Talk:Krka monastery

anti serbian propaganda

Whoever wrote the history section in this article spends most the time not talking about the serbian orthodox history of this place, and putting in anti serbian rhetoric, even whith recent events it downplays them. There are numerous contradictions in the article such as the monastry being founded at the latest in early 1600s but then claims the monks that fled were catholic. "monks who fled, declared as Croats and Catholics who "live in the service of the Greek Church of the old Illyrian or Croatian language"." All this garbage comes from one source "sinobad 2021" another revisionist balkan pseudo historian it seems - what garbage this whole section is 49.190.31.109 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

The ethnic description of monks who fled in 1647 is actually referenced to Marčinko (1999), not Sinobad (2021).

I checked the article history and found that this reference had originally been added in this 2007 edit by a now banned user Kubura, so there's merit to the idea that this would be worrisome.

In the meantime there was a refactoring in this 2023 edit by @Miki Filigranski. Can you explain the specific value of the Marčinko source?

The HBL biography is complex to say the least, what with the publishing in something called Ustaška mladež in 1942 etc. It would seem prudent to double-check this with other, less controversial sources. --Joy (talk) 21:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Aside from obviously biased and ideologically motivated commentary by the IP, "Sinobad (2021)" is a very reliable and well-written source. The Orthodox monastery, based on all available evidence and reliable sources, would have been founded on the site of a previous Catholic monastery in the mid or late 16th century, not the early 17th century. As for the episode in the mid-17th century, it is sourced from a newspaper article "Marčinko (1999)", but "Sinobad (2021)" doesn't cite this source, nor is it needed in the article, as other references source all or almost all claims. The cite is "U broju 67. (listopad 1997.) iznosim što o tim krivotvorinama piše ugledni znanstvenik dr. Marko Japundžić u svojoj knjizi »Tragom hrvatskoga glagolizma« (KS, Zagreb 1995., str. 51-54). Monasi samostana Krke, veli dr. Marko Japundžić, »još se u 17.st. priznaju Hrvatima i katolicima«. Oni su se pred Turcima sklonili u Zadar, gdje im je papa Inocent X. godine 1655. dao dvije crkve – vlasništvo franjevaca trećoredaca (glagoljaša). U jednomu ugovoru sklopljenu s franjevcima trećoredcima samostanci iz Krke izjavljuju da oni »žive u službi grčke Crkve staroga ilirskoga ili hrvatskoga jezika«." So, the claim isn't by Marčinko, but Marko Japundžić (HBL).

As for another description of the events, see Danijel Vranešić's article in Glas Koncila, and Mile Bogović's book Srpsko pravoslavlje i svetosavlje u Hrvatskoj: U prošlosti i sadašnjosti (pg. 210-211). I didn't find the mention of "declared as Croats and Catholics" or "live in the service of the Greek Church of the old Illyrian or Croatian language", but even if are mentioned in a primary source, considering description of events, it could be an easy misinterpretation on first sight, as the Orthodox clergy from Krka monastery (those who immigrated to the Venetian part of Dalmatia, and would be "Croats and Catholics", there's no separate group) accepted the union with the Catholic church (becoming Greek Catholic), meanwhile the "Illyrian" and "Croatian" language were just a general term (see Illyrian (South Slavic)).

In short, advise adding sources by Japundžić and Bogović, editing according to them, and replacing Marčinko's source for these claims (as well as his opinion "However, according to Mate Marčinko, such a claim..." in the same paragraph).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Japundžić doesn't seem controversial compared to Marčinko. At the same time, he was also a member of a religious order, and the HBL biography says he made some odd claims about the timing of the Christianization of the Croats. I would rather simply cite only the currently presumed secondary source by Sinobad and leave analysis of potentially weird older works to them. The encyclopedia should summarize and mention curious claims and folks only if they are notable as such in context.

With regard to Mile Bogović, our article says he was a church historian, but doesn't explain further. The main role described is the one in the church hierarchy instead. If his work on this is a reliable secondary source that has been peer-reviewed by other historians and reflects the scholarly consensus, please feel free to cite it. --Joy (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)