Talk:Serbian Patriarchate of Peć

Merge
The scope of this article, as is clear by the information, is the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church. I suggest we merge the content into that article. For related articles, see Russian Orthodox Church and Bulgarian Orthodox Church.--Z oupan 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here we go again: user "Zoupan" is misrepresenting facts, as so many times before (just look at his talk page, there is a fine record of his numerous conflicts with other users). He states now: "The scope of this article, as is clear by the information, is the history of the Serbian Orthodox Church" :) That statement is simply false. Anyone can see that real scope of this article is just the history of the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć, a particular Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate that existed from 1346 to 1766. Here on English Wikipedia, same as on Serbian Wikipedia, entire history of Serbian Orthodox Church is segmented in various articles, by periods and jurisdictions: Metropolitanate of Karlovci (1708-1848), Patriarchate of Karlovci (1848-1920), Metropolitanate of Belgrade (1831-1920), not to mention separate articles on other Serbian Orthodox metropolitanates and eparchies. Should we "merge" all those articles too? Of course not! In Serbian, Russian, and Bulgarian Wikipedia there are special articles about Serbian Patriarchate of Peć (1346-1766), so why shouldn't we have such article on English Wikipedia too? User "Zoupan" also points to pages of some Eastern Orthodox Churches, and what can we see there: Bulgarian Church history is also segmented, with special articles on Archbishopric of Ohrid and Bulgarian Exarchate. Is user "Zoupan" planing to suggest to Bulgarians to merge those articles into Bulgarian Orthodox Church? I wonder how would Bulgarians react to that. And Russians (user Zoupan is mentioning them too), they even have specialized page on History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Should they merge it into page Russian Orthodox Church? Of course not! Some time ago, the same user Zoupan tried to kill the page Eparchy of Lipljan on the same day I made it, without any explanation, and now he is doing similar things with this page. It is clear that his actions are not made in good faith. So, I think that all active members of Project Serbia should be notified on his actions. Sorabino (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Misrepresenting facts? Why is there a problem in explaining in the lede that the Serbian Orthodox Church is/was styled as the Patriarchate of Peć? But we don't have a separate History of the Serbian Orthodox Church (and shouldn't, for now), and the Bulgarian and Russian articles don't have separate Trnovo Patriarchate and Moscow Patriarchate. The Serbian Orthodox Church article has plenty of room for this information.--Z oupan 00:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You have to immediately WP:assume good faith and stop accusing other editors of bad faith just because they do not agree with you. Such behavior is not tolerated here in Wikipedia. You should WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose to merge. Although those twp topics are intertwined, I still think that there is enough difference between the Patriarchate of Peć and the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) to warrant separate articles. Patriarchate of Peć was abolished in 1766, while the Serbian Orthodox Church was established in 1920. And, since we do not have separate article on the History of SOC, I think it is appropriate to have several separate articles for different incarnations of the Serbian Church.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Why am I tagged to discus about the subject which I have no deep interest in?-- AirWolf  talk  20:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Why Serbian?
Why we have Serbian in the title of this article? I am unaware of any other Patriarchate of Peć but Serbian? It looks like this page should be moved to Patriarchate of Peć while that page should be Patriarchate of Peć (disambiguation). What do you think? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  12:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with that. This topic is not the WP:primary topic for the "Patriarchate of Peć". The monastery named "Patriarchate of Peć" is equally important. So, the "Patriarchate of Peć" should be a disambiguation page.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes,, i agree on PRIMARY, but we should remove Serbian from this title, as no other Patriarchate of Peć but Serbian, its stupid and pointless to have it in title. Do you have any proposition on title? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you actually wrote: "stupid and pointless"? Strong arguments, quite scholarly. But seriously, you should finally produce some references (any references) that would show us that the term "Serbian" should be removed from the title of this article. That issue is nonexistent in scholarly literature. It would be like arguing that the term "Ecumenical" should be removed from the title of the article on Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople on the grounds that the page Patriarchate of Constantinople already redirects to that article. Sorabino (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * We should not change the title of this article, and also we should not make suggested moves, because (as user pointed out) the term "Patriarchate of Peć" has two equally important meanings. Therefore the page Patriarchate of Peć should be kept for disambiguation purposes, pointing equally to page for the Monastery and page for the Patriarchate. That is a very good technical solution, that reduces any possibility of confusion to a minimum. Besides that, the term "Serbian Patriarchate of Peć" is clear, recognizable and very well established in scholarly literature: Serbian Patriarchate of Peć on Google Books and Serbian Patriarchate of Peć on Google Scholar. Sorabino (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You google hits are wrong and a bit off. No one is questioning that Patriarchate of Peć is Serbian, but putting that word before is just plain wrong. And you did it without consensus, just to mention again. Its the same as naming articles like Serbian Belgrade, or Serbian Temple of Saint Sava. It is Serbian, but that is NOT PART OF THE NAME, and it should not be presented like that. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain, what have I done without "without consensus"? And why do you think that searches on Google Books and Google Scholar are "wrong and a bit off"? Those searches are clearly showing the wide use of the term "Serbian" in the title of Patriarchate. Can you produce any reference in scholarly literature that would show us that the term "Serbian" in the title of Patriarchate is, as you say "stupid and pointless"? Sorabino (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Historians in Serbia will never say "Serbian Patriarchate of Peć", because it is too clear, almost like a pleonasm. When you say the Patriarchate of Peć, it can only be Serbian and there is no other Patriarchate of Peć! Svetisrdj (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Serbian scholars who are dealing with Serbian church history would actually say "Serbian Patriarchate" (Српска патријаршија) since that was the real name of that ecclesiastical institution, and that fact is respected in scholarly literature. There is another issue here, regarding the attempts of some Albanian "historians" to dispute the Serbian origin and nature of church monuments and institutions in Kosovo and Metohija, including the Monastery of Peć. Not to mention the question of imposed "ecclesiastical jurisdiction" of Albanian Orthodox Church over Metohija and much of Kosovo during Second World War. Please, be mindful about those issues and do not oppose the term Serbian in the title of this page. Please! Sorabino (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Because this Patriarchate is located in another country, that's why article in named "Serbian Patriarchate of Peć". Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion where this patriarchate is is irrelevant, as that is highly disputed in which "country" it is. However, that is not explanation why we have word Serbian there. There is no other Patriarchate of Peć but Serbian one. -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  22:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If my opinion is relevant or not is showed by the name of Patriarchate. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue that was raised above is in fact very relevant for all those who are actually dealing with the history of Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija, including the history of Serbian Orthodox Church in that region. Sorabino (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * If we remove the "Serbian" part of the title, then the most logical title would be "Patriarchate of Peć (1346-1766)" do distinguish it from the monastery. But, I'm not sure such change is needed. Indeed, Google Books search shows that the title "Serbian Patriarchate of Peć" is used by many sources. Whether the word "Serbian" is used descriptively or as a part of the title is, of course, questionable. Anyway, I don't mind if article is moved, but I would like to here more opinions on this issue.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we would add years, then the title should not be reduced to "Patriarchate of Peć (1346-1766)", since the proper title would actually be: "Serbian Patriarchate (1346-1766)". Sorabino (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are some basic historical facts: Official title of Serbian Patriarchs still includes styles like "Archbishop of Peć" and "Serbian Patriarch" exactly because old Serbian Patriarchs for centuries styled themselves as "Archbishops of Peć and Serbian Patriarchs". Designation "Archbishopric" refers to the throne of Peć, and the Patriarchal title refers to the Serbian nature of the Patriarchate. Its basic name was "Serbian Patriarchate" (Српска патријаршија) and historians know that very well. That is not even an issue in scholarly literature! Can anyone show us any reference in any scholarly work that disputes the term "Serbian" in the name of the Patriarchate? There is none! As it can be seen on Google Books and Google Scholar, titles that include term "Serbian" in the name of the Patriarchate are widely and commonly used. So, we have many references for its use, and no reference that would directly dispute its use. Without scholarly reference that would backup the claim for the removal of therm "Serbian" there can be no action here. Everyone can personally like or dislike some style, but here we are talking about pure facts. Sorabino (talk) 09:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Patriarchate of Peć
This is the correct title. All patriarchs, without exception, have the title of "fathers of Serbs and Bulgarians". Half the jurisdiction is in Bulgarian lands. The Rila Monastery, too. If anyone claims that the Rila Monastery is Serbian it will be a laughingstock. It doesn't matter that the monastery of the same name is now in Kosovo. The purpose of this church was to keep the Serbs in the Orthodox, not the Catholic, after the East–West Schism. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

What about Moldovans and possible Ungrovlachia?
I know that the Patriarch of Pec was - sorry - the boss of the Metropolis of Moldova (or Moldavia), because in 1455 Ioachim, Metropolitan of Moldova was simply deposed by Patriarch Nikodim II of Pec, who designated another metropolitan named Teoctist. Ioachim, or Yoakim flew to Poland. So, why there is no word about the supremacy of the Serbian Patriarch over nowadays Romanians, named Vlachs at that time? Mazarin07 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)