Talk:Montenegro/Archive 3

Serbian language and new gallop 2011
If Serbian language remain dominant and by the largest % by new gallop, Wikipedia has to change this Montenegrin into Serbian, by no more excuses and hypocrisy!79.175.87.181 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I have heard, Serbian language is still dominant by new census that even President of Montenegro, Vujanovic, said it should be official in schools. Hope people who take care of this page will represent Serbian language next to term Crna Gora. Finally!?77.105.20.126 (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Language
ATTACK ON SERBIAN LANGUAGE There is NO Montenegrin Language as well as Bosnian language. Western powers recognized these fake languages for political reason. This attack on Serbian language started in Austro-Hungarian empire and now continue in present time.

As far as I know, there's no such language like so called "Montenegrin". It is Serbian, right? And as far as I know the majority of citizens of Montenegro speak in Serbian, so why wikipedia makes such non reasonable mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.148.49 (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) http://www.njegos.org/ Change the lange to Serbian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.148.148 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If by the official census in Montenegro

Serbian	393,740	63.49 Montenegrin	136,208	21.96

TOTAL	620,145 Serbian	393,740	63.49% Montenegrin 136,208	21.96% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.197.39 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

the majority speraks SERBIAN then this article should be Serbian language : Црна Гора, not fake and newly made unexisted language of Montenegrin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.131.11 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree!!! The most people in Montenegro speak in SERBIAN. Newly created so called Montenegrin is NOT accepted! Name Montenegro was given by SERBIAN king! Stop faking history!!!!!!!! PLEASE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.18.57 (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You agree with yourself. You are the experts in faking the history. 92.36.239.133 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you change the language according to the majority speaking population of Montenegro itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.162.170 (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for Serbian language instead of unexisted and so called Montenegrin. Whatmore, the most of population in Montenegro speaks in Serbian. Isn't so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.110.200 (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

-- Since the discussion group agrees that the Serbian language should be represented in some way, according to the Montenegro Census2003, I will place this language next to Montenegrin, since they are the two most spoken languages in the country. NeroN_BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.78.102 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neron_BG where is the Serbian language? You said you'll put it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.133.122 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but we don't see Serbian language there? Although if you respect the will of consensus in Montenegro it should be only Serbian language, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.226.187 (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

What discussion? That is the same user replying every month. Rave92 (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I don't see Serbian language represented. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.86.203.178 (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Will you ever put back Serbian language?178.223.11.149 (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Meaning of the name
There is a mistake in the first section. Crna Gora is montenegrin, Montenegro is Spanish or Portuguese (despite I have no idea about why do you use the Spanish word)

FTA: "Crna Gora ... meaning "Black Mountain" in English"

"Crna Gora" doesn't mean anything in english, it should be rephrased to either "... translated to "Black Mountain" in English" or "... meaning "Black Mountain" in Montenegrin" 76.117.126.173 (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Rave92 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The name Montenegro is neither Spanish nor Portoguese but Vlach or Morlach (Romanian) meaning mountain of the Black (Romanians)Aldrasto (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please... official documents say it's venetian term, from where you got the idea it has to do with Romania. It's the translate of how it is called in native language. 92.36.145.11 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the name Montenegro is a Venetian (Italian term) but the meaning Black Mountains does not appear for the first time in them. There are document from the era of Jelena Anzujska (Serb Queen) and even in some Byzantium documents. More an more documents and research show that the name Doclea also means black, hidden land. The theory about Morlachs (black people)is also correct but not all Vlahs are Romanian. Vlach is a social category and is mostly used for shepherds all over the Balkans. Please note that for centuries Montenegro was the lands of the Black hills or black lands. It is not true that the name was invented in the Middle ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.50.202 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So you are suggesting to add that info you just wrote? You have some text documents about that? Rave92 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Municipalities
can anyone correct the mistake here> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro#Municipalities in n - numbers are 1-12 in 2 rows instead 1-21 - golubovi and tuzi are co-municipalities inside of Podgorica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.10.86 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2nd paragraph
Does this make sense? "A Serbian principality independent principality..." The meaning is unclear to me as a naive reader. Can you improve? ike9898 (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Montenegro was never "Serbian", until 1918... The sentence above is just Serbian propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.32.8 (talk) 11:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

SYSTEM: Semi-presidential republic ?
By constitution Montenegro is "just" a republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.32.8 (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations says that Serbia is sovereign over Kosovo so therefore Montenegro borders Serbia. The United Nations judges what countries are really in existence. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Montenegro has recognized the indipendence of Kosovo so it borders Kosovo, that is an independent republic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.24.250.130 (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It is about what the UN say and not servile regime of Montenegro. Also even on the pages of states which didn't recognize Kosovo, there are Kosovo or even maps of Serbia without Kosovo. Enough with hypocrisy.79.175.87.181 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Native language of Muslims
What is native language of Muslims? --91.124.205.64 (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "native language of Muslims" in the western Balkans. The most of them are descendents of the natives (South Slavs) Islamized during the Ottoman expansion (Turks). Their language is the same as one of the locals in the region, depending on location (South Slavic languages). Muslims are the most numerous in Bosnia, their language there is Bosnian (South Slavic), only enriched with some Turkish words in vernacular usage, but nothing more. Zenanarh (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Muslims of Montenegro speak the same language as people of ortodox or catholic tradition and Slavic origin. They call their language either Montenegrin or Bosnian. Montenegrin language is ijekavian dialekt of stokavian dialekt of former Serbo-Creoatian language, so it is NOT a dialekt of Serbian language only, since ijekavian isn't even spoken is Serbia, but is spoken in Bosnia and great part of Croatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.121.128 (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

sports
somebody please update this section and add links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.8.211 (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
As Montenegro; the vast majority (5 out of 7) former Yugoslav states The vast majority of European States; recognise Kosovo's independence, this article should not pander top the Serb POV that Kosovo is part of its "claim" to "Greater Serbia". 92.39.199.107 (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on Wikipedia we abide by WP:NPOV, not by this or that majority. Until all countries recognize Kosovo, it will always be a disputed territory and our articles must reflect that reality. Hús ö nd  14:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Husond but, not all countries recognize Israel or PRC but we don't consider them to be "disputed territories" now do we? And it seems ironic to say that we don't abide by this or that majority, while claiming that the road to WP:NPOV is recognition by the majority. --alchaemia (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The road to NPOV is not recognition by majority. Wikipedia is not a democracy. "Kosova" is not a member of EU, UN or any such union and the UN security council does not recognize it. PRC and Israel articles mention that they aren't universally recognized. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The rule [if it IS a rule] of "until all countries recognize" is obviously pedantic and defies rudimentary common sense. Applied generally that would mean mean we wait til the ruling cliques, clans, tribes, ayatollahs, generalisimos, juntas, great leaders, and presidents for life, etc., of failed, rogue and fanatical states such as Somalia and North Korea agree with the sane world.63.138.70.132 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

== During the 1991–1995 Bosnian War and Croatian War, Montenegro participated with its police and military forces[clarify] in the attacks on Dubrovnik, Croatia and Bosnian towns along with Serbian troops ==

During the period mentioned (1991-1995), Montenegro did not have its own military forces. The only army that existed and carried out those attacks was Yugoslav People's Army (which from 1992 became Yugoslav Army), with president of Yugoslavia as its Commander-in-Chief. The following is from Wikipedia's article "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" (it's the part about who were presidents between 1992-1997): "The first president from 1992 to 1993 was Dobrica Ćosić, a former communist Yugoslav partisan during World War II and later one of the writers of the controversial Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Despite being head of the country, Ćosić was forced out of office in 1993 due to his opposition to Serbian President Milosevic. Ćosić was replaced by Zoran Lilić who served from 1993 to 1997, and then followed by Milosevic becoming Yugoslav President in 1997." There is also an article about Yugoslav Army on Wikipedia saying that president of Yugoslavia was also a Commander-in-Chief of Yugoslav Army. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be more accurate to say that it was Milosevic, directly or indirectly, that carried out those attacks using Yugoslav Army forces stationed in Montenegro and not "Montenegro with its military forces". Or just to say it was Yugoslav Army. Also, I would like the part about Montenegro's police forces paticipating in the attacks to be clarified. As it was clarified with the cases of deportations. The other question is if in such a short article about the history of Montenegro, these very few incidents should be mentioned at all, not at least to say that they were orchestrated from a town in Montenegro that has predominantly Serbian population, greater than in any other town in Montenegro. One can feel for the people that lost their lives and for their families, (as I do very deeply), but this is not about that. The context it was written in is wrong, some statements are false and in my opinion, it's irrelevant for the article as a whole. Thanks, Zero Kerub (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Languages in use
Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian... don't have status of official language, but languages in use. That says constitution, and it should be changed.

Rave92 (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the constitution says that Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian AND Albanian are official minority languages, not languages in use. Read the constitution again, mate. --Prevalis (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik. Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni. U službenoj upotrebi su i srpski, bosanski, albanski i hrvatski jezik."

Which of these you don't understand?

Official language: Montenegrin Languages in use: Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian. Read the Constitution again... here http://www.snp.co.me/strana.asp?kat=1&id=1278 Rave92 (talk) 09:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No you just proved yourself wrong right there, mate. "U službenoj upotrebi su i..." which literally means "In official use are also...", so there you go, Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian are considered official languages, and that "also" parts proves it. By any chance, were you born and/or raised in Montenegro? --Prevalis (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I was raised in Montenegro. Anyway that means they are spoken, but they don't have the same status as Montenegrin. If it would have the same status then it would be: official language is Montenegrin, Serbian, Albanian... but it isn't. And it is done for purpose, that those languages can be studied in schools beside Montenegrin, and all had that rights eve before (for exm. Ulcinj). Rave92 (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

And "U službenoj upotrebi su i.." can't be translated as "In official use are also" because that's not the right meaning. IT means "But also used are...". So official is Montenegrin but also used(by minorities and in places where they present majority) are the other ones(Bosnian, Albanian, Croatian and Serbian). --213.133.4.225 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't believe you can't translate a simple sentence to English. Here you are, word after word: Official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin language. Cyrillic and Latin letters have equal rights. In official use are also Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian language. That "official use" part makes it "official". --Darko Maksimović (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Дарко Максимовић (talk • contribs)

Isn't the language map a bit out of date, considering there has been an evident change of ratio between the number of people declaring their language Montenegrin over Serbian since 2003, according to the polls? Btw, welcome back Pax. Sideshow Bob 12:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything's outdated. Especially with the curious Montenegrin-Serbian case of Montenegro. Therefore, just as the ethnic and religious (someone should make that, btw), they should stay until the next population census is conducted. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert, so I won't make an edit about this, but I see that the english version of the the Montenegran constitution adopted by the Constitutional assembly of the Republic of Montenegro, at its third sitting of the second regular session in 2007, held on 19 October 2007 says:


 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Montenegrin and/or Serbian in all Montenegro-related articles
Is there a general agreement on the use of Montenegrin and/or Serbian in all Montenegro-related articles ? For example, for this main one:
 * Montenegrin/Serbian: Црна Гора, Crna Gora — (used in the current version of the article)
 * Montenegrin and Serbian: Црна Гора, Crna Gora
 * Montenegrin: Црна Гора, Crna Gora — (that is, Montenegrin alone, without Serbian)
 * Serbian: Црна Гора, Crna Gora — (that is, Serbian alone, without Montenegrin)

If yes, could you provide me with a link to it ? Thank you already. - Best, Ev (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time to dig out through the archives, but the consensus is to use in most cases the first which you presented in most Montenegrin articles. The exception's the historically-related articles, which should use the forth. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same language called Serbo-Croatian. That language doesn't exists anymore, now we have Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Montenegrin. Every language goes in name of country. Serbian on Serbian related articles, Croatian on Croatian ones etc... that's why Montenegrin should be on every Montenegrin related article, and I mean only Montenegrin. It is official language and used b government and books in Montenegro. Serbian can go to Serbian related articles, and can be added with Montenegrin on municipalities article where Serbs are in majority (e.g. Serbian/Montenegrin: Andrijevica), while where Montenegrin s are : e.g. Montenegrin: Podgorica. Rave92 (talk)


 * What does that mean "language doesn't exist anymore"? I speak exactly the same way I spoke 20 years ago, and everybody understands me. How is than possible that it doesn't exist anymore?Vanjagenije (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Official status is not a determinant factor here; rather, we need to know what English usage calls the language. And, overwhelmingly, sources still contend that 'Serbian is the language used in Montenegro. - Biruitorul Talk 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Which source? Yes it is determinate factor, it was when they deleted our language from Wikipedia, now when we have it, you will find another reason. Official language: Montenegrin. Rave92 (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) What is official and what is used here may differ, per WP:UE. For instance, it may be officially Myanmar, but we call it Burma. 2) For sources, oh, ISO, Library of Congress, any of the books (like Language and identity in the Balkans) that bother to mention the idea of a "Montenegrin language". That gets under 4000 Google hits vs. 633,000 for Serbian - granted, Montenegro is far smaller, but it seems clear the idea of a separate "Montenegrin language" hasn't really taken hold in Western academic or popular sources. Yes, it's worth an article, because the Montenegrin authorities have decided to push this idea, but our job (because of the idea's marginality) is to treat, as far as possible, the "language" as no different from Serbian (an opinion, by the way, shared by perhaps half of Montenegro's residents). - Biruitorul Talk 06:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what's your point, Montenegrin is for e.g. studied in Paris along with Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian. It's the same language, but you must get it like this: same language, but every country has it own name for it, with small differences from others, something like in Scandinavia. Montenegrin is different from Serbian far more, than for e.g. is Bosnian from Serbian. That doesn't mean you have bigger right then our constitution and to add here Serbian, because someone thinks it's the same language. What we think is different, but in constitution we have official language, and don't see any need for it. Especially that in most articles (Montenegrin ones) you have in bracket "Serbian Cyrillic", somewhere "Montenegrin Cyrillic". I think we should do that by the majority of Serbs. If Serbs are majority in Berane, let's put it like this "Serbian/Montenegrin Cyrillic" or just "Serbian Cyrillic" but both to link to Serbian Cyrillic article. While where Montenegrins are majority to add in brackets both Latin and Cyrillic script under name of "Montenegrin:", like we have in most articles. And also all other Montenegrin articles to have only "Montenegrin". So in articles about cities where Serbs are majority, to have Serbian Cyrillic in bracket, and where Montenegrins are majority, but also all other Montenegrin related articles like government etc... (like it is know) to stay Montenegrin. I hope you understand as it is a bit hard to explaine Rave92 (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You just said a good thing: "It's the same language, but you must get it like this: same language, but every country has it own name for it". The question is what is the English name for this language. That is the only name to be used in English Wikipedia.Vanjagenije (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... did I wrote "Crnogorski" so you can't understand how it is called in English? It is called Montenegrin. Rave92 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The CIA website ( http://www.teapoint.se/CIA_World_Factbook/geos/mj.html ) says this: Serbian 63.6%, Montenegrin (official) 22%, Bosnian 5.5%, Albanian 5.3%, unspecified 3.7% (2003 census).

Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Constitution says this: Official language: Montenegrin. There was no census in independent state. Rave92 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I know that, but until we can find a more recent source it's useless discussing any more about it, wiki doesn't support original research, unfortunately we have to use what other people have written about it. I think a more pressing issue is resolving the disputed note in the lower part of the history section, which I think is one last obstacle towards making the article A-class, I think Zero Kerub is the guy we need to talk to. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well for Montenegrin related articles to use Montenegrin. Where Serbs are majority, we can use "Serbian Cyrillic" like we already have in most of towns even where Serbs aren't majority. I can give you many web sites which use "Montenegrin" if you need it. Rave92 (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Currency
It says that the currency of Montenegro is the euro. Is this really correct? Shouldn't it be euro and D-Mark?

D Mark isn't even in use in Germany anymore... in Montenegro, euro is official since 2002. Rave92 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought that they were still using old money that they haven't bothered to exchange for euros yet? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

How to use old money when even Germany doesn't make them anymore? Also euro was official since 2002. Rave92 (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro
There are far too many spurious edits being made on this article, I suggest that it be made a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi Brutaldeluxe (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are a lot of people who edit and add false history, especially people from Serbia, and lately from Croatia. Rave92 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a request, but it was rejected by someone who said there are not enough bad edits being made, I wonder how many there have to be to qualify it as semi protected. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there will be, don't worry :). Almost every day there is at least one Rave92 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

History - Medieval
Montenegro (Doclea/Duklja) wasnt part of Croatia in 9th century. Kingdom of Red Croatia which never existed found its place in this article. Doclea also wasnt part of Serbia. It was Byzantine vassal state during the 9th and 10th century and in 1042 it became an independent kingdom and remained second most powerful Balkan country after Byzantine Empire untill the begining of the 12th century. In 1186 Serbian ruler Stefan Nemanja conquered it and it became part of Serbia. Someone please edit this because none of these historic facts are mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.98.50 (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if they are not true, you can edit them. Rave92 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 85.94.98.50, if Red Croatia never existed, please delete that article too, historical inaccuracies get on my nerves.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Red Croatia did exist (Kingdom of R.C. didn't), according to the historical sources, it didn't exist only according to pan-Serbian quazi-scientific circles which is based on myth-like discussions and not on direct proofs. BTW Doclea was recorded in the sources nothing more nor more often than R.C. Zenanarh (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see if you click on the link of Red Croatia its a country mentioned in the Chronicle of Priest of Duklja which is not considered reliable source by historians. In the place of so-called Red Croatia there were Doclea,Travunia and Zachlumia which were all Byzantine vassal states during 9th and 10th century. Red Croatia supposedly existed in 10 century so these infos are contradictoring. Red Croatia could be some form of alliance between these slavic states but definetley not any form of a country or kingdom. Im Montenegrin and I dont have anything against Croatia or Serbia,Im just concerned with the historical accuracy of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.98.50 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

"85.94.98.50", feel free to fix all that. Or better yet, register account, edit and fix what you think it's false, ok? Rave92 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

20th century history & geography sections
Firstly, there are lot of innacuracies in 20th century history section. The part that reads:

During the 1991–1995 Bosnian War and Croatian War, Montenegro participated with its police and military forces in the attacks on Dubrovnik, Croatia[12] and Bosnian towns along with Serbian troops, aggressive acts aimed at acquiring more territories by force, characterized by a consistent pattern of gross and systematic violations of human rights

is very innacurate, as Montenegro did not have its military force, and Montenegrin police force was never engaged outside its borders. Montenegrin territorial defence participated in attacks on Dubrovnik area, alond with JNA troops, but in Bosnia there was never any presence from either Montenegrin territorial defence or its police.

''In the spring of 1999, 21 Albanians died in several separate and unexplained incidents in Montenegro, according to the republic’s prosecutor. Another group of around 60 Albanian refugees was fired upon in Kaludjerski Laz by Yugoslav Army members, leading to the death of six people, including a woman aged 80 and a child, killed in crossfire that allegedly came from three machine-gun posts of the then Yugoslav Army.[17]''

Althoug a sad event, I don't see how this could possibly found its place on main page of a country. Should we mention all the victims of the NATO bombardment etc?!

Moreover, geography section is very clumsily written, I don't see why my rewrite was reverted... Nije bitno... (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking this to the talk page, Nije bitno, I reverted your edits mainly because I took time to find out information on Montenegrin forces in the war so I could get rid of the "disputed neutrality" tag that someone left (if you look on this page I'm sure you'll find the comment by the guy that left it here), a good article should have no such thing. The results of my search surprised me.
 * Seen as Montenegro was not an indipendent country until recently, it is quite believable that Montenegrin members of the armed forces and police were incorporated into the then "Yugoslavian" armed forces, and that its members participated, willing or not, in acts of unspeakable violence, remember, you don't have to pull the trigger to be accused of participating in a murder, you just have to help the murderer, directly or not.
 * The first passage that you cite contains references from what I think are reputable sites, especially the link to UN documents.
 * Again, the problem is that Montenegro was not a separate entity, so maybe where it says "During the 1991–1995 Bosnian War and Croatian War, Montenegro participated with its police and military forces in the attacks on Dubrovnik" we should change it to "During the 1991–1995 Bosnian War and Croatian War, Montenegrin citizens as part of the Yugoslav army participated in police and military forces attacks on Dubrovnik" (and don't forget the quote.
 * Another thing that bugged me was that on your wiki page you have a sort of "mission statement" about presenting Crna Gora in a favourable light to the world. Well if you look at the wiki regs, I'm sure you'll find this is not the place to do that, that's the job of the tourist board.
 * Finally, you are welcome to add data about casualties caused by NATO, I would like to see it included here as long as it's referenced, you know what would happen to it eventually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Brutaldeluxe,


 * Your suggestion for the first section is generally OK. Yet, the part about harsh presecution of Bosniaks and Albanians in Montenegro during the 1990s is somewhat too detailed for a country main page. No other Balkan country lists the particular incidents in such a detailed manner on its main page, although Yugoslav wars in neighbouring countries had much more war crimes and similar incidents. I propose the creation of separate articles for such incidents, as is the case with those in Category:War crimes in former Yugoslavia, and listing them on History of Montenegro, but not the main page. Moreover, listing the 1999 Albanian casualities on Montenegrin main page is a dubious choice, as Montenegro provided refuge for thousands of those refuges. Since 1997, Montenegro and its Government were in a "Cold War" with Miloševićs Serbia, but the Army, unlike the Montenegrin police, was still under direct command from Belgrade.
 * Check out my wiki page again, I never intended to present my country favorably, but more accurately and more thoroughly. I am aware of Wikipedia goals and mission, and I think, as maybe the single most significant contributor to montenegrin related topics, I never have been inobjective and fact-denying.
 * I stated the NATO casualities as an example, but I think the place to list casualities is NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia, not the country main page. Still, I cant grasp the point of "you know what would happen to it eventually.". Nije bitno... (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, by "you know what would happen to it eventually" I meant that it would be simply deleted by someone who didn't agree with it. The reason that other articles on Balkan countries do not mention crimes in such detail is that they are a source of contention and a threat to the neutrality of the article. However, not mentioning such acts is wrong, it gives the impression that history in Montenegro (or anywhere else, for that matter) has all been flowers and butterflies. This would not be the right thing, and it's an accusation that is often made about articles on Wiki, because in most cases they are written and guarded by fans who loathe to see criticisms. The article on Germany mentions the Holocaust and how many people died in it, I haven't looked at the Russia article but I'm sure it mentions Stalin's purges, why not do the same for Montenegro? Detail, IMO, is required to give context. P.S. as an example, Google "montenegrin soldiers crimes". Isn't the first result an admission of guilt by Montenegro? It is also good news as it shows willingness to repair harm.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=53090 (a Swiss site):
 * "Montenegrin officials apologized for involvement in attacks on Croatian resort city of Dubrovnik, which caused several hundred civilian deaths and destroyed countless homes, and agreed to pay damages. Some estimates place the value of the damage at around €35 million. So far, Montenegro has paid up only €375,000 as compensation for looting the area's cattle.


 * However, the ICJ's ruling in the Bosnia case clearly made Montenegro feel it was no longer beholden to the nice neighbor routine, and officials there announced shortly afterwards that they would stop paying war damages to Croatia. But to keep things friendly, they announced that Croatia could possibly have dibs on the privatization of Montenegrin state companies."
 * Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible problems with sources
Perhaps someone more conversant with the language could check to see that the source provided here supports the sentence in question, in particular "changes in how people experience their identity" and "fluctuates wildly".

Similarly, do the sources provided here establish that "Most extraordinary examples of Montenegrin conduct during its long history can be traced to the code", as well as the rest of that paragraph? Are there sources available in English that discuss this? It is a fascinating part of Montenegrin culture, and one would think there would be at least a few English-language discussions to point English readers of the English Wikipedia to.

It feels like there's some extrapolation and WP:OR going on. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I looked around for refs, but most of them refer to the Serbian gallantry code, one reliable ref I found in English has been taken out. Since a lot of sites refer to Serbians having this code, it seems fair to say that is shared with Serbians. Taken out. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A lot of countries have reference on their own language, why would Montenegro be exception? Rave92 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AFAIK in regards to this topic, Cojstvo i Junastvo originated in Montenegro. Not to sound xenophobic, but if Serbian Serbs believed in Cojstvo i Junastvo, they wouldn't have mass migrated north to the Pannonian Plains and contemporary Hungary in the 1600s, now would they? When the Montenegrins and Herzegovinians began migrating to Central Serbia to repopulate the empty lands, they brought with them their native Cojstvo i Junastvo belief, which had been passed down generation after generation until it became a central part of the so-called "Serbian" culture. This isn't original research. This is common sense. --Prevalis (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it should be simple for you to find reliable sources on this topic. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Čojstvo i Junašstvo was a "moto" just for Montenegrins. Serbs have nothing to do with it. Even if that was their motto, not sure why we should mentioned here? When they even don't mention on their own articles. Rave92 (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the Serbia article, I've added the whole section by simply swapping "Montenegrin" with "Serbian" and no one has had a problem with it. Also note who pronounced the words that are included in the reference. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Um... Marko Miljanov? Njegos? They all were Montenegrin. Rave92 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, a man who should know who the concept belongs to.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Term comes from the book of Marko Miljanov Rave92 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's been removed from the Serbia page by Prodego, with this explanation:" remove this (Ethical Beliefs) section. No supporting refs, and it is simply impossible to attempt to clarify the ethical beliefs of everyone who lives in a country into one paragraph".

I'd say he's right.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Čojstvo i Junaštvo as a chivalric code originates from the old Serb nobility that founded the Serb clans in present-day Montenegro, the tradition was nourished by people that identified themselves as Serbs. The rulers of Montenegro saw themselves as Serbs, Montenegro was a Serbian Kingdom ruled by a Serbian dynasty the same way Rascia (Serbia proper) was. Montenegrins are a new modern nation, which is a mixture of various ethnicities that live in Montenegro. The chivalric Čojstvo i Junaštvo code is of old Serb origin, Montenegrins as nation exist only since the last century so it is logicaly impossible that they developed any kind of medieval chivalry. This coming from a Montenegrin from the region that 'never payed the tax to the Turks' who knows which ancestry he and his people are. I'll ask all non-Serbs posing as 'Montenegrins' to quit the trolling of this article. It is humanly impossible to be an 'ethnic Montenegrin' without being a Serb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.202.76 (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

picture gallery
Go easy with the pictures Rave92, I'm not against including a few more, but someone might come along and throw the book at us for including so many pictures. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of adding anymore :-). If there is a lot now, feel free to delete some.  Rave92 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine for me as it is, I'm just saying that I don't know what the guidelines on things like this are. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Not done: The template needs a detailed request. Celestra (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

intro:why take out size/pop??
skyp: sven0921--史凡 (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of the pages about the country on Wiki doesn't contain one. There is one in info box at right and in geography section. Rave92 (talk) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * er,fi capital is2>essential info ifeel--史凡 (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes
I have changed slightly the article. Namely, I have restored the compromise of "Montenegrin-Serbian" whenever reference to the language is needed (someone changed it unilaterally).

Additionally, it should be known that the table and the introduction are there to offer the very basic information on the country, rather than write countless figures, dates and sentences with plenty of information - we were entering the possibility of identifying the introduction completely with the history section!

The primary thing I felt the fierce necessity to do was removing the thousand-year part - having to do considerably more with stylic national-romanticism, rather than scientific accuracy (or sourceness) itself at all, it is also a typicality of ultra-nationalists, which are more than plenty in our tiny wartorn peninsular (e.g. Nazi Germany was called a "Thousandyear reich"), especially in such contexts as these. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It was changed obviously with census as it looked like this for half year until you changed it.

Not necessarily. There are some countries which have even bigger introduction. The more what's bothering you is the "Duklja", not to make it simpler, and by the way, it's with the Wiki standards of the countries articles.

Duklja is Montenegrin history and nothing nationalistic was included in text. Rave92 (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Common person
I work with 3 Serbian's here in america 2 from Montenegro and 1 from Serbia,I do not see a difference i go to there houses for what they call slava and exactly the same,very different from albanian and croation party's,i believe and so do they ,they are one people,the difference being self identity and politic's,the muslims and albanians would love to destroy the Serbian people from what they tell me! They are jealous of Serbian people? Serbian people are good people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.97.123 (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It is rather you hang out too much with the Serb people :). There isn't difference as probably all of those 3 friends are Orthodox. How come those in UK and USA you come to their house on Christmas and they act the same. Muslims don't wanna destroy Serbs, don't let the nationalists  fill your head with stupid things. If they would like to destroy Serbs they would attack in 90's Serbia, not vice verse :). Of course there are Muslim nationalists but that is just reaction to the Serbian and Croatian one. Albanians would like to destroy the Serbian people as much as Serbian people would like to destroy the Albanian one so what's the difference? And self identity is not a politic. If you are an American, is that your political choice or identity? There are good and bad people, not all Serbs are bad, not all Serbs are good, like every nation. Enjoy! Rave92 (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Common
Not only is it religion,how about the way they act,they are very Serbian,the albanians and muslims i meet become american very fast,Serb's from Montenegro stay Serbian,u rave92 must be muslim am I correct?,because of the hate u have for Serbia,I am Serb from Montenegro, please stop spreading propoganda about us Montenegrin's ,yes we are not Srbijanci(Serbs from Serbia proper) but we are Serbs,lots of people(bulgarian,roma,romanian who live in serbia for generations have become Serbian keeping thier original root's, so when u go to Vranje,or bela crkva you may say these people have nothing but religion in common with Montenegrin's,and that is where all of this started!!! we'll the truth is the rest of the people of Serbia are kin with Monteniggers,"Cojstvo i Junastvo" only true blooded Serb's can comprehend the meaning because it is embedded in thier DNA, Montenegro is my love ,and I will die for her,u haters stop!!! We Montenigger's know our enemy,and anybody who spit's on Serbia is our enemy! as for the article on Montenegro wikipedia,why when u want to click on Montenegro orthodox metroppol,you can only click on Montenegro orthodox,because whoever created this site is not Montenegrin,but has hate in them!§≥ Mntniger for life″—

And how they act? Montenegrins by mentality actually differ a lot from Serbians. Your propaganda that we are all Serbs don't work anymore, especially in Montenegro. If you are Serb from Montenegro that's your choice and problem. The most common problem with you people who want to see that we all need to say we are Serbs. The same DNA? Lol, dude seriously :). YOU CAN'T BE A MONTENEGRIN AND SERB FROM MONTENEGRO. Choose what you wanna be. If you are a Serb, then you can be Montenegrin by citizenship. And by the way, my hate for Serbia? So typical. When people don't want to have their nationality and identity destroyed, then it's a hate for Serbs. The same you did in the 90's, but it doesn't work anymore. If Montenegrins would hate Serba for e.g. they would vandalise Serbian articles, not opposite, right? Also, stop spamming talk section, this is about article. Rave92 (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
You didnt answer my question are you born muslim? we orthodox Montenegrins are Serbs ,history dosent lie,read history from forieners not serbs or balkan people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.97.123 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get somethings straight: 1. This is not a chat, like I said in previous post, stop with spamming if you don't have any suggestions with improving this article 2. It doesn't matter if I am Orthodox-born, Catholic born or Muslim born. Religion doesn't define the nationality, at least it shouldn't. 3. Orthodox Montenegrins are Serbs? Well around 50% out of 80% of Orthodox people in Montenegro doesn't agree with you. That was the situation in 2003. 4. None one forbids you to be a Serb from Montenegro, but what that has to do with this article?

So to end this, I am glad you have your own identity, and hopefully you will let other to have their own. Best regards. Rave92 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no need to bite at each other over such matters. Montenegro's split was not based on dislike for Serbs. It has extended the golden branch to its entire population who declare Serb, as well as to the Republic of Serbia with which it still wishes to maintain warm, healthy and close relations. Anyone to have read the history of Montenegro will know that there is a method behind the madness. Montenegro has its purposes for existing; even when earlier censa recorded no Montenegrin ethnicity but a far larger percentage of Serbs and Croats, the desire for a self-ruling Montenegrin entity existed. During the 19th century, whilst Serbia was struggling for independence as Serbia, Montenegro was fighting for a Montenegrin cause. Its independence in 1878 followed the Russo-Turkish war in which it fought alongside Serbia for its sovereignty, not to become part of it. Likewise, the initial decision by the Montenegrin monarchy to open its border with Serbia was on the pretext that Montenegro would continue to excercise full autonomy within the larger Pan-Slavic state. When it became clear that Belgrade's ideas for Montenegro were totally different and the region was again effectively subjugated, it had been the people of Montenegro who staged the very first uprising in Yugoslavia (Christmas, 1919). The Serbian position needs to accept that Montenegro went its own way, but a strong portion of the population still declares Serb, a chunk of those calling themselves Montenegrin also appreciated the unity, and the majority who voted for independence still appreciate the mutual friendship. To Rave92 who stated that Montenegrin and Serb mentality is very different. Indeed that cannot be disputed, though this is not divided down ethnic lines. Whilst nobody can honestly go to a town in Montenegro and determin "which of two people is Serb and the other Montenegrin" (even siblings have been known to identify differently), there is difference in culture and mentality within Montenegro itself. People can vary both in larger towns (Podgorica and Nikšić) from those in smaller settlements (as is normal everywhere), but regionally you have differences between the Adriatic population and the hinterland people. This is in addition to an even more pronounced variation in mentality in the north, especially in the towns of the former Sandžak. But Pljevlja is no less Montenegrin than Cetinje or Herceg-Novi. As for Serbia, well that country has masses of variation in its mentality/culture and attitude. Three radically different mentality zones compose that land, these are southern Serbia, the central areas (up to Belgrade), and Vojvodina. Vojvodina in turn has pockets of Montenegrins who keep their tall appearance but have adopted a central European mindset. It may be generalising, but it is better than to paint everyone with the same brush. Weeks before his fall from power, Milošević went to Berane and in his address to the audience, he ackowledged: two old nations, two Balkan nations, two Slavic nations - Serbs and Montenegrins. His background may have softened him towards Montenegro, but if even he admitted these details then there is no justification for any Montenegrin Serb to impose Serb identity on the rest of the Montenegrins. Evlekis (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so well written. Thanks Evlekis. About mentality thing, I just wanted to answer about what he said "the same". Of course, there is a lot difference even between the cities. Cheers! Rave92 (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Somebody changed the flag. Someone please put back the actual Montenegrin flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.49.101 (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed back. This page should get semi-protection. Rave92 (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Event 8: Unification with Serbia
Not strictly true is it? From 1992 to 2003 (and for over 40 years prior in some form), Montenegro and Serbia were in some way united. In 1918, Montenegro entered Serbia before Serbia united with previously unrecognised State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Montenegro's status beyond 1918 was reduced to local authority within Serbian region so this is absorption on the part of Serbia. The events led to a crisis in Montenegro with King Nikola's eventual sacking and the Christmas Uprising among locals; in addition, citizens who previously identified as Serb (and in some cases Croat) began to illustrate their dissatisfaction by declaring themselves Montenegrin in future censa - something rare prior to 1909. I don't think it would hurt to tell the truth that the Kingdom of Montenegro was abolished after 1918 and the land became the subject of Serbian territorial expansion, all be it peacefully and with some significant internal support. Evlekis (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars on a thousand years of Montenegro
The constant edit warring taking place on this early section of the article is heading nowhere, and is all just a matter of context. The history did not begin one thousand years ago, it began in prehistory when the land was created. Perhaps what does have a thousand year history is the presence of a Slavic population there. One can argue whether these Slavs were from Serbian or Croatian tribes, or was it a mixture, or did they constitute another Slavic subgroup which lost its nominal identity? The "state" is also not so clear. Primarily one needs to establish the first time the state bore such a name Montenegro or any variation. Its Romanic origin (rather like Dubrovnik being Ragusa) may also reflect something about the true identity of the original masters of the state, who possibly were not Slavic at the onset (Venetian or Dalmatian perhaps). Our concerns with Montenegro are: What is it? Where is it? Who lives there? Who lived there? Who controlled it? What was its function at what precise time? Other confusion can arise pertaining to allegiance; was Montenegro once an independent territory created by Serbs in the hope of joining a wider Serbian entity (like wartime city states aiming to join the surrounding nation when the remainder of the nation liberates itself)? Or was it something in which Serbs - conscious of their background - created purposely to stand independent of any Serbian entity originating outside of the Montenegrin geographical area (like Cyprus to Greece)? Or was it simply originally an entity in which the local Slavic population rejected any afinity to Serbs (or Croats) so as to create a nation state of their own (like Norway to Denmark)? There are too many complicated questions with different answers for different times in accordance with contemporary trends (such as developments in self-consciousness, states, nations, attitudes); internal conflict coupled with revisionism also complicates matters. So somehow the entire passage should be rewritten and expanded. Evlekis (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for brining this discussion. We edited this article as thousand year history starting from Doclea. Doclea or Duklja, was teach in schools and is still teach as Montenegrin state. What some people can't understand is that Serbs didn't have the same meaning like today. Today Serbs are the nation, separate from Montenegrin. Srpska or Orthodox (there are a lot of theories). There aren't many documents from those time, and I really don't want to repeat all over again the things I repeat every few months. I think that the problem here is "Montenegrin" rather than "thousand year history" part. Serbs and Montenegrins had a lot of close history (like whole ex YU after all), but if someone is trying to say here Montenegrins exist since 1945, then discussion is not needed, as we all know what political ideology they support. Rave92 (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, if one is suggesting that Montenegro has no history prior to 1945 then that person is hysterical. I was simply pointing out the complications. I shall now restore the definite article needed for the current revison. Evlekis (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That's right, thanks. Rave92 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not going to bother wasting my time debating whether or not montenegrin is a ethnicity and language. I know its not and that's that. Its laughable really how far they will go to try and justify it including renaming an entire language that only 21% of montenegrins actually recognize. But since your all so interested in seeing an end to this debate I suggest using the most neutral POV in the article as the thousand year old history of Montenegro rather than montenegrin state since there's No actual reference to "montenegrins" (ethnicity of language) until the 1900's. As I mentioned before the paragraph itself is a pure copy and paste of the... "source"... which is not allowed by Wikipedia. It will require changes.

...as a side note for some shadow editors I don't care for "chetniks" nor does a chetnik ideology exist. Grow up. (Buttons (talk))

"::I am not going to bother wasting my time debating whether or not montenegrin is a ethnicity and language. I know its not and that's that." :-). Rave92 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To Buttons - please try not to be bitter about the issue. Montenegro (as Montenegro) got its independence in 1878, not the 1900s. It was de facto independent as far back as 1858 when all Ottoman forces were driven out, and the Principality itself had been declared six years previously (1852). This just about coincides with the time that Serbian and Croatian identities were reawakening; for a few centuries before that, the concept of nation and all its conventional properties were less concrete. The fact is that modern-day Montenegrin ideology claims descent from a movement to have begun a millennium previously. One can do this rightly or wrongly, do you think it is more absurd than Macedonians (former Yugoslav) agreeing to be a Slavic nation whilst differentiating themselves from neghbouring Serbs and Bulgarians on account that they are "čeda Aleksandrovi"? Someone who lived a thousand years before the arrival of Slavs in Macedonia? But they do and nobody can stop them. Bulgarians also cherish the First Bulgarian Empire of the 7th century, yet at that time their Slavic ancestors lived alongside the Bulgars who eventually assimilated those Slavs - but that hasn't stopped blue-eyed men baring such names as Ivan, Boyko or Stayko claiming to descend from the Khans from the far-east with names such as Asparuh. No right, no wrong; ideology is free. There is no anti-Serb hostility in Montenegro from locals or from the authorities and there is no anti-Serb sentiment on this article. The Montenegrin language has pride of place in that country, not because of the number who declare it their language but because it has been officially inaugurated. It was formally announced by Montenegrin speaker Ranko Krivokapić on RTCG and the footage can be found on Youtube. To rename it Serbian at this stage is unfounded. Evlekis (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, let see. Modern Montenegro emerged after colapse of Crnojević state. Before the collapse we have independent Kingdom of Duklja, then province of Nemanjic state, Balsic state. Link between Duklja and Montenegro is loose in same way as link between Frankish Empire and modern France. Second thing, I prefer using possessive case (of Montenegro) rather than possessive adjective (Montenegrin). -- Bojan   Talk  17:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, we have todays Montenegro from Duklja, not (only) from Zeta. It counts as Montenegrin history and Duklja as first state. Rave92 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And I again say that link between Duklja and modern Montenegro are very loose. Scholars say that Duklja was predominantly catholic kingdom. Raška conquered Duklja and Orthodoxy succeeded Catholic church as the dominant religion. After collapse of medieval Serbian empire, tho families emerged in struggle for Zeta, both weren't native. After Ottoman conquest, rule passed to bishops. Land free of Ottoman, named Montenegro in 13th century, consisted of narrow strip around Cetinje. It became core of modern state. (You know all that, but I wrote for foreigners). So, what Duklja and modern Montenegro have in common (except territory)? -- Bojan   Talk  08:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"So, what Duklja and modern Montenegro have in common (except territory)? " The state continuity? Even the books which were written in Belgrade say that Duklja was Montenegrin state, and some people here want to say Duklja was Serbian, or let's say exclusively Serbian. If Duklja was SERBIAN state, then how come it was Catholic state? We can go with that logic too. I know this is not the discussion here, but it's the same thinking of the people who don't recognize anything Montenegrin. Rave92 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What continuity? Which book? Duklja was catholic state due to roman influences from coastal towns. Also, Mihajlo Vojislavljevic sought stronger ties on west so he can relieve his princedom from Byzantine pressure. Have in mind that I'm talking about 11 century, only 20-30 years after East–West Schism. Then, Nemanja's son Vukan (born orthodox) promised that he would convert his state to Catholicism if the Pope would give him royal title. So, different fates don't necessarily mean different nation. Byzantine sources are those who back claims that Duklja was serbian state. What do You have, except loose arguments that word Serb(ian) had different meaning in past? -- Bojan   Talk  12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about school books and books about history of Montenegro (not the school ones), which were printed in Belgrade during Yugoslavia. Which Byzantine documents? DAI? Duklja was Slavic country, and you can't say all South Slavs were Serbs. How come "Serbs" always had 2 states? Of course we can say it was Serbian when it was occupied by Raska, but not before that. You have mentioning of Serbs (or White Serbs) in Poland, Czech, and do you really think they have anything to do with Serbs and "srpstvo"? Rave92 (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we can't use Montenegrin/Serbian language here, I suggest you reading this topic a bit; http://www.novosadski.net/viewtopic.php?p=124868

there you will probably find more answers than I can answer you. If Duklja can't be count as Montenegrin history, then it especially can't be count as Serbian. Rave92 (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How come "Serbs" always had 2 states?
 * Well, Germans had 200 mini-states, Greeks had city-states belligerent among themselves, why wouldn't Serbs could have few ambitious dukes, princes and whatnot who wanted to become “Caliph instead of the Caliph”?


 * You can't say all South Slavs were Serbs.
 * I never said nor thought that in my life.


 * 'DAI?'' Not only DAI.
 * For example, John Skylitzes: Jovan posla caru koji je boravio u Solunu deset kentenarija zlata (oko 33kg), ali brod zahvaćen olijnim vetrom, udari na ilirske obale i razbi se. Zlato prigrabi Stefan Vojislav arhont Srba, koji je bio pre kratkog vremena pobegao iz Carigrada i povratio svoju teritoriju proteravši odande Teofila Erotika....". Translation: John/Jovan sent to emperor who were in Thessaloniki 33 kg of gold, but the ship was caught by storm, and was sunk off illyrian coast. Gold was seized by Stefan Vojislav, ruller of Serbs, who short time ago fleed from Constantinopole, bla, bla, bla...

Regarding link showed me, I must point that Aurelian is well-known forum troll. I read what he had posted, and still I'm not convinced that Dukla was not Serbian state. OK, please, now You read work of Novica Radović. You find that is quite interesting. Btw, since we went off topic, has someone something against possessive case? -- Bojan   Talk  05:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

":Well, Germans had 200 mini-states, Greeks had city-states belligerent among themselves, why wouldn't Serbs could have few ambitious dukes, princes and whatnot who wanted to become “Caliph instead of the Caliph”?

So the difference is that Germany is united, Greece is united, Italy is united, but "Serbs" are divided and want to have separate countries :-/. Well news is Montenegrin is separate nation from Serbs, that's the main problem here. Montenegrins and Serbs (and other ex YU people) have a lot in common (and as well history) but unfortunately the desire to have some empire and to think that some "Serb" lands exist, we have what we have today.

As for him being the forum troll, I am not competitive of deciding about that :-) but there is a lot of interesting facts he says. Also, since you are suggesting me to read njegos.org (Serb land of Montenegro) then also maybe read something from Montenegrina: Comment about DAI from Serb: http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/radivoj_radic_komentar_dai.htm Some articles about Duklja mostly from Serbian historians: http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/dukljanska_drzava_i_povelje_dukljanskih_vladara_b_sekularac.html http://www.montenegrina.net/pages/pages1/istorija/duklja/iz_knjige_relje_novakovica.htm

Serbs want to be divided? Who are You kidding? Haven't You heard for Great Serbia and Yugoslavia? No, Montenegrins were Serbs, and we have what to have today due to personal ambitions of few rulers. Thanks, but I've already read Montenegrina "poor us, evil Serbs" articles before, I must confess that I am more convinced about Serbian origin of modern Montenegrins. For the third time, have somebody something against possesive case? -- Bojan   Talk  15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslavia? Haha, sorry but Yugoslavia wasn't Great Serbia (even though Milosevic wanted to, and that's why we don' have it anymore) and great Serbia are some imaginary plans of Fascists, the same like Great Albania, Bosnia, Croatia and what so not. They are all but not great, and the politics of Serbia led that even to loose it territories, and not gain any (so not so big and great). It's not that Serbs are evil, it's just they steal history, and we finally decided to stop you from doing it. Also I've read also SLOM (njegos.org) that even Japanese were Serbs, please... Rave92 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Two points in both directions: To Rave92, Greece is united but Greeks however are not; Cyprus is an independent country in which the majority population identify as Greek. Right-wing Greeks (ethnic that is) from both entites naturally believe in a unified state which would include Cyprus and Greece within the same entity. But internally, Cypriots have other ideas - though it doesn't stop them from having close ties with the Greek republic. Germany brings us a little closer to home - Germany is united yes, but nothing would have been inherently different about Austria had it been included within Germany today. You'd still have a history in which Austria in some way operated outside of a wider German entity but you have this anyway with Bavaria, Prussia, Westphalia and other entities throughout the ages. The relationship between Germany and Austria may better reflect the modern issue with Serbia and Montenegro. In Germany, one is German and in Austria, one is Austrian; then in Italy (such as Tyrol) one goes back to being German in a similar way to Nikšić being Montenegrin but over the Bosnian frontier into Trebinje and Bileća, people resume being Serb. I believe it is more absurd for Italians to claim the former Venetian republic was some form of Italian entity. But today they have it the other way round: Venice, which was an independent republic for a millennium, always had its own custom uninfluenced by the outside world until 1866 when the city was integrated into the Kingdom of Italy. Now revisionists introduce an Italian theme to any matter concerning the antique Venetian republic. To BokicaK, I'm afraid you must accept people's choices and if a population who yesterday identified as Serb now choose not to, it must be respected because there is no other way to achieve world peace. Imagine tomorrow, the majority of the Rasina district start to identify as Rasins and not Serbs, and start demanding a separate Rasin entity. This wouldn't instantly mean independence but could be a sign that Serbia and Rasina should stand as federal partners. However, one would probably look at this is as ridiculous because of centuries of a Serbian named presence. No doubt though, that person would welcome a surprise shift in affiliation by the people of the Bulgarian province of Blagoevgrad if they suddenly delevopled a Serbian consciousness and chose to identify as Serbian. It seems unlikely now but factors such as these have taken place down the years. When arriving on the lands we occupy today, history recorded three Slavic nations: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes on the west, and Sclaveni (Romanised) on the east. Others to the west were also present but they came to assimilate the three nations which we have today. The term Slavs for the eastern south Slavs fell into disuse with time as people became Macedonian, Bulgarian, Pomak etc. And to the west, Montenegrins, Bosniaks/Muslims emerged as well as some lesser used names. By right (as my family are from Macedonia), if I were to adopt an identity strategy parallel to Serbian/Croatian ideologies, I'd first declare the people of Bulgaria and Macedonia and the Slavic speakers of northern Greece, East Thrace (Turkey) and Albania as being one nation and then I would demand that this "nation" include the people of Southern Serbia where Torlakian is spoken, and this means the remaining Kosovo Serbs outside of North Kosovo, and also the Krashovans in Romania, and the Banatian Bulgarians in Vojvodina, and Bessarabian Bulgarians as far away as Moldova. Serbs and Croats can then abolish Bosniaks and Montenegrins and reincorporate them according to agreement; Slovenia and Croatia can meet to reorganise Istrians to their "correct" status (and that for a start means putting an end to people calling themselves Istrian), and finally all four supernations can sweep up from north to south anyone still calling himself Yugoslav by analysing his stereotypical attributes and finally absorbing him into the "nation" where he best fits. You'd have to abolish athiesm and make sure that everyone has a faith, and that faith must not be outside of Catholisism, Orthodoxy or Sunni Islam - or we won't know to whom he belongs. I don't mean to be silly but where does it end if people start rejecting others who choose a specific identity? Some nations which once stood strong have totally fallen because nobody identifies by the name any more: this is how we lost Avars, Thracians and Etruscans among others - all once advanced races. Evlekis (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

@Rave92: Funny, but I think that a man who spearheaded independence of Montenegro was once proponent of new reformed Yugoslavia under the Milošević's plan. I think that he even visited Dubrovnik front in 1991. "Stealing territories" I don't want even to comment. P.S. I would like to see where SLOM talks about Japanese. @ Evlekis: I didn't want to participate in this discussion. After seeing what offensive summary a unregistered user (or registered who are trying to avoid ban) and claiming wrote in the latest edit war, I felt need to look. I don't demand anything, but I can stand plagiarism (thousand years of Montenegrin state), cause one could think that Montenegrin nation existed in Early Middle Age, what I am thinking that is blatant nonsense. So I advocated usage of more neutral approach history of Montenegro. I waited for four days for answering my question on possesive case, and I'm now felling free to write disputed sentence on my way. -- Bojan   Talk  11:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All right then, let's start from the bottom upward. Duklja: is it fair to say that this was a Serbian entity but is also the first chapter of Montenegro's state history? It is not a contradiction in term at all, what began as a single venture led to one nation diverging in identity and ideology. Is that useful? Evlekis (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything funny in that :-/, or connection with this thing at all. People whom voted for YES in the 90's though of Yugoslavia as Yugoslavia, not Great Serbia. As for the Japanese reference, I though you would understand that it is a joke about your claiming that everything and everyone are Serbs, like you can prove that with DNA. Of course that nation didn't exist, as real nation start to exist somewhere in 19th century (at least what we consider today as a nation). You are trying to show us here that history of Serbia is even bigger than history of France, UK or Germany. Montenegrin state doesn't have to be Montenegrin ethnical state, it was a state that we today call Montenegro and is referred as Montenegrin. How come that none of Croatian, Bosnian, German, English etc... historians have against Montenegrins and Montenegrin history. It's the same on Wiki, only the Serbs claime that everything Montenegrin is Serbian, but luckly, we don't follow what Belgrade says anymore, and more and more historians are fixing the mistakes (a lot of them even from Serbia).

@Evlekis: I know all that, But neither Austrians are German (at least they don't see them self as one) and neither is our connection with Serbia like Cyprus with Greece. Cypriots are really the Greeks. They declare them self as Greeks, and were always the Greeks. No t sure about one country unified, but you know how complicated the situation is there. Montenegrins said if they want to be with Serbia or not, and the problem is some still didn't understand that. When we got our state back, it's finally a time to get our history back. As for Duklja, it was incoroprated in "Serbian" "empire" but before that was independent as opposed to Serbia. Duklja was sovereign and someone here has a bal*s to claime that Duklja is some Serbian entety when the countries independance was recognized by Byzantine Empire, and only that, it was sucessful state and more economcly developed if we can say that (considering the economy in those times).

" I waited for four days for answering my question on possesive case, and I'm now felling free to write disputed sentence on my way." and this whole discussion isn't the answering of your possessive case? We are answering it right here, the thing is if you want to accept it or not (I think I know the answer). Rave92 (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

@Evlekis: Yeah, it would be OK, but how You'll summarize it in NPOV way for intro? @Rave92: I thought you would understand that mentioning of Đukanović hypocrisy is not joke. Đukanović was brought on power by Milošević on wave of protests due to position of Serbs in the federation. Unfortunately for You, this hypocrite and suspected cigarette smuggler is your leader. If You think that writing on Serbian nature of pre-19th century is something against Montenegrins, You are wrong (even the greatest leaders of Montenegro claimed so). And, off course, there are foreign historians who say that and they are in majority. Before Duklja was independent kingdom and incorporated in Nemanjic state, I must remember You that it was part of Serbian state during reign of House of Vlastimirovic. Ups, more Serbs in Montenegro ;) No, I didn't get decent answer on possessive case, only long discussion on history. I showed good faith, I didn't revert Your edit right after few hours (as You did). If You want edit war, You'll get it. -- Bojan   Talk  18:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rave 92 - The point I was making regarding Greece and Cyprus and the ethnic Greek population is that a significant percentage of Montenegro declares Serb. Being Serb does not mean that they are anti-Montenegrin; remember, a century ago a bigger percentage declared Serb. If the Montenegrin plurality also decided to call themselves Serbian tomorrow (making Serbs a 70%+ majoritry in this case), those people can still cherish Montenegro as a separate entity from Serbia, with a millennium-long history as well. This summarises Greeks of Cyrpus as something different to Greeks of Greece. There is no powerful movement aiming to unite Greek lands but the ideology persists in the hearts of irredentists, and remember, all nations have some irredentists - totally innocent and necessary too, as without an outline of your proposed land then one cannot get to work in trying to create it. Imagine a compromise was reached with only the western half of Montenegro becoming the new independent land leaving Berane, Ulcinj and other cities outisde; nobody should call you a "fascist" for wanting to reunite these areas!
 * Bojan - we can always work on a NPOV summary but it is indecent to attack Đukanović for his political activities, and that is not the subject here either. Politicians have whims, preferences and rights as have the population, everybody is a citizen. Politics is about survival and countless politicians acorss the world have made U-turns in their policy, often radical. If everyone had to stick to his college day creed, the League of Communists would have still stood strong; Milo is just one from a list even within Montenegro who reversed direction. He is neither the root cause for the Duklja dispute nor for promoting Montenegrin nationalist sentiment. Even before he emerged as a strongman there had been a pro-independence movement in Montenegro (late 80s, early 90s). Evlekis (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I felt provoked. --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  19:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

@Evlekis: I know what you mean, but the prove that Montenegrins declared them self as Serbs doesn't exists. There was census in Kingdom of Montenegro which gave you options "What language do you speak": and on the list was Serbian, Albanian and some other, and by language they declared your national identity. In the schools, books were written by a pro Serb government in those times which says in Montenegro live Serbs and only Serbs. What can you expect from people to say? Especially unilateral like Montenegrins were in those times. As for those 32% Serbs, look at census after the war till 2003, you will see how people really felt. The question was what nation you are, not what language do you speak. Serbs were always minority and Bosniaks were bigger minority than Serbs, and now we have 32%? It's a revolt to the DPS. The influence of Serbia was always big in this state, and luckily, it gets lower everyday, and make you happy when you hear that 80% of citizens would support referendum if it would be held today (there were couple of polls), while in 2006 it was just 50%. Anyway not sure how we got to this discussion when the discussion is was Duklja Montenegrin state, and if Duklja was Serbian, why was King Bodin "King of Slavs", not "Serbs": http://img354.imageshack.us/i/pismopapemihailuvojislavljevic.jpg/

@Bojan: Unfortunately for me? Unfortunately for me that by his governing Montenegro is most developed country in ex YU after Croatia, that it is better ranked everywhere than any country from region, that is closest to EU. No, sorry but no need for pity. As for hypocrisy and politicians, you could see that the whole 90's Government of Serbia was/is in the prison or in den Haag. If Milo is criminal, why he isn't in Haag? It's silly to compare Milo and Milosevic, the result of Milosevics governing you can see in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo. Only what Serbs had from him is suffering and isolation, but it looks that there are still people who will defend him.

"The House of Vlastimirović (Властимировићи, Vlastimirovići) was named after knez (duke) Vlastimir who was the great-great-grandson of the Unknown Archont who led the Serbs to the Balkans from White Serbia (modern day Poland, Slovakia and Ukraine) during the reign of Byzantine emperor Heraclius somewhere between 610 - 641. This establishes the Serbs in the Balkans in the early 600s.", so Serbs came from White Serbia (Poland, Czech, also the Serb lands xD). Do you really compare Serbs (tribe) with modern Serbian nation? Rave92 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't revising facts to deny a Montenegrin ethnic identity. Unless the evidence is faulty, I have been led to believe that Serbs composed a majority in Montenegro - atleast in 1909. I can't speak for before that. I know that Montenegrins compose today's relative majority as have done for many years. It is just sad for me that this is being used as yet another theatre for the age old dispute questioning Montenegrins and Serbs and their alleged links. Evlekis (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand me. I didn't think you deny Montenegrin ethnicity, if you did, you wouldn't support Montenegrin language and contribute to Montenegro on Wiki. I know you are neutral. I have the picture which shows Immigration paper to USA in the begging of 20th century, and under nation is written Montenegrin, not Serb. Rave92 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said that Milosevic was good, but Milo the Great was his lackey in Montenegro until 1997. I won't mention him again. I don't understand what are You asking about White Serbia? It it irrelevant here. Serbs are Slavs, You know that. Pro-Serbian goverment? You don't even know history of Your country. It was the most wisest and known Montenegrins ever (Njegos, Miljanov, king Nikolas, Janko Vukotic, Novica Cerovic (main protagonist of Smrt Smail Age Čengića), Stjepan Mitrov Ljubisa. There were two parties in Montenegro in wake of WW1: ruling True Peoples Party (pro-Serbian and pro-king Nikolas) and oppositional Peoples Party (even more pro-Serbian and against king Nikolas). Even Greens (die-hard remnants of TPP) and later Montenegrin Federalists didn't deny it for long (I read it on a pro-Montenegrin web-site). We have Serbian faith, Serbian language, Serbian reformed alphabet, two (and only) pro-Serbian parties. What proof you need? --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  08:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

And word nation in English has different meaning, e.g. Albert Nađ, Miralem Sulejmani and Adem Ljajic are Serbian players, but they are not Serbs. The word that You are looking for is ethnicity. --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  08:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand that the only census where Serbs are majority is the one where it didn't even ask for nationality, but their religion (Orthodox) and language (Serbian as it was official of the kingdom). Before that, you all quote Njegos, like he has some exclusive rights over that question. ""Ovo ti je Srbe iskobilo, robovima tudjim ucinilo.", Montenegro/ins were never occupied in those times by Ottomans, and how come Serbs are occupied, as Serbs are free in Montenegro. I don't deny that there was strong pro-Serb politics, especially during King Nikola's era, he saw the result of that politics 1918, but it was too late back then. Christmas uprising is one of unfortunately failed attempts to correct it. I am asking about White Serbia, because you mention here Serbs like they were nation back then, not some tribe. By your logic, Poland and Czech Republic are also Serb lands.  Rave92 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that, but what it tells You? Always something Serbian: official language (and alphabet) in constitution, Serbian faith, before and after unification, in one word, everything that defines a nation. Off course, that Poland and Czech Republic are not Serbian states, nor I ever put equals sign between tribe and nation. There were other peoples who mixed with Serbs (Romans, Ilirians, Avars, etc), but Serbs were dominant in these areas, so they all gradually merged in Serbian nation. Well, Njegoš lived in that time, perhaps he better knew? --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  05:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We are just "shooting" at empty discussion really. Ok, so what do you exactly disagree with, the Montenegrin part, or the thousand year history? Rave92 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC) OK. As I said, Montenegrin can refer on two things: state and people. So people might see this as stealing of history. So history of Montenegro or thousand years long Slavic history of Montenegro (BTW, Slavic history of Montenegro doesn't begin with emergence of Duklja, as I said, for certain period Duklja was part of Vlastimirovic state) or just leave 9th century saw the emergence of Duklja --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk  16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Establishment
Somebody deleted the majority of the info that was present here. I think it should be rewritten again. Here's my suggestion: Duklja(the first Montenegrin state) gains independence from Byzantine Empire    -1042, Duklja recognised as a kingdom by the pope                                      -1077, Duklja conquered by Rascia                                                      -1185, Zeta(the second Montenegrin state) gains independence from Serbian Empire       -1356, Zeta annexed by Serbian Despotate                                               -1421, Montenegro gains independence from Serbian Despotate                            -1451, Montenegro conquered by Ottoman Empire                                          -1499, Montenegro gains independence from the Ottoman Empire                           -1878, Montenegro annexed by Kingdom Serbia                                            -1918, Montenegro gains independence from the state union of Serbia and Montenegro     -2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.40.73 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well all of that was already written before, but I think Montenegro would be the only country with a such a big establishments :-). Rave92 (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is indeed a lot of history :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.155.40.73 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My brothers from Montenegro
always remember what stands on the top of the Montenegrin cap- Only Unity Saves the Serbs (CCCC)

Nothing can't separate us. Serbia and Montenegro- Two Eyes, Brothers!

(Verbatimdat (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

LOL. That symbol, on the top of SOME Montenegrin caps, especially those made after forcible annexation by Serbia in 1918 (those made before mostly had the montenegrin crest or initials of the ruler on them - eg. "HI" ie "NI" for NIcholas I) has nothing to do with the popular exclamation "Only Unity Saves Serbs". Nor are those four letters C (cyrillic S). That symbol is of byzantine origin, as you can see here:. The meaning behind those 4 letters Beta (it is B, not C) is: King of Kings, Ruling Over Rulers (Greek: Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων, Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων - Vasilefs Vasileon, Vasilevon Vasilevonton, which was the motto of the Paleologi. Both Serbs and medieval Montenegrins used it, especially after the fall of the empire in the latter case. It is often found in Central Europe as well, as part of coats-of-arms of many noble houses who claimed to be descended from this dynasty. It has nothing to do with Serbs in particular (other than the fact they borrowed it from the Eastern Empire), nor do the Montenegrins either, other than the fact that we are now neighbours and we used to share a particularly bitter period in history, which was, from the montenegrin point of view, marked by attempts of assimilation and destruction of the very fabric of our ancient montenegrin nation. Be that as it may, we don't need a piece of headwear to prove our national identity as Montenegrins. As for the "two eyes", if that is true, then we have a bad case of strabismus in the Balkans. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.194.231 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbs and Montenegrins were always sticking close throughout history, helping each other. And no traitors like you will ever divide us. Maybe we're not united anymore on the map, but through the heart and mind we are! And btw, Nicholas I was a Montenegrin Serb. Go and see.

True Montenegrin (Verbatimdat (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

Serbs and Montenegrins were "sticking" so close only because of hotheads in Montenegro who were so greedy for serbian money and positions in Belgrade they commited high treason and allowed their country to become a backward province of a hostile Serbia. Serbia repaid montenegrin sacrifice in WWI by annexing the country, abolishing the church, expelling the dynasty, negating the ethnic identity and taking Metohija which was never given back to Montenegro - see the map of MNE prior to WWI in this very article. The idea a king of MNE being a Serb is offensive. It's like saying Louis XIV was actually German. Even if he was, that doesn't change the ethnicity of the nation - british, bulgarian etc. dynasties are of german origin, for example. I gave you arguments and tried to explain some basic history above (including heraldic history), in the most polite manner. Please do not offend people in this nasty way. A traitor is by definition a person who primarily betrays his/her own country in order to serve another. Now apply that definition where it can be applied. Because my country is Montenegro and I consider myself a patriot. How about your country? As for being united "through" the heart as you've said, I suggest you try living in Serbia as a Montenegrin (not as a convert to serbian ethnicity) and experiencing all the "warm feelings" therein. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.143.100.253 (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethical beliefs
The entire part is anecdotal at best, and full of statements that serve as self stylisation. Bring some objectivity in it and make it fit into an encyclopedia. -- 195.37.61.184 (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is probably based on Marko Miljanov's book "Primjeri cojstva i junastva" (Examples of Humanity and Gallantry). "Primjeri cojstva i junastva" is a big set of true events, which mostly happened in 19th century, in which Montenegrins showed their bravery and acted with honor. The only thing that should be added is that although these principles of honor and bravery affect the Montenegrin mentality today, they mostly faded away.    78.155.46.94 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with 195.37.61.184. I have no problem with leaving it in the article, but it shouldn't constitute its own section, considering it's merely one sentence. Is there somewhere better that it could be placed? <font face="segoe print, sans-serif"> Ishwasafishclick here!!! 17:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't one sentence until someone deleted the whole article, and just left that line. Rave92 (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

People's Party
One sentence in the section Montenegro is a bit unclear. It says "Political rifts for the first time emerged between the reigning People's Party that supported democratization of the ruler's autocratic regime and unconditional union with Serbia and the minor pro-monarch True People's Party." So did the People's Party support "unconditional union with Serbia and [with] the True People's Party"? Did the People's Party support an "unconditional union with Serbia", unlike the True People's Party? Or did the People's Party support "democratization of the ruler's ... unconditional union with Serbia"? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Does Croatia still border Montenegro?

 * Isn't the assertion that Montenegro borders Croatia out-of-date since 2006? Croatia Montenegro  Yopienso (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was mistaken. I missed the 25 km border along the Adriatic Sea. Yopienso (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's also a land border between the two countries, completely undisputed by now, including a legitimate border crossing and everything. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about that 25 km-long land border I just found on the map. Another site did not include Croatia as a country bordering Montenegro. I see it was wrong. :-) Yopienso (talk) 09:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Organization of the History section
Should we maybe split the 20th century in the more sections like KIngdom of Yugoslavia, communism, and independence? Rave92 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Albanian
Albanians are the majority in Plav and Ulcinj and RTCG gives Albanian language news, so it is official joint to Montenegrin (agree not Serbian). Prince of Kosova (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe the note saying "STOP! DO NOT CHANGE THE LANGUAGE" was not clear enough for you, so let me explain this as simply as possible. The constitution clearly states that Montenegrin is the only official language of the country and that's it, all the clarification neccessary. RTCG also broadcasts loads of American films, which does not make English language any more official in Montenegro than Albanian is. Sideshow Bob 22:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That sign is to stop Serb nationalists putting Serbian back in. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, Albanians are majority in Ulcinj, not in Plav. In Plav, the majority are Bosniaks (72,78%). Rave92 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bosniaks of Plav are of Albnanian decent. American films are given in RTCG but with subtitles. with Albanian news, NO SUBTITLES. so it is official, get out of that. Prince of Kosova (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The population of Plav declare Bosniak. They are also Slavophonic which further distances them from any Albanian past. As for the language, Albanian is one of Montenegro's minority languages and as such, it may be nationally recognised with some priviliges but it is most certainly not official. Evlekis (Евлекис) 19:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

1. They are not of Albanian descent 2. Yes, but with which subtitles? Montenegrin, not Albanian. The Albanian language news is there because it is minority language, and does not have same status like Montenegrin. If it would have the same status, then Albanian would need to be written everywhere as dual language (signs etc...) but that's not the case. Rave92 (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct. I wasn't implying anything else, it was Prince of Kosova that raised this matter. It is a fact of constitution, Montenegrin has one official tongue and that is the eponymous language. Period. Evlekis (Евлекис) 22:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion to the above was led under a false interpretation, according to which Montenegro has just one official language (Montenegrin) - this is incorrect. According to the Constitution of Montenegro, the country has got a total of 5 different official languages - Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian. --AVNOJist (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity
In table Ethnicity and map of population of Montenegro is mistake, Albanians are not second population by number in montenegro (Thanks God!), second largest population by number are Serbs ... this is mistake, can someone edit that on table and map, please! --Bambyle (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo
I reinserted Kosovo as a country bordering Montenegro in the introduction. Not naming it is NOT NPOV, however naming it together with a note about its disputed status (as I did) is. Gugganij (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

POV
This article violates Wikipedia's policies with a neutral point of view. In the intro, only Montenegrin is mentioned as the native language, despite 78% of the population of the country does not speak that language, according to the population census. Mentioning Serbian is avoided, despite the fact that a vast majority of 63% consider Serbian as their native language.

Now I know that a number of controversies around the Montenegrin language exist, in the matter of its preferences as a distinct language, separate from the Serbian language, however by all means the current resolution on the article is nothing but a completely one-sided, biased, point-of-view. --AVNOJist (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a note in the infobox yesterday stating that the majority of the population speaks Serbian; that should cover it. - Buttons (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Far from it. A note in the infobox? --AVNOJist (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no discussion here, AVNOJist=User:Buttons.

If you are really interested in statistics, why don't you wait couple of months for the results of the first census since Montenegro regained its independence. Also, Montenegro also has 2007 Constitution, which was adopted with 2/3 majority in parliament, where you can find which language is the official one. Navyworth (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 census data
Hello to everyone that are familiar with the census of Montenegro. There are two numbers that are point out as total number of the population. The first one is the number of the preliminary results (625,266 people), while Monstat (official statistics body) announced that in Montengero live 620029. Which one is correct? Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a real Coat of arms!
[] this is official version of coat of arms. If you look closer, present Wikipedia version has weird eyes of eagle and lion, and lion and eagle have red claws! Also the dots on crown and orb should be golden instead of white! This version seems to be more correct. Can someone fix this? Thanks. Navyworth (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Kalaja.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I find the History section regarding dissolution of Yugoslavia unfair in some aspects. It states that Bosnian refugees have been transfered by MNE police to Serb police in Bosnia, where they have been tortured and killed. Such statement creates the feeling that ALL Bosnian refugees (tens of thousands persons) to MNE have been killed. The truth is that Montenegro accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo of all ethnic groups during 1990's. This should be clearly stated in the article. Moreover, many of these refugees still live in Montenegro, including about almost 10.000 Roma people expelled from Kosovo after 1999. Only after mentioning these facts, one can mention the criminal incident from 1992. when about 70 persons from Bosnia have been arrested by MNE police and transfered to Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.109.193 (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Montenegrin, "Our language"
There should be a central place to forward all this language-nationalist stuff. What about Talk:Serbo-Croatian? We should indeed work out some consensus on this once. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I see is that "Montenegrin", "Serbian", "Croatian", "Bosnian", etc. are not languages as such but are forms, or variants, of the Serbo-Croatian language. By rights the entry under "language" should be "Serbo-Croatian", but I was thinking just adding "(variant of Serbo-Croatian)" should be an acceptable compromise to all? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 14:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, not here. There is enough on Talk:Croatian language, and we indeed need a major precedent for all these languages. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Official language
The Constitution of Montenegro states:As the "official language" field of infobox is a current battlefield of a slow edit war, I'm probing for consensus on whether this field should include the statement "(Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian also in the official use)" or something similar. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) We have the link to the page of the Constitution which states that "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian shall also be in the official use.", the wording proposed isn't biased AFAICT - therefore I see nothing controversial about this. --biblbroks (talk)  15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) WhiteWriterspeaks 18:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) As per Constitution.--Z oupan  18:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) paradox is the official language is minority language, while majority population speak Serbian. --<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="white"> Bojan  <font style="background: white" face="Courier" color="black"> Talk   12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Support for the constitutional definition of Montenegrin as the official language, as found and mentioned in the Constitution of Montenegro in Official montenegrin constitution (Ustav Crne Gore). Following up in a different sentence there is a statement that Serbian, Bosniac (Bosnian), Albanian and Croatian languages are also in official use. --Devilhope (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Navyworth (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC) - Minority languages are not official on the state level

Discussion
Evidently the status of other languages is lower then that of Montenegrin. Still they are named in the Language and alphabet article of Constitution, and thus must be mentioned. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not into an edit war over this thing, especially since it has been recently labeled as a rather lame issue. However, considering all the history of this dispute I honestly think that if we don't have some input from the other side there won't be much good faith left to be assumed. At least on my part. But since I don't want to be such a spoilsport, I might as well suggest that maybe some other Wikipedians might chip in with a bit of their own good faith. And just for the record: the last revert from the IP was mine. Nothing Serbian nationalistic behind it, believe me. --biblbroks (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And what about the Constitution quote above? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whose is that translation? Language mentioned in original is Bosnian, not Bosniak!

here is original article 13: Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je crnogorski jezik. Ćirilično i latinično pismo su ravnopravni. U službenoj upotrebi su i srpski, bosanski, albanski i hrvatski jezik. So, what is the difference between the official language and the (language) in the official us(ag)e? Navyworth (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of official language is "a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction." That is: official language is the language in official use. The article effectively means that the primar official language is Montenegrin and the others are Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian. The translation is by World Intellectual Property Organization. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, i disagree that other languages have the same level as Montenegrin. Otherwise, the constitution would state Official languages shall be ... (all of them). For e.g. site of Montenegrin Government is available in Montenegrin Cyrillic and Latin as well as International English version. link Do you think that this site is unconstitutional?Navyworth (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The site's languages have nothing to deal with official languages. The site in question is also available in English; does this make you think that the official status of English is higher then that of languages mentioned in constitution? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if we all agree that within the very Constitution of Montenegro those four languages aren't treated the same way as Montenegrin is treated (and such an agreement is very possible, because beside the other converser who IMHO already did agree on this, I surely could agree, too), nevertheless the wording of the constitution for the other four is no more no less but precisely and plainly "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian... shall also be in the official use." And so I honestly don't understand what is so controversial with the proposed inclusion of the wording "(Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian also in the official use)" after Montenegrin language in that tiny field of that secluded infobox. Because, as far as I can tell Montenegrin language isn't understated with such a simple amendment to the article. Why, after all: Not that I'm any such expert in any such "Constitution lingo" nor that I natively speak the Legalese, but doesn't this second point of mine seems as at least a bit sensible reason for the inclusion of the proposed statement: "(Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian also in the official use)" or something similar.? Or should we exclude this data on the premise that those four are... what? Minority languages? I wouldn't mind it tho, but methinks that some rationale for this might help. Anyway, is there any proposal from the contending side on how we should deal with the fact explained in the second point above? Assumingly, the fact is relevant... which I do assume. And I believe all (except for the contending side perhaps) also assume the fact is relevant. Also, do we have a source which might claim that those four are minority languages? Or was it that they are languages of minorities? What does this contention Minority languages are not official on the state level serve for anyway? Does it serve for anything? I mean, it points to some arbitrary article titled "A language is a dialect with an army and navy" in which in its very 1st sentence is stated that "A language is a dialect with an army and navy... is a humorous quip[1][2][3] about the arbitrariness[4] of the distinction between a dialect and a language.". Are we to laugh on this, or take this argument seriously? Perhaps on the grounds that Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian are dialects? Presumably dialects of Montenegrin language, yes? --biblbroks (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) in the proposed wording the "officiality" / "official us(ag)e" (if we can even call it so) of the other four languages is merely in parenthesis, and that with almost the exact i.e. identical wording as in the (I believe) most legitimate and most trustworthy translation of the very Constitution of Montenegro: a simple "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian also in the official use" instead of "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian shall also be in the official use" - a difference of just two words apart, and a difference of (I most strongly believe) insignificant semantic value in this case
 * 2) the description for the other four in the constitution is almost in the immediate vicinity of the mention of Montenegrin language, and that without any characterization (such as that they are, or shall be, or should be, languages of minorities, or something along this way), and that no more no less but precisely and plainly with the wording "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian shall also be in the official use".
 * Maybe it is humorous for someone, but did you know how the NATO officials referred the former Serbo-Croatian language during the dissolution of Yugoslavia as 'The language of JNA', before ICTY started using term B/H/S? I do not believe that 'official use' is not the same as official language. Albanian is in the official use in Ulcinj. However, knowledge of Albanian is useless in e.g. Plužine or Cetinje.

Anyway, I suggest the following the following changes in infobox (footnote).

I believe that this is the best neutral solution. Navyworth (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this solution is neutral at all: it gives improper weight to Montenegrin language. I really believe that the most neutral suggestion was the change I made to the article (and you reverted subsequently). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My take is that the contending side in this dispute holds some views that "Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian" are minority languages in Montenegro. Or something along this way. But this point of view is neither properly supported with sources nor explained. Therefore my opinion is that to give the Montenegrin language any further weight than it would have in the "proposal with parenthesis" cannot be more neutral. I.e. the proposal with parenthesis is the least biased in regard with our current stand on the status of those four. And our current stand on the status of S, B, A, and C in Montenegro is that we have no info on whether they are minority languages or something else. We can only suppose that their status is somewhat lower than that of Montenegrin, but we have no knowledge to what extent it is lower. So, only the "parenthesis proposal" can work at this time because giving the four any less weight than it has with their mention immediately after Montenegrin would be presumptuous in this case. In my opinion. Apart from the wording "Službeni jezik u Crnoj Gori je ..." and "U službenoj upotrebi su i ..." we simply have no knowledge of the exact current status of Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian compared to the status of Montenegrin. And we obviously cannot decipher the difference of these statuses, but only assume that there is a difference. Making any further assumptions requires extensive expertise in the area of constitutions' wordings and languages' officialities. We have no such at the moment. Only common sense. And it - the common sense - demands that in the lack of any data we should restore back to the "parenthesis" state of the article as it is makes no presumptions and therefore is most neutral. --biblbroks (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I disagree that your edit is neutral solution. As you have said "we simply have no knowledge of the exact current status of Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian compared to the status of Montenegrin." Equalizing the official language with languages in official use is a Point of View. The Constitution simply did not put all the languages in the same line. I think that footnote is on one hand providing adequate and complete information and on the other avoiding POV and any wrong interpretation.Navyworth (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with that. First, we know the status: in official use. Footnote would be a good choice for a language that would be in official use in some district, but the languages that are listed in the Constitution should be in "official language" field. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, here is one interesting Serbian article titled "Opposition demands Serbian language to be official in Montenegro". That means Serbian is not official in Montenegro. Or opposition demands something what is already fulfilled, perhaps? []Navyworth (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality not repspected
If Montenegro borders "Kosovo" then Russia borders "Abhazia" and "South Ossetia". There can be note about that too. It is either one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.205.20 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)