Talk:Josip Runjanin

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)

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)

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)

This is a joke

I can’t believe you’re so stubborn about this guy. Instead of acknowledging him as a connection between two ethnic groups and their history and culture, you’re fighting about his name. He was Josif Runjanin but in Croatia he’s well known as Josip Runjanin. What’s wrong with that? Why are you so sensitive about that? The guy created Croatian anthem and he’s far more known among Croats. Information about his birth and death is pathetic, with all those Military Frontier and county crap. It’s talking more about stubborn Wikipedians then about Josif Runjanin himself.--N Jordan 08:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Removed Military History Tag as out of scope of project. Just because he was in the Army doesn't make this a Military History article. The subject is notable for being a composer, not a military officer. --dashiellx (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

DIREKTOR, please do not change title of this article without discussion. Josif Runjanin was an ethnic Serb who died in Novi Sad, so there is no reason that we remove his native name from the title - this is the name written in Cyrillic script on his grave in Uspensko cemetery in Novi Sad. If this man died in Croatia then I would not care about title of this article, but, no matter of the fact that he composed Croatian anthem, Runjanin actually emigrated from Croatia and died in Serbian Athens (Novi Sad). Therefore, change of a native name of an Serb whose grave with Cyrillic inscription is located in Serbia is unacceptable. PANONIAN 09:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I know that full well, and he can be ethnic Aztec for all I care. :) I do not particularly care where he dies or whether his tombstone has a Sanskrit inscription on it that says "Mahatma Gandhi". "Wikipedia uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources" (WP:COMMONNAME). "Josif Runjanin" - 24 hits, along with "Did you mean: "Josip Runjanin"; "Josip Runjanin" - 204 hits (x9). His ethnicity has absolutely NO bearing on this matter whatsoever. It seems "Josip" was the person's name, and it was incredibly changed by nationalists to a more Serbian form here on Wikipedia - simply because he was a Serb. The very idea that a person cannot be called "Josip" because he is an ethnic Serb is, frankly, comical. I'm going to restore the move, now that you know all this. If reverted, I will request an RM per WP:COMMONNAME policy. But please, do not revert without some sort of argument that is relevant to Wikipedia naming policy (WP:NAME). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need proof of that assertion first. IIRC, I looked it up once, and found that he was indeed Josif by birth, it's just that everyone in Croatia just kept calling him Josip. (Kind of reminds of Faust Vrančić being called Fausto Veranzio in Venice, doesn't it?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, google hits are not an evidence that Josip is most common name here. If this name is more often mentioned in Croatian sources that does not mean that "it is most common name". Also, Wikipedia policy favors native name of the people and ethnicity of this man is very important. I really do not understand why you trying to Croatize him like this? Yes, he wrote Croatian anthem, but he emigrated from Croatia and he was not Croat. There is simply no logical reason that this name is favored. And DIREKTOR, you are well known for nonconstructive behavior and revert warring. If you want to change name of this article please propose official voting for name change. Do you afraid that other users will not support your proposal or what? Voting is always better way to solve things than revert warring and if you do not want to propose an voting about this, I will. Also why would "Serbian nationalists" change name of an Serb to "more Serbian form"? Usage of Croatian form for this article is an Croatian nationalistic insult for all Serbs in general. PANONIAN 11:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. On all counts.

• PANONIAN, Google testing is the primary method by which we determine the most common name on Wikipedia. Its used every day by hundreds of Wikipedians. There is no better method. So yes, Google hits are evidence that "Josip" is the most common name here. I don't really care if you "accept" that fact or not, because I know the move admin - will.
• Wikipedia does NOT "favour native names of the people". It just doesn't. :) Show me the policy behind that claim. Wikipedia, PANONIAN, favours "the most common names in use in the English language". And we determine the most common English-language name of a person by Google testing him.

Maybe I was not clear the first time: 1) He can be ethnic Aztec for all I care. 2) I do not particularly care where he emigrated, '3) or where he died, 4) what he wrote (our anthem sucks btw), 5) or whether his tombstone has a Sanskrit inscription on it that says "Mahatma Gandhi". I am interested in WP:NAME. And unless you can find me some POLICY reason to ignore WP:NAME, I assure you, I will have this article moved. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about WP:RM being "voting" - it is not - but given the long history of this argument, and a lot of existing discussion above, it's unreasonable to expect that a change can be done without further discussion. I do have to admit that the article title policy as is - does slightly favor the Croatian version, even if it is wrong, but I personally fail to see how the original name fails the basic criteria, either - because both are uncommon enough in English. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The requirement is not that a name be "common" or "uncommon" in general (whatever that is), it is that it be "the most common". So, assuming this person is notable - if one name hypothetically had 4 hits, and the other 5, we'd have to go with the one that has 5. And if his name in Serbian is indeed "Josif", legally, then it would seem that his most common name in English is "Josip". Why exactly this is - is besides the point. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Raw Google numbers aren't the uniform criterion of anything, really, it's the commonness in reliable sources that matters. The 5 vs. 4 analogy is pretty silly, too, please avoid reducing reasonable debate to that. What I'm saying is that there's presumably a lot of sources that say Runjanin wrote the .hr national anthem, but because of the vastly more notable scope of that event, a lot of these will be simple oneliner references that aren't actually useful sources for his biography. For the decision on the article's name, it would be best to see an overview of specific reliable sources relevant to the topic. It's actually pretty appalling that we're even discussing the matter of sources when the article has a single external link that I just noticed to be a 404. It would be much more useful to spend time improving the article content, than to engage in a pointless move war. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In serious debates on the most common name, and in such research in general, it is impractical and virtually impossible to list high-quality sources individually and compare - simply because of the vast number of sources (hundreds of thousands). Not only is it impractical, but the "reliable source" title is often subjectively disputed, and, in general, such attempts (e.g. listing 100 sources from 120,000) are biased. This is why researching the "raw" Google numbers (if you choose to call them that), are indeed in 99% of cases the best, in fact the only(!) way to get a reading on WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, beceause we are dealing with very few sources, we may easily check the individual sources. However, I have already done so, and I assure you that out of the 200 or so "Josip" publications in Google Books alone one can easily find a LOT more "reliable sources" than in the dozen "Josif" sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable argument/assumption, but I'm still not willing to decide anything pointing to article title policy, while at the same time completely disregarding the verifiability policy that the latter rests upon. This isn't a matter of having too many sources to consider, we literally have nothing concrete to go on with regard to a core policy. The point of the verifiability policy is to avoid requiring readers to check facts (such as the topic name) for themselves (in books.google.com searches), and instead provide inline citations that clarify the matter. I suggest you reference some sources and thereby demonstrate a modicum of a pattern, and then proceed with WP:RM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that google hits can prove anything here. Due to the fact that he wrote Croatian anthem, Runjanin is more known in Croatia than in Serbia. English sources that mention him as Josip obviously used Croatian sources as reference for this, without knowing that his name was in fact Josif. However, there are many google hits for both name versions and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME policy has a rule that "when there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best". Due to sensitivity of naming issues in this part of Europe, croatized version of his name is not acceptable and is insulting for Serb readers. In the time when Runjanin wrote Croatian anthem, Croatia was a homeland of both, Croats and Serbs, who fought together against magyarization and germanization. However, knowing the 20th century events (notably WW2 and Yugoslav wars), I doubt that Runjanin would wrote that anthem today (assuming that he lived in our century). The fact that some Croats of today cannot even accept that name of this person was Josif and not Josip clearly show how much "beautiful homeland" has changed. I really do not understand why some people do not want to see the real name of this man? Is that so big problem that Croatian anthem was written by a Serb so that he should be named Josip just to look like that he was a Croat? For example, we have article about Hungarian politician in Serbia József Kasza, where this article is using his native name, no matter that there are more google hits for Serbian version of his name than for Hungarian one. However, he is Hungarian and I do not see any problem that this article is using Hungarian name. Due to that, Runjanin article is much stronger case for usage of native personal name - unlike Kasa, Runjanin actually emigrated from Croatia and came to my city, Novi Sad, where he died and was buried and where croatized version of his name was certainly not used. Therefore, Runjanin is important for Serb culture in Vojvodina and attempt that his name is croatized is nothing but an attack against this culture. I am not nationalist and I never tried to impose any Serb nationalistic view into any article about any neighbouring country (Croatia included), but I am patriot and I also oppose imposing of foreign nationalistic views into articles related to Serbia itself. Runjanin was a Serb who lived and died in the territory of present-day Serbia and, therefore, there are no valid reasons that we use any other but Serb name for this article (and comparison of Serb name with Aztec one is incredibly insulting, so I will not even try to comment that). PANONIAN 06:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably because of the Croatian anthem that "Josip" is more common. So now we know why it is more common. Great. Can we move it now?

Concerning Croatia - its all your fault you know. It was you guys with that started it with all that "Srbijo is tri dela ti ćeš opet biti cela"/SANU Declaration nonsense. Tuđman would never have been able to buy the election with his German money if it weren't for the threat of Milošević turning SFR Yugoslavia into another Serb-dominated union. And what shall we say of the Draža-worship in modern Serbia? Are you saying Serbia is free of nationalism? (LoL)

Come to think of it for a moment.. isn't all this actually the Albanians' fault? :)

But you're wrong here. I'm no Croatian nationalist (see Talk:Croats right now for example). I really don't give a damn for our anthem. I'm just a Wikipedia fanatic. :) I feel we need to FINALLY force policy into the Balkans articles regardless of any nationalist opposition. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"Croatian" name is only a translation of original name and it was never a name of this person. Name "Josip" is simply something that serve for internal use within Croatian language, but not something that represents real or common name of Josif Runjanin. Croatian language is known for such translations of "foreign" names. For example, Franz Joseph I of Austria would become Franjo Josip I. in Croatian, his successor Charles I of Austria would become Karlo, Maria Theresa would become Marija Terezija, etc, etc. It cannot be disputed that in the case of Josif Runjanin, Croatian translated version "Josip" is only translation and it was never a name of this person, no matter how much Internet sources would use translated version. Such names translated only for internal use within a certain language cannot be and are not examples of "common names". PANONIAN 07:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Name

It's not Croatian nationalist insult, it's not an insult at all.

According to WP:COMMONNAME, "Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English below."

"Josif Runjanin" has 39 results, "Josip Runjanin" has 308 results.

According to WP:NAME, "When a significant majority of English-language reliable sources all refer to the topic or subject of an article by a given name, Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (Examples include Boston Massacre, Rape of Belgium, and Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental. Further, even when a neutral title is possible, creating redirects to it using documented but non-neutral terms is sometimes acceptable; see WP:RNEUTRAL."

So even if you considerit Croatian nationalist propaganda, article should be named "Josip Runjanin". If you don't considerit as nationalist propaganda, you probably won't care.

Regards, --Wustenfuchs 18:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is no evidence that Josif Runjanin is not an common name. It is well known that Croatian language often translating "foreign" names into Croatian, therefore Franz Joseph I of Austria is named Franjo Josip in Croatian. Of course, it is clear that name of Austrian emperor was not Franjo Josip, but Franz Josef. In the same way, name of Josif Runjanin was not Josip. It is just Croatian "translation" of his name, and no matter of the number of Internet sources that are using translated Croatian version, you cannot disapprove the fact that "Josip" simply was not a name of this person. Or should we rename article about Austrian emperor to Franjo Josip only to make this title better for Croats? PANONIAN 07:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry PANONIAN, but results are from English Google Books, not Croatian. And again, see the rules at Wikipedia, and what are you doing now is braking rules, same as vandalism.--Wustenfuchs 12:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there an Wiki rule that say that google book hits should decide title of this article? No, there is not. I will repeat: it is not only that name Josip is not "most common" name here but it was not a name of this person at all. Only name that he had was Josif and version "Josip" was invented only for internal use in Croatian language. The fact that some English language sources are using this name as well is simply because this name was taken from Croatian sources without knowledge that such name is in fact fake. PANONIAN 12:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Wustenfuchs, please stop removing Serb name from infobox and please stop replacing info that he was "Serb composer" with fake description that he was "Croatian composer". He was a Serb who had Serb name and who lived and died in the territory of present-day Serbia (Novi Sad). I cannot understand why you trying to "croatize" even Serbs from Serbia. Why I am not editing articles about Croats from Croatia in attempt to make impression that they were in fact Serbs? PANONIAN 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, friend look, he lived in Croatia, right? Look, why are you sepaking such nonsense, they took evil Croatian sources omg... can you show us the source wher we can see his real name was Josif? Well, even if you can, that doesn't mean nothing. Look here with Eminem, his real name is Marshall Bruce Mathers III, but, since his common name is Eminem, Wikipedia uses such title. And for your information, you don't own articles about Serbs, I will edit what ever I want, and I won't prohibit you from editing articles about Croats. Let's talk like normal people not like fanatical nationalists, under wich rule you revert my edits? Wikipedia has policy named WP:COMMONNAME, and we use the most common name in scientific books and works. You can also read WP:NAME ans see that neutrality doesn't play role here. Please, don't be subjective, try to be more objective, so I don't need to irritate my self by replying you. I'll try to be a fine chap here and not revert your edit, and I'll wait for your reply.--Wustenfuchs 16:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Josif Runjanin lived in Croatia and in Vojvodina (he was buried in Novi Sad and monument on his grave mention him as Josif Runjanin in Serbian Cyrillic script). Also, besides Croatian anthem he wrote Serbian patriotic song "Rado Srbin ide u vojnike" (Gladly will the Serb enlist in the Army). So, he was Serb, he was living and was buried in the territory of present-day Serbia and he wrote an famous Serbian patriotic song. Third, even in Croatia, Serbs used their own names, which were written in birth registry books in Serbian Cyrillic script (Serbian Orthodox church was responsible for these registry books). Also, Serbs were recognized as an autonomous nation within Habsburg Monarchy (such autonomy was mainly religious, but church also had a certain jurisdiction over non-religious aspects of life of the Serb people in the Habsburg Monarchy). Birth registry books where names of the newly born Serbs were written in Serbian Cyrillic were part of that autonomy. In another words, Serb names were officially recognized as such in the Habsburg Monarchy. Therefore, during his whole life, Josif Runjanin was known only as Josif - from birth registry book to monument on his grave (here you have picture of his grave monument in Novi Sad where his name Josif Runjanin is written in Cyrillic: http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/Kulturna-bastina-Srbije/Znamenitosti%20-%20ostalo/JosifRunjanindetaljsaspomenika-1.jpg ). Furthermore, he was born in Vinkovci, but his family originated from Loznica (western Serbia). One more thing: Vinkovci, place of his birth were in fact part of Military Frontier, not part of civil Croatia. Official language in the Military Frontier was German, while, as I already said, Serbian priests officially used Serbian language and Cyrillic script in registry books. Therefore, Runjanin could not have name Josip in the time of his birth. Name Josip appeared latter in Croatian literature as a "translation" of Serbian name (as I already said, it is quite common for Croatian language to translate "foreign" names to make them more Croatian). However, the fact is that name Josip was simply not ever a name of this man. Comparison with Eminem is, thus, not appropriate: Eminem himself introduced and used his nickname, while there is no evidence that name Josip was ever used for Runjanin during his life (he died in 1878 while his song did not became anthem of Croatia before 1891). It is not disputed that he became famous only after his death. Even today, he is known as Josif in Serbian literature, while Croatian literature using name Josip due to reasons that I mentioned (modern Croatian language in fact changed this "translation" practice and foreign names are today usually used in its original form in Croatian without any translation or transliteration). Why this modern Croatian linguistic practice was not implemented for Runjanin too? Reasons are probably political, but that is not important. Important thing is how name Josip actually appeared in English sources. If we examine this list of English literature that mention name Josip we can see that this name is usually mentioned together with Croatian anthem, proving my point that foreign authors simply took this name from Croatian literature without knowledge that such name is not real one. Runjanin is mentioned so briefly in these sources that it is quite clear that, apart from the fact that he wrote Croatian anthem, these foreign authors did not know anything else about him, including fact that he was Serb and that his name was in fact Josif. Therefore, amount of sources that using name Josip is not an evidence that it is an common name. By definition, common name is a name chosen by certain authors as best possible name for the subject for which several alternate names are existing. In this case, authors obviously were not aware that name of this man was Josif and instead of a common name they simply repeated "common mistake". If we know that such "common mistake" exist we should not use it in Wikipedia. Before anything else, Wikipedia articles should be accurate and if we try to use something for which we know that it represent a "common mistake" we would undermine the accuracy of this article. And I do not own articles about Serbs who lived in my city, of course, but I have right to make these articles NPOV and accurate. That is the aim of Wikipedia, anyway. PANONIAN 19:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with PANONIAN on this one concerning the name but I don't agree that he was purely a "Serbian" composer. I mean yeah, he was a Serb from Croatia, or more precisely, from an area which was either part of Croatia or is part of it today during his entire life, which he spent as a citizen of Austria-Hungary. In addition, we are talking about a soldier who spent his career serving in the Austro-Hungarian army and whose whole musical body of work belongs to Croatian culture. So as far as the description goes, the current version is fine. As for the name - the man most likely referred to himself as "Josif" and his tombstone reads "Josif". He was probably referred to as "Joseph" in the army and as "Josip" by other Croatians at the time. The WP:COMMONNAME rule cannot always be blindly followed because the fewer hits a Google search yields, the less reliable a tool it is to determine the "most common" name. A Google books search in English-language sources yields a mere 59 hits for "Josip" and 18 hits for "Josif", which makes it too small of a sample to really determine anything. In addition, insisting on "Josip" is not even in line with the official Croatian linguists' standpoint as foreign-language names (and Serbian is considered a foreign language nowadays) are supposed to be kept in their original form per rules of the modern Croatian ortography, so even the hr.wiki article should probably be changed to the "Josif" version (which btw currently uses the "Josip (Josif) Runjanin" form in the lede). The "Josip" form simply sticks around because of historical reasons, but if a person happened to be born in modern Croatia as "Josif" the form would remain unchanged, and you can see the "f" version growing in popularity in more recent Croatian publications, such as Jutarnji List or Slobodna Damacija by pretty literate people such as Miljenko Jergović or Boris Dežulović. Timbouctou (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Move war

I have move protected this page for 1 week. There has been a move war going on for some time. Please try and reach consensus. Just two points; the man was a Serb and appears to have been called Josif. Therefore you need to look carefully at WP:COMMONAME. However - common name does not provide a cast-iron mandate for simple mathermatical google searches. It simply recommends it as one method for deciding this issue. The second point is; Josip and Josif are the same name. (In the UK it's Joseph). Is there any difference in pronunciation? If not, you are not arguing over his name but over the spelling. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. As for the pronunciation - yes, it is pronounced slightly differently - "Josif" is pronounced "yo-siff" and "Josip" is "yo-sip". Timbouctou (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as curiosity Fanites, Serbo-Croatian is one of the rare languages who´s letters allways respect the rule one letter, one sound, and allways that sound. As from the explanation Timbou provided next, you can easily see that p is p and f is f, and if you read it pronouncing the sounds the letter should supose to have, regardless of the other next to them, as in English, you´ll most certainly easily read it. Basically, the only letters you may find difficulties to know how they sound are the ones with accent (ć (tsh), č (tch), đ (dy), š (sh) and ž (zh), all the others are simple and basic. I hope you understood this improvised explanation of mine. :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

If you put in Josip as croatian in google translate and translate to serbian you get - Јосиф but with Јосип as the alternative. If you put in Josip as serbian and translate to croatian it gives you Josif with Josip as the alternative.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ha, even there is a difference: Serbian transcribes foreign names (ex: Džordž Vašington, guess who), while Croatian writes them in original form. But I actually doubt any of them translates currently eachones names. Josip would be Josip in Serbia, if that is actually his name... FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Beside the slight pronunciation difference, the main one is that ethnic Croats are named Josip and Serbs Josif. What sometimes also happends, specially in those days "long time ago", was that the same person was named in one way when in Serbia, and in another when in Croatia, so probably many Serbian sources have him as Josip, and Croatian as Josif. FkpCascais (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's the same with "Jovan" (used predominantly by Serbs) vs. "Ivan" (used predominantly by Croats), which are both local equivalents of "John". The issue here is that Runjanin is mainly famous for composing the Croatian anthem, and since Croats referred to him historically as "Josip" that version found its way into many English-language books which simply translated whatever the Croatian sources said about the anthem. On the other hand he himself was an ethnic Serb most certainly born as "Josif". These slightly different "Croaticised" forms of originally Serbian names were commonly used locally in the 19th century for ethnic Serbs who were prominent members of the Illyrian movement, and they simply stuck until the present. A similar example is the 19th century politician and diplomat Ognjeslav Utješenović whose last name was up until recently commonly spelled "Utješinović" in Croatia. Timbouctou (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bit like "Iain" and "John" which are now used in both Scotland and England as different names.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while in Croatia there are rarely Jovan´s, in Serbia there are actually many both, Jovan´s and Ivan´s, just like Ian´s and John´s FkpCascais (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very much like "Iain" and "John", although in this particular case "Josif" is very rare nowadays even among Serbs, at least in Croatia (the only other person referred to as Josif that I know of is Stalin who has nothing to do with this part of the world :-). On the other hand "Josip" is one of the most popular male names among Catholics (e.g. Croats). So to a modern Croatian language speaker "Josif" sounds somewhat outdated and alien while "Josip" does not and I guess that's part of the reason why the tendency to call him Josip is so strong in Croatia (there are even schools named after him which use the "p" version). But even so, if "Josif" was the version printed in his birth certificate and inscribed on his tombstone and if he used it to refer to himself then IMO we should go with that. He probably knew best what his name was. Timbouctou (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And you done what? I hoped you will solve this out somehow... I told mine arguments and oppinion, but...--Wustenfuchs 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I usually tend to follow the original name of the person, rather that commonname. You can see many exemples of biographies I´ve created where I allways followed persons original name, despite him being known differently (you certainly know foreign names in Serbia are written differently, so many times much more sources name him in Serbian, but for non-Serbs I allways write their names in their original form: Gilson Jesus da Silva (Brazilian born Macedonian, named Žilson), Ábrahám Jenő (widely known as Geza Saraz in Yugoslavia where he played most his career, with most google hits for Geza version), Lajos Senfeld Tusko (widely known as Tuško). All this cases could be renamed into "Yugoslav" names by commonname, but in all I actually prefered to use people´s original names as title, making redirects from the others. Similar discussion took place with Abdulah Gegić where some user insistently wanted him to move to a Turkish version of his name because seems that most hits are written in Turkish where he spent most of his career... After a debate and admin intervention, his original naming in Serbo-Croatian was restored. So, to be consistent with my previous discussions, I defend the use of original naming, even if his commonname in google books has more hits in another language name version. That is why, and by no other reason whatsoever, I also defend that the article should stay with his original name: Josif Runjanin. Just to be clear, if the case was the other way around, a Croat who´s commonname is Serbian, I would equally defend that his name should be in Croatian, as original and right name. FkpCascais (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

PS: If by any chance Serbia would have written tousands of books about George Washington naming him, as it is in Serbian, Džordž Vašington, and then we´ll have more google hits for Džordž than George, we should rename his article to Džordž Vašington? FkpCascais (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:COMMONNAME states that "English-language sources" should be consulted so even if there were millions of Serbian books about Džordž, the name would still be spelled George on en.wiki. Maybe a better example would be Veljko Tukša and Slaviša Žungul (footballers known in the U.S. as "Val Tuksa" and "Steve Zungul"). Also, what if hypothetically Nikola Tesla was often referred to in English as "Nicholas Tesla" or if "Franjo Tudjman" was commonly referred to as "Francis"? I'm sure any editor from this part of the world would support the "Nikola" and "Franjo" versions and use the same reasoning we used for Josif above. In fact, the articles about Franjo Tuđman and Novak Đoković are excellent examples as both were subject to a great deal of discussion as to whether the article should have "đ" or "dj" form in title as English-language sources always transliterate this letter as "dj" (the consensus-agreed results in the end were "Tuđman" and "Djokovic"). Timbouctou (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you´re right, my exemple was ridiculous and uninspired :) but basically means I agree with you from begining. FkpCascais (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The UTF-8-supported accuracy vs. English-language commonness in article titles has actually been fairly contentious in some cases, particularly those listed, and there was little actual consensus. This case is much simpler - if there is no real commonness in English, we easily defer to the most accurate title. But, again, we don't even have half-decent references in this article, so the whole discussion is borderline silly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Sorry to be dim - but what is UTF-8?)Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

UTF-8 is the world-wide character encoding that allows the English Wikipedia to include various letters with diacritics such as ščćđž. Originally, the en: instance of Wikipedia did not have technical support for this, so nobody could use these letters even if we wanted to. At some point, around five years ago or so, it became available, and this allowed the editors to then use those letters in article titles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(Cool! I thought wiki always had them.)Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but since English language sources still use "dj" instead of "đ" editors bent on enforcing WP:COMMONNAME sometimes argue for "dj" while those wanting accuracy prefer "đ". So move wars ensue and that's how we ended up with "Tuđman" (not "Tudjman") and "Djokovic" (not "Đoković"). Timbouctou (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

The most common name for this person in English language sources (by about five times) is "Josip Runjanin"

• Google Books
  • "Josif" 23
  • "Josip"118.
• Google Scholar
  • "Josif" 3
  • "Josip" 20

The title of the article has therefore been slightly modified in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME to the most common English language term. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources (see WP:NAME). The name "Josif" is hardly used at all in English-language sources. For the record, noone is disputing his ethnicity with this.

Please be sure to base any objections exclusively on Wikipedia article naming policy and naming conventions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN, I will report any move-warring. There is nothing to "start": it does not matter how many pointless discussion took place on this issue, none of them connected to Wikipedia policy. Article titles on Wikipedia are written in accordance with WP:NAME, and as far as policy is concerned this matter is crystal clear and could not be simpler. However obscure this person is, references to him with the name "Josif" in English language sources are virtually non-existent (a mere 26 sources in total on the entire internet!). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is only your personal opinion and nothing else. Facts are clear: this man was a Serb and lived, died and was buried in Novi Sad in present-day Serbia. There is no single valid reason to croatize name of this person. PANONIAN 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Um... no. None of the above is my "personal opinion", its a fact. I conducted careful Google testing, and the policy is very clear, WP:NAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."
• This man was indeed Serbian, no question. So what?? How does that affect Wikipedia article naming? Other than inflaming Serbian nationalist sensibilities, of course..

As I said from the start: please be sure to base any objections exclusively on Wikipedia article naming policy and naming conventions.--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, WP:NAME also says that article titles should be neutral, and in this case, name variant Josip is far from neutral and it have certain nationalistic political connotations of denial of Serb ethnicity, not only in Croatia, but in Serbia itself, i.e. it implies that one ethnic Serb who lived and died in the territory of present-day Serbia was in fact ethnic Croat. Even if your google search shows that name Josip is more used in some of the sources from google hits, name Josif is used as well and we cannot say that this name is not common. Neutrality of the article title is an very important issue here. PANONIAN 14:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is also not defined by your personal preferences, but by sources. The fact that you think that the Serbian name is "neutral", rather than the most common English one, is not significant. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We do not speak here about "common English name", but about Croatian name. As for sources about this issue, here is one: [1] Quote: "Inače, većina autora hrvatskih udžbenika istorije u Hrvate ubraja Ruđera Boškovića, Josifa Runjanina, Mihajla Latasa, Petra Preradovića, Svetozara Borojevića i Nikolu Teslu. Ako izričito ne kažu da su bili Hrvati, onda se traži neko neutralno rješenje, pa je Latas rođen u pravoslavnoj krajiškoj obitelji, a Tesla je naš zemljak. Uglavnom izbjegavaju da pomenu srpsko ime, što je sasvim u skladu sa shvatanjem da je Hrvat svako ko je rođen na teritoriji današnje Hrvatske, nebitno kada." - from this, it is evident that ethnicity of Josif Runjanin is an political issue and that there is an political aim that he is croatized. PANONIAN 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do "speak" here about "the most common English name". In fact, that is all I am prepared to talk about. I could not possibly care less whether this guy was a Serb, a Croat, a Zulu, a Creole, or a Mongolian. And I care even less what those people argue about. Absurd Balkans political squabbles between the petty "banana republics" do NOT determine Wikipedia article titles. All that I am interested in is what English-language sources call this person.

In contrast, you seem to be here because you think there is some Croatian political plot afoot that you need to oppose (as always I might add). Wikipedia will not change its article titles because you as a Serb feel the Croats are out to get you and need to be opposed. For the third time: article titles are determined by policy, please be sure to base any objections exclusively on Wikipedia article naming policy and naming conventions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am only trying to ensure NPOV nature of this article. There is no an "most common English name" for this person (and an simple google fishing simply does not prove anything). In the Wiki naming policy, this issue is rather example of "foreign names used in English" than of "most common name used in English". Also, as I already said, usage of Croatian name in this case is not NPOV due to various reasons. This issue was discussed for long time on this very talk page and please try to read that old discussion before unilateral moves. If you wish, you can raise an official renaming proposal and you can try to convince majority of users that you are right. And by the way, I am not changing anything - you are the one who want to unilaterally change name of this article without consensus and agreement with other users. And your speech about "absurd Balkans political squabbles" and "petty banana republics" would mean something only in the case if you do not live in one of these "petty banana republics". However, you clearly live in one of them and therefore, please do not try to present yourself as "an neutral foreign observer" - you are very deeply involved in this "banana thing". PANONIAN 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. You do not get to proclaim whatever you prefer as "neutral" on the basis of your own opinions. The sources determine what is NPOV. And of course there is always a "most common English name", and there is a most common English language name for this person as well. It has been determined with the best, standard method - via the Google Books search engine (as is specifically recommended by WP:COMMONNAME). I also searched Google Scholar to make sure. Of course, if you would care to run additional publication search tests, please do. As things are looking now, however, I don't see any future in this title. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Josif" Runjanin is a name barely used at all in English-langauge sources, and should be modified per Wikipedia policy. People of Serbian origins may not consider this "neutral", and people of Croatian ethnicity might etc., but that is hardly any measure of WP:NPOV. The point is that the other name happens to be in the neighborhood of five times more common in English-language sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Past discussions are evidence that this is a controversial move, and as such it should have been formally requested at WP:REQMOVE. Please do that. Timbouctou (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Notece that he is most known for composing the Croatian national anthem, thus being more refered in Croatia and transcribed as Josip in part of the English sources, but in my view that is not enough for ignoring his original name. FkpCascais (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course. That is probably the reason why "Josip Runjanin" is the most common English name. So what? Wikipedia policy explicitly states that the "original name", as you call it, matters not at all. The only question is how do English-language sources refer to this person. Hopefully you too will be careful to base your objections on Wikipedia policy, rather than your own ideas and standards on how you think it "should" be. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me say that again - controversial moves must be filed at WP:REQMOVE. Discussing it here without taking that step is useless. Timbouctou (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is: which Wiki policy says that "most common name" is determined by "simple google fishing"? It is clear that we cannot have same approach to every article. There are many articles whose titles are clear examples of most common names, which are not controversial. However, there are also articles whose question of most common title is either disputed or controversial (or both of the two). As far as I know, Wikipedia policies are prefering native names of the people. Therefore, article about Hungarian politician from Serbia is named István Pásztor and not Ištvan Pastor, no matter that google search engine favoring the second version (80.700 hits vs 56.100 hits). Since this issue is controversial, I believe that interpretation of naming policies related to this article should be provided by some expert person from Wikipedia administration. The thing is that name variant "Josip Runjanin" is factually wrong and that this man was not known under this name in the time when he lived. His native Orthodox Christian name Josif was officially used in birth records (which in that time were owned by the Orthodox Church) and this name could be found on his grave as well. Name "Josip" is nothing else but Croatian translation of native name of this man and some English-language sources that using this name variant obviously used Croatian sources. Therefore, we cannot conclude that an factually wrong name is "an common name". If we are aware of the mistake of usage of name Josip in soime sources, we are obligated to correct that mistake in Wikipedia, not to repeat it and to mislead the readers. PANONIAN 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What's all this "simple Google fishing" nonsense? Its called a Google test, its not particularly "simple", and it is the standard method of determining the most common name on Wikipedia. Read WP:COMMONNAME. If you would like to conduct tests in other less extensive archives and/or search engines, please do (though I doubt you'll get any significant hits due to the extreme obscurity of the subject matter). Tests such as this, whether User:Panonian chooses to call them "simple Google fishing" or "complicated stargazing" or whatever, are the method by which Wikipedia determines common usage in sources.

And please stop repeating what this person's "original name" is. To illustrate my point, you have a perfect example on Wikipedia right now: Stalin's real name was also "Josif", but there you go (I certainly doubt "Joseph" was in his birth records). The point is it does not matter what language the name comes from, and it does not matter at all what his "real name" is, or what you "feel" is right. If Stalin was most commonly referred to as "Jozo" in English language sources, that's the name that would be up. I'll repeat once more: the most common name in English language sources. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no possible comparison between Joseph Stalin, who has extensive English language coverage, and Josif(p) Runjanin, who, in your own words, is described as "obscure"... Stalin´s million google hits are conclusive. Runjanin´s couple of doozen aren´t. Also, Stalin´s Joseph is an English version, Josip is not an English version...

Anyway, what´s the point of this? FkpCascais (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is exactly right. It demonstrates how irrelevant one's "real" name is, and I hope to hear no more of that nonsense in future. It does not matter how obscure a subject is, it only matters how much more common a particular name is, and the difference is very notable (5x). WP:COMMONNAME does not apply only to well known subjects. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So how about that WP:REQMOVE? (Btw, your "careful research" is flawed - Google Books yields 61 hits for "Josip" (not 116) and most of those (if not all) were either written by Croatian authors or relied on Croatian sources who traditionally Croatize his name). Timbouctou (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no call for you to belittle my efforts by referring to them in parentheses. While every search I did gave me an estimate of 116 results [2], your findings do not make that much of a difference: "Josif" appears actually to have 17 hits (which I'm sure you checked as well but did not post purposely). The only thing we've discovered is that the difference appears to be closer to 4x than 5x. As for your allegations about Croatian authors, 1) that simply is not true - the majority are non-Croatian, 2) it does not matter even if they were all Croatian since nationality is certainly no filter in Wikipedia policy - the criteria is use in English-language publications, and 3) it also does not matter whether the most common name was anglicized, croatized, or swahili-ized. What matters is that it is more commonly used than any other, and by a wide margin.

P.S. I hope you see now why I prefer to discuss prior to an RM. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see you discussing anything here, especially with remarks such as "I hope to hear no more of that nonsense in future". What I do see is you pushing for a change that nobody but you supports. For the fourth time - if you feel you have a case take it to WP:REQMOVE and stop wasting our time. Thanks. Timbouctou (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You're wasting your own time. And you'll pardon me if I do not take your opinion or that of two Serbian users as relevant to the adherence of this article to naming policy. You make a point of opposing and undermining every initiative of mine you stumble upon, regardless of what it may be, while the two Serbian users are naturally inclined towards the Serbian name. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your paranoia is not something that concerns me. The fact that you are pushing for changes against consensus is. For the fifth time - take this to WP:REQMOVE. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I read your suggestion the first time. While this is a preliminary discussion I am using to make sure my evaluation of the situation isn't wrong in some way - I will post an RM strictly if an when I feel it is necessary. If not, I won't. You can always do so yourself if you feel so inclined as to suggest it five separate times. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I will not do it myself because I see no reason to change the article title. Three other editors don't see it either. In fact only one does - you. This makes the proposed change controversial and as such nothing can be done without gaining a wider consensus. Which is what WP:REQMOVE is for. Otherwise what you are doing here is a textbook example of WP:HEAR. So for the sixth time - follow the policies, take this to WP:REQMOVE, and save your arguments for the ensuing discussion. Regards. Timbouctou (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

Nikola Tesla's passport says his name is "Nikolaus". It was probably same thing with documents of Josip Runjanin who was probably "Joseph". So, passport, or birth certificate is not useful, besides, we don't have a view of Runjanin's passport or birth certificate. --Wustenfuchs 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the WP:COMMONNAME,

"Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

Wikipdia doesn't necessarily use the subject's "official" name, wich means that hist birth certificate, passport etc, aren't fundamentals for naming the article.

As stated, Wikipedia prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subjec in English-language reliable sources. What are reliable sources?

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

This means that Google Books are reliable source, since they show "published sources", respectively published English-language books.

Per Wikipedia's policy, this WP:COMMONNAME can be used on personal names ("The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.").

And also "the most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural."

According to the google.co.uk,

"Josip Runjanin" has 26,800 results; "Josif Runjanin" has 21,000 results.

Since Google finds everything, blogs, discussions etc, this maybe not the best source, so we will use Google Books.

"Josip Runjanin" has 474 results; "Josif Runjanin" has 65 results.

The publishers that mention "Josip Runjanin" are Cornell University Press, Skyhorse Publishing, Scarecrow Press etc. It's authors are Ivo Banac, Michael Schuman, George Grove, Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria etc.

The publishers that mention "Josif Runjanin" are companies like General Books and ABC-CLIO. The most significiant author that I found is Richard Frucht.

As we may see, books that deal with the music, use "Josip Runjanin", while those who use "Josif Runjanin" deal mostly with history or cooking. :)

--Wustenfuchs 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is only your personal interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME. However, you used a nice quote from that policy: "it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Obviously, the original sources that introduced name "Josip" for this man were not reliable and other presented sources simply (unknowingly) repeated unreliable info from these original sources. Today, we know very well that this man was not named "Josip" and that this name is not example of "most common name", but of "common mistake" repeated by several sources. Also, song "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike" is well known in Serbia, so please do not remove it from the article. PANONIAN 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice, logical thinking. How do you know what authors thought while they were writing? I'll go even further and say, how we can know anything, maybe everything is just "unknowingly repeated" from the unreliable sources. --Wustenfuchs 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is very logical thinking. Many authors that using certain sources are not able to check the real origin of data that they using. Birth records of Josif Runjanin were certainly not available for most these authors so they had no ways to check what was a real name of this man. PANONIAN 18:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not really so logical. What would Poles say about Nicolaus Copernicus? I hope you don't think it's Croat conspiracy against the Serbs? --Wustenfuchs 18:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know much about Nicolaus Copernicus to compare the two cases. But, really, can you tell me why some Croatian (and only Croatian) users here are insisting that name "Josip" is used here? PANONIAN 18:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't noticed that. If you think me, I consider my self Bosnian, but I noticed only Serbian users insist that article be named "Josif". --Wustenfuchs 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And I consider myself Yugoslav. :) Anyway, I do not see why an Serb who lived, died and was buried in the territory of present-day Serbia - in Novi Sad (and who wrote an famous Serbian patriotic song - Rado Srbin ide u vojnike) should be "croatized" here only because of his contribution to Croatian anthem and because some sources that relating him to that anthem are using Croatized name "Josip" that originated from some Croatian sources, which in that time "translated" all names to Croatian (Why you do not insisting that article about Franz Joseph is renamed to Franja Josif? He was also king of Croatia, so I do not see why his case would be different from the case of Josif Runjanin). PANONIAN 19:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of passports and birth certificates, I agree that name used in his passport might be Joseph, but since he was Orthodox Christian his birth certificate certainly used Cyrillic name Јосиф (Josif), due to the fact that Serbian Orthodox Church had autonomy within Habsburg Monarchy and that autonomy included usage of Serbian language in all church issues, including the birth certificates, which were property of the church. PANONIAN 19:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why a Pole who lived, died and was buried in the territory of present-day Poland - Frombork should be "latinized" here only because of his contribution to world-wide science. Etc. Lots of examples. You are making few mistakes. The reason why I want to "change his name" is because it's most common used name in English language. I don't care who's anthem he composed. If it was Chinese anthem, I would still follow Wikipedia's rule, and ofcourse, main reason why I do this - to make easier for the users of English-language Wikipedia, who are, majority of them, English-speaking people, to find easly this person. Your nationalist fealings or your paranoia (not sure what it is) shouln't be an obstalce to them. --Wustenfuchs 22:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Again: there is no evidence that "Josip" is the "most common used name in English language". It is nothing but a common mistake repeated by some sources and there is no evidence for the opposite. If Wikipedia knows for the mistake, it is obligated to correct it. Josif Runjanin was Serb and Serbs are never using name "Josip", a simple fact. PANONIAN 08:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also note an important fact: Josif Runjanin did not composed "Lijepa naša domovino" because of his alleged "Croatian patriotism", but because of his Yugoslav (in that time "Illyrian") orientation. Article, clearly says that Josif Runjanin was introduced to the Illyrist circles, where he met poet Antun Mihanović and composed music for his patriotic song Lijepa naša domovino. There is no evidence that Josif Runjanin had any kind of "Croatian national consciousness" - he simply had Yugoslav feelings and his contribution to current Croatian anthem could be seen only in that light. PANONIAN 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. --Wustenfuchs 18:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

@PANONIAN. That is not the point and you know it. Wikipedia policy is the point. -- Director (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole thing, just skimmed through the last part. And I noticed some profiling going on. It is as if the dispute being ethnicized by a user mentioning this to be some Croat conspiracy. There are claims this user being Bosnian, yet bs:User:Wustefuchs tells differently. Oh, why must we turn a minor letter into another Balkan petty squabble? --178.253.216.110 (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we made the point. I'm changing the title. (My account on bs wiki is bs:Korisnik:Wustenfuchs)

P. S. PANONIAN, no need for you to hide behind IP adress. --Wustenfuchs 23:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think that this IP adress belongs to me you are free to ask for checkuser investigation. Also, please stop moving title without agreement with other users. My basic and valid point is that name Josip is factually incorrect and represents only a "common mistake" and not a "common name". Do you have any evidence that name "Josip" is anything else but a "common mistake"? PANONIAN 08:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you want to rename this article, please open official request for renaming where all other users would be able to state their opinion (you are also free to use official mediation). Why you think that revert warring will solve everything? PANONIAN 08:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, may I offer this compromise to you: perhaps we can rename this article to neutral title "Joseph"? It is similar solution as one implemented in Syrmia article where neutral Latin name is used instead Srem or Srijem. PANONIAN 08:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We are circling pointlessly. I told you that your personall oppinion is unlogical, and it is very unaccepted and should remain your personall oppinion. This thought of yours, about "common mistake" is very similiar to the conspiracy theories, and also limits with the WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I'm not representing the "other side", and this is not "nagotiation", it's about common name used in English language. I'm affraid I could start philosophical discussion with you by asking you how do you know, or more correctly, what do you think what is "common mistake", maybe God's existance, maybe sky is blue etc. We can't let that happen, especially because you are the only one stating it's common mistake. --Wustenfuchs 16:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The main problem here is that you did not read previous discussion from this talk page, so I have to repeat same things again. see this source: [3] - Quote: "Inače, većina autora hrvatskih udžbenika istorije u Hrvate ubraja Ruđera Boškovića, Josifa Runjanina, Mihajla Latasa, Petra Preradovića, Svetozara Borojevića i Nikolu Teslu. Ako izričito ne kažu da su bili Hrvati, onda se traži neko neutralno rješenje, pa je Latas rođen u pravoslavnoj krajiškoj obitelji, a Tesla je naš zemljak. Uglavnom izbjegavaju da pomenu srpsko ime, što je sasvim u skladu sa shvatanjem da je Hrvat svako ko je rođen na teritoriji današnje Hrvatske, nebitno kada." So, I am certainly not conducting "original research" regarding the issue that some Croatian nationalists are trying to Croatize everything related to Croatia and to remove or hide any info related to Serbs. example of such campaign is also this removal of Serbian name from article about Vukovar (while in the same time, other alternative names - Hungarian, German, Turkish were kept, no matter that Serbs comprising 32,9% of population in the city and Hungarians and Germans only 1,2% and 0,2%). So, it is not my "personal opinion", "original research", "conspiracy theory" (or what ever), but an well known pattern of behavior of some Croats, which is also very evident here in Wikipedia. This, of course, is not related to the common name issue, but it is very related to the motives that standing behind aims that this article is renamed to "Josip". Here is the table from the grave of Josif Runjanin in Novi Sad where one can clearly see that his name is written as Јосиф (in Serbian Cyrillic): http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/Kulturna-bastina-Srbije/Znamenitosti%20-%20ostalo/JosifRunjanindetaljsaspomenika-1.jpg Do you have any evidence that name "Josip" was used for him in any official document? "Josip" is nothing else but Croatian translation of his name, and as such, it cannot be qualified as "common English name". We have no evidence that this man ever used name "Josip" for himself or that he ever accepted that name as his own. Please respect the ethnic origin and religion of this man and his native (and correct) name. Personally, I do not care would you croatize everything in Croatia, but the facts that this man was Serb, that he lived, died and was buried in Novi Sad (in present-day Serbia) and that he composed famous Serbian patriotic song are much more important than his contribution to Croatian anthem. As a person, he is much more related to Serbia than to Croatia and croatization and POVization of Serbia-related articles (or to say an export of croatism into Serbia) are terrible violations of Wikipedia policies related to neutrality and accuracy of the articles. PANONIAN 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Do you have any evidence that name "Josip" was used for him in any official document? We have no evidence that this man ever used name "Josip" for himself or that he ever accepted that name as his own."
  • Out of experience I know you will repeat this nonsense for the sixteenth time regardless of what I write, but let me repeat for the fifteenth time: the "official" name, the "name he used", or any such nonsense, has no bearing whatsoever on WP:NAME, and can be completely disregarded when discussing Wikipedia titles. Wikipedia concerns itself with the most common name in English language sources.
• "'Josip' is nothing else but Croatian translation of his name, and as such, it cannot be qualified as "common English name."
  • A typical PANONIAN non sequitur. "The sun is yellow, and therefore the name that is the most common in English language sources cannot qualify as the name that is most common in English language sources".

Its masochism at this point, but I'll repeat again: 1) yes, this person was undoubtedly of Serbian ethnicity. 2) Yes, "Josip" is the Croatian translation of his official name. 3) Yes, it is not the name he used personally. 4) Yes, it is certainly not the name used in official documents. Hopefully you will stop repeating that which everybody already knows and agrees with over and over and over and over again, as if it matters in any way.

"Josip", however, is nevertheless the name proscribed by Wikipedia policy (WP:NAME), since its the WP:COMMONNAME: English-language sources use that name. And 5) yes, "Josip" is the WP:COMMONNAME probably because this person is most remembered as the author of the Croatian national anthem. -- Director (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From "Josip is the WP:COMMONNAME" infers "Josip is probably the WP:COMMONNAME", but the other way round non sequitur. I.e. from "Josip is probably the WP:COMMONNAME" does not infer "Josip is the WP:COMMONNAME". It is either one or another, because the two premises are not equivalent. --79.175.117.206 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about "probably"? Please see above tests, "Josip" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I was just saying it was the COMMONNAME "probably" because of the Croatian anthem. I'll rephrase. -- Director (talk) 11:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, I do not see evidences from WP:COMMONNAME page that can support your view about common name. In fact WP:COMMONNAME page clearly states that Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. and that Neutrality is also considered. As I already stated, name variant "Josip" clearly fail to qualify as an correct and neutral name. Do you have any additional comments related to interpretation of policies from WP:COMMONNAME? PANONIAN 20:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yes I do as a matter of fact. Here are the "evidences", as you know full well:

• Google Books
  • "Josif" 23
  • "Josip"118.
• Google Scholar
  • "Josif" 3
  • "Josip" 20

I would like to hear no more of your nonsense about "Josip Runjanin" being "ambiguous" or "inaccurate" somehow. Changing one letter obviously makes it neither. But either way, a source must determine a proposed title is "ambiguous" or "inaccurate", note: "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources,...". Are you a reliable source Panonian? Similarly, you do not get to proclaim something isn't neutral. A source must say something to that effect. Not you. And sources usage determines what name is "correct" and what isn't.

Are you done with your rather unimpressive attempt at WP:WIKILAWYERING? Or will you find something else to misquote here? In future please spare me your statements of opinion. -- Director (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, we are circling for days know, and we done nothing constructive. I won't accuse anyone, but we waste time for days, why? Just to conclude same thing over and over again. You tried to find reliable source that says "Josip" is nonobjective name and you added some newspaper article with obvious chauvinist sentiments and again this same source didn't have a word about Josip Runjanin being nonobjective. I tried to make things simple, showing why and how is "Josip" common name, but again we started to circle around. We should end this soon. --Wustenfuchs 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, DIREKTOR, grave of Josif Runjanin is reliable evidence that his name was "Josif" and therefore name "Josip" automatically qualifies as inaccurate (both versions cannot be accurate, he either had one of these two names either other). By the way, did you ever met a Serb that have name "Josip"? I did not, and I live in Serbia. And wait a minute, it was you, DIREKTOR, who said this (in your previous post): 1) yes, this person was undoubtedly of Serbian ethnicity. 2) Yes, "Josip" is the Croatian translation of his official name. 3) Yes, it is not the name he used personally. 4) Yes, it is certainly not the name used in official documents. These are your words and the facts that name "Josip" is a translation and name that he did not used personally are exactly what qualifies one name as inaccurate. PANONIAN 15:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Jebo ga bog PANONIAN. Please, don't skip the policies of Wikipedia. It is clearly stated that the official documents, or correct or incorrect names aren't important. Last year I made a point with the rap singer Eminem. --Wustenfuchs 17:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not curse (Wikipedia:Civility). Can you please quote exact sentence from Wiki policy which says that "official documents, or correct or incorrect names aren't important"? PANONIAN 17:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It seams you haven't read the beginning of the discussion that I started. Do it, it's quoted. --Wustenfuchs 18:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you speak about recommendation that well known artistic names of famous persons should be used instead their real names (Eminem would be good example of this), I do not see how this could be related to Josif Runjanin. Or you would say that "Josip" is somehow his "artistic name"? PANONIAN 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, it's very simple really, you could check it your self. I'm geting an impression you think I'm a person with intellectual limitations. Just look at this, various names, starting with Bill Clinton ending with Venus de Milo. To be more precise, Wikipedia also has a WP:Official names policy wich states: "New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy." We end this now? --Wustenfuchs 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN, you're a POV-pusher, and you will never admit you're wrong. Ever. Even when the policy you yourself quote, in the same sentence, contradicts you. Nothing "automatically qualifies", Panonian. I reject your claim and request that you please follow policy and provide sources that qualify "Josip" as inaccurate. Whether a term is inaccurate "is determined by reliable sources" - not you. English-language publications determine accuracy, gravestones least of all.

Discussing with you is pointless, though, and I know it. This exchange is just you once more trying to think-up creative ways to ignore sources and Wikipedia policy, for the sake of supposedly "protecting Serbian interests". On the other hand, if this title were "Josip", and "Josif" happened to be the name used in sources - I would be demanding we use "Josif". I am just sick and tired of dealing with petty Balkans nationalism at every turn, that's why I'm not posting an RM.

Incidentally, "evidence" has no plural ("evidences" is not a word), and in every language "Panonian" is spelled with two "n"s: "Pannonian". -- Director (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 07:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Josip Runjanin → Josif Runjanin – This article was recently moved to name Josip Runjanin by two Croatian users and this move is controversial and violates NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Native and correct name of this man was Josif Runjanin. He was born in the territory of present-day Croatia and died and was buried in the territory of present-day Serbia. Inscription on his grave in Novi Sad contains his Serbian Cyrillic name Јосиф (Josif): [4] There is no evidence that name "Josip" was ever used for him (or by him) during his life. "Josip" is simply an Croatian translation of his native name and it is example of an incorrect name. Such translation of "foreign" names is common in Croatian and therefore Habsburg emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria would become "Franjo Josip" in Croatian. Since article about Habsburg emperor in English wikipedia is not named "Franjo Josip" there is no valid reason for Josif Runjanin to be named "Josip" as well. No matter of the fact that some English sources (like google books) are using name "Josip" rather than Josif (while other sources are using name Josif), authors of such books obviously used Croatian sources as a place of origin of that info and were not aware of the fact that real name of this person was Josif. He is known in Croatia because of the fact that he composed melody for modern Croatian anthem (note that it was not Croatian anthem during his life), but he also composed an famous serbian patriotic song, he was Serb and he died and was buried in the city of Novi Sad (in present-day Serbia). Wiki policies about common names of the articles are stating that ambiguous or inaccurate names should not be used and that neutrality of the article titles is also considered. Name "Josip Runjanin" clearly violates Wikipedia neutrality and it is not an correct name - this man was never officially known as "Josip" during his life. Name "Josip" was introduced much later during period of "Romantic Croatian nationalism", which aimed to present all people that were related to Croatia or that contributed to Croatian culture as Croats. PANONIAN 07:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Voting

I am opening this voting so that notable number of other users can say their opinion about the title. Agreement between two Croatian users of Wikipedia is simply not an example of prevailing opinion. PANONIAN 07:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move - Per my explanation above. PANONIAN 07:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not democracy. The WP's policy WP:COMMONNAME was used. And there weren't two Croatian users. Don't lie on Wikipedia. And example with Franz Joseph is nonsense. He was the emperor, Chinese, Hungarian, Serbian etc. Wikipedias also uses different name for him and for other royality. Bad example. Josip is not incorrect name, nobody made a spelling mistake. If you mentioned "Joesib" or similiar, I would acctualy support you. --Wustenfuchs 04:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the user who makes edits such as this and this and then claims he is not Croat? Not to even consider that pages bs:User:Wustefuchs and sr:User:Wustefuchs (where he represents himself as Croat) both point to User:Wustenfuchs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.49.85 (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You already stated your position and I am simply trying to find consensus among various users, especially those that are not personally attached to this subject. Your personal interpretation of WP:COMMONNAME is very questionable (and very wrong by my opinion) and therefore, other users should say whether they agree with that interpretation or not. And yes, you and mister DIREKTOR are indeed "two Croatian users" and I do not see what exactly I lied there. You both trying to implement here the views of Croatian national ideology (no matter that you trying to hide these views behind questionable interpretations of Wiki policies). As for Franz Joseph, I simply provided an example of how "foreign" names are often translated into Croatian and that name "Josip Runjanin" is nothing more but Croatian "translation" of the name, which automatically means that such name version is incorrect (Serbs simply do not choose name "Josip" for them or for their children). In fact, there is also very recent example of how Croats translating foreign names: on the Croatian version of the web site of the Catholic Bishopric of Subotica, name of bishop János Pénzes (himself an ethnic Hungarian) is translated into Croatian as "Ivan Penzeš": http://www.suboticka-biskupija.info/index.php That says everything about Croatian names that are used for non-Croatian people. PANONIAN 06:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You have such translation in every nation, not just Croatia. Now be carefoul about this, since from your comment people can read you are trying to show Croatians as people who like to assimilate others. Translation of names of royality is common thing everywhere, especcially if those persons were kings or emperors of their state, as example with Franz Joseph, who was King of Croatia. Same thing can be seen with people of historical significance, like Joseph Stalin, who wasn't named Joseph at all. Don't know for Direktor but I'm not Croatian user, so don't lie. --Wustenfuchs 13:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I get 31 post-1980 English-language Google Book hits for "Josip Runjanin", 9 for "Josif Runjanin". After all, he is the composer of the Croat national anthem. So there is a certain logic to using the Croat form of his name. Kauffner (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nonsense. This is the commonname in English-language usage. Wikipedia does not follow subjective perceptions with regard to the "real" name. -- Director (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. --Wustenfuchs 14:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this case, it matters what the majority of reliable sources say, and not what is his "real" or "correct" name. A very nice example is Josif Pančić: you could definitely use the same arguments to argue in favor of renaming it to Josip Pančić, because there's remarkable symmetry between these two cases. But would you, and, if not - why not? GregorB (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Josif Runjanin did not compose the song "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike"

The song "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike" (or "Graničarska pesma") was written by Serbian prota Vasilije Vasa Živković (1819-1891). The music was based on an instrumental medley of folk motifs called "Barona Jovića marš", composed by Antonije Jahimek of Pančevo. From this medley, composer Nikola Đurković (1812-1875) drew the melody for "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike" and harmonized it for male chorus. The song was first performed in 1844, in the Pančevo theater where Đurković worked as manager, director, actor, singer, interpreter and composer. Josif Runjanin had nothing to do with composing this song.

--Skozobar (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that we have to trust Glas javnosti more than Novosti? Let's move the whole thing to Talk until it's verified by a third source. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

best known for composing the melody of the Serbian patriotic song "Rado Srbin ide u Vojnike" (Gladly will the Serb Enlist in the Army).

Well I can virtually guarantee that the information in the "Novosti" article can be traced back to this Wikipedia article. I've never seen Runjanin associated with this tune in any literary source whatsoever. A quick search on Google Books gave me nothing when searching for "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike" & "Runjanin", but I'll find some older references for this when I get the time.--Skozobar (talk) 11:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is just one source: "Sat-slika iz Narodnog muzeja u Pančevu ima muzički automat za dvije melodije; jednu je komponovao 1844. godine Nikola Đurković na tekst pjesme prote Vase Živkovića »Rado ide Srbin u vojnike«." - --Skozobar (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"To give but one example, Nikola Djurkovic is the author of the well-known song that has been sung for more than a century: "Rado ide Srbin u vojnike" (Gladly goes a Serb into the army)." -

Serbian Studies, Vol.9-10, North American Society for Serbian Studies, Serbia, 1995, pg, 84[5]

"Ubrzo posle toga Đurković prelazi u Pančevo na dužnost horovođe Srpskog crkvenog pevačkog društva. No on se ne ograničava samo na negovanje muzike, »harmoničeskog pjenija«, u okviru crkve. On pre svega pre- orijentiše Društvo u tom smeru da ono počinje da gaji pored crkvene i svetovnu muziku, osniva 1844. pozorišno društvo, i u zajednici sa pesnikom Vašom Zivkovićem deluje intenzivno na podizanju patriotizma i umetničkog nivoa grada. Za dramske komade koje je Durkovićeva pozorišna družina izvodila on sam komponuje, aranžira ili harmonizuje mnoge pesme, koje potom stiču popularnost i van pozorišta. Po običaju toga vremena, usled veoma stroge cenzure u Vojnoj granici, Đurković ponekad ubacuje, odnosno »protura«, u pozorišne komade borbene pesme, koje često nemaju veze sa samim komadom i njegovom dramskom radnjom. Među takve pesme idu Neverom me zva zemlje gospodar, Nosim zdravu mišicu, Rado ide Srbin u vojnike (»Graničarska pesma« na stihove Vaše Živkovića) i naročito popularna Ustaj, ustaj Srbine (na stihove J. Sterije Popovića), koju je komponovao zajedno sa Slezingerom. "

"Yet Djurkovic soon moved to Pancevo to accept the post of choir-master of the Serbian Church Choral Society. But his activity was not limited to "harmonic singing" in the church. First of all he directed the society to work not only on church but also secular music, then in 1844 he founded a theatrical company and, in association with the poet Vasa Zivkovic, he worked intensely on the furthering of patriotism and artistic life in Pancevo. For the plays his company performed, Djurkovic composed, wrote arrangements or harmonized many songs which became popular outside the theatre too. According to the prevailing custom of that time Djurkovic sometimes inserted, or "threw in on the sly" (on account of the very strict censorship at the military frontier) into the plays songs intened to enhance the fighting mood of the listeners which often had nothing to do with the play itself, or its dramatic action. The following were the songs of that kind: Neverom me zva zemlje gospodar (The Master of my Country Called me Traitor), Nosim zdravu misicu (I Have a Strong Arm), Rado ide Srbin u vojnike (The Serb Enlists Gladly in the Army) and the particularly popular Ustaj, ustaj, Srbine (Rise, Serb, Rise) with the poetic text by J. Sterija Popovic which he composed in association with Slezinger."

--Skozobar (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks. The text stays removed, these specific and detailed secondary sources must be more accurate than the conflicting news report. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the text has been removed from the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedia sites as well.--Skozobar (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Vlach origin?!?

I would like the author of the nonsense of Runjanin being of Vlach descent to give us any data that lists Vlachs or Aromanians as living in West Serbia at the beginning of the 18th century. You will find none. Therefore someone should erase this, it doesn't make any sense. Ulichar (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It was added by a vandal who also edited another article in a similar manner. I removed it yesterday.--Zoupan 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Josip Runjanin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305073044/http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/ndd/12prosinac/1208%20Runjanin.html to http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/ndd/12prosinac/1208%20Runjanin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Aromanian descent

Where is it written that Runjanin's was of Aromanian descent? Are any newspaper from 2018 relevant enough? Newspapers write a lot. If it goes for such evidence, then we also have a proof that Cthulhu exists, Tony Stark, the Guardians and Thanos too. Likewise, he was not a Croatian composer, he had only written the melody. Runjanin also wrote Serbian patriotic songs. It may be sad that perhaps a Serb wrote the melody for the Croatian anthem (the melody for the Serbian anthem has also been written by the Slovenian Davorin Jenko, so what.. ? - and who cares about where a grandpa or a grandma of Jenko maybe came from?). The original partiture of Runjanin is allegedly lost. But denying him ethnicity and admitting another is not... "Christian".--Carski (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Josip Runjanin is not a Serb

There is no historical information who indicated that Josip Runjanin is a Serb, therefore even less we know about the origins of his family. It is a factual situation. Whether some source( book) called Josip Runjanin as Serb or mentione his family to be Serbian does not mean that he really was Serbian. For this reason consensus is required.

• "although there is no »information that Josip Runjanin would ever tell anyone or write that he is Serb ", and despite the testimony of" Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin, who claimed to have considered themselves Croats for their ancestors and on their father's side"Mikola22 (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

What is going on here? You deleted 3 references based on what? Your personal theory about "historical information". This is yet another Wikipedia:I just don't like it and needs a proper report. Grčević is a linguist and not a historian. He is also a nationalistic linguistic which labels everything to be Croatian, which can be seen from this very article you quoted. Not a RS because he is ignoring a bunch of other sources. We do not need consensus when we have RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought you would provide historical information that speaks of him or his family as a Serbians and you didn't attach anything because there are RS. I have too RS for Nikola Tesla who is Croatian-American so I have little use for that.[6]. In this case, we also need come to a consensus because historical data which prove that he is a Serb does not exist. Therefore, this is place where we must come to a consensus by mutual agreement. Mikola22 (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, you have no clue how a discussion or Wikipedia functions. I am note here to lecture you. Please do it yourself. You do not understand what a consensus is, that much I can see. You have been reverted by 2 fellow editors, Mikola22, and you are still shouting about some consensus. How about that? The Tesla article is a different story and the 2 can not be compared (a number of editors involved, years of discussion etc.). Show good faith and revert your edit. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor (@Tuvixer:) probably didn't look here, you are familiar with mine edit and probably he will be. Let's start talking about Serbian origin of Josip Runjanin and original written evidence which support that. He cannot be Serbian or Bosniak or Croatian if there is no historical or personal information about that. We are all here to make this article as accurate as possible and now when I start this discussion you are not taking part in it. Let's prove something. For now what we know is this "there is no information that Josip Runjanin would ever tell anyone or write that he is Serb" and testimony of" Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin, who claimed to have considered themselves Croats for their ancestors and on their father's side. What do you suggest as an editor? To return his Serbian origin to the article? But we have no information about his Serbian origin.Mikola22 (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You are going in circles while ignoring other people. That tactic will not work. Daughter's statement is not that relevant. Please read about primary and secondary sources. History is not based only on "original documents" and will not be (a great part of human history would be erased in that case). You have removed several RS and yet you wish that someone would talk to you about your removal, in order for you to prove that you were correct in the first place? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

"there is no »information that Josip Runjanin would ever tell anyone or write that he is Serb" There is no information about his Serbian origin. That is a fact. If some source(book) speaks of him as a Serb we need to see on what basis. Serbian historiography and also partly Croatian(common Yugoslav history) considered all Orthodox to be Serbs. This is legitimate but Orthodox are not Serbs just because they are Orthodox and Croats are not Croats just because they are Catholics. It's not history. We need to have some proof that someone is Serbian. But now Croatia has its history and we have to stick to the facts here. If you have information that Josip Runjanin speaks of himself as a Serb you have to expose that data here. We are waiting for you. I see you called for help editor @Tuvixer: and I urge him to come here, until he comes you @Sadko: provide documents that speak of him as a Serb Mikola22 (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC).

@Mikola22 please stop engaging in an edit war, while there is a discussion. What you need to do first is to learn how to behave on Wikipedia. You are talking about consensus and You have already two users who are against what You propose. You can't simply remove sourced text just because You don't like what You see. Thanks --Tuvixer (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I will not waste much time on this discussion (although on the surface I agree that the sources seem to indicate that he is of Serb descent, but may have self-identified as Croat), but I insist that the words "of Serb descent" should be removed from the lede sentence per WP:ETHNICITY: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". --T*U (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixer: That you did that in some article I wouldn't RV your edit. I would come to talk page to discuss that edit considering that explanation was very clear. although there is no »information that Josip Runjanin would ever tell anyone or write that he is Serb ", and despite the testimony of" Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin, Then let's respect this fact. If there is no information that he is of Serbian origin whay you RV my edit? Now you have returned information in the article which is not true. You have a consensus for that? You do not see that there is no historical information that talks about him as a Serb. Runjanin was born to a Serb[1][2][3] family on December 1821 Show me historical data which prove that. There's none. Then why are you holding this information in the article?Mikola22 (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I agree that the sources seem to indicate that he is of Serb descent There is no information for this, that this information exist they would be known in Croatia. Why these sources state that I don't know, certainly they are not based on historical data. That's what I'm talking about.Mikola22 (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

About your "historical data", see WP:PSTS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY etc. --T*U (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I have 20 sources for Croatian-American Nikola Tesla will I and you put that in the article?Mikola22 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That is off topic. Other articles should not be vandalised because of someone's frustration faced on another article. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Why would I be frustrated, I give an example where there are 20 RS but still this information is not included in the article. Here we have information that Josip Runjanin is Serbian although there is no historical record to prove it. Therefore cannot in one article be some information and in the other not. And all have RS.Mikola22 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22, TU-nor made you a huge favor when he pointed out in his last comment the rules and principles you should get familiarized with. It´s not that much to read so it shouldn´t take you more then five minutes, but it is really well explained and usefull. Perhaps you may finally understand why it is irrelevant what aome old treaty says when we have tons of secundary sources contradicting it. I think you knew all this very well, but you just choose what you prefer anyway, but, at least from now on, you don´t have an excuse not to have been pointed out how sources work. FkpCascais (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

" all are agreed to add the statement from the other source in the ethnicity section"

I see a very strange, incredibly fast closing topic on the DRN with the following argument: "all are agreed to add the statement from the other source in the ethnicity section". I do not know who these "all" are - I disagree. In my opinion, this is a fairly fringe theory. Are there any neutral, non-Croatian sources that agree that Runjanin was... I don’t know, Illyrian or Romanian, or what else have they come up with in recent years?--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

You should bring this up with Nightenbelle, Nicoljaus. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I made a mistake and closed prematurely. I have reopened the dispute and I apologize for the mistake. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's okay, I approve of your desire to resolve issues quickly. "He that never climbed, never fell." Cheers!--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about ethnicity

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is clearly against inclusion, due to undue weight and fringe content. El_C 13:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Should a sentence about Runjanin's possible Croat ethnicity be added to the article? T*U (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Background

I have been asked by Mikola22 to start this RfC on their behalf. There has been former discussions about it in the section #Josip Runjanin is not a Serb above, and there has been a failed attempt at dispute resolution at WP:DRN#Josip Runjanin. T*U (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested addition

The section Life starts with the sentence Runjanin was born Josif Runjanin[a] to a Serb family on 8 December 1821 and baptized in the Serbian Orthodox Church of Pentecost in Vinkovci. Currently this is followed by the note Runjanin's Serb ethnicity, like that of other Croatian Serbs, is disputed by the Croatian linguist Mario Grčević, with the reference:

• Auburger, Leopold (2019). "Putovima hrvatskoga etnonima Hrvat. Mario Grčević. Ime »Hrvat« u etnogenezi južnih Slavena". FILOLOGIJA. 73: 150. Retrieved 30 January 2020.

The suggested addition is to replace the note with the sentence

Josip Runjanin did not consider himself Serb or Croat since there is no historical data who talk about it although Runjanin's daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin for their ancestors from father's side claimed that they considered themselves Croats.

with references:

• Auburger, Leopold (2019). "Putovima hrvatskoga etnonima Hrvat. Mario Grčević. Ime »Hrvat« u etnogenezi južnih Slavena". FILOLOGIJA. 73: 150. Retrieved 6 February 2020. nema podataka o tom da bi Josip Runjanin ikada igdje ikomu rekao ili napisao da je Srbin«, i unatoč svjedočanstvu »Runjaninove kćeri Wilhelmine Runjanin, koja je za svoje pretke i s otčeve strane tvrdila, da su se smatrali Hrvatima
• Grčević, Mario. Ime "Hrvat" u etnogenezi južnih Slavena. Hrvatski studiji Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. pp. 39, 134–136. ISBN 978-953-7823-86-3. Retrieved 6 February 2020.

Survey

• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE. T*U (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE. It seems that Croatian nationalists have been attacking this issue for decades, but outside of Croatia this point of view is completely unknown.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE. After some consideration I think that it would be prudent to remove the note because it is the only place in the whole article that inadvertently states that Josip Runjanin was of Serbian ethnicity. The fact remains that he was born to a Serb family (and that should remain in the article) and that most, if not all, of his work and life was about and centered in Croatia. Stating that his Serb ethnicity is disputed, when the article only mentions an undeniable fact the he was born to a Serb family, seems ridiculous. So I propose the removal of note b. Also, this whole discussion about counting someones blood cells is quite disturbing and unnecessary. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support because it is a very important historical fact which should be part of the article.Mikola22 (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:UNDUE and I agree with fellow editor Tuvixer. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this is clearly a WP:FRINGE view pushed by individuals with an axe to grind. The note was added and language tempered to ameliorate the edit war that was taking place at the time. Hopefully, reaching a consensus here will prevent such nonsense from recurring in the future. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Grčević is a linguist, not a historian. His argument is more or less that Runjanin never declared himself a Serb. So, on top of being WP:FRINGE (rather than WP:UNDUE, I'd say), using this sort of reasoning one could dispute ethnic backgrounds of countless historical figures. GregorB (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comment: I suggest that the current reference is expanded with quotations from the source with translation into English. I could also support to lift the current note up to the main text, if that is a possible compromise, but I am quite happy with the current state. The addition as suggested by Mikola22 is in my opinion completely unacceptable. --T*U (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I propose the removal of note b, as explained in my Survey post above. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment As I said earlier for this I have no special comment. Josip Runjanin never declare himself as a Serb or Croat and this is historical fact, the only written and recorded evidence we have is from his daughter who herself and her father considers as Croats as well as the ancestors of his father. This is what we have from historical data which speak of origin and this new RS who talking about it.Mikola22 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment : This similar conflicts are spreading troughout all the numerous articles which have potentially this nationalistic conflict included. Having started with Tesla and its consensusses, there is a sort of revenge contaminating other articles. I hardly see any major meaning making difference in Runjanin being Serb or Croat. I would even understand it from a point of view of how nice is that a Serb composed the national anthem odopted by Croatia. I don´t understand this need of all being "locals" (Croats). Developed nations usually don´t have this problems. I cannot remember any exemple now, but Germany, UK, or France, would not mind at all the nationality of the composer of their national anthem. All it matters is that the people are happy with the anthem and identify with it, ends up eing more important the capacity of a nation in choosing well a quality work rather then limit itself to some sort of tribal prides. I for instance write about history of football in Yugoslavia and I have no problems in pointing out the importance of Croatian footballers which were ahead and more developed than Serbian ones at the beginings. Rather then trying to distort reality and claim historical figures for themselves, nationalities should focus much more about the ability to exploit and take advantage to themselves in the best possible way when that opportunity came. We can discuss all day about Tesla, the fact is that it was United State that knew how to take best advantage of his skills. Same with Runjanin, Serb or Croat, his talent git to be best used in service of Croats and Croatia, by addpting his wonderfull composition which became the Croatian national anthem. If he was Serb, Croat, or Tahitian, makes no impact at all to the Croatiasness of Croatia by having his composition as anthem. I am not OK that we tolerate at en.wiki for long time now Croatian nationalistic editors with a mindset unable to understand what I just explained and, if nothing changes, will continue to spread Croatia and make Croatian whatever he gets his chance on to. A Serbian editor doing that would have been banned at very begining. We are faced with Croatian nationalistic sources which just make me sad to see them existing and having followers in what was once a beautiful part of my country. Insistance in claiming Ragusa as Croatia as in Boskovich article, refusal to acknolledge confirmed and undisputed status and borders of Croatia by historiographers in a desperate vicious circle that drives to an infinite list of claims of territory, followed by people born there, end up indicating that the editor hasn´t passed the barrier of understanding why is better to be a small Switzerland then a huge Sudan. Worste of all is that in most cases we are dealing with historical figures living in a space and era in which nationalities didn´t existed at all as perceved nowadays. All in all, in former-Yugoslavia related articles we cannot rely too much on local sources. Only if they are scholar and agreed by non-local historians. Local sources, including many of the even scholar ones, are often a disgrace in which one can find expanded claims from Yugoslavs going to Moon before anyone else, to claims of Tesla writting himself how he descends from Croatian noble families (from both sides of the family!). I don´t see nothing usefull here. FkpCascais (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• Comment : As it seems that almost all are in an agreement, can I now remove Note b from the article? --Tuvixer (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Tuvixer You can certainly not remove the current Note b on the basis of the discussion so far. That is not part of the RfC question, and most of the participants (including me) have not commented on removal of the note. --T*U (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Question Why are we even mentioning this linguist, Mario Grčević? He's not WP:notable. Why is he here? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

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

Very high chance of Runjanin not being a Serb, in fact there is no reason to say he was a Serb

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/qamxap/percentage_of_romanians_in_and_around_romania/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/p4trq2/percentage_of_romanians_vlachs_in_romania_serbia/ These two subreddits deals with various maps and these two maps show how not only Aromanians are close to Serbia, but that some still live in Serbia. I mean, some Romanians live in Istria, why wouldn't there be Romanians in the whole of Serbia?! By looking at the picture of Runjanin, you can see that he doesn't look like a Serb at all. Combine that with him never saying that he is a Serb. I mean, these kind of things get solved pretty easily on articles not pertaining to the balkans, but the balkan ones have to constantly be gatekeeped by overzealous Serb editors that only now how to counterargument in two ways. The first one is accusations like "you're a nationalist, so your opinion doesn't matter", and the second one is cornering the person by abusing wiki rules in a narrow context to bully them away from the article and continue their gatekeeping. I have never seen these gatekeepers us rules such as WP:COMMON to defend their reasoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.199.174 (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)