Talk:Metropolitanate of Karlovci

Merge?

Proposing merge of Patriarchate of Karlovci into this article. The very title "Patriarchate of Karlovci" is kind of a joke: nobody ever claimed to be the "Patriarch of Karlovci". Its simply that the May Assembly in 1848 declared the Metropolitan of Karlovci to be the Patriarch of the Serbs (not "of Karlovci" :)), which no one anywhere recognized. Least of all the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Metropolitanate of Belgrade that deferred to it. As far as anyone was concerned, this was legally the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, still under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in a kind of rebellion.

In fact, the modern-day Serbian Orthodox Church also doesn't seem to recognize any of these Karlovci metropolitans to have been patriarchs of the Serbs. they don't seem to list them in the succession. The infobox is inappropriate too, the text is just way off and doesn't recognize any of the controversy. Just merge, imo... -- Director (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The above idea is ill-born. The time is not running backward. Above's In fact ... makes no sense to me because it's a statement without any source thrown here!--Milos zankov (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ill-born"? :). As I said, there is no such thing as a "Patriarch of Karlovci", and nobody ever claimed to be such. Those people claimed to be Patriarchs of the Serbs. The short period in which the Metropolitanate claimed to possess patriarchal honor (which nobody anywhere recognized) can easily be incorporated iinto this article.

The infobox is especially a joke: a "patriarchate" is not a diocese, its a church of its own. And the infobox lists completely fake names for the entity..

Instead of me proving the Serbian Orthodox Church doesn't recognize the Karlovci patriarchs, how about you show it does? I challenge you to do so - the WP:BURDEN is on you. But as i have pointed out - they do not seem to list them in their succession of Serbian patriarchs.

Also, you can please stop posting "counter merge templates" and removing tags. That's pretty blatant disruption. -- Director (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Spend some time on researching and reading history of Serbian Orthodox Church. Try to understand that existence, development, and activity among the Serbs of this Church in Austria and Hungary has a recorded history. Your "no such thing", "nobody anywhere", etc is ignorance and spam.--Milos zankov (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? Because it seems to me I know more about this topic than you do. This is Wikiedia's list of Serbian Patriarchs. The Karlovci metropolitans called themselves "Serbian patriarchs". the list is based on the Kratak pregled Srpske crkve kroz istoriju, by Radomir Popović (Belgrade, 2002), and does not include anyone in Karlovci. This is because the current Serbian Orthodox Church is very happy indeed with its recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and would never claim that people unrecognized by Constantinople were "Patriarchs of the Serbs".

How about you not try to talk down to me, and instead explain why this project should have two articles on the exact same church institution?, one before and one after it unilaterally proclaimed itself to be a "patriarchate" (without anyone's recognition)?

This is not a project where religious locals from Vojvodina or wherever get to spin yarns about the plight of Serbs. The infobox at Patriarchate of Karlovci is particularly ridiculous: the people heading that institution proclaimed themselves "Patriarchs of the Serbs", not "Patriarchs of Karlovci", and the very type of infobox is highly inappropriate for a supposedly autocephalous church ({{Infobox diocese}}).

Its time to clear out the cobwebs in this corner.

And please stop spamming opposed edits, that is against Wikipedia behavioral guidelines (see WP:BRD). Especially stop removing tags. -- Director (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Your personal opinion about history of Serbian Orthodox Church cannot be a basis for any discussion.--Milos zankov (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what we call WP:OWN: you do not own this article, and if you push your non-consensus edits while avoiding discussion as something that's beneath you - it will be reported.

P.s. nobody is about to be fooled by your using your IP. -- Director (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User Director

I do not see any valid scholar sources you ever used to support any of your tags: POV or Merge. Both articles are completely rewritten. Without seeing any credible sources supporting your opinions from your side it's not possible to lead any rational discussion.--Milos zankov (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Large number of Serbs (cca 200 000)

In 1689, Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III sided with Austrians, and moved from Peć to Belgrade in 1690, leading the Great Migration of the Serbs. In that time, large number of Serbs (cca 200 000) migrated to southern and central parts of Hungary. Serbian academician in the source (book "Serbs" page 144, 244) don't talk about "cca 200 000" Serbs who migrate to Hungary. Second source (Pavlović 2002, pp. 19-20.) I can't see what he is saying as I dont have a direct book link. I guess forgery its used here too, explained here . I suggest deleting this information.Mikola22 (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22:, there are other sources that support the claim. See, among others, [1][2][3]]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm says that the 200 000 figure is not correct, while Stevan K. Pavlowitch says at least 30 000. So a small modification to the article is needed. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991: In the book of Serbian academician Sima Ćirković "The Serbs" this information is not provided. Article "Great Migrations of the Serbs" also does not provide this information. Hungarian Wikipedia I quote: "A bevándoroltak számáról nincsenek feljegyzések. A szerb hagyomány már 1690-ben 40 000 családról tudott, egyes történészek becslései a félmillió főig terjednek, az uralkodó vélemény azonban 40-60 000 betelepülőt valószínűsít." There are no data on the number of immigrants. The Serbian tradition knew about 40,000 families in 1690, some historians estimate it to be half a million, but the prevailing opinion is that 40-60,000 immigrants are likely. I have not heard information that "200,000" Serbs migrate to Hungary under Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III. It is interesting that earlier and for later(time period) are mentioned 200,000 thousand migrants, but for earlier migration we know that is falsified information. I don't know how accurate that number is for later migrations? But if only RS is valid or we must respect then these three sources you cite must be included in the "Great Migrations of the Serbs" article, to know this information publicly (to avoid confusion in numbers), if they are relevant. Mikola22 (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is data from Serbian Scientific Paper. Старији историчари, осим Илариона Руварца, узимали су Раваничанинов исказ о 37.000 породица као меродаван и истинит, док су историчари XX века вредност тог исказа оспоравали и уместо броја породица тврдили су да реч може бити само о 30.000−40.000 душа. "Older historians, except Ilarion Ruvarac, took Ravanicaninov testimony of 37,000 families as authoritative and true, while historians of the twentieth century the value of that statement was disputed and instead of the number of families they argued that the word could be only about 30,000-40,000 souls.(page 171). По мишљењу историчара Душана Поповића, као најверодостојније сведочанство о броју пресељених Срба могло би се узети оно које је кардинал Колонић навео у писму папи: више од 60.000 до 70.000 душа, што је „за оно време, број веома висок, а коме у прилог иде и чињеница да су Стара Србија и Метохија готово опустеле, нарочити област око Приштине, Трепче, Вучитрна. "In the opinion of historian Dusan Popovic, as the most credible testimony of the number of Serbs displaced could be taken by the cardinal Kolonic stated in a letter to the pope: more than 60,000 to 70,000 souls, which is "during that time, the number is very high, and which is supported by the fact that Old Serbia and Metohija almost abandoned, especially the area around Priština, Trepča, Vučitrn.(page 173). У архивским изворима можемо само посредно говорити о броју избеглих Срба у време Сеобе, јер нема директног извора са највишег места који би поуздано могао да одговори на то питање. Према посредним изворима број се кретао између 20.000−40.000 душа. На пример, будимски коморски администратор Јохан Штефан фон Верлајн је јавио 16. октобра 1690. дворској комори у Бечу да је „стигло одоле 20.000 Раца“ "In the archival sources we can only speak indirectly about the number of Serb refugees at the time, since there is no direct source from the highest place that would reliably could answer that question. According to indirect sources, the number ranged between 20,000-40,000 souls. For example, the Buda Chamber Administrator Johan Stefanvon Verlaine reported on 16 October 1690 to the Vienna Chamber of Commerce that "20,000 Racs had arrived".(page 174). Навођењем оваквих података који се налазе у архивским изворима, можемо закључити да извори говоре о главној групацији миграната на челу и око патријарха Чарнојевића која је износила 30.000−40.000 људи, не рачунајући оне хиљаде које су се на путу према Будиму и Коморану задржавале и настањивале по Бачкој, Срему, Источној Славонији, Барањи и дуж Дунава, до ниже Будима. О Великој сеоби Срба из 1690. дуго ће се још, ако не и непрестано, писати у српској и у европској историографији, али број избеглих Срба никада неће тачно бити утврђен. Мишљења смо да је најближа реалности процена великог историографа Илариона Руварца од 70.000 до 80.000 душа избеглих у време Сеобе, а то је за крај XVII века врло импозантна бројка. "By providing this kind of information found in archival sources, we can conclude that the sources speak of a major group of migrants headed and around the patriarchs 30,000-40,000 people, not counting the thousands that are on their way to Buda and Komoran, stayed and settled in Backa, Srem, Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and along the Danube, to the lower Buda. The Great Migration of Serbs from 1690 will be long, if not constantly, written in Serbian and European historiography, but the number of Serb refugees will never be accurate to be determined. We believe that the closest reality is the estimate of the great historiographer Ilarion Ruvarac of 70,000 to 80,000 souls who fled during migration, it is a very impressive number for the end of the seventeenth century.(page 175). Mikola22 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

The source brought by Mikola22 (Vladan Gavrilović) actually refutes POV of Mikola22. Gavrilović carefully presents what all different authors believed was number of Serbs who migrated from Serbia (between 40,000 and almost 500,000, some even to almost 1 milion). Most of authors mentioned by Gavrilović accepted 37,000 families which was translated by many of them as 300-400,000 while some authors exegerated with estimations of almost a milion Serb migrants. At the end Gavrilović says that he believes that Ilarion Ruvarac probably gave the closest number (between 70 and 80,000). From some reason Mikola22 insist to present only Ruvarac's estimation and to ignore:

• position of other editors
• wikipedia policies presented to them (diff),
• the example from the source (Gavrilović) they brought themselves here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator What does "Eparchy of Marča" and 200 000 Serbs case has with (cca 200 000) Serbs from Great Migrations of the Serbs and this case? These are two different migrations between which there are about 200 years of time difference. First migration from 1483 and number of 200 000 Serbs("Eparchy of Marča" article) is forgery and this second migration 200 years later according to this scientific paper counts about 70 thousand people and for this numbers is said to be a very large numbers. So and promotion of this number of (cca 200 000) is not correct nor does that number exist in "Great Migrations of the Serbs" article. There are various estimates and recent historiography considers that number is I quote: "while historians of the twentieth century have challenged the value of this statement and, instead of the number of families, have argued that it can only be about 30,000-40,000 souls..(page 171)".Mikola22 (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• The number is disputed. It could be correct, smaller or larger. Hence I removed it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

References