Talk:Matija Nenadović/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge proposal

One person, two articles. One should become the only article, the other should be a redirect. We normally do not include titles, such as "Prota", in article names, although there are exceptions, such as Popes and people who are notoriously known to general history by their titles, e.g. Cardinal Richelieu. Such exceptions are very rare, the famous American Catholic priest Father Coughlin has his article on his full name; "Father Coughlin" is a redirect. Studerby 16:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's two persons, one article. The transition from father (Mateja) to son (Ljuba) is vague, and the article ends with "in 1859 he was in charge of the Press Bureau...", although Mateja was supposed to be dead in 1854 (while it's referring to son - Ljuba). It should be cleared by the author which "Nenadovic", in the last paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miki Srbija (talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Name

This man's name was Матија Ненадовић (Matija Nenadović in Serbian Latin hence Matija Nenadović in English). "Матија" is Serbian form of name Mathias, while "Матеја" is female form of "Матеј" (Matthew). His signature was Matija, his works are pusblished under name Matija. Mateja, is pretty wide mistake of semi-literate journalists. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There is a mistake in current title. His name was Matija. Thanks for pointing to this mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gbooks hits:

• "Mateja Nenadović" (170); 55 of which are "Prota Mateja Nenadović"
• "Matija Nenadović" (72); 48 of which are "Prota Matija Nenadović"

• "Матеја Ненадовић" (66)
• "Матија Ненадовић" (48)

• "прота Матеја" (71)
• "прота Матија" (69)

• "Prota Matija" (58)
• "Prota Mateja" (54)

• "archpriest Matija" (14)
• "archpriest Mateja" (8)

The Street in Belgrade is called Prota Mateja Street. If his signature was Matija, it could be moved there (need source though), but as it stands now, there is no need to move. Btw, Mateja Kežman.--Zoupan 11:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was a clear case. Now I see it is not. I was maybe wrong to move it just based on seeing how he signed himself. Sorry.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm, acctually it is clear case. I do not have example of his hindwrite, nor I think it is available on Internet but, he is Matija on web presentation of SANU which is more reliable source in that consideration. You could check printed editons of his Memoirs Also, Serbian Wikipedia changed name of article. SANU web presentation http://www.sanu.ac.rs/Clanstvo/IstClan.aspx?arg=367 He is listed among former members. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Gbooks has "Mateja" as name in Memoari of 1926, 1971, and a 2005 reprint has "Matija" as author, but only uses "Матеја" in the book. I have found that institutes Istorijski muzej Srbije, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Zajednica arhiva SR Srbije, Muzej grada Beograda, Društvo istoričara SR Srbije, Matica srpska (1977, 1981), and SANU's Glasnik 52-53 from 2004 have published with the spelling "Mateja". But also, older publications of Matica srpska (1908) and SANU (1887, 1936) have used "Matija".--Zoupan 12:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This is very interesting. 1926 google books use Mateja while the cover shows that the name is Matija.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edition of his Memoirs from 1867 , published by his son Ljubomir in Belgrade uses spelling Матiя (Old orthography). Look here. I guess Ljubomir know correct name of his own father.--Dalibor Đurić (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

According to 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. In this case, his name used by him or his son is irrelevant if it does not match the name used in RS. In this case it seems that RS use both, so maybe if half of RS together with himself and his family used MatIja version, maybe wikipedia should do too?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In WP:COMMONNAME is explicitelly stated Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. ... When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others. If I correctly understood this sentence, dilemma Matija or Mateja is clear case of inacurate name. My reasoons are:

1. Matija and Mateja are not two stylistic versions of same name. Mateja is clearly inaccurate name of this person.
2. Matija is attested in older sources which have more credibility. Edition of Memoirs by his son, older editions, he is listed as Matija in SANU membership list.
3. Confusion about name could be traced from period after World War Two. In that times academical circles in Serbian society lacked basic informations about Christian culture. Since this is indirectly connected with New Testament (two different disciples of Christ, Matthew, writer of firts Gospel and Mathias, perosn chosen in place of Juda Isakriot), it could be percieved as manifestation of such lack of informations. To average Serbian Scholar with Communist influenced educational background Matija and Mateja could sound just Serbian and Croatian variants of same name.
4. In last few decades we could trace increase of use of correct form Matija.

So I repeat, to me all of this seems as clear case of use inaccurate name, sometimes by reliable sources. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear, Matija and Mateja are both derived from Greek Ματθαῖος (Matthew). Sources, in all times, have used both spellings. "Confusion" on the name are obviously not from the time after World War II. I do not doubt that "Matija" is the right name, the 1867 print indeed says "МЕМОАРИ ПРОТЕ МАТІЄ", though we still need to reach concensus, as the Serbian sources are evidently divided on the matter. This 1829 source uses "Матея Ненадовикъ", Društvo srbske slovesnosti in 1848 used "Матея Ненадовићъ".--Zoupan 15:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Zoupan, now we are steping in my professional field. Матија is derived from Greek Ματθιας, whille Матеј is originated from Ματθαῖος. As I stated two different apostles Saint Matthias and Saint Matthew, and two different names Matthias and Matthew (name). I hope now it is clear to you that we speak about two different names. If you wish to further see differenc you could check in Serbian translation of New Testament (translation of Holy Synod of Hyerarchs, check this verses Дап 1, 13 , where is mentined Матеј and Дап 1, 26 where is mentioned Матија.) I will look your sources.--Dalibor Đurić (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Zoupan for bringing those two sources. I am again confused and unsure what to think. Maybe we should seek for more input on WPS project?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously in questions are different names while of similar origin. I think input would be appritiated. And just I want to appologize to Zoupan, in my last comment I might sounded rude.

Also, maybe we should add section about problem of his name in article. Since there is confusion in sources. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Very good idea. Complete section might be too much (wp:undue) but information within one sentence would probably be enough.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Sentence (eventually two) will be enough to state our dilemmas. Well, until hear next opinion I am out of ideas. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Matthias and Matthew. I have no objection if we agree on Matija. Matija is used in the 1867 print published by his own son and SANU currently uses it, but because of inconsistency in Serbian sources (though in favour for Mateja), and ul. Prote Mateje, I'm 50-50. We have clarified aspects of his name and I agree that we ask for views in WPSR. In either way, an annotation will clarify the name.--Zoupan 17:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i also agree on Matija, per name origin. --WhiteWriter^speaks 14:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Did we reach agreement? --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 11:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that conclusion of the discussion is: Its ok for the article's title to remain MatIja but it should be clarified in the first sentence that he is sometimes referred to as MatEja.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Dalibor Đurić (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)