| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anton Mahnič article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The name edit
Well, Mahnić himself changed his name on Croatian way - in Antun Mahnić, although he was born as a Slovenian - Anton Mahnič. All his public life as a bishop he used his name as Antun Mahnić and that should stay the main name of this article too, without last an unauthorized change.
--Josinj (talk) 09:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are two alternative versions of the same name. Before 1896 he used teh name he was abptized with, Anton Mahnič. After being consacrated Bishop of Krk, he used the name in Croatian ortography when writing in Croatian press, and in Slovene ortography when he wrote in Slovene press (as can be seen from these links:
[3],[4], [5]); Furthermore, the use of the Croatioan version of the Christian name (Antun instead of Anton), was not the consequence of a legal change iof name, but of the Church tradition, according to which the names of the bishops are always rendered in the version of the belivers (thus he used the Latin version of his name, Antonius, in his articles in Latin, for example in the Folium periodicum, and in the Acta et decreta synodi Veglensis; and I'm sure in the documents sent to the Italian-speaking parishes in his diocese, he used the name 'Antonio'.) I believe his real name should be used as the title of the article. Not only because it was his baptism name, but because it was the exclusive version used for half of his public life (which began already in the mid 1870s), and continued to be used until his death (as seen from the links), while the Croatian version was first used in 1896, and in the next 26 years it was one of the names he used, not the only one. In any case, both versions are mentioned in the description, so I don't see the problem. Best regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)