Talk:Matija Zmajević

Serb?

Erm, HRE/Pax, Zmajević family was from Perast, they were Catholic, Andrija was the Archbishop of Bar etc. Here's a nice source:[1]

Po završetku školovanja u Kongregaciji za propagandu vere u Rimu[3], gde je stekao zvanje doktora teologije i filozofije, Andrija Zmajević se vratio u Perast. Od 1656. do 1671. bio je opat sv. Đorđa i peraški župnik, a 1664. dobio je funkciju vikara crkve u Budvi i zvanje komesara Svete stolice. Papa Klement X imenovao ga je 1671. za nadbiskupa barskog i "primasa Kraljevstva Srbije".

If all of that doesn't qualify him as outright Croat, no sources I found can qualify him as Serb either (personally, I consider most of "Serb catholic" theories bullshit crank). I suggest you remove the ethnic designation altogether from the articles. Duja 15:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is copied from the Croatian website: [2]. So either way, it should really be deleted as plagiarism. --Thewanderer 18:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - I was just reverting what I classified as Afrika paprika's bad faith editing. I just took the fact that his uncle was a famous Serbian Barroque poet.

Classifying him outright an ethnic Croat would be just if we classify Macedonians & Montenegrins because of their religion, Serbs. AFAIC, the Croatian claim on southern Dalmatia (particularely the Bay of Kotor) is much like the Serbian Radical Party's claim on Macedonia. Many Croatian historians errorously consider the Bay of Kotor as strictly ethnicly Croat up to the 20th century; when AFAIC, Catholics were in a minority. Additionally, the whole thing is based on the sole factor of religion - that they were Roman Catholic. There is a very small minority (or no) Catholic Bokelji that attained a strong Croatian national identity, compared to those who had no national affilation (the majority) or even the very few that "adopted Serbdom", to use the phrase.

Not all is in religion - Stjepan Mitrov Ljubiša was an Orthodox Christian - but do you notice his name? Medo Pucić, the most prominent man of the 19th century Dubrovnik was a Serbian nationalist. Antun Fabris was the spiritual, moral, ethic & national leader of all Serbs in the coastlans (he was in charge of the Dubrovnik Press, Library; was the manager of several papers etc.) Whereas the general claim of "Catholic Serbs" indeed could be lengthened to the nationalist irridentist ideology of most (or the greater part of) Croats being "originally Serb", but the two cannot & should not be mixed. --PaxEquilibrium 19:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think about adding "Croatian", but I have no idea how to really put it. I don't want to make it seem like we was a Croatian, nor of ethnic Croat origins... --PaxEquilibrium 10:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Lemme make a try... Duja 10:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

waiting... --PaxEquilibrium 19:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't claim to know much about the subject. However, some sort of mention of Croatian-ness, or of disputed ethnicity/nationality seems justified. He would certainly qualify as at least equally Croatian as Montenegrin. Boka was not a part of Montenegro until relatively recently, and definately not at the time during which he was alive.--Thewanderer 00:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to avoid mentioning Montenegro in the article as well (the Croatian source I used, see the reference, also tries to avoid either "Croatian" or "Montenegrin"). Frankly, I don't know how to put it in a nice way though—"he was back-proclaimed a Croat because of his Catholicism?" so I skipped it at all, as the reference to Bokelj seems to suffice. Duja 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, calling Montenegrin would indeed be errorously (maybe only a Category or his name's mention on the List); however, I have idea - what about simply mentioning that he's a Croat national hero (if he is such), (just like Hungarian Janjos Hunjadi is a Serbian national hero)? --PaxEquilibrium 12:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Zmajevic family

I found out that they were "victims" of the Catholic conversions. Apparently, Andrija Zmajević was a famous Serbian writer that identified himself as such. The family's descendant - Vincent Zmajevic (1712-1745) was a stalwart anti-Orthodox and kept Orthodox activity in chains and despite that, kept his Serbian identity. Although, there is nothing that really puts Matija Zmajevic as a "Serb" himself, but possibly only of Serb origins. As far as I found out, their origin (before the catholic conversions) lies in the Njegusi in Old Montenegro. --PaxEquilibrium 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RS - discussion enciklopedija.hr

Enciklopedija.hr is not RS. Please remove it. Read on MOS:Lead. No ethnicity can be in the lead. Zmajevic indeed was a Russian admiral and that lead is proper. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: There are no RS for the restored content. What is the idea here? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Err, I'm a bit late to the party here, but enciklopedija.hr is the website of the Croatian Encyclopedia, which is published by a reputable institution, and clearly qualifies as a reliable tertiary source by default. Please support this extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

'Adriatic News' journal

Silverije I can't quite seem to figure what kind of a journal is this where Zdravka Zlodi published that article you recently cited (https://www.bib.irb.hr/997537).

https://ru-san--sat-com.translate.goog/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%8F%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C/adriatic-news/?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp seems to indicate it's not a scholarly journal? I don't think we should use this, I can't even find an ISSN for it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

might be best to ask an wp:rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Silverije, Jingiby, Slatersteven please stop engaging in edit-warring and battling it out in edit summaries. I'm WP:INVOLVED because I am trying to fix this mess, but don't think that this pattern of reckless reversions without any sort of engaging on Talk will go unnoticed just because I can't wield the axe myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was also trying to get it in some order, by trying to find a point before the edit warring started. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Primate of Serbia

An anonymous editor asked for a source for this term in [3] but it's in the Croatian Encyclopedia article that is referenced. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the idea he was of Croatian origin and also that he was a primate of Serbia, have to be prooved with reliable academic secondary sources published in English language. Now we have a tertiary one, published in Serbo-Croatian. Jingiby (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems verifiable, but it was just a clerical title, it didn't have to mean much for it to formally exist, they've historically had a huge amount of titular sees... That origin story is a backformation, referring to pre-romantic-nationalism Catholic people as Croats (but as it clearly exists in the real world and is an apparent point of interest, we should describe the encyclopedic aspects of it). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what this adds, as far as I can tell it was an honorific bestowed on all archbishops of Bar. So I am unsure of its relevance. Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the term 'Primate of Serbia' is ambiguous, we should probably either link it or drop it. MOS:ROLEBIO seems to indicate that noteworthy positions should be listed, but if we already mention the role of archbishop which should be inherently clearer, either way is fine. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have realized that the term Primate of Serbia is a redirect from the main article whose title is acceptable - Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bar, i.e. he was in fact the Head of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Bar. Jingiby (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That was my understanding too, as I said "Primate of Serbia" was just an honorific, it had no authority, power or even diocese. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

Apparently there's another memorial somewhere:[4] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This Kako je Kolinda pokušala da obmane Putina isn't a WP:RS, but it was a little interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What is interesting? Serbian propaganda newspaper? Yes, he can laugh.93.139.165.171 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That the old admiral turns up in modern politics. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Croatian president only told the truth when she visited and reminded Russia that their admiral was of Croatian origin.93.139.165.171 (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

That is somewhat disputed (the whole problem with this page). Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It is disputable for you who support Serbian propaganda. As a Serb can be a Catholic, they are Orthodox, everything is explained to you there.93.139.165.171 (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

How did you come to the conclusion that I support Serbian propaganda? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well you put their fake newspaper to read, not me.93.139.165.171 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It was being used to show the claim is contested. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, he used Serbian propaganda and fake newspapers to show that the claim was disputed. I agree with you93.139.165.171 (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

And we use an equally biased Croatian source to give their side of the story. That is that wp:npov means, if there is a dispute we do not take sides. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

After that, then someone can tell you that, for example, Winston Churchill is Russian, not English, and that it is written in the Russian fake newspaper, will you also say that the rule applies wp:npov?. 93.139.165.171 (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

No, as many many other non British sources contest the claim. That is what NPOV means, we go with what most third party RS say. But I would susgest you also will not be able to find any source that says Churchill was Russian. So therefore this is an invalid comparison. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Why would that be a bad comparison, some fake newspapers can write something like that if it occurs to them. If they have a goal.93.139.165.171 (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Because none have, ever. But it is equally true that A Croatian source may want to present the great Croatian leader Churchill won WW2. That is why it is flawed, we can all engage in wild speculation about what someone might do. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

od You will note, we do not call him Serbian, or Russian, or Croatian, or Montenegran, or Britsh. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Croats are Catholics, Serbs are Orthodox, there was one political project which was much later from Matija Zmajević in the 19th and early 20th centuries Serb-Catholic movement in Dubrovnik which lasted 20-30 years and failed. His goal was to Serbianisation the Croats. This is the Serbian propaganda still from that time in Serbian newspapers.93.139.165.171 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

And we do not mention what his ethnicity is, so it's irrelevant. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to write here what nationality he was. I know he was a Croat, that's my opinion. That's it. Good bye93.139.165.171 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)