesla work and life, and are not prone to be missguided by simple eloquent words, so you should not make such offensive conclusions towards them. I see your passion towards Croatia, but to be really patriotic one must accept its history as it really was, with all their glories but also their defeats. Encyclopedia includes only historically correct facts. If Tesla was alive today, he will certainly cry yes, but because of all the recent events that happened in the region he was born. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment from blocked user Asdisis, confirmed and blocked.
FkpCascais you are not the right person to talk about respect to other editors. You had yourself called me : lunatic, cynical person, Croat, claiming I'm making fools of others..etc...You were hostile to everyone that had not agreed with you which as a result had Asdisis and another ip person blocked. You accused Michael Cambridge of being a sock. You have pretty much been hostile to everyone that seem not to agree with you. I'm sorry but I had to react after you spoke about respect. Detoner (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I could only assume that this Detoner is Asidis.--72.66.12.17 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Detoner is a sock and a proved POV pusher. This whole discussion should be disregarded as it is full of his POV pushing claims that go against the consensus and that are false.89.255.92.42 (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
A Serbian American is an "American citizen of Serbian ancestry.". That is only partially true since Nikola Tesla was born in Europe and not a US citizen by birth. Therefore Serbian American is not acknowledge the European, more specificity the Serbian part, of his person: the place were he was born and spent his first 30 years. He was an ordinary European at the time, not an American. Nikola Tesla was not an American citizen until 1891 (when he was 35). And it's not even sure that he revoked his Austrian citizen.
Serbian American is on the same foot as 'Italian American' or 'Greek American'. Eg. Frank Sinatra was an 'Italian American' (meaning: only an American, not a Italian citizen). Enrico Fermi was an Italian-American. See the difference? It's not because Austria-Hungary existed at the time of his birth (complicating the nationality issue) that 'Serbian American' is enough. --Wester (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand what "Serbian American" means. This term is used for a community of Americans of Serb descent, and indeed includes Americans of European origin (born in Europe); naturalized citizens.--Zoupan 19:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
That's exactly my point, Serbian American only related to the American aspect of his nationality. It neglectis the true European part of his origin. He is not just an Serbian American. He is a Serbian-American.--Wester (talk) 19:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
