Talk:Montenegrins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Montenegro Portal
Montenegrins is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Montenegro 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

[edit] Anonymous vandalism

Let me take a moment to analyze some of the de facto vandalism that the anonymous user from verat.net and infosky.net had done so far... if we ignore the plain old censoring, there's one set of fairly interesting commits after my integration.

  • changes the relation reference from just Serbs to include other Southern Slavs (and later used "and Croats")
  • changes "they enjoyed a distinct state from other Serbs" to "Montenegro was a fully-fledged independent country" — implying that the Slavs of Montenegro weren't like the Slavs in Raška, Travunia, etc, that they weren't Serbs
  • changes the KoY's action to be "desire for unification" rather than actual "unification", mentions that this was meant to be unconditional and that the crown was a Serbian dynasty (here Serbian meaning Serbia proper)
  • notes appeal of the KPJ during WWII in more length
  • says that the Montenegrin nationality post-1945 was a reintroduction, not an invention
  • rephrases the mention of different ethnicities, and notes that the Serbs in Montenegro don't agree with the others
  • changes Milošević to be "Serb from Montenegro" rather than "Montenegrin"

And then there's some censoring in these edits, too.

I'm going to apply some of these changes, although in a much more nuanced way. The page should in the end benefit from this pro-Montenegrin standpoint just as much as it did from the pro-Serb standpoint. --Joy [shallot]

Apparently they either didn't notice, or it wasn't good enough. I'm going to investigate the option of banning the entire block if this continues. --Joy [shallot] 15:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, there was some editing... but still too stubborn with regard to removing stuff. Sorry, but we must stick to some standards, and this is unacceptable. --Joy [shallot]

Guys, dont delete the population figures of montenegrins in croatia. Whether it is your view that they are serbs or not, it doesnt matter, because on the 2001 census of croatia, there was around 5,000 citizens that declared themselves as montenegrins,....not serbs. so please leave this figure there. it is important imformation for readers to know where the ones who call themselves ethnic montenegrins live around the world. here's a webpage link showing the 2001 census of croatia: http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/Minorities/2._FRAMEWORK_CONVENTION_(MONITORING)/2._Monitoring_mechanism/3._State_Reports_and_UNMIK_Kosovo_Report/2._Second_cycle/2nd_SR_Croatia.asp

[edit] State tradition and new borders

the border areas of the 20th century Montenegro weren't part of the old Montenegrin state

Hmm, this isn't much of an argument. It could just as well be argued that Montenegro simply expanded from its historical core to include those other areas, no matter how large they are. Similar to e.g. how Serbia expanded northwards or indeed how Boka Kotorska became part of Montenegro, too. I'm going to drop it. --Joy [shallot] 09:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "numerous historical documents confirm"

Numerous historical documents confirm that Montenegrins have felt that they have Serbian ethnic identity.

We need to qualify this statement better, otherwise it sounds weaselly. I presume this refers to stuff found on Njegoš's page etc? Any detail would be most welcome. --Joy [shallot] 13:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On 12th of May I wrote a section "Montenegrins on their ehtnicity" that stated exactly what Joy asked here. Now I see that it has been erased by user Monosig on terms of not meeting standards of objectivity. However, my section was composed only of QUOTES together with original texts. How can this be labeled as unobjective? Perhaps it could have been re-writen or better translated, but to remove it totaly is utterly unfair. I demand some kind of answer or response. If no good answer is provided I will return my section back into the article. --Dultz 00:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Article makes no mention of ethnic Albanians in Montenegro, a small but politically significant minority.

Probably because it is not an article on Montenegro, but on Montenegrins. Nikola 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

I have firmly believed that I have noted what is contradictory in the article, but it seems that I haven't... anyway, the first part of the article asserts firmly that Montenegrins were Serbs; But later it speaks about "unification between these peoples, most so between the Montenegrins and the Serbians", "the régime recognized, sanctioned and fostered a national identity of Montenegrins" etc. Nikola 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It says "Serbians", not "Serbs", referring to the fact that they are the people of "Serbia". I don't see the contradiction. --Joy [shallot] 14:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
It also says "National identity", not to mention other examples from the article: "closely related to Serbs", "occupation by Serb forces" etc. Nikola 08:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What is controversal with the Montenegrin nation? I think that the warning should be removed. HolyRomanEmperor 21:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is controversial that it exists. Nikola 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Believe it or not ethnic Montenegrins do exist, I know since I am one, and so is over 48% of Montenegro, so quit with your biased greater-serbia propaganda please! Thanks. Critikal1

[edit] Tall Nation

This nonsense about Montenegrins being the worlds tallest people deleted. It is totally unfounded with nothing to support it and with me actually being from Montenegro, I know that it isn't even true. At 1,80 I am tall in my native Bijelo Polje but very short in Europe. Batsos 28.xii.05

1,80 from Bijelo Polje? Let me guess, you are a 9 year old girl Batsos, then you'd be, let's say, slightly above average (in one or two classrooms) for your group.
Montenegrins have been recorded as the second tallest people in the world after some african nation, I'm pure Montenegrin, my mom's 5'10 my Dad's 6'2 and I'm 6'3.

[edit] Notable Montenegrin Serbs

In response to Duja: Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan was definitely Montenegrin. He was actually born in Slovenia of all places, but his father Veljko is from Montenegro. During his Ceca wedding festivities Arkan made a point of wearing a traditional Montenegrin attire before changing into a WWI Serbian uniform. Also the custom of shooting an apple off the bride's roof is clearly Montenegrin.

Current Serbian President Boris Tadic was born in Sarajevo but his father Ljubomir (Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences Member) came from Montenegro (born in the village of Smrijecno in Piva region). I thought this was a pretty well known fact since it was all over the SCG media when Boris ran for President.

Vuk Karadzic was born in Trsic in Serbia but both his mother and father came from Montenegro. Entire Karadzic clan hails from villages on Durmitor mountain like Petnjica and such. -- January 8, 2006

I stand corrected. Frankly, if we'd start to dig out, we'll probably find that some 80% of Serbs have some Montenegrin ancestor or origin (myself, AFAIK, included). Duja 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I recall reading that ethnographic research shows that majority of the population of central Serbia (Sumadija etc.) is of Montenegrin origin, the area has been cleansed by Turks and them Montenegrins started settling in it. This would be very interesting add for this article and Serbs, if someone would find a reference. Nikola 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good example of complicated ethnical identity of Montenegrins is Slobodan Milosevic, well known Serbian president. His father was from Montenegro. Slobodan identified himself as a Serb. At the same time, his brother declared himself as Montenegrin.

Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was also Montenegrin who declared himself as Serb.

King Alexander of Yugoslavia, grandson of King Nicholas of Montenegro, was born and raised on Cetinje and considered himself always as Montenegrin.

That's all fine and dandy guys but the truth is Arkan is only half montenegrin as well as Boris Tadic(Half-montenegrin) so that makes them partly montenegrin, not full blooded, and which ethnic group they choose to lean towards was up to them.

[edit] Montenegrins Are Serbs

There are no "Montenegrins" All montenegrins are Serbs! Serbs who live in Montenegro. They use Serbian surnames, why is that so? The only ones who don't have serbian surnames are Bosniak ( Serbs Converted Into Islam ) and Albanian. The Royal Families of Montenegro has always been of Serbian Origin. And now Montenegrins are starting a new church... Why do you think Serbs are so bad?

If you read any real history book you would know that Montengrins ARE a real nation, just not as old as Croats or Serbs, and this is the same as Bosniak thing ( and yeah before 1463. Bosnia was inhabited mostly by Croatians of catholic faith and there were some Serbs descended from those who were refugees in war with Bulgaria in 10th century). Montenegro was placed on the crossroads of many bigger cultures so it is natural that it became some kind of melting pot, just like the USA in recent history, and in that case, creating of a new nation was necessary to happen. You are a nationalist with no background for your daring and inappropriate statements. Nationality is not who your ancestors were, it is your choice so it is ok for Montenegrins to be Montenegrins. So stop sabotaging, you are not competent enough to define a nation's right to exist. Youre no patriot, you are just an obstinate nationalist. Matija Kukuruzović, Croat, Christian, Catholic and a good friend to all good and peace-loving people.

The ones who call themselves montenegrins are all Catholics, Muslims or of mixed heritage, that is my point of view... Not even in 2000 years you would notice a difference between montenegrins and Serbs because there is no difference... Now i mean montenegrins who have Serbs in their ancestry and see themselves as a modern nation: "Montenegrins". The montenegrins active on Wikipedia are all of non-serb origin, calling themselves montenegrins by blood...? that's strange. My mother is from Montenegro, she is a Serb from Montenegro.

"For example, the number of Croats in Kotor dropped from 69% in 1910 to 7% in 1991; in Herceg-Novi from 70% to 2%; in Tivat from 95% to 23%." - Modern montenegrins are descendants of assimilated croats or muslims or dumb Serbs... I mean that the original Montenegrins were all Serbs, real Serbs of the Serb clans.

Please quit your serb propoganda spam, "serb from montenegro", my whole family are orthodox christians from the region and have always viewed themselves as Montenegrins, not including the fact that Montenegro and Montenegrins have history even older than Serbia and Croatia, and was originally a CATHOLIC nation until serbia forcibly annexed it in ancient times. Critikal1

[edit] New drawing of the Montenegrins

I think that the article should contain five links: Montenegrins (ethnicity), Serbs, Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Muslims.

I don't understand you. Where?Duja 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article should include a full history of Montenegrins from the arrival of Slavs in the first half of the 7th century until today. However, the Montenegrins (ethnicity) should include strictly the Montenegrin ethnic group from 1945 to the present. No some view themselves as Serbs or these biased parts about what made them stop being Serbs. Just a clean article. It should also contain the Montenegrin Axis movement of 1941-1945 and the separatist Montenegrin movements in the greater Kingdom before it. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. You can't avoid the inherit mess in the definition and self-definition. The today's Montenegrins can view themselves as primarily Serbs or primarily Montenegrins, but those are the same ones whose forefathers established Zeta, Duklja and later Montenegro. They're no more or no less Montenegrins because of what they consider to be today; we have similar issues with Bunjevci and Vlachs of Serbia but it's a bad idea to start two articles just because they can't collectively decide. If you (rightfully) complain that the article is a mess, i.e. a mixture of Serbian and Montenegrin PoVs, well, make it better and more comprehensive :-). Most historical things should go to History of Montenegro, though, with only brief summary here. Duja 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Eh, not really. The vast majority of today's Montenegrins are Serb refugees from the Ottomans. Montenegro became a haven for thousands from Kosovo, Metohija, Sandzak, Macedonia and even other parts in the 15th-16th centuries - and they formed the bulk of the population. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
True Montenegrins are not serbs but are descendents of Duklja(Red Croatia) mixed with illyrian docleats, there is a serb minority in Montenegro, and that is due to "refugees".

No. You cannot conclude that just because Duklja was originally Catholic that they are Croats. You are making are retrospective false conclusion. Hxseek 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub Group

The Montenegrins are not a subgroup of the Serbian but a subgroup of the south slavs, they are not black serbs and they are not so close to the serbian how is in this articel. Dont forget they are orthodox and spek a closer language to serbien but they are not serbs ther cultur is clouser to west albaniens (malsia of Shkodra) and Dalmatina volk, they have make a war agais the Sultan (last time) together, but the serb from Rusia have destroit alle this units. It was the rusian inters, and the Belgrada Pashaluk with russian money has destroit the peace in Balkan for mor then 100 year. All that, they have dont only for monye and women (pare, picke). More than 1000 years it was betwen the old volk in balkan and slavs peace, till the russian interes was ther. After this they have startit to say for old balkienes, turci (manny albaners are muslim becose they dont wont to be asimiledit from the ruso-serbs). If you wont realy to know who you are ask you at first, Wher is the old volk in balkan, in Mars, Jupiter? How many slavs has arrived in Balkan during the Justian time, 3 milion (with train or airplan in this time)? Wehn this question is answerit then ask youself wher you are going? In Moska or you are going to be a King in your Land --Hipi Zhdripi 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is to hart to be a muslim event if you dont belev thet you are a muslim, but that is better then to be asimiletit. How, you can see the rusian time is over and everybod know now that they wasen not serbs (kosovars). In the futer we are going to see the pure ruso-serb siting in Belgrada pashaluk.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If the montenegrieners amd hercegoviners are serb then you can say that the croats and dalmatina are serbs.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let this user's comments speak for themselves. --estavisti 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes in this way every time. User the ather to asimilet some volks in Balkan. Is the true Njeggos it was not serb. Evrebody in Balkan is serb or turci, the peopel in montenegr are a frite to say wat they are. If they do that they are turci and are not anymor orthodox.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is not a closer people to the Montenegrin than the Serbs. The official language of Montenegro is Serbian, and only around 20% of the Montenegrins speak the Montenegrin language (and that's counted together with Bosniaks, Muslims, Albanians and Croats), making them a linguistic minority. Montenegrins are adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
The kosovo folk have say to, that they are serb ore turci. But after the true cammes out? What do you think about Sandzak they are muslims only because they don t wont to be asimiletied. You have many, many ruso-serb propaganda that says that 50%, 60% , 70% (and more and more arabiens cifren) in kosovo it was serbs they was orthodox but not serbs. Also my fried at first the real orthodox church of constatinopole must take the power in the hand, and than you are going to know who youu are? The Church of Rashka hase no chance they must say that they are serbs, they thave lost the kosovars after the ruoso-serb cam to Balkan and declaretin the old folk like the turci.--Kanuni 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, you say that Njegos wasn't a Serb. Please see Petar II Petrović Njegoš. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I love this one, write falsified page then reference it. That's all you Serbs have been doing for the last century! It is not working any more, sorry.Momisan

What has the Serbian Orthodox Church to do wich nationaty of montenegrins. I dont know the Albanein Church and the Rashka Church was together till the ruso-srbs in Balkan commes. Wacke up, ore perhaps you are a ruso-serb and you think that is better to be rusen alls balkaners.--Kanuni 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC) If you know in wich time they says that is serbian church. You must read and read, the real church dokument, not the ruso-serb church dokuments. The dioclea it was indiependent. They was together with Skanderbeg. The Belgrad has maket agreement with the Sulltans. Go in Grecce get ther real document you are going to finde out the true for yourself. Don t let they to push you some document that is for this time better for the Orthdox Church, explore the true histori of Balkan. After that comme to me and we cann toolk, and we cann make a better artikel for the serbs, shumadians, rashkali, dugagjinas, moravians ect... afte that we cann speek abaut the Serbien Church and wat is that meaning. The Albanienflag is a part of the Bisntins unter this flag they haw make war agains the turi . And if ou want you can read the Kanun wich is the religon, state, end ewery cande of Law for kosovars.--Kanuni 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


And now pleas let me do my job, if I have time a I goin to help you to finde out wat is mianing a monenegrine. I know who Im and where I am going.--Kanuni 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes ethnic Montenegrins are a subgroup of the South Slavs, if you try to put us together with the serbs, might as well put the Croats and Macedonians as well. Your 'greater serbia' is not happening fellas.

[edit] Biased!

Really biased and inaccurate article! Anyway, I won't edit anything until referendum is held and Montenegro becomes independent...maybe then Wikipedians - Serb nationalists will realize that greater Serbia won't be achieved through Montenegro, that Montenegrins aren't Serbs, and maybe they'll be discouraged from editing this article into one big lie... --Nije bitno... 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specfic objections? I know the article isn't perfect, but why don't you tell us what you feel is wrong with it? Btw, some of the "Serbian nationalists" are probably just as Montenegrin as you (I assume you're Montenegrin). Why can't people be Serb Montenegrins without being seen as nationalistic? Also, please sign your posts. To sign them either press the third button from the right (above the editing box) or type this ~~~~. Поздрав из црногорске дијаспоре... :) --estavisti 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't signed previous post, and tanx for instructions. What bothers me is the following:

[edit] Biased part 2

"The population of Montenegro is presently roughly divided on ethnic and political issues between the group composed of the Montenegrins by nationality, ethnic Bosniaks and Albanians on one side, and the group composed of the Montenegro Serbs on the other. The former group forms a slim majority over the latter and has repeatedly won national elections."

Montenegrins by nationality form a majority over Serbs by nationality by some 10%, which is not that slim, I would say. As Serbs have roughly 30% in Montenegro, Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Albanians together are practically everything that's left, so some 60% over 30% is an overwhelming majority! That's first thing.

I think you're nitpicking a bit. There are quite a few people who declare as Montenegrins yet wouldn't vote for independence. The last poll [1] showed roughly 46%:41% for independence. The wording could be better, but "slim" isn't that inadequate. Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"In November 26, 1918, the Podgorica Assembly voted for "union of the people", declaring a joining into the Kingdom of Serbia "

Our history books say that Podgorica Assembly was't legitimate, that it didn't represent the will of people...

It's legitimacy is questionable indeed. It should be mentioned in the article.Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I will continue, just don't have the time right now...

P.S. You probably wanted {{pov}} instead of {{disputed}}. The latter one questions the facts as presented in the article, and the former the form of their presentation. Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pozdrav iz Podgorica! --Nije bitno... 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased part 3

"Numerous historical documents confirm that a number of Montenegrins have felt that they have a Serbian ethnic identity"

The very concept of this claim is dubious, so let's put aside the "facts" listed below it. We are of the same ethnic identity, allright...how else could you explane that I am a Montenegrin and my very close relative is a Serb?! But, the problem is that Serbs claim the copyright on that ethnic identity, on the language, on the Orthodox christianity in the Balkans. It is their standpoint that every orthodox christian which speaks language common among the South Slavs(which, again, they insist is calles Serbian, but it is also called Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Bosnian, Bosniak, Montenegrin...) in the Balkans - is a Serb, and they remain blind to results of recent censuses. How else could you explain that the Podgorica Assembly was stated as a full-credibility evidence of Montenegrins being of Serbian ethnic identity?!

Btw. I think it's shameful that majority of "Other prominent Montenegrin Serbs" are war criminals, that Montenegro publicly renounced, and some poets which would gladly see Montenegro gone and/or merged with Serbia... --Nije bitno... 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Чему оволика мржња према Србима? Опусти се мало... Иначе, нико неће да се Црна Гора избрише са карте, ни да Црна Гора постане део Србије, него да живимо заједно. Јер, да цитирам само једног Цетињског Црногорца, "нема Црне Горе без Србије, ни Србије без Црне Горе - Срби и Црногорци су браћа". Ово што кажеш да је срамота, срамота је - ту прво место припада Његошу ипак. А то, што се Црна Гора одриче неких, то нема везе - ми се не одричемо ње. --estavisti 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

For user Estavisti do yu have a problem with Njegosh? Wach this...--Hipi Zhdripi 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Montenegrins are just as much an ethnic group as Croatians and Serbians, anyone who says otherwise is living a lie, true Montenegrins dance the oro, speak montenegrin, eat japraci and oris na vareniku, and listen to Sako Polumenta!
You think? well thats your opinion. True montenegrins are Serbs, belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church, descendants of great Serb clans and warriors, dance the oro, speak serbian, and dont forget their origin!!! Sako Polumenta is Bosniak Muslim (Sandzaklija), you are talking about mixed muslim-catholic Albanians/Bosniaks of the Sandzak and Malesija!! Read montenegrin history, and you will see that Montenegrins never wanted anything more than unification with their Serb blood brothers in the balkans! they died for Serbdom and for a future of liberated Serb lands!! The montenegrin rulers always spoke of this, and NOONE can deny this... im sorry, but Tito brainwashed you real good. --User:Nexm0d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.193.229 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Rewrite in Progress

Holy and I are completely rewriting the article, so please refrain from major criticisms and bigger edits until this is done. After that... well... Duja 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However, discussions can be led if you only discuss here (talking to Hipi) and state what do you mean... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I discussed this with HolyRomanEmperor and decided I should bring it up here.

  1. Numerous historical documents confirm that a number of Montenegrins have felt that they have a Serbian ethnic identity;
  2. Numerous school certificates, passports and similar documents preserved marked the bearer's nationality as "Serbian"

It seems to me that the second does not confirm the first. Ethnic identity is not synonymous with nationality in English, and this could be confusing — e.g. Someone might have British nationality but Welsh ethnic identity etc. This section could do with rewriting to make the terminology more clear. - FrancisTyers 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we have a problem with Serbian nationalist wich are iussen the religion for nation. They call the serbian state every countrie in wich is one sebian autonom church. They dont seperate the church from the state. This is a big problem with the Sebian Wikipedians in English Wiki. --Kanuni 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Momisan 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Serbs and Red Croatia

I have removed references to White Serbs and Red Croatia (sic! not "Red Croats"!). These terms found in Byzantine sources are confusing (most of them speak of "Serbs, that is Croats" and vice versa; no scholar has yet found a good explanation on the subject) and do no god to understanding the history of Montenegro.

I disagree with this. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrins on their ethnicity

I see what's the point of this section but it's so awkward that I can't reasonably see what to do with it, apart from deleting it. That material is appropriate only for wikiquote. I don't think that the article without that overlong list of quotes does not address Montenegrins' Serbian ethnicity in the past adequately (nor anyone of good faith could reasonably deny that), and even if it doesn't in some editors' opinion, this section is not a way to do it. I see its creation and readdition as a clear violation of WP:POINT. I am going to remove it and put it here on talk page if anyone can get a better idea what to do with it, but it's clearly not an encyclopedic content (not to even mention POV issues). Duja 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying promptly, Duja! I do agree with you, perhaps this is the best place for a long list of quotes like this one. I did it only to show that there are "numeral historical evidences" that Montenegrins are Serbs and the quotes speak for themselves. There can't be ANY doubt in that and this should be clearly stated in the article, if we are searching here for hard facts and truths. There is a plenty more from where this came from, it is only a selection from the book of Batric Jovanovic "Montenegrins on Themselves" (Crnogorci o sebi, Beograd 1989).--Dultz 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also corrected the gramatical mistakes in the text bellow...--Dultz 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all of the Montenegrins that left any written record of their times stated clearly that they considered themselves as Serb, that they spoke Serbian language and that their church was a part of Serb Orthodox Church. Here are just some of the volumes of these declarations. Note that many of them predate 19th century and romanticism. As one clearly sees all of these writers consider themselves Montenegrins and Serbs in the same time, Montenegrins as title for the Serb living in Montenegro.

1. Metropolitan Danilo I (1670-1735), the founder of the Petrovic-Njegos ruling dynasty Signature on a hand written evangelium: "Danil, the metropolitain of Cetinje, a Njegos, duke of Serbian land." (Translation from Serbian: "Danil, vladika cetinjski, Njegos, vojevodic srpskoj zemlji")

In a letter to Gavril Golovkin, envoy of the Russian Emperor: "I do not know what will become of my life in a foreign empire, since I would first degrade myself, and then our Serb clans, if I would plead for help from other states and other religions would mock us..." (in original: Ne znam sta ce biti od mog zivota u tudjem carstvu, jer ja bih prvo sebe obescastio, a zatim nasa srpska plemena, kada bih molio pomoc od drugih drzava, i rugale bi nam se druge vjere...")

2. Metropolitain Sava Petrovic (1700-1781) In a letter carried by abbot Vasilije to Russia demanding help for Montenegro: "Especially worthy of all sympathy is Serb land which is not only stripped of all it rights but constantly lies at the foot of the adversaries, and its sufferings and sighs are hard to describe. Only the free Montenegrin dukedom, which is always, as earlier, ready to show its faith and courage to all our Slavenoserb people" (in original: "Narocito je svakog saucesca dostojna srpska zemlja koja ne samo da je svakog svoga prava lisena, nego i stalno lezi pod nogama protivnika, i njena stradanja i uzdahe tesko je opisati. Jedina slobodna knjazevina crnogorska koja je svoju vjeru i hrabrost, kao i ranije, uvijek gotova pokazati cijelom nasem slavenosrpskom narodu.")

3. Metropolitan Vasilije Petrovic (1709-1766) In a letter to the duke of Dubrovnik asking for help: "...to our church and Montenegrin people with a sum (...) as Serbs to Serbs and to your neighbors" (in original: "...nasoj cerkvi i narodu crnogorskomu jednom sumom (...) kao Serbi Serbima i svojijima susjedima")

In his "History of Montenegro" (1754) on his deeds (note that he speaks of himself in third person):"Immediately when the chiefs of the neighboring Serb clans received this letter from the metropolitan and head of Montenegro, they jumped on their heroic feet and started mustering the army to hurry to help Montenegro, its faithful safe haven, on which all Serbs looked upon as their land from where the sun will shine, as a beacon shining in darkness that covered all Serb lands, and telling them that still not all of Serb light is pressed by the cloud, but that there is on a Serb sky one shiny spot that filled with a ray of hope all Serb people for complete national liberation." (in original: "Odmah su glavari okolnih sprskih plemena skocili na noge junacke, te poceli vojsku okupljati , da hitaju u pomoc Crnoj Gori, svojoj uzdanici, na koju gledahu svi Srbi kao na zemlju odakle ce im zasijati sunce, kao na svjetilnik koji im svijetljase u tami, koja bjese pokrila srpske zemlje, i kazivase im da jos nije sve nebo srpsko pokriveno tamom, da nije sve sunce srpsko oblak pritisnuo, no da ima jos na nebu srpskome jedna svijetla tocka koja svemu srpskome narodu ulivase zracak nadezde na opste oslobodjenje.") In the dedication of his "History of Montenegro" to Russian Graf Voroncov: "(...) I, serene shepherd of Slavo-Serb Montenegrin people (...)" (in original: "(...) ja smireni pastir slovensko-srpskog crnogorskoga naroda")

Writing to Duke Aleksander Galjicin he relates how he answered the Turkish demand for to pay the taxes: "You, Turks, have taken from Montenegrins and other Serbs the Empire, vast lands and cities, and what do you ask now from us who live in these mountains?" (in original: "Vi ste, Turci, uzeli Crnogorcima i ostalim Srbima Carstvo, prostrane zemlje i gradove, sta hocete od nas koji zivimo u ovim gorama?")

4. Metropolitan Petar I (later sanctified as St Peter of Cetinje, 1747-1830) In a letter to Empress Maria Theresia: "We wish that the metropolitan of Cetinje be dependent on the patriarch of Pec in Serbia." (u originalu: " Zelimo da mitropolit cetinjski zavisi od Pecskoga Patrijarha u Srbiji")

On the eve of the battle of Martinici (1796) he calls upon Montenegrins and Brdjani (a group of Clans in present south-east Montenegro) to prove that "in them still pounds the unextingushed Serb heart, that still Serb blood boils." (in original: "(...) da u nama neugaseno srbsko srce kuca, srbska krvca vrije.")

In a letter to French general Brad: "Since I didn't clearly understand the last letter of your excellence written on the 12th of March this year, it was necessary that it should be translated to me in our Slavo-Serbian language." (in original: "Nemoguci cisto razumeti pocetajse pismo Vasega Prevashoditeljstva 12 cisla tekucega marta pisano, potrebno mi bjese da na nas slovenoserpski jezik bude prevedeno.")

In a letter to the Russian Emperor: "Oh you brightest of all monarchs, strech your almighty right arm with scepter in it, receive the biggest plead of all our nation, hear our cry and the moaning of our miserable children, take from the Turkish yoke Slavo-Serb people(...)" (u originalu: "<pnarhu najsvetlijij, pruzi svoju svesilnu desnicu sa skiptrom, primi zajedno cijeloga naroda nasu najvecu molbu, uslisi vapaj i stenjanje ojadjene djece, izvuci ipod turskog iga sloveno-srpski rod (...)")

In the letter to the Bjelice clan on the cooperation of Ozrinici clan with Turks: "I pity nothing more than the voice that roams around the world that Montenegrins are helping Turks to slaughter and strangle Christians. In the time when God united Serb people to be liberated from the Turkish yoke. (...) But I hope that other Montenegrins will not this name and disgrace load upon their back and that they will be as all other righteous Serb heroes, which liberated themselves, and now are proceeding to liberate other Serbs (...)" (in original: "Nista vise ne zalim nego sramni glas, koji po svijetu ide, da Crnogorci pomagaju Turcima klati i daviti Hristijane. U vrijeme, kada je Bog sojedinio srpski narod, da se od turskog jarma oslobodi (...) Ali se nadam da ostali Crnogorci nece to ime i sramotu na sebe nostiti nego da ce biti sto i ostali posteni junaci srbski, koji su sebe oslobodili, pak idu da i druge Srblje pomognu osloboditi (...)")

In the letter to Belgrade metropolitan Melentije: "Hope for progress, o my brother, on the good of beloved fatherland, and mostly of all work with your kind advice and science to plant in the hearts the gone-by Serb lords." (in original: "Podvizajte se i u napredak, brate moj, o polyi ljubeznjejseg otecestva, a najvise radite svojim blagorazumnimi sovjetami i naukami nasazdat na srca gospode srbske prezde.")

In a letter to Russian Emperor Aleksander: "All of Christianity, all of Slav people, an accordingly also Serbs Montenegrins look at the face of our mother and benefactress mighty Russia (...)" (in original: "Cijelo hriscanstvo, sav slovenski narod, sljedstvano tome i Srbi Crnogorci cajut blagopriznateljnago ozarenija Materi svojej i pokroviteljnici mocnoj Rusiji (...)")

In his "Short History of Montenegro" he speaks how the ruler of medieval Montenegro speaks on his departure from the country: "(...) knowing that you will not reach consensus among you: for this reason I leave instead of me metropolitan German, and after him future metropolitans, until God thinks of some better way for the Serb kin." (in original: "(...) ali znajuci da se vi u izboru necete saglasiti medju sobom: iz tog uzroka ostavljam mjesto sebe Mitropolita Germana, i po njem buduce mitropolite, dokle eda Bog pomisli za Srpski rod na drugi bolji nacin.")

In a letter of Montenegrins to Brdjani he says that he reflected "on all misfortunes which befell our Slavo-Serb kin from treachery and discord" and then that they swear to continue the fight against the Turks "looking at the example of our deceased fathers and forefathers, who with their weapons defended themselves from the time of the destruction of our Serbian Empire, and then from the times of our last Duke and Lord Ivan Crnojevic." (in original: "na sve one nesrece koje su se sloveno-srpskome rodu nasemu od izdaje i nesloge dogodile" and "primjeru blazenopocivsih roditeljah i praroditeljah nasieh, oruzijem svoiem branili od vremena razorija nasega Serbskago carstva, a potom od doba poslednjega Principa i Gospodara nasega Ivana Crnojevica.")


Actually the majority of Montenegrins are slavicized ALBANIANS, think about it the tribes of Piperi, Vasojevici, and Kuci were all formerly Albanian but pressured into become orthodox and Serbian. Seriously though, you can't deny it.

[edit] Deleted material

The simplest explanation for returning the material is that on Wikipedia, stuff should be improved, not deleted outright. The section now presents some relevant quotes. Obviously, the selection is POV, but to remove them would also be POV. --estavisti 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. I removed the material not solely on the basis of being PoV (and I properly moved it to talk page rather than outright deleting it), but more on the basis that it's unimprovable. 5 kB of quotes just to prove the point (which is not even seriously disputed) is not appropriate. We are writing this encyclopedia for readers, not in order to collect every single piece of proof for any particular statement. Duja 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the material. One reason is that Montenegro is a hot topic nowdays, and we want people to be able to read this article. That section was unreadable, as it was just a collection of quotes proving a point. Somebody else might have came and introduced same lengthy collection of quotes proving another point. Trying to prove a point by including opinion quotes is certainly not the way to go in this case. E.g. William Shakespeare doesn't have a list of quotes of people saying that he is the best playwright that ever lived :) So, to save the article from POV, unreadability, and WP:NOT, I removed the section. If you guys want to discuss it in the article, I suggest a rewrite, from scratch, using scientific sources, not merely one-sided opinions which may or may not prove the point. --dcabrilo 20:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I don't particularly like just removing a bunch of content, but when it's not salvagable and belongs to another project anyway, there is no two ways about it. --dcabrilo 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the point IS seriously disputed by some...like no one sane would dispute that the languages of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro aren't the same, but they do. I know the section wasn't exactly great, but it was informative. But it seems I'm outvoted on this one... --estavisti 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, all this info shall I eventually put in its corresponding articles. All quotations of King Nicholas or Njegos will be placed in their articles - the censi on Serbian absolute majority in Montenegro will eventually be in the (Demographic) History of Montenegro article - all has its place. If you intend to make a, say hnic Origin of Montenegrins or any similiar article strictly based/sourced on the studies presented at www.njegos.org, Rastko or others, yo're most welcome to do it. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why put Serbs on the list

You have put Montenegrin Serbs on the list of Montenegrins, if they wanted to be Montenegrins why did they put they were Serbs as their ethnicity. I suggest you remove them from the list becouse they are Serbs by ethnicity, and not Montenegrins by ethnicity; they are only Montenegrins by regional affirmation, becouse they were born there and their ansestors have lived there for centuries, not forgeting their Serb name, like some.

Because, unlike other related articles (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc.) in this articles we decide to describe Montenegrins as nation rather than an ethnic group in the strict sense. Even Predrag Bulatović said for his bloc that, quote "We are Montenegrins". Other approach would be quite volatile (look, the split on ethnic affiliation occurs even within members of the same family; also how would one sensibly describe differences in 1921 and 1948 censuses?). Thus, some people might end up in both List of Serbs and List of Montenegrins, because they are both. Duja 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you got this all wrong. The montenegrins aren't serbs. The serbs are montenegrins. The "montenegrin" ethnic group does not exist in a conventional manner from the ancient times, because they were true genetic progenitors of the serbs, you could say they are the *real* serbs, wich were not geneticaly and culturaly influenced by turks, bulgars, croats or germanic peoples, because they were living in the hills with a strong moral code. And that is misleading most people. Serbs today are a product of the serbian state, as are the montenegrins of today. Americans have one supreme state with many nations wich are half-assimilated, the serbian state asimilated every nation within its borders very fast, or vice versa, the serbian nationals living abroad have been thoroughly assimilated and are no longer serbs nationaly, but geneticaly and ethnicaly. For instance, belo blato's residents are the most pecular genetic and linguist mixup in the whole world. The kids there speak slovak or rusyn, swear hungarian, and when they get really pissed they curse serbian :DD

The bosniaks during wwI used to claim turkic ethnicity, yet they are most predominantly blonde. Ever seen a blonde, tall nordic-like turk? :D Now they claim they were a special, as of yet unknown slavic tribe, the bosniaks. The truth is unknown, they may just be croats and serbs who accepted islam. That would be a simple and thankful explanation, but probably isn't. They have a distinctly different culture, both from croats and serbs, and a bosnian state, was in place, even before the conception of the montenegrin state, during the medieval period. And even then they were a separate entity, consisting probably of croats and serbs under the rule of Kotromanić and Kulinić dynasty, but their ethnicity was unknown, and they had a christian-like church, wich was separate from the serbian, and the serbs and ugars (madjars and conquered croats) state claimed it was paganic. The bosnian monarch could not crown himself as king, he would not be recognized by orthodox or catholic authorities as a sovereign, and imported a paganic church to proclaim him king (until then he was generic "ban", similar to "knjaz", and had to yield and be a vassal of sorts). Under allegations of a paganic church(casus belli), the serbian and ugaric states combined in quickly overwhelming the small bosnain army and dividing bosnia, preventing it from international recognition, and the larger part was taken by the ugars(madjars). Bosnian pagan church priest was called "djed", like modern grandpa, and had nothing to do with catholic and orthodox clergy, but was not islamic either. That's what they taught me in school about bosnians.

The Pra-Serb state was geographicaly encompasing todays kingdom of duklja, it is the actual cradle of the serbian state. Montenegrins as a nation have been existing parallel to the serbs, because they are serbs, yet that might not be. Their distinct country was not recognized until tribes were united under the house of Petrović. The joint serbian/montenegrian state predates any separate montenegrian state, and is therefore the main scientific evidence to point that serbs and montenegrians are of the same ethicity.

I think more genetic research should be in place in the balkans... that would clear things up... yet it might prove futile. God himself only knows whose blood coarses through our veins.... we got so mixed up we might have more in common with the celts or germans than to the russians. In russia it is pretty simple, everyone is either slavic or other. And if they're slavic they're russian , belorussian or ukrainian. If they're not, now that's kinda tricky. this whole ordeal with montenegro might have more merit. Serbians are very mixed, but Montenegrins are usually tall, black haired and strong built, and have other traits. And i'm not stereotyping here, ask anyone from serbia. You can tell a montenegrian in serbia actually by their distinct physical traits. I'm personaly biased into thinking that montenegrins are serbs, i am against montenegrin independence just because they want do get to the eu, they will be a crime-state of Djukanovic, where he will do as he pleases. But it's their public will. user:scolic

For the record, I strongly oppose any "genetic research", racial classification based on antropometrics, etc. and I deem that such approach belongs to 19th century. People are grouped into ethnic and national groups by their individual sense of belonging, which is in turn based on (in no particular order) a) language b) religion c) traditions d) identification with statehood e) kinship. The things cannot be "cleared up" as you wish because they're inherently tangled, and inherently "kinda tricky". "Counting blood cells" cannot lead you anywhere, and self-identification is the only rational way for classification. And if a split on self-identification occurs within the group themselves, the best we can do is to record it. We had similar discussions on e.g. Bunjevci and Vlachs of Serbia. We also had quarrels about "Genetic research" chapters in Bosniaks and Croats because the results are (as expected) inconclusive for anything. Duja 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I dissagree, genetic research can be used to prove or disaprove many historic claims. Serbs had enough time on their hands to falsify just about any written source within their reach. If they couldn't falsify, they simply destroyed it. That is why we have only one written source about early Montenegrin history, written by a Montenegrin, left (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina). That one got away only by a pure chance, burried in Papal and Ragusan archives for centuries. Deliberately, other material sources have never been properly studied, I wonder why? The language, the customs, the ethics and, yes, the genes. Why not?Momisan 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What?

Hmm, it says that the number of Montenegrin Serbs in Serbia is unknown - yet 200,000 is the most accepted figure. regarding the fact that presently, there are 270,000 - 300,000 montenegrins in Serbia and around 70,000 are Montenegrins and most others being Serbs - it's pure calculation... --HolyRomanEmperor 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation on worlds tallest nation

It seems that citations are required. I actually thought everyone knew that we were the worlds tallest people. Tapaтaлo 8.9.06

Who "we?" ;;-)
However, this claim comes over and over again. According to WP:RS, I request the claim to be properly sourced before it can be reentered into the article. Duja 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Montenegrins are the tallest people in Europe, with a male average height above 1.90m in the northern towns[citation needed]. This is an unusual feature for most peoples of southeastern Europe and even today causes surprise for most tourists visiting Montenegro [citation needed].

[edit] Overview

I tagged the section with disputed because it doesn't have the slightest connection with reality:

  • Montenegro was settled by waves of Slavs in the 6th and 7th century.
    • And how were these Slavs called?
  • Its people enjoyed a degree of autonomy throughout their history.
    • Did the people of Montenegro ever existed and how did it called itself if it did?
  • Montenegro was annexed by Serbia in 1918 and the Montenegrin citizens were not given any other choice but to register themselves as Serbs in the 1921 and 1931 population census.
    • Montenegro was not annexed. Montenegrin citizens didn't need any other choice as the 1909 census already records 95% of Serbs in Montenegro.
  • The disappointment in the union with Serbia led to a movement for re-recognition of Montenegrin ethnicity,
    • This ethnicity was never recognised, hence it can't be re-recognised.
  • 90% of people in Montenegro registered as Montenegrin in 1948.
    • 90% of people were registered as Montenegrin; they were not allowed to freely choose their designation.
  • With the rise of Serbian nationalism in the late 80's and the media propaganda that followed, number of citizens that declare themselves Montenegrin dropped down sharply from 61.7%, in 1991 census, down to 43.16% in 2003.
    • Complete unsourced bollocks. Nikola 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the questions you ask are legitimate, for example how were the Slavs that settled todays Montenegro called. I am not an expert on this,however, I believe that the historian findings are inconclusive, so the term Slavs is the only thing that everyone agrees on. Same goes for other questions you raised in that section. dr Sima Ćirković: Doseljavanje Slovena i Dukljanska država -1976 is a good source for this period.

The 20th century history is thankfuly much closer to us. For starters, have a look here. It should be more than enough to substantiate the claims in the text. My personal favourite, an excerp from a Serbian general's report about inprisonment of a young man because he declared himself a Montenegrin, not a Serb: here

Lastly, which part of the "bollocks" is unsourced and you don't agree on? The rise of Serbian nationalism in the 80s, media propaganda or the percentages?

Regards, Momisan 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The association with the Serb medieval kingdom is in terms of church-state control and linkages between the royal families and not in terms of ethnicity. It is the equivalent of saying that Montenegrans are Croats because they were settled by Red Croats - incidentally, I think there should be mention of Red Croatia in the history section, if only to serve as an illustration over the confusion over identity. I see this debate analogous to the Bosnijak identity debate. The Montenegrans, like the Bosnijaks were autonomous slavs that had an affiliation with either Croats or Serbs at one time or another. But to equate their identity with a Serb one is arrogant and does not respect the free will of those peoples.
This debate over the Montenegran question resonates with the justifications used for the territorial aspirations of Greater Serbia. At the root is the strategy of denying various south slavs their identities and propagating various myths including that Montengrans and Macedonians are really Serbs, Bosnjiaks are really Muslim Serbs, and Croats are really Catholic Serbs. I urge interested wikipedians to consider the debate with the above point in mind, and caution against allowing fringe ideaologies such as that of Greater Serbia to be over-represented under the guise of NPOV.
I also think that there should be a note on how ethnic affiliation has fluctuated according to the colonial ruler. In the Bosnjiak case, when given a chance to declare a separate ethnicity, they did. croatian_quoll 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Several issues there:
* There are many Serb Montenegrins and almost no Serb Croats, Bosniacs and Macedonians
  • Not quite sure if I get your point? There are Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. There are Croats in Bosnia and Serbia? croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No, no, no; you don't understand - no ethnic Croat says that he's Serb, and today it's very rare that ethnic Bosniacs and Macedonian Slavs say they're Serbs - while most ethnic Montenegrins are Serbs. Compare the case with the Shoktzi, who most declare as Croats (although that's a little too off). --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
* Most montenegrins speak the Serbian language, while the others speak Croatian, Bosnian and Macedonian
  • Well, that is a controversial point. The Montnegrans nominally speak the ijekavian dialect which is nominaly associated with Croatian. Hence some purists of the Croatian language see those around Herzegovina, Dubrovnik and ironically Crnagora speaking the most refined form of Croatian. croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Nothing's controversial there. The Serbian language is the language of the Montenegrin nation and the vast majority declare their language Serbian - do most Croats, Bosniacs and ethnic Macedonians say they're language is Serbian? --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
* Most Montenegrins are adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church, whereas the others are adherents of the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam and/or the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church
* Currently in the world, more montenegrins are ethnic Serbs, rather than ethnic Montenegrins (whereas these others are ethnic Croats, Bosniacs and Macedonians, respectivly)
  • Well not exactly, but it is true in a way. Most Montenegrins in the world, well at least adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church, consider (or declare) themselves Serbs or at least Montenegrin Serbs, unlike the Montenegrin Muslims, where they declare themselves as Montenegrins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrnaGora (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
* While the West generally supports the Macedonian, Bosniac and Croat nationalities, most encyclopediae consider Montenegrins to be Serbs themselves - or at least dispute the existence of a Montenegrin ethnic group (such as Encyclopedia Britannica for example)
  • There was a time when the Croat nationality and language was ignore or not recognised, despite its long history. Same applies to the Bosnjiak identity. Give it time. croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • one and a half thousand years isn't long enough? :D --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you are not sticking to the point of discussion. It looks like you are disputing that Montenegrins are the ethnic group at all. If you want to discuss that, open another topic. Second, sign yourself, so we know who are we talking to, some common courtesy please.Momisan 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The doubtfulness of Montenegrins as an ethnic groups indeed is disputable (yet!) - and this is not my personal opinion (I keep it out from Wikipedia). What's then the point? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no doubt of a Montenegrin ethnic group, as over 48% of Montenegrin is ethnically Montenegrin, we have our own language, church, food, and culture, very distinct in itself, I can even provide several immigration papers from 1906-1915 of ethnic Montenegrins in Ellis Island registering under Race/Ethnicity as 'Montenegrin', in fact everyone realizes a Montenegrin ethnicity except a few nationalistic serbs such as yourself.
To reiterate, the topic of discussion is the disputed text. Momisan 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
What percisely is disputed? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Overview chapter :-) Momisan 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, funny, ethnic Montenegrins do NOT call themselves serbs at all, neither do ethnic Croats or ethnic Bosniaks, ect.

[edit] Major rewrite

Well, I decided to totally redesign the article, cut off large points in history which were not directly pertaining to Montenegrins but rather to Montenegro and History of Montenegro, and add few notes about the controversy which you will hopefully find NPOV. Some more sourcing is welcome, as well as edits.

The old "History" section is located at:

Montenegrins/Old stuff

That should be merged into History of Montenegro where appropriate (Holy, I marked large portions of it as for cleanup 6 months ago—much of Zeta/Duklja stuff is barely readable!). So, Holy, Momisan, CrnaGora, and whoever is interested, please help that the articles get into a decent shape, with appropriate length of sections and main articles (History of Montenegro in the first place -- 1500-1700 looks like a black hole). Duja 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Solomon solution :-) OK, accepted. Just a comment, I know some people raised it before, distinction between "Montenegrins" and "people living in Montenegro". As I see, the decision was made to treat them as synonyms without explanation why. My view is that a chapter should be allocated to the evolution of the meaning of the term and how even today it obviously means different things to different people. I will start it, so this is a heads up so noone gets surprised. Another glaring omision is stating that history of Montenegro started with the arival of the Slavs. Wrong for obvious reasons, however, one is most important. Present-day Montenegrins in their culture still have many non-Slavic elements, which cannot be understood without proper treatment of the subject. Also, ethnographic aspect is barely touched upon.Momisan 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The explanation is given above in talk — because one couldn't tell a Montenegrin Serb from a Montenegrin Montenegrin by their language, culture, history etc. Heck, even the Montenegrin government avoids the issue as too hot; the incentive to make Montenegrin Serbs a constitutionally acknowledged "constitutive nation" or having "minority rights" has a certain point, but it opens a Pandora's box to the point of absurd (IMO). I maintain that every other approach would be untangible. Since they share all of that, wouldn't it be absurd to explain that the number of ethnic Montenegrins raised from 0% in 1909 census to 90% in 1948 census, back to 45% in 2002? Holy has raised some valid points about Bosniaks and Albanians, but I think it's clear from the context that they're not referred to in this article.
"In both English and Serbo-Croat, the term denotes both the nation and the ethnic group". That is not good enough. The whole topic is about "Montenegrins". If you are talking about "something", i.e. introducing a new term, the meaning of the term should at least be explained. It is not done, instead, a POV editorial decision was made to present a single point of view as a general definition of the term. Also, please sign yourself, so I know who I am talking to.Momisan 04:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with History of Montenegro. I have had little free time recently. My suggestion is to write only from the 14th century - and only put several sentences about the early history (and put a "see also" pointing to Zeta; while only noting Doclea at the beginning). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't event touched on that page, HRE. Will be coming soon :-) Momisan 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of errors I noticed:
Montenegro was not annexed by Serbia. The decision of the parliament may be controversial, and was probably unconstitutional, but it was reflection of the will of Montenegrins.
Nonsense. Annexation is defined as "the legal incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity". Montenegro lost its name and identity and became a part of Serbia, willingly or not. Union implies that there are two separate parts, which clearly wasn't the case. Momisan 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There was no need for "national unification of the Montenegrins and the Serbians" because, as we know from the 1909 census, the only nationality in Montenegro was Serbian. No, don't start me on "Serbs means religion" crap.


I don't see why is "Muslim nation" mentioned at all. Is the intention to say that 90% number included Muslims by nationality? Reading the censa results, it appears that it did not, but that there were Muslims who were registered as Serbs and Croats as well.
The intention was just to state that fact. It is a fact and should not be removed. Momisan 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am also returning some things which have mysteriously wanished. Nikola 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
"Annexed" is too strong a POV indeed, but "united with" a bit too weak description. I'll try to address the issue.
Why is "annexed" too strong word? Annexation is defined as "the legal incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity". Momisan 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There's apparently different rendering of the term "national" with native English speakers and with people from our areas (see nation and nation-state) (emphasis mine):

The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

The intention (as I read it) of the term "Montenegrin nation" was to refer to the Montenegrin state and its people rather than ethnic group. However, maybe the term "nation" should be avoided where it turns ambigous.
I agree that "Muslim nation" should be avoided in this article; it confuses the issue. Duja 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Montenegro became a part of Serbia willingly. The Great Assembly of the Serbian People in Montenegro (known as the Podgoritza Assembly) voted for deposing King Nicholas, and full-scale union with Serbia. The members of the Assembly were elected by each and every single district of Montenegro.
Have a look at what ( a notoriously pro-Serb) dr Gavro Perazic has to say about the international law aspect of 1918. OKUPACIJA CRNE GORE NAKON PODGORIČKE SKUPŠTINE .
Also a link to akademik Mijat ŠUKOVIĆ: PODGORIČKA SKUPŠTINA. It is beyond belief that a self-declared NPOV champion can say that "Montenegro became a part of Serbia willingly", without a blink of an eye (I saw you, don't worry :-) Momisan 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Very funny. Truth is that the members of the Assembly were democratically elected and that they adopted what was the official policy (and so-called "purpose of Montenegro's existence") of Montenegro for half a millennium. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Montenegro was a nation, but not an ethnic group (according to the Communist Encyclopediae from the 1960s, they refer to the Montenegrins as of Serb or Serbianized non-Serb origin - it's now facing serious destabilizing moments (hopefully this will pass with the year of 2006) and a full-scale formation of an ethnic group. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Term "Montenegrins"

"In both English and Serbo-Croat, the term denotes both the nation and the ethnic group". The present day interpretation of the term is:

  • When it refers to the "nation" , it encompasses all citizens of Montenegro (Montenegrins, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians and others).
  • When it means "ethnicity", it refers to the people that declared themselves as Montenegrins in the census.

It is as simple as that. After this, a chapter on the historical development will be added. Momisan 05:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

One thing is truthful - the "melting" of Montenegro into Serbia was most definately unconstitutional. And everyone knows of the covert civil war that lasted years-on after it. However - all I tried to say is that every single district of Montenegro had a representative in the Podgorica Assembly - and that Assembly voted in favour of that. The 1992 seperation of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Yugoslavia was unconstitutional (a member-state can secede only when all member-states agree - the same goes for Slovenia and Croatia in 1991). Even the constitutional 1992 referendum for Independence failed. However, BiH is an independent state (and Slovenia and Croatia). HolyRomanEmperor 19:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tallest nation

http://med1nuc11.dfc.unifi.it/linnets/troe/texts/p8.htm

[edit] Some oddities

I remember the article how it was back when Duja and I were editing it. I don't know what happened to it in the meantime - a bunch of History was removed; all Serbs were removed (although, according to themselves as well as Britannica and indeed the current Government of Montenegro Montenegrins and Serbs in Montenegro are the same ethnic group). --PaxEquilibrium 11:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"A bunch of History was removed": heck, I removed it myself some 10 days ago, simply because it doesn't belong here, and anounced it asking you to merge the contents from Montenegrins/Old stuff to History of Montenegro. Looks like I'll have to do it myself... Duja 07:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll deal with the Montenegrin history as soon as I have time.. Sorry again, I'm a little short on time in here. --PaxEquilibrium 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Define the term before you write about it

Dujo, sweeping the issue under the carpet will not get us anywhere. I raised the definition of the term as a topic for discussion earlier, however, noone was particularly willing to contribute their input. The whole article lacks the focus because there is no clear definition on what the text refers to. This has to be resolved.

Why was the following deleted? Please add under each item your response so we can come up with a consensus. Momisan 10:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • When it refers to the nation, it encompasses all citizens of Montenegro (Montenegrins, Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians, Romas and others).
  • When it refers to the ethnic group, it refers to the people that declared themselves as Montenegrins in the census.
  • It is also used as a regional designation for Serbs from Montenegro and Bosniaks from Montenegro.
And will You tell me why are Croats and Albanians aliens? --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong use of IPA simbols

The correct symbols for the first two sounds occurring in Zeta dialects are ɕ and ʑ (alveolo-palatal, not palatal, fricatives), identical to the first sound in Polish words siedem 'seven' and zima 'winter'. These two are result of hyper-iotation (jekavian iotation is a more common and more correct term) (cf. sjever 'north' [ɕeveɾ]). These sounds also occur in other Serbian dialects: East Herzegovinian dialect in West Serbia and East Herzegovina and South Sandzak dialect. As for [dz], it also occurs in Kosovo-Resava dialect and Torlak. However, none of these sounds is part of the standard phonology. Also, their status as separate phonemes is questionable.

Also, sjutra is not a case of hyper-jekavianism: ju actually goes back to the PIE diphthong eu (cf. Serbian both ekavian and jekavian jutro 'morning'.)

Stefanst ca 08:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Stefan Stojanovic

[edit] Origins section

The section as it stands now is completely made up. Nikola 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The Slavic colonization of the Balkan peninsula occurred in two waves - OK
  • The Montenegrins came in the first wave, in the 6th century - ??? Who has ever wrote that Montenegrins came to Balkans?
  • from the region between the Baltic Sea and the present-day city of Hanover, Germany to Montenegro - ?????
  • The Serbs and Croats came in the second wave in the 7th century. - OK
  • In the Baltic, the Montenegrins' ancestors lived in an area called Slavia - Slavia?
  • and were known as the Velet and Odobriti tribes. - this appears to be typo of Obodriti. What is connection between Obodrites and Montenegrins?
  • Those tribes longed for the warmer waters of the Mediterranean Sea - we know what 6th century tribes longed for?
  • and settled in the Roman province of Prevalis, where they found the urban Roman settlements of Kotor, Risan, Budva, Bar, Ulcinj and Duklja (which lie within the borders of present-day Montenegro) - it's hard to say what this refers to.
  • and also the native Illyrian tribes, the predecessors of today's Albanians. - Illyrian tribes which lived in Montenegro are most certainly not predecessors of today's Albanians.
  • The Montenegrins were pagans - ? Any reference in contemporary documents about Montenegrin pagans?
  • but through coexistence and assimilation they accepted Christianity from the Romans.
  • They brought with them the name of the old native country Slavia - the name Slavia was never used to describe anything
  • and more than 860 toponyms. - ?
  • Even today there are in the Baltic around 800 settlements, rivers, lakes and mountains with names similar to corresponding places in Montenegro. - as there are in Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, Czech republic, or indeed anywhere where Slavic languages are spoken.
Just saw this section for the first time. I cannot find anything wrong with this and certainly nothing made up. As a Montenegrin, I was always acutely aware of our distant origins. Fortunatelly, these scientifically founded facts are now a part of the school curriculum in Montenegro. Better than serbian historic revisionism, I would say... Always stick to the facts and disregard serbian (or for that matter, any other) propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.187.198 (talk • contribs)
I read the paragraph. It's a copy/paste from a lit'le Montenegrin nationalist group in America. It's hardly reliable. --PaxEquilibrium 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was reading a discussion Vojislav Nikcevic was having with Mihajlo Scepanovic about the existence of the Montenegrin language on Montenet.org and Nikcevic quoted the origins of the Montenegrins from a book by some Montenegrin author or something. I'm not sure, it's been a while since the last time I read it. Da li postoji crnogorski jezik? - Montenet - dated 5 April 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrnaGora (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
As far as I understood, the text is a copy from the Montenegrin American Association; an ultra-nationalist (I've met some of their members... they're like the Serbian Radicals) Montenegrin diaspora society which seems to make disturbing errors, not knowing even when the Petrovics ruled (sometimes mixin' the years). :P --PaxEquilibrium 19:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not a well written piece. I actually agree with my Serbian hot-headed fellows on something :-) Momisan 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian/Montenegrin

I know this is a controversial matter, but is the Montenegrin language notable enough amongst the Montenegrins enough to have it in the intro?

What do other Wikipedians think of this? --PaxEquilibrium 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's take the 2003 census as a reference. 43% of people are Montenegrins, and 21% speak Montenegrin language (half of the figure of Montenegrins, that is). Cognoscenti of the Montenegrin affairs know that now, 4 years later, much more people declare Montenegrin their native language, rather than Serbian. I'd say that's notable enough, and in a couple of years, someone will be asking the same question about the Serbian language in this article. Sideshow Bob 18:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The article explains in detail the "montenegrin people" controversy; the real Montenegrins form ca 75% of the population of the total population of the Republic of Montenegro. In addition to that, a lot of montenegrins lives outside (nearly 300,000 in Serbia [none of whom speak Montenegrin] and probably at least 90,000 elsewhere in the world; I'm not even gonna go to the theory which holds that there's probably more than a million).
You have to keep on mind that probably even a minority of montenegrins actually lives in Montenegro! :) This article should not be about the inhabitants of Montenegro solely, but about the whole Montenegrin people.
So far it seems fishy because it nowadays mostly rotates around politics (Milo and the others...), rather than factual reality data and linguistics. --PaxEquilibrium 21:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Not for the first time, you are obviously intentionally using the term Montenegrin as a geographic term to muddy the waters and make controversy where there is none. Bob is talking about the people that declare themselves as ethnic Montenegrins. There is an obvious ambiguity in terminology which is not addressed at all at present. This whole article needs to be split into three separate articles and dis-ambiguated. Momisan 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am opposing it - since Sideshow Bob was obviously referring to "Montenegrins" (this time) as "Inhabitants of Montenegro"; however the situation is not that simple: a lot live to the outside.
If that is your proposal, then why don't you do it? I suggest you call the article you're talking about Montenegrins (by nationality). --PaxEquilibrium 22:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why History of Montenegro? the topic is Montenegrins

There is an obvious problem with the coherency of this article. The title of the topic is "Montenegrins", however, the article describes the history of the area now called Montenegro, not the Montenegrin people. Then, there is an obvious ambiguity in terminology which isn't addressed. This article needs some serious rework. Momisan 13:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Being born in Montenegro doesn't make you Montenegrin. If you consider Arkan and Radovan Karadzic Montenegrins, I would advise you to reconsider your understanding of the word "Montenegrin". Sideshow Bob 19:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But the article already describes that a lot of people (who consider themselves Serbs) are Montenegrins; it also historically describes (although not in full detail, I might add it) the Montenegrin colonization of Šumadija, Pomoravlje, Negotinska krajina, Mačva,... It should also describe the settlements in Bocca & Dalmatia (did you know that the Ragusian Rudjer Josip Boskovic was very likely of Montenegrin origin? - Herzegovina a little too).
Perhaps it should be expanded. Also, the emigration of Montenegrins to the western countries (the US in particular) after the unification could be noted.
Bob; Slobodan Milosevic too. --PaxEquilibrium 23:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin Names

My whole family hails from Montenegro(all throughout Montenegro), and I am assured that all these names are either unique to Montenegro or originate there.

[edit] Ext. links

Pax, please..."traditional Serbian" and "neo Montenegro-Doclean point of view" Can the wording be more malicious and biased? If this is not POV then there is no such thing on this encyclopedia... "History of Montenegro from Serbian point of view" is www.njegos.org website's motto, and the latter one is simply your view of the situation, far far away from a global consensus. Sideshow Bob 03:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did You find the motto of the site? In the end, the whole site bases itself on neutral foreign English and French researchers, aside from showing scanned documents of how the situation/world was in Montenegro throughout the historu. BTW the ordinary crack-out of the understanding of Montenegrin history, culuture and traditions is split into two: "Serbo-Montenegrin" (Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts) and "Montenegro-Dioclean" (Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts). The latter was practically never ever presented before recently, not counting WWII. This has nothing to do with which is correct.
BTW I'm taking out articles from site(s) related to Montenegrins and removing the links to actual sites, at least then we won't have these troubles. Cheers! --PaxEquilibrium 12:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It was their motto until recently, when they obviously changed it to the hypocritical one - "history of Montenegro as it is". And about the crack-out you're talking about, there is Montenegrin(present day CANU, not the one that was SANU puppet until a couple of years ago, and two extreme ones - Serb and "Dioclean"(promoted by DANU). The site we are talking about is absolutely one-sided and anyone would categorize it as a Serb POV website. Sideshow Bob 17:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Weird; when I discovered this site back in 2005, it had "History of Montenegro as it is" even back then. BTW the Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts supports that site (at least several of its institutes). :) I'm just saying that the other way of understanding things was present only in WWII, and since recently. For example, I remember Geography and History textbooks used in the 1990s (not re-printed before 2001) - they still didn't change and remain practically the same from the 1970s - mentioning "Montenegrins are of the battle-weary Serb clans that inhabited'", which goes to "the other" viewpoint, obviously non-present today (I've read today's textbooks, some of them are even full of.. er.. "Serbophobia"; just like modern Serbian textbooks when they talk about the Partisans, Albanians or Croats). This rewriting of history I never liked; and it's occurring across all of former Yugoslavia. Chetniks are the good guys, Partisans are the evil ones, while the collaborators are now Serbian national heroes! Most modern books are junks, political pamphlets based on ideology of the ruling political parties. That's why I almost never ever read anything published after the year of 1990.
Yeah, but I rm it, so there's no more need to categorize it. :) BTW then we should not be one sided - as Montenegrina should also be pointed out as a "Docleo-Montenegrin" (can't say "Montenegrin") POV site (since it's much less credible that the other one - it quotes Matica Srpska even before it was made, is in Montenegrin and relies on DANU's corpus). --PaxEquilibrium 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually it does not "quote" Matica Srpska before it was made, because it quoted the Letopis, which was before created a year before the official printing. Nevertheless the document stating the Montenegrins as a people and non-serb in the Matica Srpska is legitimate and not falsified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.236.73 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moravians

I've noticed that quite a similar thing (to the Montenegrin issue) is over at the article Moravians (ethnic group). --PaxEquilibrium 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one big difference - Moravians do not have their independent state. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, now. I am a man of history - and I live in the past. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montenegrin names

This section is getting too long, I suggest making it a separate sub-article, just to relieve the article a little bit..Sideshow Bob 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but what to name the sub-article? CrnaGora 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
"List of Montenegrin names" would be my suggestion. Or only "Montenegrin names" would be fine also, but then we would have to provide some writing, not only a mere listing of names. Sideshow Bob 17:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Montnegrin diaspora

Historically, Montenegro was poorer than Serbia, and it has access to sea, which was preferred travel route prior to second half of the 20th century. This would imply that percentually there should be more Montenegrins in diaspora than there are Serbians.

However, just about anywhere I looked, diaspora Serbs outnumber Montenegrins by ratio far larger than they do in the homeland. Consider that in the homeland there are some 340,000 people who self-identify as Montenegrins, and 8,500,000 as Serbs - 25 times as much. However in, say, Canada, there are 1,055 Montenegrins and 55,540 Serbs - 52 times as much. In Australia there are 766 Montenegrins and 97,315 Serbs - 127 times as much! I don't know of any counterexample. This means that in diaspora, Montenegrins self-identify as not-Serbs more rarely than in the homeland. Nikola 21:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the case in Argentina, over 20,000 ethnic montenegrins.

[edit] Error in date

Under Religion "was ruled by the Venetians for 500 years until 17971". Does anyone have the correct date so it can be fixed?

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I have no objection to adding Coon's book to the bottom, but of what reference precisely is it to this article?

Most of all because Coon was a racist (according to many), er.. white nationalist. --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Coon analyzed the people of the balkans and caught vast number of specific cultural similarties and physical traits between the Montenegrins, Albanians and Sfakians of Crete.

[edit] Critikal

Critikal1, you probably have mistaken Wikipedia for an Internet forum. The introduction, which has been stable in this or similar form for a couple of years, says that Montenegrins are an ethnic group and a nation. Or do you want to say that 200,000 people who declared Serb ethnicity in the census don't have the right to call themselves Montenegrins, treat Njegos as national hero, and that your čukunđed, who most probably declared himself a Serb in 1909 census, was mistaken? Duja► 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I do not mind montenegro-serbs treating Njegos as a national hero, but they are serbs, and that belongs in the serbs in Montenegro article, secondly before the 1900's the term 'serb' was used as a religious term for orthodox in montenegro, there are many documents to prove this i will not go into it now.
Now just as you give respect to the Serbs in Montenegro, I would like for you to duely give respect to the Ethnic Montenegrins in not tarnishing our culture and ethnicity and degrading it by forcing us to split our article in half.
There should be no reason to exclude them. And as for the religious term, that seems Original research - could you elaborate it please (especially because the term was applied to many Catholics and Muslims too)? --PaxEquilibrium 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Serb POVers

I am attemping to help this article be least biased and most factual in all ways it can be! Do NOT delete any documents, articles or links before commenting HERE and giving your reason WHY you did so, be warned if your answer is not reasonable it will be reverted!! I am not anti-serb but I am against any unjustices and biased articles!! This article is for Ethnic Montenegrins! There is already an article for serbs of montenegro, you can go write what you want there!

I'm afraid the things don't work like that here; articles are not ethnic feuds, and this one is not your own. Personally, I think that Serbs of Montenegro is much of a WP:POVFORK, but I'm not bothered with it. Second, the general problem with the article is that one cannot separate history, customs, culture, language etc. of Montenegrin Serbs and Montenegrin Montenegrins as much as it might be desireable. Ergo, I don't mind changing the article focus, but you're trying to achieve it by revert-warring.
Further, you should really find better sources than http://img199.echo.cx/img199/195/letopismaticesrpske1825god16ql.jpg an unnamed excerpt from 1825 Matica Srpska publication and a book by racist eugenics writer Carleton S. Coon. They don't represent your efforts in the best light. The image [2] you added is a copyright violation, and it consists of 3 people that are hardly famous. Yes, maybe you should have added Sekula Drljević, WWII quisling, as you noted in your edit summary; that would be representative indeed.
The issue of image was kind of discussed long time ago, but no one bothered to create a free, representative one (why not Njegoš? Marko Miljanov? Dejan Savićević), or to e.g. picture a Montenegrin folk costume. The one you picked up is bound for deletion anyway.
I must also note that you learned to use undo function far faster than to sign your comments on the talk pages. Duja► 14:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that Matica Srpska was founded in 1826. ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay thats all well and good, but today 'Montenegrin' is a ethnic group and in 1826? serbians displayed the montenegrins as an ethnic group.
How could that be a product of an institution one year before its existence? :) --PaxEquilibrium 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)\
Also, note that the image notes Slavonians and Dalmatians. It obviously isn't referring to peoples. --PaxEquilibrium 15:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Slavonians are slavs, who came to the balkans, this is used as a descriptive term, the sentence to highlight on is:

"Serbi (dje se sve nalaze, nema ih u Crnoj Gori)"

, keep in mind this was written by SERBS in Novi Sad, Matica Srpska, 'letopis matice srpske'. Critikal1 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But the bigger evidence is simply the solid fact that today Montenegrin is a non-serb ethnic group, and anything you say otherwise is simply POV, 'hardly famous'? Anto Gvozdenovic? General in 3 armies? Montenegrin Embassador to America? Ratimir Martinovic? Renown pianist throughout Europe? I sort of agree on jergovic, although he does paint the ideal montenegrin.

-- Look at the Macedonian article! Do those 3 gentleman look famous whatsoever? And I dont see how my picture will be up for deletion, the Ratimir pic is used here already, anto is from montenet.org and i cited jergovic.

I might be ignorant, but I've never heard of any of those, except (barely) Martinović. Per the image use policy and fair use policy, pictures taken from other websites without explicit permission or free license are deletable on sight, including derived works (such as the combined image of yours); only the Martinović picture satisifies the criteria. But, since you cannot be bothered to read WP:SIG, I betcha you don't know about WP:3RR either. Hint: it's fairly important for you at the moment. Duja► 14:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay well as far as I know montenet.org is free license as well as the other image, I will read up on this.
Furthermore, if this is a problem you truly have then take the picture off but keep the rest of my changes as IS.

By the WAY - please do not revert anything before giving a valid reason here.

[edit] Rewriting the article

First off, people, I'm not a Montenegrin, and not much of a Serb either; I'm tied to this article because I started to defend it from both pro-Serb and pro-Montenegrin POV-pushing, of which there was many in the past. So, let me suggest a compromise and a thorough article cleanup:

  1. Since there's much of a dispute, everything should be cited. I suggest that we find some neutral (non-Serb, non-Montenegrin) sources as a basis; in other words, sources from sites like http://www.njegos.org and http://www.montenegrina.net should not be used, except to illustrate the positions of respective sides and for simple facts.
  2. Actually, there are plenty of fine sources, here's a list of ones I found:
    1. Nina Caspersen. Elite Interests and the Serbian-Montenegrin Conflict. Southeast European Politics, Vol. IV, No. 2-3, pp. 104-121. (excellent, neutral and up to the point).
    2. Natasha Margulis, University of Cincinnati (2002-02-09). Politics and Culture in Njegoš’s Nineteenth Century Montenegro. Kokkalis Program on on Southeastern and East Central Europe.
    3. Srdja Pavlovic. Literature, Social Poetics, and Identity Construction in Montenegro. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, Fall 2003 ( C° 2003).
    4. Payam Akhavan, Robert Howse [1995]. "Historical Elements for "Understanding the Yugoslav Question" by Dušan Nečak", Yugoslavia, the Former and Future: Reflections by Scholars from the Region. Brookings Institution Press, 17. ISBN 0815702531. 
    5. John R. Lampe, Mark Mazower [2005]. "5. How to use a classic: Petar Petrović Njegoš in XX century by Addrew B. Wachtel", Ideologies and National Identities: the case of twentieth-century Southeastern Europe. Central European University Press, 131-149. ISBN 9639241822. 
  3. Please don't change the lead. I can accept shifting the focus to Montenegrins as ethnic group and I already changed the numbers in the infobox, but the term Montenegrin is ambiguous and the lead should explain that. Heck, 10 years ago it wasn't even ambiguous. Please don't try to impose the recent rift into what is supposed to be a scholarly article. however, we need a serious article explaining the roots of Montenegrin ethno-national identity and split thereof, not two feuds where Montenegrins and Serbs would push their respective POVs. It's not my fault that Serbs in Montenegro article exists, I don't endorse it, except perhaps as the auxiliary article. We need a neutral one. We need to fairly explain what the fuss is about.
  4. Critikal, you were told that the unnamed excerpt from 1825 book is not a WP:RS, and it's dubious if it's even published by Matica Srpska, and even if it is, it doesn't prove anything. What you are trying with it is synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. And, please, again, spare us of Carleton S. Coon; there are serious authors around, we don't want a racist crank. You didn't even cite what he said.
  5. There's an overall debate what the term "Serb" meant in the context of historical Montenegro. There are two positions, Serbian, where it is understood to unambigously mean "Serb ethnicity" and Montenegrin, which advocates that it was a mere reference to religion. Personally, I think the question is moot, as it's an anachronism of extrapolating today's definitions into the past, when "ethnic group" did not even exist as a term—the Montenegrins certainly referred to themselves as Serbs at least to distinguish their religion and language from Muslims, Turks and Albanians, and I see any further reading of that as unproductive. Whatever the case, the debate and respective positions must be explained in the text, not formatted as enumeration of instances of Serbdoma as it is now. Duja► 08:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on this, I believe the biased articles should be pulled out, but the Matica Srpska source IS reliable you have no reason to doubt it, read it and you can clearly see this. The immigration form must be kept, since it is un-biased and a clean document, BUT:

--I stress that a ethnic-Montenegrin article must be made, seeing as there is a Ethnic Macedonian article and a Serbs in Montenegro article, it is not fair that we get nothing, I attempted to make this article into a ethnic Montenegrin article which was un-biased and showed the argument at the same time. --Obviously we must sort this out reasonably, I still propose that all of the montenegro-serb elements go to Serbs in Montenegro and the soley Montenegrin elements stay here, while displaying the debate that is going on. Carelton S. Coon was a racist, but because he studied races, he is an un-biased source and is still seen by the international community as a valid scientist/anthropologist.

Sorry, but that is not doable. There are two sides of a coin (which are, currently, heavily opposed and entrenched). You cannot describe a coin, especially not in a fair manner, by separating the articles on two sides. What, we're gonna put all the sources from montenegrina.net into this article, and njegos.org and rastko to Serbs of Montenegro? Again, Montenegrin Serbs and Montenegrins have common history, language and culture. The current split dates from 10 years ago, with apparent roots in 1918. You cannot tell a Montenegrin Serb from Montenegrin Montenegrin until they start talking about politics. WP:NPOV dictates that we must fairly describe the opposing significant views, but I've just got an idea... see below. Duja► 10:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And for one, I do indorse the Serbs in Montenegro article, because serbs do constitute a minority in Montenegro and a people that have to be accounted for, Montenegrins are officially and by all means culturally and very likely ethnologically(red croatia) seperate from serbs, anything else about a 'duel-identity' or a 'national' identity is simply POV, and shouldn't be given it's own article, its like saying some turks in bulgaria consider themselves bulgarian and turkish at the same time, and then giving these turkish-bulgarians their own article, you're either turkish or bulgarian, pick a article, now I know you will come back with 'but serbs and montenegrins have always had a overlapping relationship' - this is POV and although the montenegrin people have been close to the serbs in history, they are still different, you can say the same thing about macedonians and bulgarians, the fact is today there are ethnic Montenegrins in Montenegro and there are serbs, anything else is a moot point.

OK, how about the following:
  • strip most of History, Culture and Controversy from both Montenegrins and Serbs of Montenegro article. Leave them as short sections with hard and agreeable facts (see Wikipedia:Summary style). At the top of each section, put {{main|Culture of Montenegro}}, {{main|History of Montenegro}}.
  • Create a new article, Ethnic identity in Montenegro. In both articles, explain the dispute in brief and neutral terms, and link them with {{main}} as above.
I don't exactly disagree that "Montenegrins are... distinct from Serbs", but there's a huge difference in wording. Yes, Montenegro's culture and history is (to an extent) separate from that of Serbia. However, culture of history of people who today declare as Serbs of Montenegro and ones who declare as Montenegrins of Montenegro is inseparable. The "dual identity" is a hard fact which you will find in many sources I cited above -- how else do you explain the wildly varying numbers (see Demographic history of Montenegro) in censuses of 1909, 1948, and 2003? What, first Montenegrins came and expelled Serbs, then Serbs came back and expelled Montenegrins? C'mon, you know as well as I that those are the same people. And, no, I don't buy racial theories of any kind. Duja► 10:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The only reason the demographics shifted somewhat from 'montenegrin' to 'serb' in the census since 1991 was because during that time the balkan wars erupted and montenegro was(respectively) used by serbia as a puppet to brainwash the montenegrin population with propoganda in order to get the montenegrins to fight for them and not break away like the rest of the countries did. As you can see this did work somewhat, but not fully, considering that there were protests in cetinje and other places throughout montenegro calling out against the attack on Dubrovnik, the Cetinjani have always stayed ethnic montenegrins, the only areas largely affected by this serbian propoganda was northern montenegro, where the montenegrins had more closer connection to the serbs and less to Doclea, so yes, there IS a difference between serbs in montenegro and Montenegrins in Montenegro, the former connecting themselves with the rascian serbs who converted doclea along with nemanja, the latter connecting themselves with the docleans who were descendents of Crvena Hrvatska. These descriptions are broad and general, but explain the over-all situation in present-day Montenegro.
Given all of this Duja, you are starting an edit-war over POV, you believe that the term 'montenegrin' is a regional designation as well as a ethnic one, i disagree, BUT both of our opinions do not matter because what matters is fact, 'Montenegrin' is a ethnicity recognized by the international community and in the country itself, theres a Matica Crnogorska even, and several Ethnic-Montenegrin organizations and committees around the world. Unless we have documented evidence of Albanians in montenegro calling themselves Montenegrins then Montenegrin is ONLY an ethnic term and not a regional or national one.
Is it that - or the fact that after the *fall of dictatorship* in 1998/2000 everyone has finally received the free will express him/herself?
We could also, sameprong, hypothesize that 96% of Montenegro were Serbs, and than 90% Montenegrins "because they were brainwashed by Communist propaganda, forgetting they were Serbs". AFAIK for this even the Petrovic-Njegos successor brought testimonies.
Don't use fallacious arguments. --PaxEquilibrium 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PaxEquilibrium

Let's talk FACTS shall we? FACT - 'Montenegrin' is an ethnic term used internationally, with several ethnic associations, AND documented immigration forms from 100 years ago with people putting 'Montenegrin' as their race/ethnicity, 'Montenegrin' was one of the ethnic groups during Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes, AND in 1825 letopis Srpska Matica in Novi Sad directly spoke of the Montenegrin people as a distinct ETHNIC GROUP. Now, anyone who believes that 'Montenegrin' denotes a regional affiliation, is engaging in POV of the strictist sense! There are Serbs in Montenegro, and there are Montenegrins in Montenegro, nothing else is recognized!
Take a look at the Macedonians article, I know Bulgarians from Macedonia who view themselves as Macedonian and Bulgarian at the SAME TIME, but guess what? That is POV and is not recognized! Macedonian is strictly an ethnic group today just as Montenegrin is strictly an ethnic group today!
The controversy concerning this ethnic group is discussed in the article, so it is not biased or POVed, it's displayed the situation today while still remaining factual and accurate. I dont see why you must push your own POV, seeing as you are not even from montenegro and you basically deny the Montenegrin ethnicity, which is insulting to say the least. Critikal1 22:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. However, 100 years ago Montenegrins also put 'Serb' as their ethnicity. Also, differ nationality. For instance, a standard form issued by the the Montenegrin Government is Nationality:XXXX, Race/Ethnicity:XXXX and it goes "Montenegrin" for the first one - and "Serb" for the latter. And Montenegrins were not one of the ethnic groups in the royal Yugoslavia. The Kingdom of Croats, Serbs and Slovenes doesn't exist, so I think you were referring to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - no, they weren't there either.
The controversy of the Matica Srpska issue has already been noted (it hardly proves anything), and moreso with the fact that it was published by a non-existent society. ;D I know you took this stuff from Montenegrina, and it's not the first of the many errors the site contains.
There is no source that Bulgarians are both Macedonians and Bulgarians (no one ever said that) and their number is so insignificant that it's not worthy of notability (unlike with this case, where a people populates sparsely the entire country, forms majority on one half of it and forms practically a third of the entire population).
1. I don't nor even did deny the existence of a Montenegrin ethnicity. Please show me where I did such a thing
2. Please note that people here can be Gagauzian to edit the Montenegrins article freely, just like any other user of any other ethnic origin. Also note that I am from Montenegro. Where do you live? --PaxEquilibrium 18:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't disproved anything I said, disprove my facts then start vandalizing the article the way you want, oh and I doubt you're from montenegro, but nevertheless doesnt mean you are Montenegrin, and I live in USA but trust that I'd die for my country and people.Critikal1 22:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have. So has User:Duja. Your controversial edits were discussed over and over again. For one thing, those pics you are inserting are far from the most prominent Montenegrins. For another, you constantly keep adding nonsensical references to racist ideologies born in the 19th century (this one I bother the most). You are also deleting the Serbs from the article.
I wasn't born in Montenegro, but in Croatia - from Montenegrin colonists.
If you'd die for your country and people, that I must say that you shouldn't edit this project. Such emotional... insanity to use the phrase is nothing but 1990s rhetoric and 19th century+World Wars nationalism. I would never sacrifice my life for any country or any people at all on one hand, but solely on the depending of the outcome of goodness from such an act (saving someone else's life?). Cheers. Please start discussing and stop reverting. --PaxEquilibrium 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong you haven't disproved the fact that 'montenegrin' is a ethnic term and that any other way of seeing this term is POV period! I did NOT delete serbs from the article i kept them in where it is appropriate and should be within the part of the article which discusses the argument or controversy today. But that does NOT mean the article should be categorized as a nationality/ethnic group article because that's not correct and strong POV. All the montenegrins here agree on this and has stayed the same for a week now.
Do you see a problem with someone being able to die for their people? I am proud of where I come from I do not see any sense in hiding this, if you dont share this kind of pride then so be it, I just let you know this because you started questioning my connection to Montenegro which isn't right. Stop reverting and continue discussing, you should let 'Paulcicero'(sock-puppet?) know this as well. Critikal1 23:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about, Critika1? Why should I even begin to try to disprove that "Montenegrin" is an ethnic term (which, aside from several others, it undoubtedly absolutely is).
Not a single montenegrin agrees on that. Whereas the Serbs don't consider Serbia their mother-state over Montenegro and don't consider themselves non-Montenegrins and "put out" of the Montenegrin national corpus on one side (at the same time denying the uniqueness of the Montenegrin nation and its separateness from the Serbian) - the nationally declared Montenegrins deny the existence of Serbs in Montenegro, calling them "Posrbica"s (derogatory term mockingly based on the "Poturica").
Yes, I see a problem with that. That means that you are essentially biased and WP:POV. Considering that your version is highly controversial, PLEASE stop pushing/endorsing it and continue the conversation (if the history of the article is inspected, it is you who dropped it and resorted to edit-warring). This is the only way consensuses are reached. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 16:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Pax, look, the bottomline is that Montenegrin is officially strictly an ethnic term and not a nationalistic one, although can be used that way, it is a persons own choice to view it that way, they are not recognized by the government, or the international community, it is like to go and edit the Macedonian article saying that not only its an ethnic group, but a nationality as well, this can be true for ANY country pax, there are africans in london who call themselves "british" are they english now? Cheers. Critikal1 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
No. The bottomline is not that. The bottomline is that you keep removing the Serbs and adding highly controversial parts of the article. One of them is that picture of allegedly famous Montenegrins (probably the main reason why everyone's reverting you). And you obviously have absolutely no intention to discuss it. I gave you (yet another) chance. I'm reverting to the old version and you please discuss every single edit you want to introduce here before introducing it. Thank you. --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the bottomline, you just can't recognize that. Now those montenegrins are famous, Ratimir Martinovic, Anto Gvozdenovic especially, and Filip Jergovic holding an esteemed position in the Montenegrin government. You so obviously have something against our sovereignty its clear as day, if anyone's biased here it's you. I provide facts, I fix the external links so that its 3 pro-montenegrin articles and 3 pro-serb articles, and you find this a problem! Are you that unfair? Can you just live and let live? Must Wikipedia be a battleground to you 24/7? By the way, noone has been reverting besides you and your sock-puppet(Paulcicero). Ask CrnaGora who's side he's on, he'll gladly tell you the right side. Critikal1 04:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Every other man (including Montenegrins, since it obviously counts) has objected the usage of those images. I have nothing against sovereignty of the Montenegrin nation (what the heck are you talking about?).
Paulcicero is not my sock-puppet.
As I see, CrnaGora is neutral in this dispute.
Now PLEASE stop edit-warring and start DISCUSSING. --PaxEquilibrium 18:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not about taking sides here, it's about the notability and representativity of those people, which is highly doubtful... I'll try making a new one(although I'm not an expert in working with pics). Any suggestions who I should include? Sideshow Bob 19:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking any of these: Milo Đukanović, Filip Vujanović, Svetozar Marović, Nebojša Medojević, Anto Gvozdenović, Milutin Vučinić, Mirko Vučinić, Petar II Petrović Njegoš, Nikola I Petrović Njegoš, Branko Babović, Šako Polumenta, Šerbo Rastoder, Jevrem Brković, etc. --CrnaGora 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
We should cut it down to 6 people: My suggestions are: Petar I Petrovic Njegos(Sv. Petar Cetinjski), Krsto Zrnov Popovic, Petar II/King Nicholas, one of those present-day politicians, one scientist or literary author, and, say, a football player. Sideshow Bob 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
How about the two famous Njegoss, Petar Lubarda, Marko Miljanov, Milovan Djilas and Milo Djukanovic? I've noticed that not a single Montenegrin sports/scientist has no image uploaded on wiki (sic!). --PaxEquilibrium 23:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Pax chooses only the people who were pro-serb(besides Djukano), typical, anyways I believe we should have : Ivan Crnojevic, Andrija Zmajevic, Anto Gvozdenovic, King Nikola, Milo Djukanovic and Mirko Vucinic

These people cover from the oldest Montenegrin history until the present Critikal1 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess User:Sideshow Bob is a Serb nationalist too. You also chose all "pro-serb"s, so perhaps you're a Serb nationalist as well? ;X
Please keep up with the good faith and read WP:CIVIL.
Also, I just cannot agree to any Montenegrins image that doesn't have Petar II Petrovic-Njegos. It just doesn't seem right without him. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 12:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OKAY

It looks like Pax will never be satisfied, so here tell me what do you find wrong with MY version of the article.

Do you really find the need to use POV and make the header include a "nationality"? Do you really find the need to add "as serbs" in the population grid?

Do you not understand that today Montenegrin is an ethnic group, and Serb is a seperate ethnic group? And that any other interpretation is someones point of view, but has no bearing on FACT?

If this continues it looks like Pax will continue to destroy this article, and I think a Montenegrins(Ethnic group) article must be made, because this is ridiculous. I know you're in the wrong, yet you tell me that I'm vandalising, why? Because I erase a POV sentence stating that "most muslims declare their language serbian"? I mean where are the sources for these biased and Pro-Serb statements?

3 pro-serb and 3 pro-montenegrin links, pax finds this wrong too, probably he believes it should be 6 pro-serb links and 1 pro-montenegrin XD.

I get the feeling Pax doesn't feel comfortable with me being in the Project Montenegro, maybe because I'm the only strong supporter of ethnic Monte's, while you're the biggest Serb nationalist I've met.

You are against Coon when it doesn't suit you, but you are for all of the njegos.org articles made by equivalents of Vojislav Seselj. Wow talk about pushing your own agenda pax. Critikal1 21:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am no "Serb nationalist", and I am at good relationship with all other (not being me) Montenegrins on Wiki, from Sideshow Bob (a proud Montenegrin), CrnaGora (a Muslim Montenegrin), MilanT (sees himself as a Serb) and Jagoda1 (Montenegrin Croat). I don't enter ridiculous and meaningless disputes with those people because they are good, qualified and constructive editors, despite the diverse cultural, national (although this just depends what you write on paper) and religious (Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim) backgrounds they have - because that does not determine one's capabilities to speak the truth or "be correct" essentially, as you blatantly and point out in a racist way like you're doing here (Montenegrin websites arent POV but serb 1s are) implying that websites written by ethnic Montenegrins are reliable ans Serb aren't, basically because of the moderators' ethnic origin.
Define "supporter of ethnic Monte's" please. --PaxEquilibrium 23:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you dont see yourself as a serb nationalist, but you give out that feeling when you promote all of the serb aspects of an article and deny Red Croatia, continually saying that Duklja was "united" with Rascia as if they voluntarily joined together which was not the case and was not true at all. You're now calling me a "racist", let me explain my belief, if there's a website on Montenegro, why would one made by Montenegrins be biased? And why wouldn't one made by serbian not be biased? It's like saying that a Macedonian website made by Macedonians is biased, while a Macedonian website by Greeks is not, obviously the greeks would call the Macedonians "Fyromers, Skopians, ect", because they are in conflict with their nation, exact same issue here with Montenegro, Montenegrin websites are about Montenegrins and only this, while Serb ones strictly promote the greater serbian Agenda and leave out much history and change crucial facts in order to achieve this agenda, because their mother country is not Montenegro, it is Serbia and will always be like that.

If you cannot understand this then it is clear you are blinded by nationalism. Do you see me editing the Njegos article?? Do you see me editing Marko Miljanov's article? No, you don't, because I don't have any sufficent evidence to prove my arguement. I only deal with evidence, truth, in order to create unbiased and fair wikipedia articles. If you are against this why are you here?

And I would like you to answer my questions instead of trying to make personal attacks against me. Critikal1 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not deny the historical thesis (note, that's a theory) of Red Croatia (you remind me of User:CroDome, User:Greater Croatia and several other users on this matter...). Historically, Duklja and Rascia were at times separate and ruled by foreign rulers, and at times united - because they, mostly geographically and racially, form a single or sister-entity (cultural or otherwise). At times, true Rascia had military interventions in Doclea (which sometimes ended devastating for the Greeks and coastal Latins, like in Nemanya's offensive), but so did Doclea conduct otherwise. It was only a matter of time before one of the two fully went into prominence - as Doclea was more importantly leading in the earlier times. I know you like Doclea because of its distinctiveness (you know what I mean), but you cannot negate this either.

Just a comment: I think its important to note that these conflicts which we allude to between Raska and Doclea, were more rivalries between princes (often from same family) than warfare between two seperate peoples or nations Hxseek 07:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not call you a racist. That (if not greatly founded), would have been a violation of WP:NPA (which you violate when you call around people "Chetniks" all the time). So, you say Njegos is biased? njegos.org is moderated by ethnic Montenegrins (just they fall under the category that sees themselves as Serb, the one you were deleting from this article). So I guess its valid now? ;) And things made by Montenegrins, when regards to Montenegro, simply cannot be all the time true. For if that is the case, than that would mean that Montenegrins were "invented" in 1945, and that there was no separate Montenegrin ethnic group before - an opinion that leads mostly to the paths of revisionism (on both accounts).
while Serb ones strictly promote the greater serbian Agenda and leave out much history and change crucial facts in order to achieve this agenda, because their mother country is not Montenegro, it is Serbia and will always be like that. What the heck is this supposed to mean?
Please quote where I conducted personal attacks against you. It's funny that you write that, in the same time saying that I'm blinded by nationalism. ;) Won't work both ways I'm afraid.
Do you see me editing the Njegos article?? Do you see me editing Marko Miljanov's article? No, you don't, because I don't have any sufficent evidence to prove my arguement. What on earth does this suppose to mean? Do you think we all here are in some sort of a game, where we have to fight until we prove our personal agenda? No, were are not. --PaxEquilibrium 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
"as you blatantly and point out in a racist way like you're doing" - You calling me a racist.

Njegos.org is NOT moderated by ethnic Montenegrins, but by ethnic Serbs, extremely nationalistic ones at that, Pax, I would hope you could understand that.

I do not delete the parts of the article showing the serbian argument of Montenegrins, I simply dislike the header, I strictly believe Montenegrins should stay Factual and true to the Official Status, simply as an Ethnic Group.

Yes you are (just see the change between your version and the original one). It's funny that you mention the Official Status - according to the "official", Montenegrins and Serbs are one ethnic group in Montenegro, which presents itself with a 70%-75% majority. The minorities need less votes to gain seats in the parliament - and Serbs are not included in those minorities. And additionally, the Serbian List registered on the last 2006 parliamentary election as a minority list, however they were denied the same right, on the argument that Serbs in Montenegro are not a national minority (which is absolutely weird, since Montenegro is a free non-national civic-state, where all ethnic groups not belonging to the largest - the Montenegrins, which pertain a relative majority - are minorities, despite only the Albanians achieve full rights). And as for the "Factual Status" - (warning: generalizing a bit) the Serbs deny that Montenegrins are a nation, separate from their own - Montenegrins deny that Serbs exist in Montenegro, calling them "posrbica"s. --PaxEquilibrium 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrin Ethnicity "created" in 1945? You see this is the kind of POV and biased statements I could expect from you Pax.

Take a look at the immigration forms from 1906, under Race/Ethnicity its "Montenegrin", nothing else. And How can I explain that my great Grandfather viewed himself as an ethnic Montenegrin? And his Father?

Please do not do that. You are using very "dirty" selection wording and putting in my mouth (or hands, rather): For if that is the case, than that would mean that Montenegrins were "invented" in 1945, and that there was no separate Montenegrin ethnic group before - an opinion that leads mostly to the paths of revisionism (on both accounts). Do you know what's revisionism? I'm saying because that which you're saying is basically that - what if I would show you the Montenegrin Code of Law from the beginning of the 20th century, in which it "loudly and clearly" says that saying that Montenegrins are a nation would be "highly inappropriate and wrong, because all Montenegrins are simply Serbs". That thing was certified by the government (Nicholas) and written by best Montenegrin legal experts. Does the fact that they were ethnic Montenegrins make it ultimate? Do we now have to dismiss all possibilities that Montenegrins might be a people separate from the Serb sudden of all? How do you explain this problem? --PaxEquilibrium 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I use facts and evidence to prove my case, you just went on and on about Duklja and Rascia like you're giving a Book Report, but where do you get your information, SerbianUnity.com? Njegos.org? Serbianna.com? Am I getting warmer?

Not even a kilometer close. Konstantin Jireček, Vladimir Ćorović, Vjekoslav Klaić, Ferdo Šišić, Sima Ćirković, Franc Miklošič, Georgije Ostrogorski, Mauro Orbini, Relja Novaković and the ones I don't use but read: Nada Klaić, Slavko Goldstein, Savić Marković Štedimlija, Andrija Veselinović, Radoš Ljušić, Ivo Pilar, Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, Dositej Obradović, Ante Starčević, Vojislav Šešelj (though I never understood why I even searched for some of these, like the last one) and numerous biographers of the Nemanjićs... loads of other but when it comes to historiography, I guess those are the most. --PaxEquilibrium 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect the article to go back to its original form before you reverted it, because Montenegrins are TODAY only an ethnic group, and any other interpretation is POV and should not be displayed on a Neutral Wikipedia. Critikal1 08:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you refer to when you say "original version" - the original version is the one before your changes. ;0) "Montenegrins", today's meaning=nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, linguistic speaker, politicized person, religious supporter; it could mean any of those. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe in USA, where you live, but real Montenegrins, who didn't leave our country for a handful of dollars are also a nation, if you didn't know. Go look it up, there is a difference between those two. Sideshow Bob 14:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There isn't a difference at all because Montenegrins abroad and Montenegrins in Montenegro are the same, not two seperate ethnic groups. The Montenegrins who left Montenegro left because of a better life abroad and because of the Bosnian War. You shouldn't judge Montenegrins that live abroad with the Montenegrins in Montenegro because the Montenegrins abroad are just as same as the Montenegrins in Montenegro, they still speak the same language, eat the same food, have the same culture (with some minor differences), etc. --CrnaGora 15:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying we are not the same ethnic group(Montenegrins, Montenegrin Serbs, Montenegrin Muslims and Catholics are all the same ethnic group. But Montenegrins, in a narrower sense, are also a nation, and that's what this "editor" is trying to hide for unknown reasons. Sideshow Bob 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The "original version" is the version of fact, made with my changes. Montenegrins TODAY can only mean an ethnic group, any other form of the term can be applied to Italians, Irish, Russians as well.

I guess Pax wants to go to the Russians article and turn its header into, Nationality/Ethnic group also. The article as of right now is inaccurate and completely biased and based, it simply looks like it was vandalised by a radical serb, and not made by a NEUTRAL PARTY. To be Neutral, this article will have to explain in the header, that Montenegrin today is an ethnic group only, because ANY country can be a nationality, that is to be assumed. And serbs are a minority in Montenegro, I'm sorry if you disagree with it but that is the truth. Critikal1 02:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and pax about this very fictional statement "according to the "official", Montenegrins and Serbs are one ethnic group in Montenegro", this is a sad attempt to make argue my point, because you and I both know that sentence is not factual. Critikal1 02:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
How come your controversial changes which are being introduced in the original version be "original version" - that means that which was before. Do you possess a time machine perhaps?
One that thinks that everyone around is is biased and radical - must really deeply think about him/herself.
You may have any personal opinion you have - but I assure that is that of a very tiny minority (mostly ranging around the Doclean Academy of Sciences and Arts and the Serbian List) - and Serbs are not a national minority in Montenegro - because they simply aren't. For if they were, they would have at least one of the standard preferences that identify a national minority (so far, they're just slightly less than nationally declared Montenegrins in Montenegro, but so are Serbs and Croats when compared to Bosniacs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albanians compared to Macedonians in Macedonia). --PaxEquilibrium 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boze Pravde

Boze Pravde, I agree to remove the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, it's a very tiny and unimportant self-styled religious organization, but you shouldn't do that to the Montenegrin language. Between 136,000 and 144,000 Montenegrins consider it their native tongue and its introduced by the Montenegrin authorities, so it deserves to be put in the table, despite that it factually "does not exist". --PaxEquilibrium 08:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia already has an article about the so-called "Montenegrin language", then I guess it wouldn't hurt to name it as such here. However, I do not think that adding an estimate of the number of Montenegrins in the world without a reference is very productive, maybe we should consider removing the total population estimate until a strong reference is found. Until then, we can add the numbers for which we have references. Users can't make their own estimates :-P --GOD OF JUSTICE 02:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changed last sentence in "Identity and population"

I changed this:

On 19 October 2007 a new Constitution was adopted that proclaimed the Montenegrin official rather than Serbian which it state only recognized, and attributed Montenegrin statehood and sovereignty primarily to the Montenegrin People.

into this:

On 19 October 2007, a new Constitution was adopted that proclaimed the Montenegrin language official along with Serbian, and attributed Montenegrin statehood and sovereignty primarily to the Montenegrin People.

and also made it into a separate paragraph.

I hope you will agree with the change.

Alan.--91.107.53.253 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] South America

It is estimated that 30 000 Montenegrins live in Argentina, 3000 in Uruguay, circa 3000 in Chile, 1000 in Peru, 1000 in Bolivia, 500 in Paraguay, 300 in Venezuela. In Brasil is unknown number but it's known that Montenegrins emigrated in Sao Paolo.

sorce www.vijesti.cg.yu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.197.66 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

It's time to add picture in this article

How about including

Ivan Crnojevic

Petar I Petrovic Njegos

Petar II Petrovic Njegos

Danilo Petrovic

Nicholas Petrovic

Petar Lubarda

Ellena di Savoia

Mila Jovovic :) -must include due to gender equality 89.188.32.8 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the following:
  • Ivan Crnojevic
  • Petar II Petrovic Njegos
  • Nikola I Petrovic
  • Milovan Djilas
Any thoughts? 4 is enough. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Must include at leas one Saint out of 5 (St. Petar Cetinjski, St. Basil Ostroski) and artist. Petar Lubarda is important enough. How about Danilo Kiš? Of course, Njegoš was both: lord & poet85.94.116.153 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Then also Saint Peter. Nah Danilo, he's not a classic example of a true Montenegrin. And with Lubarda, we'll have already our hands full. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Serbian origin of Montenegrins

The Montenegrins have always felt as Serbs and as Montenegrins. If they said they were Montenegrins, it did not mean that they were not Serbs. They felt as Serbs regardless of the issue. Chiefs, rulers, folk singers, writers, journalists, scientists, men of the world, peasants, they all declared themselves as Serbs. In fact, it was recorded so in the documents and laws of the Montenegrin state[45] and even in the address by Njegos in which he pleaded to "...the skies above Montenegro to clear, the lightnings and thunders to go away, and safeguard the entire Serbian people from destruction, all of them from the Danube to the blue sea." That is the reason why one should be on guard against "home evil" personified in some Montenegrin publishers of Njegos' short poems. They simply erased his verses in which the Serbs were mentioned.[46] But in spite of this Comintern-Vatican undertaking, the Serbian popular poetry, formed throughout centuries as a part of the Montenegrin ethnic being, cannot easily be plucked up from the cultural heritage of the Serbian ethnic being of the Montenegrins.

Read the whole article on: The Serbian Origin of Montenegrins