Talk:Nikola Tesla

Quote removed?

Seems as if someone is trying revise Tesla's views.

    In 1936, replying to a birthday telegram from Vladko Macek, Tesla said he was "equally proud" of his "Serbian origin and Croatian homeland",[128] a phrase often paraphrased in conciliatory 

context at modern-day joint Croatian-Serbian Tesla celebrations.[129] In addition, in the same telegram, Tesla wrote "Long live all Yugoslavs."[130] When others tried to co-opt him into ethnic and other conflicts in Yugoslavia, Tesla once replied: "If your hate could be turned into electricity, it would light up the whole world."[128]

http://predsjednik.hr/Default.aspx?art=12900&sec=810

Why was this quote deleted?

Eye color

There was a paragraph discussing Tesla's eye color, saying he "claimed" that use of his brain had caused his eyes to become gray. I left the comment from Brisbane to speak for itself. Tesla did believe some unusual things, but it's speculative to think this wasn't merely a joke. Roches (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla discovered the Rotating Magnetic Field

According to Harvard University Professor of History; William L. Langer, who compiled and edited 'An Encyclopedia of World History', page 555, Nikola Tesla discovered the rotating magnetic field which was what made the long distance transmission of electric power possible. http://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/presidential-addresses/william-l-langer174.1.40.37 (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And the source at Rotating magnetic field says Galileo Ferraris probably did. When trying to weigh RS you should take into account whether the source is reliable for the statement being made, re: a work specifically on the "electrification in Western society" vs a a general "An Encyclopedia of World History". When sources disagree you describe the disagreement. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Milutin, Nikola's father

I do not see any reason for saying that Nikola's father was an Orthodox priest. It's irrefutable fact: he was a Serbian Orthodox Church priest.

• Milutin, Nikola's father, was a well-educated priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

from:Nikola Tesla: A Spark of Genius by Carol Dommermuth-Costa, Twenty-First Century Books, 1994 page 12

• The tiny house in which he was born stood next to the Serbian Orthodox Church presided over by his father, the Reverend Milutin Tesla, who sometimes wrote articles under the nom-de-plume "Man of Justice".

from: Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney, Simon and Schuster, Nov 8, 2011 page 25

• Following a reprimand at school for not keeping his brass buttons polished, he quit and instead chose to become a priest in the Serbian Orthodox Church.

from: Tesla: Inventor of the Electrical Age by W. Bernard Carlson Princeton University Press, May 7, 2013 page 14

• Nikola's father, Milutin was a Serbian Orthodox priest and had been sent to Smiljan by his church.

from: Nikola Tesla: Physicist, Inventor, Electrical Engineer by Michael Burgan, Capstone, Jan 1, 2009 page 17

• The Serbian Church organization in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of (Sremski) Karlovac,which in 1710 the patriarch of Pec, Kalinik I, recognized as autonomous.

from: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 2 by John Anthony McGuckin, Wiley, Feb 8, 2011 page 564

• Eastern Orthodox Churches ... Serbian Church in Austria-Hungary: Various metropolitan sees have also claimed and acquired independence, including those of Serbia, Carlowitz (Serbian Church in Austria-Hungary) - page 251

from: Religious Bodies, 1916: Summary and general tables by Sam. L. Rogers, United States. Bureau of the Census, William Chamberlin Hunt, Edwin Munsell Bliss, United States. Census Office U.S. Government Printing Office, 1919

• The metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci was asked to submit three names to Joseph II; he chose Ghedeon Nichitici, a Serb, who assumes office in 1784. His church remained dependent on Sremski Karlovci in matters of doctrine. In 1810 the Romanian Orthodox were given the right to name their own bishops. Sibiu became the Orthodox center, as Alba Iulia was that of the Uniates and Sremski Karlovci that of the Serbian Orthodox

from Barbara Jelavich: History of the Balkans, Cambridge University Press, Jul 29, 1983 page 159

• Then, in 1766, when the Ottomans abolished Pec, the Karlovci province became an independent body, eventually with six suffragan bishops (Novi Sad, Timisoara, Vrsac, Buda, Pakrac, and Karlovac), known as the Serbian Orthodox Slav Oriental Church, which after 1848 was raised to the status of a patriarchate.

from Paul Robert Magocsi: Historical Atlas of Central Europe, University of Toronto Press, 2002

• By the early nineteenth century the cultural and educational center of Serbian Orthodoxy was the seat of the Metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci (Karlowitz) in Habsburg territory.

from Alfred Rieber: The Struggle for the Eurasian Borderlands: From the Rise of Early Modern Empires to the End of the First World War, Cambridge University Press, Mar 20, 2014 page 312

• Until re-establishment of the Serbian Church in 1920 under the auspices of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, there existed several independent church units of the Serbian Church: the Metropolitanate of Karlovac, the Metropolitanate of Montenegro, and the Serbian Churches in Dalmatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, South Serbia, and Macedonia.

from Ken Parry: The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, John Wiley & Sons, May 10, 2010 page 235, Serbian Christianity chapter.

--Milos zankov (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Support as the requestor--Milos zankov (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support replace Orthodox by Serbian Orthodox anywhere--65.220.39.77 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This has already been through RfC and this new string of out of context Tesla sources adds nothing new. "Tesla sources" are not very scholarly and tend to copy each other so a claim gets repeated over and over again, even if its wrong. Not one of these sources cites a source for the claim of "Serbian Orthodox Church". This organization seems to post date Tesla's father involvement in the church and linking "Serbian Orthodox priest" creates an ambiguity, especially when linked to SOC. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Fountains of Bryn Mawr Didn't get your point. The references above clearly prove that Serbian Orthodox Church existed and operated even before XVIII century with her seat at Sremski Karlovci in Hungary and Austria and, therefore, Austria-Hungary in XIX century and after. Milutin Tesla was a priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church, like it or not. The earlier RfC is no more than nonsense, speculation, and ignorance based. Moreover the Wikipedia Sremski Karlovci article is against you and against RfC. Why do you think that Tesla's biographers should assess their knowledge of this common known historic fact by citing some sources?--65.220.39.77 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment"Why do you think that Tesla's biographers should assess their knowledge of this common known historic fact by citing some sources?" - ? hmmm? You lost me there. Wikipedia requires that sources be reliable and a source that cites sources is a part of it. Wikpedia is not an encyclopedia of "common knowledge". The question here is "Should there be a change back to "Serbian Orthodox" based on new conclusive references or arguments?" Nope, the references were all cited before and the arguments were all made before, almost word for word. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Common knowledge phrase is used above in the strict scholar sense. If you need more information about history of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary, please, do some search, say, Google Book search. The biographers who wrote about Nikola's father were not ignorant nor lacked credibility just for not referencing some source. Believe me, all those biographers followed much stronger academic criteria than those given by Wikipedia.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment If we are reading "biographers" that "followed much stronger academic criteria" then they should contain a source citations re: Tesla's fathers association. Feel free to point them out. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Please, pass your comment to the books editorial boards. I don't think that anybody there will take you ever seriously. Your thread is messy, illogical, and confusing.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support wikilinking to Serbian Orthodox Church, but having "Orthodox" in the text. I.e. "[[Serbian Orthodox Church|Orthodox]]". But Oppose any more than that. -- Director (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing my position to strong oppose: the Serbian Orthodox Church did not exist at that particular time. At most support wikilinking to Patriarchate of Karlovci with "Orthodox" as the visible text, i.e.: "[[Patriarchate of Karlovci|Orthodox]]". If even that. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • Directors proposal makes sense. FkpCascais (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree - that seems the most logical Red Slash 04:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • But Milos zankov, why is that so important anyway? Look at the paragraph, it already has 4 mentions of Serbia(n)/Serbs and one of Croatia(n)/Croats. The history of this article has often had this problem of Croats wanting to add as much mentions of Croatia as possible, and Serbs adding mentions of Serbia, and among established editors there has been a sort of unwritten agreement to avoid accumulation of ethnic mentions beside the reasonable. You have some valid points in wanting to change it to your proposal, but if you look to other exemples, you can notice that adding the ethnic/national adjective to a church is not that usual. For instance, you will rarely see this (made up exemple): "Pedro Perez was a Spanish historian whose father was a Spanish Catholic Church priest." You will most often see just the expression "Catholic priest". The national adjective ends up being unnecessary. Linking it to Serbian Orthodox Church is good so readers can go directly to the right article, but adding the full expression in the paragraph is unnecessary, just look at how it flows. FkpCascais (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The syntax is important here: Orthodox != Serbian Orthodox. Your comparison above makes no sense to me.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I made an exemple where you will see that in the articles on Wikipedia you will very rarely (or possibly never) see the expression "X-ian Catholic priest". They will say just "Catholic priest". We already say his father was a Serb, in the same paragraph we say that they came from eastern Serbia, and if he was Orthodox priest, its obvious he was priest of the SOC. No need to repeat ourselves and add million mentions of Serb/Serbia/Serbs... If he was Orthodox priest its logical he was priest of SOC. FkpCascais (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
            • What are you fighting for? 'Serbian Orthodox' is a precise term. Orthodox is equally Russian, Armenian, Georgian, etc Orthodox. Your 'obvious' is not obvious. There are the Serb priests serving American Orthodox Churches or Russians as priests of Serbian Orthodox Church.--Milos zankov (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Its really not a big deal... He was Orthodox priest, we already have 4 mentions of Serbia/Serbs in that paragraph alone... Everything is Serbian, yes people got it, no need to repeat it exhaustively. And besides this cases of Orthodox national churches, in most other articles you will see more than 90% people just saying Catholic/Protestant/Anglican/etc. priests, no need to go into detail of what exact nation the church was, not so important. That is why I support Directors proposal, he was Orthodox priest, and if someone wants to go into detail he will have the link to the SOC. FkpCascais (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
              • Pardon, my mistake, there are 3 mentions of Serbia/Serbs, not 4.[[[User:FkpCascais|FkpCascais]] (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
                • I still don't understand what are you fighting for? Precise Serbian Orthodox term can't hurt anything in article, it will only make article more coherent. It has nothing to do with your 90%.--Milos zankov (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC).
                  • I don't oppose it, just don't see any major difference between your proposal and the current state of the article. But OK, lets see what other editors have to say. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Director We are not voting here. Please, explain why Serbian Orthodox Church is not appropriate contrary to numerous sources I've listed above.--Milos zankov (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1909 map depicting Orthodox churches in the Austrian Empire.

You're right: I should've went with the facts rather than trying to propose a compromise without a proper rationale. Withdraw my previous position, changing to strong oppose.

The wikilink should direct the reader to the article on the Habsburg-sponsored Patriarchate of Karlovci, to which belonged all Orthodox priests in Lika ("[[Patriarchate of Karlovci|Orthodox]]"). If even that. Serbian Orthodoxy is a terrible mess at that time, and it may make more sense to just go with "Orthodox", but if the reference (to the Patriarchate of Karlovci) is in the form of a wikilink, I can't object to that. No more, however. The last thing we need is an anachronous, misleading reference to an organization that did not exist, and to which Milutin Tesla did not belong.

Side note: while the head of the church in Karlovci was de facto independent and sort-of/sometimes claimed to be the "honorary" "patriarch of the Serbs", he was not recognized as "patriarch" of anything by the Ecumenical Patriarchy in Istanbul, and was properly styled a metropolitan. We call it the "Patriarchate of Karlovci" though that name makes no sense and we really shouldn't: its the Metropolitanate of Karlovci, with no formal autocephaly (this is part of what I mean by "terrible mess").

P.s. I believe the current state of affairs is supported by a previous RfC. -- Director (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

(I participated a little in the previous RfC). I like Director's proposal. I agree that Patriarchate of Karlovci is a better wikilink than Eastern Orthodox Church. Both are better than Serbian Orthodox Church. Also agree with using only "Orthodox". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Director Your response is no more than an irrational attempt to justify your vote. I offered ten references showing clearly whose patriarchate was in Sremski Karlovci, you countered with a map from a book which talks about Die giechisch-nichtunierte Kirche in Osterreich-Ungarn, i.e. all orthodoxy in Austria-Hungary. Your are still voting.--Milos zankov (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Both Patriarchate of Karlovci and Metropolitanate of Belgrade were Serbian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Karlovci is called Patrirchate because the seat of the archbishops moved from the Patriarchate of Peć to Karlovci because Peć was under Ottoman dominion. So technically seems correct that Teslas father was priest of the Serbian Orthodox Church. FkpCascais (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fkp. In fact - neither were the "Serbian Orthodox Church", neither were recognized as autocephalous patriarchates by the Ecumenical Patriarchy or other autocephalous Orthodox churches. The Ottomans dissolved the Serbian Orthodox Church as such in 1766. I suppose one might say they were the "Serbian Orthodox Church" in some esoteric sense, as in the two organizations (and the Metropolitanate of Cetinje?) representing Serbian Orthodoxy in the period, but the very sentence "both were the Serbian Orthodox Church" is self-defeating if one is to claim the Serbian Orthodox Church actually, formally existed at that time. The idea that two separate Orthodox authorities somehow together formed a kind of "Serbian church" is fundamentally absurd. If there was no Serbian Patriarch, there was no Serbian church. And, as I said, the Karlovci metropolitans were not recognized as such.

@Milos. The metropolitan at Sremski Karlovci was never recognized as patriarch by the supreme authorities of the Christian Orthodox Church - and even if we regard him as such, he is known as the "patriarch of Karlovci", not "patriarch of the Serbs".

But be that as it may, linking to the Patriarchate of Karlovci article should imo be fine for anyone not trying to push some kind of nationalist POV: that's our article on the Orthodox organization Milutin Tesla belonged to. We can leave the question of "what it was" to said article.

That's my position, anyway. Think of it what you will.. -- Director (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • @Director You are adamantly ignoring sources about history of the Serbian Orthodox Church, offering just a strong opinion with no sources supporting you i.e. your WP:IDONTHEARYOU leaves me no choice save to stop responding to your comments. For the last time:
      "The Serbian Church organization in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of (Sremski) Karlovac, which in 1710 the patriarch of Peċ, Kalinik I, recognized as autonomous."

from: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Volume 2 by John Anthony McGuckin, Wiley, Feb 8, 2011 page 564--Milos zankov (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in the quote, and nobody is ignoring it - it just doesn't support you. In fact, it explicitly sinks you. Nobody questions that "the Serbian church in the Habsburg monarchy was centered on the metropolitan of Sremski Karlovci". The metropolitan of Karlovci. A metropolitan is a bishop, not a patriarch. The Serbian Orthodox Church article is about a specific, autocephalous patriarchy - that did not exist at the time. The Britannica quote doesn't contradict that - it just points out that the center of Serbian Orthodoxy at the time was the Metropolitanate of Karlovci. We can not mislead people into thinking the Serbian Orthodox Church existed as an organization at that time.

As you correctly point out though, there's no use wasting time on someone who just won't hear you. Accept my position or don't - that's what it is. -- Director (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't respond to this comment if I weren't surprised by the level of arrogance and the high tone that "sinks" me. First of all autocephalic means nothing more than self-governing, spiritually and administratively, recognized or not. An example of fully autocephalic Orthodox Church is American Orthodox Church without any recognition coming from anyone. Whether an autocephalic church has, as her head, a Metropolitan or a Patriarch is of no importance. Moreover, I gave above a reference (The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity) specifically writing that the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary was recognized as autonomous by Kalinik I, the Patriarch of Peć (i.e.by Serbian Orthodox Church itself) in 1710 way before being abolished by Ottomans. In addition, what happened after 1776, please, read this:

"Between 1776 and 1830 Serbian lands under Ottoman rule had bishops who were Greek nationals. They were popularly called 'Phanariots' (from the Phanar district of Constantinopole, the base of the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate) and were reputed as interested in catering neither for the real needs nor the problems of the Serbian people."

from Ken Parry (editor): The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, John Wiley & Sons, May 10, 2010 page 234

This is all about the facts. Now, about the logical fallacy. The Ottomans did not have any jurisdiction over the Serbian Orthodox Church in Austria and Hungary nor it had the Greek Ecumenical Patriarchate before 1776 nor after nor their decisions ever mattered Serbian Orthodox Church in any way (existence, autocephalic status, liturgy, church doctrine, clergy, followers, etc.) in Austria-Hungary. --Milos zankov (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ugh... One final word: the Patriarchate of Karlovci article is our article on the Orthodox organization to which belonged Milutin Tesla. It is the only article we can link to, if we decide to be more specific than just referring to Orthodox Christianity in general (that, or the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople!). The Serbian Orthodox Church article is about a specific church organization, which did not exist between 1766 (not "1776") and 1920 - and said article explicitly says so. Trying to manipulate cherry-picked sentences from various publications isn't a credible tactic at all, and I don't see why anyone in this discussion should give a damn whether this or that organization "cared about Serbs" 200 years ago. I'm done here. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support Director's proposal of a link to Patriarchate of Karlovci - better than Serbian Orthodox Church. Would mention "Patriarchate of Karlovci" in text somehow since hiding it under "Orthodox" link is WP:EGG. I see no claim for "Serbian Orthodox Church" predating John Joseph O'Neill's 1944 "Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla". O'Neill's gives us his 1944 view of the situation and all other biographies copy that. What he saw in 1944 does not seem to have existed in 1856. I would note this RfC, like the previous one, seems to be rooted in a nationalistic push (complete with name calling). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment@Director and @Fountains of Bryn Mawr I see the same nonsensic claims, over and over, denying the Serbian Church existence in Austria-Hungary and denying the fact that her patriarchate/metropoltanate was at Sremski Karlovci. How come that ignorance and irrational rant against this church takes so much time and space here? Even the Wikipedia article shows that Serbian Orthodox Church regained her autocephality in 1879 but this fella Director keeps ranting 'did not exist'?! It is shameless to which extent Fountains of Bryn Mawr was ready to falsify the reference claim: Djouka, the mother of Nikola Tesla (her given name in English translation would be Georgina) was the eldest daughter in a family of seven children. Her father, like her husband ( = Milutin Tesla), was a minister of the Serbian Orthodox Church.. All quoted text is from Prodigal Genius: The Life of Nikola Tesla By John J. O'Neill, O'Neill J. John on page 11.!--65.220.39.77 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Uggggh... No. My position is that I don't see any point at all in even discussing what the church organization at Karlovci represented, or whether or not it somehow constituted the "Serbian Orthodox Church". Whether or not it did, and whatever it was - Patriarchate of Karlovci is our article on it. Are we clear on that, Mr IP? -- Director (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion should indeed take place at either Talk:Serbian Orthodox Church or Talk:Patriarchate of Karlovci. There, the issue will get the attention of editors interested and familiarized with the subject, cause here besides few editors from former Yugoslavia, the rest are editors interested in the scientific aspects of Tesla and mostly fed up of seeing frequent discussions about Serbia/Croatia here. FkpCascais (talk) 13:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. But I can point out that's indeed the best way to exploit Wikipedia's inherent flaw allowing obscure articles to fall under the sway of interested groups... :) Who besides Serbs, even from former Yugoslavia, would care at all about the Serbian Orthodox Church (barring maniacs such as myself)? And, not to generalize, but realistically which Serb wouldn't answer "yes!" when asked "was the Serbian Church eternal on from the beginning of time?" :D. -- Director (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, come on Director, it is not some fanatical beleave as you are putting it. The issue is not that clear. For instance, see the final sentences of Serbian_Orthodox_Church#From_16th_to_19th_century and the beginning of the next section.

Then, there is one question I have been asking to myself but I was postponing to add it here because of one practical reason: I am not religious and I don't have much knowledge about the religious structures besides the basic facts, so I didn't wanted to complicate the matter without being sure, but since we got here, here it goes, question:

• Are we sure Tesla father belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci within the Orthodox hierarchy, or are we just saying that because the P. of Karlovci was the one that had jurisdiction over the village of Smiljan where he was located in?

For instance, nowadays in Montenegro we have churches and priests that belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church (Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral) and we have churches and priests belonging to the "rebel" Montenegrin Orthodox Church. The two are overlapped. In Macedonia I think that there is a similar case. As we know, Tesla father came from Western Serbia and moved to Smiljan, so the question is if we are sure he belonged to the Patriarchate of Karlovci? Do we have even one source confirming that? Is it possible that he was sent and working for the Metropolitanate of Belgrade? I think that we don't actually know much more about him besides that he was an Serbian Orthodox priest as the vast majority of sources say, but without going into details. FkpCascais (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

There's literally no chance at all that any Orthodox priest in the Austrian Empire deferred to any Orthodox authority outside the Austrian Empire. But if he belonged to the Montenegrin Metropolitanate of Cetinje, then he was under the direct authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. All this is unlikely to the extreme, the Empire was a bureaucratic monster and regulated these things, you know. "Kafkaesque", after all, was a word invented to describe that bureaucracy. Unless Milutin Tesla was James Dean before James Dean, and felt the need to rebel and be special :). -- Director (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Good point Director. I can't see how a so called "Serbian Orthodox" church could have jurisdiction within the Austrian Empire given that Serbia was outside the Austrian Empire. At that time in the region of Lika it may have simply been called the "Orthodox" church. To the Serbian population it may have informally been known as the "Serbian Orthodox" church but it wasn't formally known as such until 1920. Similarly with the Military Frontier, for many Serbs it is known as the "Serbian Military Frontier", but formally it was only known as the "Military Frontier" of the Austrian Empire.Kindly Deeds (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The confusion comes from a 1848 Serbian assembly in the Austrian Empire (the May Assembly) declaring their Metropolitan to be "Patriarch of the Serbs". Nobody recognized that, however, the Ecumeical Patriarchate.. not even other Serbian metropolitans; and I'm reasonably certain these self-proclaimed Serbian Patriarchs (known as "Karlovci patriarchs" after their seat) are not recognized as such even by the modern-day Serbian Orthodox Church.

For anyone who might be interested, proposed a merge at Talk:Metropolitanate of Karlovci that may prevent further misunderstandings along these lines. -- Director (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment@Kindly Deeds and @Director. Both of you get enough valid references saying that Serbian Orthodox Church of Austria-Hungary was autocephalic as of 1710. So, they did not need any recognition from anyone. Moreover Austrian emperor Franz Joseph I recognized Serbian Patriarch: "He confirmed Rajacic and Supljikac in their positions and promised the Serb national organization." from Diplomacy on the Edge: Containment of Ethnic Conflict and the Minorities Working Group of the Conferences on Yugoslavia by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Mar 6, 2007 page 242. This man Director knows nothing, reads nothing, understands nothing.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. All of it. Whether or not the Austrians recognized the metropolitans at Karlovci to have been "Patriarchs of the Serbs" - nobody else did. Most importantly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople did not - i.e. the people who rule on when a church is legitimately autocephalic.

But either way, what difference does it make? What is your argument? One way or another we should link to the Patriarchate of Karlovci article.. -- Director (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment@Director I told you: you know nothing, you understand nothing. Before stopping responding to you Milos zankov told you that Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had no jurisdiction over anything in Austria-Hungary. Also, Milos gave an example of church that is autocephalic which is not recognized by anyone (American Orthodox Church). First, learn the meanings of the notions before using them. Also, please, do not vandalize other articles.--65.220.39.77 (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)