Talk:Josif Runjanin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Explanation

It's ridiculous to give his name in various languages. His name was Josif, not Josip. If someone called Jovan goes to Italy, their name is still Jovan and not Giovanni. Also, he didn't live in Croatia, but in the Habsburg Empire. Finally, composing the music for the Croatian anthem doesn't mean a thing. Is Sven Goran Eriksson English just because he managed the English football team? --estavisti 05:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Josif and Josip are two versions of the same name. Croatian one is Josip and the Serbian Josif. I don't see what is so ridiculous to give various name version since it was common at that time. Example: Rudjer Boskovic. And he did live in Croatia which was at that time part of the Habsburg Empire. Your example is totally wrong, fallacious and absurd. --Factanista 15:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Josip was not a version of his name - it is a domesticized naturalizationo of his real name (Josif in this case). The same is like with the Serb medieval ruler Stefan Nemanja, or Bosnia's Stefan of the House of Cotroman - both known as Stjepans in Croatian historiography (or Pavle Subic in Serbian historiography).
2. Joseph Runyanin did not live in Croatia. It's only the fact that present-day Croatia contains his birthplace. --PaxEquilibrium 00:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
1.I think you meant "domesticated naturalization". ;) Anyway the very fact it is a domesticated naturalization also means that it is another version of the same name. Obviously...
2.He did live in Croatia as Croatia didn't sprung from dust. Anyone with a bit of knowledge about Croatian history should know that. as for you example it is again wrong just like Estavisti's. Stefan Nemanja's name was a given one, the Kotroman "Stefan" was Stjepan and the version Stefan is, as you would call it, Serbian "domesticated naturalization". :o)) --Factanista 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
1.Yes, that's what I meant. :) Indeed, correct. Just very like the already-mentioned Stefan Nemanja being "Stephen Nemanya" in English.
2.He was born in was was not Croatia in his live; he spent a part of his life there (Military Frontier), but the greatest part of his live in the Serbian Wojwodship. He was, the best way to call him (in almost every sense), a Vojvodinian. Josif Runjanin was also the given name, just like Stefan Nemanja... can't see your point over there. :))) AFAIC, "Stjepan" is a "Croatian domesticated naturalization: :o). Stephen Cotruman's given name was Stefan. --PaxEquilibrium 19:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
In any case this is not about Stjepan Kotroman or Stefan Nemanja but about Josip/Josif Runjanin. Why is it so controversive for you to accept he is known as Josip in Croatia is beyond me. --Factanista 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
? Who said its controversial to me? --PaxEquilibrium 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was thinking of Estavisti when I was answering to you, my bad. --Factanista 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not controversial to me at all, why don't you put that in, instead of insisting that his name was Josip. In fact, I'll put that in right now, since you suggested it. --estavisti 01:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not insist that his name was Josip, I insist that this is the name under which he is known in Croatia not "incorrect version" or "croatised" as you claim. Ask yourself which one is less nationalistic and one sided POV: putting the Croatian version in the brackets or writing that it is "inccorect croatised version"? Be reasonable. --Factanista 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Estavisti, there is no such thing as "Croatian" form. Not all "Josip"s are Croats. It is mainly the Catholic (designating religion, rather than nationality) form. That's why I objected your sentence. --PaxEquilibrium 15:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can "Factanista" please clearly state here why the following formulation is unacceptable to him/her: "His first name is sometimes incorrectly rendered as Josip, mostly in Croatian sources." People don't have different names in different languages, and his name was Josif. Just because Croatian sources Croatize that to Josip doesn't make it his name. Indeed, it is only relevant as he composed the music for the Croatian national anthem.--estavisti 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not "incorrect, it is simply Croatian version. Trust me there are far greater controversies regarding Runjanin...his name in Croatian is not one of them. --Factanista 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, precisely - it's incorrect because it's the Croatian version. It's not his actual name, and that's made clear in the version I'm proposing, that Croatian sources Croatize his name. Should we Anglicise it too? What a load of rubbish. Names aren't words - you can't translate them. Jovan is still called Jovan, even if he lives in NYC. He may Anglicise his name to John, but then he's changed it. What you're saying, with your version, is that Runjanin himself used both - unless you can source that, it's not going in. Even if you can source it, it's debated by Pax that Josip is an exclusively Croatian form, so we'd have to find the right form of words. --estavisti 16:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree - the sentence seems anti-Croatian POV. --PaxEquilibrium 11:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But why? --estavisti 11:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
For Factanista: perhaps you suggest that we also write into George W. Bush article that he is known as Džordž Buš in Serbian? Maybe we should write how his name is written in Mandarin Chinese too? Regarding Josif, he was Serb, and I do not see relevance of Croatian name here (or is it just that somebody here want to implement old 19th century Greater Croatian claim that Serbs do not exist as a nation and that all Serbs are in fact Orthodox Croats?!!). PANONIAN (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
And one more thing: Runjanin was not born in Croatia - Military Frontier was not part of Croatia, but military province directly subordinated to Vienna. PANONIAN (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If George Bush was living in 19th century Serbian then yes he would have his name in Serbian too. I do see a relevance of a Croatian name because he was born in Croatia and made music for Croatian anthem...I think that is more than enough. Why would that bother you is beyond me. Also Military Frontier was part of Croatia, yes it was subordinated directly to the military command in Vienna but it was still part of Croatia and was returned to Croatia after the imminent danger passed over which was the very reason for the establishment of the Military Frontier (also known as Military Croatia) as a buffer zone. A bit more education in the field of history would not hurt you. Regards. --Factanista 21:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, Factanista. Military Frontier WAS NOT part of Croatia. It was only claimed by Greater Croatian nationalists as part of Croatia, but it in reality, both de jure and de facto, was completelly separate from Croatia. And it was not "returned" but included into Croatia in the 19th century (some of those areas of the Military Frontier were never part of Croatia in the past). So, please educate yourself in the field of history before trying to educate somebody else. Thank you. And again, it is clear as a day that Runjanin was not born in Croatia. PANONIAN (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not wrong. Military Frontier was a buffer zone under direct military command in Vienna. It was established from the territory of Croatia and Hungary due to eminent danger from the Ottoman Empire. After the danger was all the territories were brought back. Nominally, de jure and de facto, these areas were always part of Croatia which can be seen in the titles of the Habsburg rulers. In any case it is clear that Runjanin was born in Croatian city of Vinkovci and that as an author of a Croatian anthem his name in Croatian should be up there as well. I could also go on and argue that he was a Croat like his daughter claimed but I am not an extremist and "greater Croatia" nationalist like you accuse me. Perhaps a bit more education in the field of history. --Factanista 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Only part of the Military Frontier "was established from the territory of Croatia and Hungary" and another part was established from the NEW CONQUERED LANDS (that is how officially they were called) that Habsburg Monarchy took from the Ottoman Empire. Anyway, the entire Military Frontier, no matter from which lands it was made was completelly independent from both Croatia and Hungary. And as I said, territories simply were not "brought back" to Croatia because some of those territories (notably eastern Syrmia) were not part of Croatia in the past. Words like "returned", "brought back", etc, were invented by Greater Croatian and Greater Hungarian nationalists to justify their territorial gains in the 19th century. Regarding the titles of the Habsburg rules, these titles meant nothing because Habsburg rulers had also a title of a "king of Jerusalem" and they never ruled Jerusalem. So te repeat: 1. Runjanin was not born in "a Croatian city" and 2. Runjanin did not lived in the country where Croatian was official language. And whether you are Greater Croatian nationalist or not is your own problem, but the most stupid thing that you could do on Wikipedia is trying to prove that one Serb was Croat or that Croatian language had any administrative importance in Croatia or Military Frontier in the 19th century. PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The term is 'reconquered'. These were not "new lands" but retaken occupied land by the Ottoman Turks. These lands were administered completely independent but they were NOMINALLY PART OF CROATIA AND SLAVONIA (Kingdom of Croatia). And stop already with the "greater Croatia" and "greater Hungary" crap as you have no ground for such argumentation against me whatsoever. The whole point here is not: whether Croatia was official language or not (Serbian wasn't either) and administration of Military Frontier but how is he referred in Croatian language and we both now it is 'Josip'. Not this is not "incorrect" nor "Croatisation" but merely different version of his name and he as an author of Croatian anthem and a man who was born in Vinkovci (present day Croatia) should have this version of the name up there as well. You still haven't made one valid argument why this wouldn't be there and why in God's name does this bothers you. --Factanista 16:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Reconquered" is also POV nationalistic term used by Croats and Hungarians, but never used by Habsburgs, who used officially only one term - NEW CONQUERED. So, according to point of view of the Habsburgs, those lands were NEW LANDS and only Croatian and Hungarian nationalists who wanted to attach these lands to Croatia and Hungary claimed that these lands "rightfully belong to them". And they were not "nominally part of Croatia or Slavonia" but completelly separate from both (the jure and de facto). And it is you who should stop "with Greater Croatia crap", not me, because you use here words that came from Greater Croatian nationalism, not me. Regarding Serbian language, I already told you: Runjanin was Serb, so his name is written in Serbian. It is not relevance of usage of Serbian name that should be proved here, but relevance of usage of any other name except Serbian. And yes, name "Josip" is endeed an Croatized name because some Croats were so big nationalists that they simply could not accept the fact that their anthem was written by an Serb, so they "changed" his name. And it is you who did not made an argument why this Croatian name should be exactly in the first sentence of the article. PANONIAN (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And even if he were, that wouldn't make Josip his name, but a Croatisation of it. I know people called Nikola, say, born in London. They're still called Nikola and not Nicholas. --estavisti 03:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and one more important fact: during his life the official language in Croatia was not Croatian, but Latin, thus the Croatian was neither his native language neither official language of Croatia (despite the fact that it is questionable whether he lived in Croatia at all because places where he lived like Vinkovci, Glina, etc, were all in the Military Frontier). PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant what language was official in Croatian parliament. --Factanista 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No, it is VERY relevant: in another words you have no single "justification" to post Croatian name there - 1. he was not Croat, 2. he was not born in Croatia, 3. Croatian language was not official in Croatia. Need more? PANONIAN (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do - the man was born in Vinkovci (Croatian city in Slavonia) and made music for Croatian anthem. As for your "argumentation" that Croatian was not official language, well Serbian wasn't either, your point? Please note that I will not accept Serbian POV that his name is "incorrectly" spelled or "croatised", you can be sure of that. I see no justification for your acts as I am not enforcing that his name was 'Josip' but that it was merely a Croatian version of his name and that he is as such referred in Croatia. --Factanista 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
First, where is proof that Vinkovci was "a Croatian city"? 1. It was not in Croatia, and 2. We do not know whether it had mostly Croatian or mostly Serbian population in this time (when we find demographics data, then I can tell you). Regarding Serbian language, he was Serb, so we have here his name in Serbian. That is simple. However, usage of any other name except Serbian should be justified by something, and as I said, there is simply no any justification for usage of Croatian name (The only justifications that I see here is that some Croats are so big nationalists and Serbophobs that they do not like the fact that their anthem was written by an ethnic Serb, thus they Croatize him by changing his name). And whether you will not accept something here or not is irrelevant because you have right to only 3 reverts per day and if you broke that rule, you will be blocked. Have a nice day. PANONIAN (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing against the fact the music for the Croatian anthem was written by a Serb, it doesn't bothers me the least. What bothers me is that you are trying to enforce here that it is "croatisation" (whatever that is) of his name when it simply is not. It is simply the fact that he is known as 'Josip' rather than 'Josif' in Croatia. You accept that fact yourself however I will not accept such formulation that you and Estavisti are persisting on this article as this is clear POV. The name of the article is 'Josif Runjanin', Croatian version of the name is in the brackets....why does this bothers you so much is beyond me. Perhaps it is you who is so big nationalist and Croatophobe? --Factanista 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we come to your POV. He was born in the Slavonian Military Frontier, and you seem unable to accept that the teritory wasn't a part of Croatia at that time. As you yourself say, you don't have any basis on which to claim his name was Josip ("I am not enforcing that his name was 'Josip'") and indeed admit that "it was merely a Croatian version of his name and that he is as such referred in Croatia". That means it was a Croatisation, as basically that's the very definition of Croatisation - and you wrote it. If you have problems speaking/understansing English, you're wasting everyone's time editing here.--estavisti 17:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where he was born. The man is known as 'Josip' in Croatia, this should be in the brackets and not formulated as some "incorrect" version. I will not accept your nationalist POV, be sure of that. --Factanista 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due your respect Factanista, where is the relevancy that he was known in Croatia under a naturalized name (Josip)? Pavao Subic is known in Serbia as Pavle. --PaxEquilibrium 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The relevance is that he was born in Vinkovci (present day Croatia) and that he is the author of the music for the Croatian national anthem. I have a question for you (and especially Panonian and Estavisti): what is the relevance and more importantly motivation of stating the Croatian version of his name (as he is known in Croatia) is "incorrect" and "croatised"? Isn't that the very nationalism Panonian speaks of? All I ask is rationality and fairness. --Factanista 17:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand you, I was just askin'... Being born in present-day Croatia means nothing, though (stick to the national anthem). Constantine the Great was born in Nis in Serbia - do we need his name in Serbian? Also, Pavao Subic gave funds for the construction of the massive Krka Orthodox Serb monastery in the northern Dalmatian hinterland... however that doesn't make the name "Pavle" (serbianized) relevant :). The Subics had a lot more connections with the Serbs throughout the Middle Ages. Should we add the Cyrillic script to the title? --PaxEquilibrium 18:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Your examples are wrong. Subic family was undoubtedly Croatian, Constantine was born way before Serbia even existed. The point is that Runjanin was born in Croatian-Slavonian Military Froniter in a Croatian city and that he wrote Croatian anthem and in the end that his descendants (his daughter) lived in Croatia and considered themselves Croats. In the end he is known in Croatia as 'Josip' and stating that it is "croatisation" is nationalist POV. This article already has the version Josip Runjanin which redirects to this page so why this page alone cannot have his name (Croatian version) is beyond me. I am still waiting for the reason why do you insist on such POV and I'd really like to hear it. Oh and the attempted compromise is again not acceptable, it is the same thing with different formulation. --Factanista 18:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Subic family undoubtedly Croatian? Are you saying that Runyanin was doubtfully a Serb? Also, the city of Vinkovci was not (I repeat) a part of Croatia in Josif's life, nor was ever in the history before. There we have the same comparison for Serbia not existing in Constantine the Great's age - this all succumbs to the image of how Vinkovci belonged to Croatia (a rather irridentist concotion, considering it was never before a part of it). As for "Croatian city", what do you mean? As far as I recall, Vinkovci didn't have a Croat majority in the early 19th century (nor was it a part of Croatia, so....).. As far as I know, Runjanin's descendants are still alive today, and they live in Vojvodina - the place of his family's final migration :) point. If you are referring to a "feminine" line, I don't know anything 'bout it - and fail to see its relevancy. I'm sorry for trying to draw a compromise - it was only a middle between the two warring sides. Also, you have been warned for your 3RR brake and you repeatedly violated it again. Please do not do that, or you might earn yourself a long-term block. --PaxEquilibrium 19:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that Runjanin is part of Croatian history and as such has his name in Croatian. Would I be wrong if I would go an revert the Hungarian name of Nikola Zrinski? Yes most certainly. Maybe I could write that his name is "incorrectly" spelled in Hungarian "Miklos Zrinyi" or that it is "magyarized" and "domesticated naturalization" of his name. Come on people... I was referring to Runjanin's daughter when talking about his family, his daughter said in one instance that her father is a Croat, I could now go and build whole article about this and claim he was indeed a Croat but I am a rational person. Anyway I still don't see why do you Serbs insist on this formulation, does it bothers you that this man has a Croatian version of his name? Why? I don't understand... --Factanista 19:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but the comparison is bad - Nikola Zrinski was indeed a Croatian nobleman. Joseph Runyanin was indeed Croatian "nothing". Also, as far as I know Osijek was incorporated into the Kingdom of Slavonia in 1745 - which is after it is mentioned in the article (it was back then a part of the Military Frontier). --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me? I don't quite understand your analogy with Zrinski? Also Osijek was NEVER in Military Frontier. I was born and live in Osijek my whole life and I think I should know the history of my hometown. --Factanista 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Zrinski were Hungarian nobility... just like the Brankovics.. that's the reason. As for your home town - maybe you don't. I don't know everything about Karlovac. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And Runjanin was author of Croatian anthem and was born in Vinkovci. How many times do I need to repeat that? And Osijek was never in Military Frontier, trust me, it was a command center but that was something totally different. --Factanista 20:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh and while you are on Karlovac, observe the article and see that it has German and Hungarian versions of the name although it was never Hungarian or German(Austrian). I would also like to point you out to other articles like: Ivan Gundulic, Juraj Dalmatinac, Janus Pannonius, etc. --Factanista 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Karlovac is a Serbo-Croatian version of its original real name - Karlstadt. It was built by the Habsburgs as the center of the new Military Frontier. Ofcourse it was "German". I also noticed that there's not a Serbian name on that article. :) All the people you mentioned are Croats, or in a way Croats (origin or otherwise) - however Joseph Runyanin was a Serb and does not originate from Croatia. --PaxEquilibrium 20:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
1.There is no such thing as "Serbo-Croatian", this is a diasystem, a group of languages, 2.The town was always in Croatia and of course since Croatia was part of Habsburg Empire it has German name as well, that it is the whole point. And I gave you those example because they have other name version in their article, would I go on an claim that Giovanni Gondola was an Italian "domesticated naturalization" of his name? I gave you those examples with a reason. Josip Runjanin was born in Vinkovci, a Croatian city and is author of music for Croatian anthem and since his name in Croatian is slightly different than in Serbian it should be up there. It's simple as that. And btw. thank you for collaborating with Estavisti, I see now that you are not friendly as you try to act. --Factanista 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Come on - don't brag me for words. It's a lot shorter to write "Serbo-Croat", and that's the way the world around us still knows (the good part) our language... Tha town was not always in Croatia. In 1579-1881 (over 300 years) it was part of the Military Fontier (which was a part of the Habsburg Monarchy; Austrian Empire [1806-1867] a. k. a. Austro-Hungary [1867-1881]). It was a part of Croatia (as Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia first in the Transleithanian part of Austria-Hungary [1881-1918], then a part of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs [1918] and then in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes [1918-1929]) then for some 50 years (1881-1929). It was then a part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for 10 years in 1929-1939, and then the Croatian Banate for a couple of years in 1939-1941 (buy as a part of the Yugoslav kingdom). In 1941-1945 it was a part of the unrecognized Axis Independent State of Croatia (but officially, was not a part of Croatia - since Croatian Banate autonomy was abolished as the war started). It became a part of the People's republic of Croatia finally in 1946-1990 (known in 1974-1990 as "Socialist Republic of Croatia)) as a part of the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (or Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). And since 1990 Croatia's got it (and it's from 1991/1992 an independent country). That's what, 60 years? What makes there "always", especially when I'm referring to the period when Croatia didn't include Karlovac even for the first time? I don't really understand you... --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, but it is the Latinized version of his name - and considered that we're talking about the Latin Republic of Ragusa, to which he was a native citizen, and where the Latin/Italian was the official language, it's totally reasonable. What do you mean by "Croatian city"? Well of course - it's different in Croatian, and that should be mentioned in the article. I think that you're being unfriendly to me. ;D --PaxEquilibrium 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Just one correction about claim made by Factanista that town of Vinkovci "was always in Croatia". What Factanista think about this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_17th_century.jpg Does he simply showed lack of basic knowledge about history or he want to say that Ottoman Empire was in fact Croatia? PANONIAN (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said "Vinkovci were always in Croatia". I said Vinkovci are a Croatian city which is a blatant fact. --Factanista 21:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What defines a city "Croatian"? If it is politically not a part of the Croatian state, if it's (in the sense of population) only partly "Croatian", and if it's in no way historically Croatian "anything". Does that make Chicago a Serbian city? --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Historically and ethnically Vinkovci are a Croatian city. For at least the last 300 years. --Factanista 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Today, yeah - Vinkovci's a Croatian city in every imaginable way (part of the Croatian nation-state, inhabitled almost exclusivly by Croats, historically Croatian). However, when we refer to that time in particular, I can't see how's it a Croatian city. --PaxEquilibrium 23:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you can't but I can. --Factanista 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But... if neither applies...? --PaxEquilibrium 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway we digressed...it's not Vinkovci in question but how is Runjanin known in Croatia and it seems we settled on this. I am satisfied with current situation. --Factanista 23:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

"I do not insist that his name was Josip, I insist that this is the name under which he is known in Croatia not "incorrect version" or "croatised" as you claim"

Fine, Factanista, since those are your words, I hope that you will not have problem with current sentence that say that "The Croats called him Josip instead of Josif." The sentence do not use words "incorrect version" or "croatised". The second thing is Military Frontier. According to The Times History of Europe historical atlas published in London in 2001, the entire Slavonia was under Military administration before 1744. I believe that Croatian user Ceha have same historical atlas, so you can ask him to confirm this: the map is on the page 138. PANONIAN (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The atlas or whatever it is you refer to is simply wrong. Osijek was never part of Military Frontier. It was military command center but it was NEVER in Military Frontier. The fact that entire Slavonia was "under military administration" doesn't mean the entire Slavonia was in "Military Frontier". --Factanista 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
One correction - every single space the Habsburgs conquered was firstly a part of Military Frontier, and then demilitarized. For instance, Syrmium was first wholly a part of it - but in the end it was divided into northern Civil and southern Military (in the likehood of Slavonia). Slavonia was forged slowly; bit-by-bit, territory by territory (all the way from Varazdin to Zemun). The very last pieces of the Military Frontier were demilitarized in 1881-1883 after the entity's abolition. --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Military administration does not equals Military Frontier. Please understand that. --Factanista 23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
PANONIAN made a writing mistake. Varazdin was the founding place of the Slavonian Military Frontier, which was formed out of conquered parts, one-by-one; bit-by bit. I will draw, every single bit of conquered territory became a part of the Military Frontier, and then ("razvojacenje") was at certain time demilitarized and power handed over to the civilians. And yes, "military administration" could mean: 1. military occupation or 2. Military Frontier, but that is synonymous in the Habsburgs' case. --PaxEquilibrium 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Military Frontier was a distinct strip of land, a buffer zone made from territory of Slavonia, Croatia and Banat. Varazdin and Osijek were never part of Military Froniter, though they were command centers, thats just a blatant fact. --Factanista 23:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Parts of Romania (Transylvania) too were parts of it. I repeat, everything conquered by the Habsburgs was first a part of the Military Frontier, and then at a time demilitarized. Every single bit of territory. It was a sensible operation, as maintaining a constant frontline against a never-ending enemy is a sensible thing to do. The usual reasons for a part to be demilitarized is aditional conquest: i. e. one county of Banat is conquered from the Ottomans, and the other in behind demilitarized. Massive demilitarizations were conducted when the Habsburgs conquered Serbia and northern Bosnia... I guess they didn't know the Ottomans would take them back. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, military administration of retaken territory does NOT equals Military Frontier. The latter was a distinct territorial organization commanded directly from army command in Vienna. Osijek was simply not in Military Frontier, although it had a regional military command, thats just a blatant fact. I am sorry. --Factanista 23:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh, I underestimated you. You're more stubborn than PANONIAN :o). Very well - you may be right. I'll look into some books and discover which of the two (you and PANONIAN) is correct. :) --PaxEquilibrium 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, when I know I am right I am more than stubborn...I am impossible. :)) --Factanista 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Josip is the Croatised form, since his name was not Josip, but Josif. He is only called Josip by Croats. For English forms which are merely English versions of native forms, we don't put the "English form", but the Anglicised form. I don't see why it should be any different for the Croatian version of someone's name. If a man's name is Josif and he is called Josip by speakers of Croatian, surely that is a Croatisation ("Josif" having been made into the Croatian "Josip")? // estavisti 00:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not "Croatised" but it's a Croatian version of his name. Your formulation is a huge POV and I've already explained it to you. If Rudjer Bošković's name is Rugerrio Bosckovich in Italian this is not his name "italianized" but simply his name in Italian and how he is referred in Italy. Understand that already. --Factanista 00:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
"It's not "Croatised" but it's a Croatian version of his name." That's all "Croatisation" means. You appear to contest the term without even understanding it what it means. Also, the parallel you draw is wrong, because (as far as I know) Bošković himself used the Italian form of his name (as Ragusa was an Italian and Slav city), while on the other hand you have presented no evidence that Runjanin himself ever used Josip. // estavisti 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand it perfectly. "Croatisation" stands for something agressive and revisionist which his name in Croatian is certainly not. You don't like the Boskovic example? Fine what about Janus Pannonus? is he good enough? What about the name of cities and coutnries who have various version in various languages? Personally I don't see how can the fact that his name has a Croatian version bother you...at least in a way that you can present a valid and rational explanation rather than croatophobe and nationalist one. Oh and you broke the 3 revert rule and I reported you. --Factanista 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you clearly don't understand it. Croatisation, just like Anglicisation, has no inherent pejorative or negative connotations. If you see something negative in the term, that is entirely down to you. Something to think about perhaps? And the fact that his name has a Croatian version doesn't bother me it all. Have I removed it? No. So I don't know where you got that idea from... Another thing you might like to think about are the totally unjustified personal attacks ("Croatophobe and nationalistic"?) that you have directed at me. // estavisti 03:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you read Croatisation Pax put up here and then say it has not pejorative or negative connotations? --Factanista 08:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word Croatised is getting ridiculous. The composer's name was Josif Runjanin. The reference Croatian: Josip Runjanin says that in the Croatian language (relevant to the subject by virtue of composing the national anthem and serving in the sabor) his name was Josip Runjanin. This is standard practice. Croatised suggest a political motive to convert ethnicity, a condition that does not apply here. Stick with Croatian: Josip Runjanin please. iruka 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, that is what I am saying here for quite some time but Estavisti seems to have a policy of his own rather than to follow that of Wikipedia.... --Factanista 18:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed - there's a Croatisation article. --PaxEquilibrium 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion, with a suggestion for an alternative article. iruka 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJosif_Runjanin_5f02.html"