Jump to content

Talk:Josip Jelačić

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mastrchf91 (talk | contribs) at 22:00, 5 January 2008 (Ranked as start class). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Additional information:
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

The first line reads Baron Josip Jelačić of Bužim. Shouldn't that be count? He was given the title five years before his untimely death which then passed onto his younger brother. The family is known as the Counts of Bužim or, in Croatian, the Counts Bužimski. It is standard on Wikipedia to use the highest titles. I say change it, but I won't do anything on my own without consensus because I don't want to start a revert war.

--193.198.128.156 18:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An edit concerning Jelačić's missed opportunity

I just added a sentence concerning the fact that Jelačić was, after all, the emperor's man. It is important, I believe all aspects of Jelačić's historical role should be shown clearly. There was a very strong historical opportunity for Croatia to become the first independent south slav state. That could have very well had a strong historical impact on the entire region etc... It has to be pointed out clearly that Jelačić had a choice during the revolution and it's reprecussions must be indicated. I hope you would at least look up the article on the battle of Pakozd (which states some of my wiews on the Count) before deleting the edit. DIREKTOR

One brief question that I had while reading this article. In it, it states that Jelačić largely discouraged the Illyrian Movement but most of the literature I have read on him makes it fairly clear that he was highly sympathetic to the movement's pan-South Slav aims. Certainly, statements like "We are all one people, putting aside [differentiation between] the Serbs and the Croats" / "Mi smo svi jedan narod, ostavimo i Srblje i Hrvate" which he made in front of the Sabor in May 1848 (Jaroslav Šidak, Jugoslavenska enciklopedija) and his enthronement by the Serbian Orthodox Patriarch Rajačić would seem to strongly indicate this. Could someone clarify this?


@ Direktor

That sentence you added is pure fiction. Jelacic had negotiatons with Batthyany last one on July 29. These were pure falior because Batthyany said famous sentence: " where is this Croatia and who are these croats. I don't see nither on the map" As for Jelacic missing the opportunity I agree. His greatest falior was that he accepted everything that Bach orderd.

Petar Kružić

Great leader

Fought western oppression from Croatia, much like Josip Broz Tito

Did he? He supported the Habsburg absolute rule against a liberal revolution. That seems odd enough for a man who fights Western oppression. Nevertheless, I cannot see the point of your remark or its relevance to the article. 84.1.190.103 20:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective moral judgement of Jelačić

Subjective opinion should be attributed to a source rather than simply stated, and it should be avoided in the article head. I removed the nice nationalist comment "when he saved Croatia from Hungarian hegemony", it may be put back in some form with appropriate reference. 84.1.190.103 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar forces?

The use of the word Magyar, an artificial one in an English context, should be limited to applications when it is essential to differentiate between Hungarian nationality ("Magyar") and residence/citizenship in the Kingdom of Hungary ("Hungarian"). The liberal revolution and war of independence in 1848-49 had a distinct international flavour about it, just read the names of the The 13 Martyrs of Arad to get the idea.

I suggest using the less vague words "Revolutionary" and "Imperial" forces or something like that. 84.1.190.103 20:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]