Talk:Danilo I, Prince of Montenegro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

	Danilo I, Prince of Montenegro is within the scope of WikiProject Serbian Orthodox Church, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Serbian Orthodox Church on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)

Contents 1 Proposed move 1.1 Survey 1.2 Discussion 2 It is Danilo I, not Danilo II 3 Danilo's "nationality" 4 Knjaz Danilo's Code Controversy 5 Any relevance whatsoever? 6 Archaic name? 7 Imbris/PaxEquillibrium 8 Source has been given 9 False claims by Imbris

[edit] Proposed move

[edit] Discussion

[edit] It is Danilo I, not Danilo II

I don't know who's idea it was to rename Knjaz Danilo to Danilo II, but, it has nothing to do with the historical facts. Everyone who was ever thought history in Montenegro will tell you that two Danilos are distinguished by their title (vladika vs. knjaz).

---

I rv because it is Wikipedia's policy to expand. What you did was a mass change of the article, which shouldn't've been done. It also is a mass removal as well and adition of some dubious claims, such as the Danilo's Code's controversy. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry if you feel ofended, that wasn't my intention. Let's work through it and assume good faith. There are too few people that write about Montenegro to afford to lose someone. My general impression of the text was that is was generally pretentious, sometimes inaccurate, like the claim that Knjaz Danilo won the battle at Grahovo. I tried to edit "boldly", but in good faith. If Danilo's Code is controversial, let's see what it is and get to the bottom of it. My view is that mentioning Serbs in the Code is completely irelevant to the code itself, why mentioning it at all? Why not writing about the clauses in the code, that is what matters isn't it? Let's get over the nationality crap and do the man justice. Momisan 13:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine outright - but please return the other large chunks of my contribution which you deleted and state clearly what's wrong with it - and what ever made you think that the Code was changed ("Eastern Orthodox nationality"??? what the...). --HolyRomanEmperor 21:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That is fine, will do.My source for the Danilo's Code was this. I admit I'd rather have the handwriting screenshot.Momisan 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I question the authenticity of that site - mainly on several things; first and foremost - it presents a text of the Matica Srbska from 1825, claiming how Serbia didn't know of Serbs outside Serbia's existence (i. e. that they didn't exist). This is very funny, aside from the fact that Matica Srbska has been founded in 1826. :) Also, I uploaded the scanned original script - so where' the debate? --HolyRomanEmperor 09:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I question the authenticity of any site, if they clearly don't source their texts. Montenegrina sometimes does it, but not in this case.However, this is not the first time I heard about the handwriting falsification.I just want to see the original handwriting before I accept the claim. On the other side, it seems that you are bit too quick to discard the source that perhaps reveals something you don't like. Just my initial impression, might change. So, what original script did you upload and where can I see it. Again, to reiterate, only original handwriting will prove or disprove. Do you know where is the original handwriting kept? I might contact Montenegrina and ask them too. Momisan 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

New sources go to the bottom. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this your rule or is specified somewhere in Wikipedia? Sorry for a newbie question.Momisan 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No - but it is discouraged, as it seem as if you're trying WP:POINT; by puting your own sources or sources that claim something opposing to what others claim above, in superiority to other sources. That's why there's simply adding to the bottom. Your good faith could be questioned otherwise. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. Sometimes you want to place links about similar topics one after another.It is neater. Momisan 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What I oppose is that this version of the article no longer shows Danilo as a Serbian national hero (like the previous).

We are obviously in disagreement on that. See further below.Momisan 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright.

P. S. I would gladly hands-off the nationalistic c**p - but its hard when writing about nationalists. --HolyRomanEmperor 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we established some civility. Let's now work through the differences.

Obviously, you see Danilo as a Serbian nationalist hero, while I don't. Let's be professional about it and find some sources that back the claims. Regardless, his actions and deeds were the same so lets put an emphasis on what was his legacy. I suggest to move the disputed items under a separate headline along the lines: "Danilo's Nationality and Nationalism" or similar. This includes his quotes.Momisan 02:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don's Danilo as a Serbian national hero - I don't see anything, nor do I put my thoughts on wikipedia (as per WP:NOR). I only state what he was/himself stated he was. I strictly object adding that - that's against leading the reader (if you've studied Law ever, you'll understand) and its bound to open thousands of cotroversies. --HolyRomanEmperor 09:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you strictly objecting to? Didn't understand your point here. Momisan 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danilo's "nationality"

The problem is that nationality and ethnicity (two different things) is synomimous in English. Perhaps the correct conclusion would be Nationality: Montenegrin; Ethnicity: Serbian. In 1855 Prince Danilo officialized his Code. Paragraph 92 states:

Although there is no other nationality in this land except Serb nationality and no other religion except Eastern Orthodoxy, each foreigner and each person of different faith can live here and enjoy the same freedom and the same domestic right as Montenegrin or Highlander.

"Иако у овој земљи нема никакве друге народности до једине српске и никакве друге вјере до једине православне источне, то опет сваки иноплеменик и иновјерац може слободно живјети и ону слободу и ону нашу домаћу правицу уживати као и сваки Црногорац и Брђанин што ужива."

Paragraph 88 states:

"Послужбица крстног имена и торбице по данас више бити не смије, будући да таковом послужбицом људи само своје имуће разсипају, пак постају сиромаси; који ли ово не послуша, већ би преко овог законог постановленија чинио, тај ће бити оглобљен са талијера два или кастигат тавницом. Доста је да се по нашем србском обичају слави крстно име као успомена прађедовског крштења.

In April of 1856 Prince Danilo wrote to Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic of Serbia as a thanks for the donated textbooks:

This deed serves like a pledge for new and strong brotherhood, which will be base for our future brotherly agreement and base for better future happiness of our homogenous Serb nation. Montenegrin prince has, in his heart, carved sense of love and devotion not only towards his people, but towards entire Serbdom and everything named and called - Serb.

"Дјело ово да служи за залог новог и крепког братског јединства, које ће бити основ будућој нашој свези братског согласја, основ бољој будућој срећи једнородног народа српског. Књаз црногорски носи на скрижали својега срца урезано чувство љубави и преданости не само за свој народ, већ за све Српство и за све оно, што се српско зове и именује."

At the end of May of 1856 he wrote to Emperor Napoleon III regarding the suffers of the Serb people in the Ottoman Empire:

To enslave us to them by through famine, they wrenched Serb lands, wrested Serb seas; only rocks remain to us and a heart that will never prostrate.

"Да би нас себи потчинили глађу, они су разјагмили српске земље, отели српско море; нама остају само стијене и срце, које никада неће клонути."

During his reign, he wrote to Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic of Serbia:

In front of the tent I'll serve the King if Serbdom would be ever united and unity of Serbs reached.

And then also to Prince Mihailo Obrenovic of Serbia:

Let Prince Mihailo just start, I'll join him with my montenegrins to liberate the Serb nation, with me even as an ordinary soldier.

"Нека само започне књаз Михаило, ја му са својим Црногорцима пођох на сусрет, да ослободимо српски народ, па ма ја био у војсци књаза Михаила прости војник."

In 1852 Prince Danilo proclaimed to the Kuči:

"Спомените се, о јуначки народе старије српскије јунака, како су се они храбро борили, да не робују под турским игом, да им измет не чини, да им тајин не давају, да им путеве не направљају и коње проводају."

"Немојте да ова моја врућа препорука код вас погине, јер Србин данас нема никога до Бога и свога брата Србина."

..other than that - he belongs to the House of Petrovic-Njegos, a family that has always had/has/probably will have a strong Serbian national identity. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this is your favourite topic :-) This is just to let you know I read what you wrote.Will get back to it to do it justice. For now, please state where you got the quotes from and where is the original, if you know. I don't doubt it, just for the sake of completeness. Momisan 08:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll scry for an Internet version if that's what you're looking for... I belive I could scan and upload several of 'em (I have them). Most sources are the Metropolitan of Montengero and the Littoral - and the Montenegrin Academy of Science and Arts. History is my most preffered area - like I said. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 23:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I like history too :-) Step 1. establish facts ( from reliable sources ). Step 2. interpret facts. No, not necessarily, internet, although it is the most convenient option. I guess most of the letters would be kept in one of the museums in Cetinje. Suspicion bells ring if the SOC is the source. CANU, so,so. Until the step 1 is completed, there is no point speculating, is there? Anyway, just a short note here, I am sure we will have a looong one coming ;-)

Ok Serb, I thought you were a Montenegrin Croat, well at least pro-Montenegrin, but instead you turned out to be like Ivo Andrić. So what if Knjaz Danilo writes in his letters that he is a Serb and that he is for Serbia, it doesn't mean he is a Serb, he used that to 1) scare the Montenegrins into thinking he is powerful and 2) to gain alliances with the Serbs because the Serbs were pretty powerful at the time and being allied with them, Montenegro would have no problem with the Ottoman Turks. Because of this, Montenegrins were able to forge an alliance with the Russians. Understand now, he is a Montenegrin who possibly says he's a Serb because of these reasons Crna ^t_e^c Gora 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Crna Gora, that shouldn't matter in these sorts of discussions. I think you are jumping over step 1. above, though. Momisan 06:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, CrnaGora is right - I would like to further explore the possibility of what he said; it sounds intriguing, especially if we could read it from somewhere. Ofcourse it doesn't mean he's Serb; it's just that he was fused by Serbian nationalism. Ivo Andric, the nobel prize-winner was a Croat - but a Serb nationalist. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I should read CG's writing as serious or as a joke. "So what if Knjaz Danilo writes in his letters that he is a Serb and that he is for Serbia, it doesn't mean he is a Serb" - great, now just apply the same standard to all the people who declared as Montenegrins in the last census - so what if they did, that doesn't means that they are Montenegrins! :) Nikola 19:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh look, here's a critic. Well at least a Serb crtiic. Very funny, ha-ha. The inhabitants of Montenegro are Montenegrins, not Serbs. You Serbs think the inhabitants of the Western Balkans are Serb and not what they truly are. Well, you Serbs are wrong. Crna Gora 20:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting to see where are your sources from. Each quote separately, please.Momisan 01:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Momisan, I have no source for those quotes because those were my thoughts. Now please, people I have found that the Petrović family originated from Herzegovina. Thus, meaning that he was born Montenegrin and his family have been born Montenegrin for 400 years before Knjaz Danilo. Thus giving a possibility that Knjaz Danilo and the other Petrovići were Serbs, unless proven wrong. Or, the family was possibly Croatian, because Herzegovina was near Croatia. There are many possibilities. Now the hunt for the ture nationality of the Petrović family begins. Crna Gora 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant, HREs sources for the quotes above. He has not proven anything so far.Momisan 02:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The Petrovic-Njegos family is from Eastern Montenegro (today RS); although it previously originates from Bosnia further on. I presented sources at Momisan's talk page. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry HRE but the Petrović-Njegoš family is from Stara Crna Gora in the region around Cetinje. This area as you might know is in Western Montenegro, not Eastern. Also, the Petrovići came from Herzegovina, not BOSNIA! They are two different regions. As I said, they are from Stara Crna Gora, now how are the Petrovići from Eastern Montenegro or today's RS? Please, give me an answer. Crna Gora 15:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

They are from the Njegusi village, between Cetinje and Kotor. That's where "Njegos" comes from. Momisan 02:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say Eastern Herzegovina. What are you saying, Momisan? Did you see your talk page? Also, the Petrovic-Njegos draw origin from Zenica in Bosnia; later they moved to East Herzergovina, from where they went to the Katun Nachy and settled in Njegusi. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And I thought all Montenegrins stem from Kosovo battle nobles:-). Yes, I saw my talk page and had a look at the Serbian Land Montenegro site. You have to back your quotes up, one by one. Convert quantity to quality ;-) Momisan 06:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, some descend, yeah. :) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the letter that Knjaz Danilo published in the London Times on 30 September 1856. Not a single time did he mention Serbs, how many times he mentioned the Montenegrin people, you can count for yourself. Momisan 06:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

..ahh... you already wrote that and that was already discussed. :D --PaxEquilibrium 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know I uploaded a better picture of Knjaz Danilo. Sideshow Bob 18:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Knjaz Danilo's Code Controversy

It is noticeable that in the Danilo' Code manuscript ,which was used as an official law of the land,in the Article 92. it states literally: "Although there is no other nationatily or religion except Eastern Orthodoxy, each foreigner and each person of different faith can live here and enjoy the same freedom and the same domestic right as Montenegrin or Highlander." The part about the "Serb nationality" appears for the first time in the printed version,printed by Milorad Medakovic,in Novi Sad,Serbia. Sideshow Bob 00:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems ridiculous. "Eastern Orthodoxy" is not a nation, nor are "Eastern Orthodox Christian" a nationality. We have the original scanned. --PaxEquilibrium 13:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any relevance whatsoever?

In the intro we have some extracts from his random letters. I don't see any relevance, and if there is any, that is not the right place to put that information. Thus, I recommend its deletion. Any better suggestions? Sideshow Bob 03:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for suspecting that the word "Serb" is what's bothering you...--Hadžija 10:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Make a section "Knjaz Danilo's letters" and put whatever you can find there :).But this is simply not appropriate at the top of the page. Sideshow Bob 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaic name?

Why, Prevalis? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, why not include how names were spelled in that time period. Hell, you even included an archaic name of Zetan lord Đurađ II Stracimirović Balšić --Prevalis (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imbris/PaxEquillibrium

You will get nothing with continuous personal attacks. I, for around 40th time, politely ask you to stop. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is attacking you this time my dear Pax. Nobody. You are imagining it. Stop your revertment crusade without any sources. -- Imbris (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "reverting crusade" is brought upon by your extremely and excessively impolite approach to the question. I wasn't referring to this article in precise.

P.S. I am still waiting regarding this. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Only impolite people act as you, I on the other hand handle your provocations on a day to day basis. Reverting is done without any reason and also slandering without login in. -- Imbris (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More impolite than a person who's continually evading any sort of discussion and - do please forgive me if this might hurt you - but openly falsely claims that sources back up his/her claims? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources I provided should be looked in context and not with a policy you have. It is rude to question sources. He wants sources for the sources I gave him but when I requested that he attacked me to be uncivil. Wikipedians are required to give a source and not to research the sources of that source which was given. Most of the stuff Pax writes is unsourced, he belives he is NPOV, the greates NEUTRAL beeing on the world. There is no such stuff. That fact is written on his user-page on Wikipedia. He thinks that sourcing is a loosing of time. -- Imbris (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are wrong - your alleged sources do not back up your claims. I'm not researching sources themselves - I just do not like lying, if that is what you're doing. Let me remind you what are your sources:

You claim that the official Montenegrin website supports this. If the link is clicked, you'd see that you are wrong.

You claim that Roberto Breschi presents this flag. If the link is clicked, one can see that you are wrong.

You claim that the color of the Montenegrin National Football team's goalkeeper is a source for this flag. This is patent nonsense.

Next to the fact that this picture doesn't even correspond to the sole source you gave - which you have yet to scan and upload to the Wikipedia, there is a consensus of all Wikipedians but you that this has never ever existed in reality.

So when openly and blatantly false claiming something like that, what do you expect?

The last five sentences were a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please do not make them, like I have asked you before. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source has been given

There have been presented other sources with connection to the colour. Nikola suceeded Danilo and by Breschi kept the colour. I have never used the goal-keeper dress as an argument - just discussed about it in connection with this issue. Also you claimed much, much, much, more sources and Wikipedians. It is shamefull to cite something and do not give a source. I will not discuss the matter singulary but in the context of your insertion of flags that you do not have any source (Nemanjic-Crnojevic) and in the same time claim that my sources are incorrect. You are obviously thinking that you are superior and that what is written in your brain must be the truth. Look at the works of Sima Lukin Lazić, this is the ideology that has possibly influenced somebody. And that somebody is not me. -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me then repost our discussion, in an effort to refresh your memory:

I asked for a source for Danil's alleged purple flag. Quote you on 23:48, 16 March 2008: You have http://www.rbvex.it/montenegro.html by Roberto Breschi who received help from Diego Bonazzi and Valentina Velimirović. Also http://www.fotw.net/flags/me_ks.html by Mario Fabretto and official http://www.montenegro.yu/english/podaci/symbols.htm (on the symbols of the past entirely). The Montenegrin Football Association also use this colour (pink/light purple/purple) for their goal-keeper's dress.

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Montenegro.html Benjamin M. Cahoon page by the way this author is inclined to continue Yugoslavia as Serbia.

• • You claim that the official Montenegrin website supports this. If the link is clicked, you'd see that you are wrong.
  • You claim that Roberto Breschi presents this flag. If the link is clicked, one can see that you are wrong.

Please tell me if I am imagining this or it really happened? I cannot submit "loads of new sources" to disprove whether the French flag is a Cross on green background, and the fact that this didn't exist is claimed by two other Wikipedians.

Now let me quote you to the up: Nikola suceeded Danilo and by Breschi kept the colour. Is this true? Where does Breschi claim that? Could you source this please?

I am not claiming that your sources are incorrect. I am asserting that you falsely used them to justify your claims. If one can see this to the above, he or she can clearly see that for him/herself. On the other hand I cannot understand how you think this one is not sourced, since you know Markus - and the photograph of the Cetinje Monastery he had presented. Next to that, I am asking you (again) to pay a visit to Cetinje. The reason why he treats it with misbelief and might be a bit of influence of his political (pro-Serbian) beliefs, when compared to Montenegrin Sovereignists who often point this out in an effort to justify historically the current flag of Montenegro and that it doesn't originate from (just) the war flags.

I do not understand from where you got that conclusion. You have dismissed any and all of my sources before I scanned them (actually, you still dismiss them now, but that's not a point) - all I want is to be treated equally. All I see here is that you act as if you have some form of more default rights here on the Wikipedia than me - but you must understand that we're here all equal, as long as we play by the book. Let me quote your response upon my question: "This is not needed." How can I interpret this otherwise than that? Please scan and upload it yourself (which I have done with three different books), so that we could then close this "circle of mistrust" to call it once and forever.

Your last two sentences are an uncivil attack on my person, please stop making them. I will from now on ignore your occasional crossings to themes that are unrelated to the subject (the Wikipedia) in an effort to insult me. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to give some historical analysis to the issue shortly. Nikola succeded Danilo so the connection is obvious. Stop recycling your discussions around one topic that is very well established but if neccesary will be subject to a compromise. Deleting from the List of flags and other places of Nemanjic-Crnojevic mythical symbol in exchange is very much needed. -- Imbris (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Will be waiting for that. Yes, Nikola had succeeded Danilo - but I have no idea what that has to do with this flag. If it does anything, the fact that Nicholas inherited Danil's flag proves its dubiousness. I was forced to do this and will continue to do so as long as you keep avoiding to discuss the matter.

Very well, I accept this temporary compromise. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False claims by Imbris

Imbris, could you please stop to continually make false claims over and over again, when the talk page reveals not a single source? Thank you. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)