Talk:Coat of arms of Montenegro/Archive 1

OK, I've just reverted the article to the version that gives the most relevant and verifiable information. I've checked the whole history of this article and enough is enough. HolyRomanEmperor supported a version of the article which contained false information, which I have good reasons to believe were deliberately placed, including this: "The Coat of Arms of Montenegro have been passed in the run up to the Montenegrin independence referendum, 2006.". As I will show here, this ENTIRE statement, as well as those that followed was simply picked up from the air, completely invented, not to use the L word. It is one example of the history of misinformation by this user, especially when it comes to articles concerning a country he seems to hate deeply. It also makes very bad english, but I will not insist on that. The present coat of arms was, in fact, adopted 13 years prior to the referendum (see the external link given in the article for verification), when the idea of an independent Montenegro didn't have any significant support (except within the Liberal Alliance of Montenegro, now an extinguished opposition party). One may assume good faith, or presume this was done in order to further a political agenda (anti-independence or anti-montenegrin) - make your own conclusions. The second option seems more probable, as this heraldry article was thus connected to a political topic by the false statement cited above. Other users interpreted the lion as being a sign of "Christian theme of rebirth" (sic!), which was also incorporated in the version allowed by the user mentioned, with "appropriate" additions. I assume it is general knowledge that rebirth is not a Christian notion, except used colloquially and in a very wide sense that is not to be allowed in an encyclopaedia. Resurrection has a different meaning altogether, but I will not elaborate as I assume it is too trivial for most of us. About the edit war:

1. Medieval rulers of Zeta (mdv.name of Montenegro), the Crnojevic dynasty, did not take the two-headed eagle from Serbian Nemanic (also: Nemanyd) dynasty, with whom they had a bitter rivalry. They inherited the symbol from several sources simultaneously: 1. Byzantine empire, in order to affirm the allegiance of Zeta (Montenegro) to orthodoxy; 2. the venetian noble family of Ericco, which took it after the sack of Constantinople in the fourth crusade - Crnojevic dynasty was related by marriage to Ericco and thus to the Doge of Venice at the time, 3. Pico family (the same which gave us the philosopher Pico della Mirandola), italian aristocrats Crnojevics also had important liaisons with.

2. True, Nemanic' coat of arms represents a similar symbol (also a double-headed eagle), but is quite different in shape and has the Palaiologos dynasty motto: "Βασιλεὺς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων" - King of kings rules over kings (i.e. Jesus rules the rulers) on the shield. The motto was distorted, probably by mistakes made by badly trained serbian scribes of the age and it stays so to this day. Serbs themselves invented various parallel explanations and legends about the symbol, which are now a part of their folklore beliefs (see Coat of arms of Serbia). Similarities between the two symbols (i.e.. montenegrin and serbian bicephalic eagle) were/are no greater than between those of other nations that use the same symbol, but this never stopped the use of this similarity as a weak support for hegemonist claim of Serbia over Montenegro, especially after the bloody May Coup in Belgrade (1903) and the rise of Karadjordjevic dynasty.

3. Petrovic-Njegos line of prince-bishops of Montenegro was not the first to use the sign of episcopal authority (lion d'or) and it certainly never had any connotations such as "resurrection of the House of Nemanic", for three very good reasons: 1. most importantly, the Nemanic line has been extinguished for centuries, and the very notion of their "resurrection" would sound very eccentric indeed, 2. Nemanic was a foreign, not montenegrin dynasty, although some Petrovic-Njegos princes had a fascination with their history and often identified with them, 3. the lion was used by prince-bishops who preceded Petrovics and it was never associated with any worldly realm. Since the symbol remained unchanged (in appearance and pose), we are to assume its meaning remained as well.

4. The version I'm endorsing mentions (although in passing, as this is not a historic article per se) and explains, in two sentences only, how Montenegro came to be a theocracy and why the secular line had to be restablished. This is important in order to explain the change this coat of arms experienced because of these events. It also explains why it was important to allow the church authority to be reflected in state insignia. Edit by HolyRomanEmperor and Ghirlandajo erases completely that explanation for no good reason (which is tantamount to vandalism) and jumps directly to 1851 and the establishment of secular succession, which may only confuse the reader.

5. Defining the event which is now known in Montenegro as Anschluss of 1918 (sorry for the red link, I shall make it my business to start the article ASP) benignly as "union with Serbia" is highly POV. It was indeed an event comparable to the Anschluss, if not even more scandalous. By the definition of annexation, Montenegro was indeed annexed by Serbia in disgraceful circumstances (more info on this can be found in recent works by eminent historians such as dr. Serbo Rastoder, professor at the University of Montenegro, and others). The annexation was done by the force of Serbian army which occupied the capital Cetinje and was given orders to shell the city and use any means necessary against the montenegrin people (see "Janusovo lice istorije" by the same author (in montenegrin)). Meanwhile, the legitimate government of Montenegro remained in exile and was forbidden from returning to their homeland. King Nikola I of Montenegro died in exile and was buried in Trieste. The name of the new country was indeed changed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia, following the Karadjordjevic dictatorship, described in : Kingdom_of_yugoslavia#The_6th_of_January_Dictatorship and I fail to see a problem with this. Please follow the link for explanation. If you don't like the term "dictatorship", any other would be POV, as it is the term used by practically all historians to describe this event. Also consult the definition of dictatorship and compare the event in question. In almost every political theory, it is regarded as a neutral term and I mention this in passing only. Why erase this important information, given the fact the use of this coat of arms was forbidden by the serbian authority? There are many of us who consider this information to be important and interesting. It should be available to readers of Wikipedia, not hidden by senseless (montenegrin: beslovjesnim) editing. Even more so as it is the main reason for the overwhelming popularity the symbol enjoys today.

6. The persistently edited external link directs to the site of the montenegrin government. It is in montenegrin language, as can be seen in the upper left corner of the home-page ("crnogorski" means "montenegrin"): http://www.gom.cg.yu/eng/. Montenegrin is a language spoken by roughly 1/3 of the population, but this ratio is likely to change rapidly. It is expected the new constitution will amend the article concerning the official language. Be that as it may, the government site claims it is in montenegrin and we should respect that.

Finally, I conclude that recent edits, made primarily by HolyRomanEmperor, seem to be a part of a persistent scheme of edit wars and vandalism, in order to propose and further a hegemonist serbian project directed against Montenegro. It seems this stems from a certain amount of chauvinism against Montenegrins. Attacking an important symbol of anybody's identity is never a good idea, as it only stirs up the pot. Wikipedia certainly doesn't support presentation of historic revisionism for petty political gain. This is not what Wikipedia is for - there are many internet forums and chat rooms if you need to let some steam after the liberation of Montenegro by successful referendum held this may. One may note this edit war is pathetic, but people come in all shapes and sizes. The version I endorse is, IMHO, well-written and gives precise and easily verifiable information.

Following lines, (in montenegrin), explain the reasons of montenegrin resentment and the atmosphere after the official ban on use of montenegrin national symbols, primarily this coat of arms:

"Poslije 1918. godine srpski vojnici i žandarmi i crnogorski renegati u njihovoj službi skidali su sa glava ljudi crnogorske kape i stavljali ih na glave svinja. U periodu od 1918. do 1941. godine ni stara crnogorska zastava nije bila pošteđena. Crnogorski barjak sa dvoglavim orlom na crvenoj podlozi domaći izrodi u službi okupacione vlasti skinuli su sa Dvora na Cetinju, bacili ga u prašinu, zgazili ga i ljudskim urinom i izmetom uprljali na mjestu gdje je bio izvezen monogram crnogorskog suverena kralja Nikole... U vrijeme od 1918. do 1941. godine crnogorski državni simboli (državna i vojna zastava-alaj i krstaš barjak) bila su zabranjena i proskribovana obilježja! Državni grb Kraljevine Crne Gore 1918. godine je ukinut, a crnogorska himna »Ubavoj nam Crnoj Gori« bila je poništena i zabranjena, dok su crnogorska službena odlikovanja nasiljem okupacionioh vlasti nestala iz javne upotrebe". Citation from: Montenegrin Association|http://www.montenegro.org.au

For more info and verification, please consult: "Crnogorski drzavni i dinasticki amblemi" by Milan Jovicevic (UDK: 929.6(497.16) ) et al.

Warm regards from a Montenegrin at Corpus Christi College, Oxford

I have no strength to deal with this kind nationalist edits. This user is lenient on making Persona attacks (see WP:PA) - and doesn't even consider his edits as POV. I'm putting a disputed tag. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user HolyRomanEmperor is involved in actions of vandalism and does not hesitate from personal attacs when confronted with arguments. This can be seen in the Edit Summary of this article' history page. Please cease to use insults and PA, as it does no good to anyone, the least of all yourself. I shall certainly continue to act as a gentleman and will not respond in the same fashion. Edits in question do not conform to POV and simply declaring them as such doesn't seem to be enough, does it? The excuse of "not having strength" can be seen as tantamount to confirmation of the arguments given and I will understand it as such. This makes the tag an act of spite, not of reason, as it is not supported by arguments. This user refuses to discuss the article in question and continues his edit war ad nauseam. Please stop that kind of behaviour.--HercegOX 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint

Please read up this: Montenegro's State Symbols. --HolyRomanEmperor 11:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website in question is widely considered as propagandist and the data contained on the page is false and do not present a valid answer to arguments given above. Instead, I suggest reading the OFFICIAL data, including the government website. Citing njegos.org ("Serb Land of Montenegro" is tantamount to citing neo-nazi organizations and is unacceptable. NJegos.org is financied by the Serbian Radical Party. I respect party and ideological affiliation of HolyRomanEmperor, but Wikipedia is not the place to express that kind of personal sentiments. In spite of the origins of the information, I would be prone to accept it if it was supported in any valid way. It was not and still isn't. --HercegOX 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few random points

Noone can really dispute that Montenegrins until fairly recently considered themselves to be a kind of Serbs, like Serbs consider themselves to be a kind of Slavs.
Beside that, Nemanjići were a dinasty of Montenegrin origin, so the idea that Montenegrins would consider them foreign is ridiculous.
If a government website says that it's written in language X, it's best to report it as written in language X. Zocky | picture popups 11:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Untrue. The idea of Montenegrins being Serbs in ethnic sense is relatively new. It was supported by the Karadjordjevic regime after the annexation of Montenegro in 1918. Prior to that, Montenegrins considered themselves to be serbs in terms of religion. Serbian/latin/turkish faith were expressions used in XIX c and earlier to denote orthodoxy/roman catholicism/islam, respectivelly. The consequence of this was that even Macedonians were considered to be Serbs up untill the end of WWII, simply because they were orthodox christians. The denial of macedonian nationhood is quite similar to the denial of montenegrin, although the latter seems to be more persistant. Another consequence is that those Serbs who accepted Islam or Catholicism were not considered to be Serbs anymore. More information on this may be found in recent works of dr. R. Rotkovic of the University of Montenegro, as well as looking at OFFICIAL data from montenegrin census held prior to annexation. There is a forgery of the census results created by the serbian nationalists for the purpose of furthering the cause of Greater Serbia. However, the original is at display in the Central Library of Montenegro ("Djuradj Crnojevic") in Cetinje for all to see.

2. Stefan Nemanja was indeed of montenegrin origin (born in present-day Podgorica), but he ruled over Rascia (Serbia), not Montenegro. His descendents were quickly assimilated and soon became serbs. We may compare the situation of the House of Windsor, which is of german origin, but that still makes it a foreign dynasty in the eyes germans themselves. This example works very well, I believe. It is quite a common situation when european monarchies are considered.

3. I agree completely. Any other solution would be POV and, to use a stronger word, falsification --HercegOX 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that theoretical school stands on very loose - if on any - legs. The reason for that is because it historically does not "fit in" to what it describes. Here are numerous examples:

a) Peter I Petrovic-Njegos wrote in a letter to the Dubrovnik authorities (a virulent Catholic city), as if they're Serbs, notifying that they're going to be a capital of a new Serbian Empire

b) school Geography book from 1895 states that most Serbs in Montenegro are Eastern Orthodox, but a very small minority Moslem and Roman Catholic

c) Sava Petrovic-Njegos wrote a letter to the Dubrovnikers (snip: Catholic Christians) as if they're Serbs

d) Peter II Petrovic-Njegos visited a Catholic Merchant family in the Bay of Kotor; in their honor he wrote A Serb thanks Serbs for Honor to them

e) Nicholas I Petreovic-Njegos wrote a drama dedicated to the Bosnian rebel and today greatest Bosniac national hero, Gusein-beg Gradascevic; he also considered Bosnian Muslims mostly Serbs

f) on the first population census in Montenegro, i.e. from 1909, most who declared as Serbs were Orthodox - but a notable though small number of them were Muslims

g) code of Danil Petrovic-Njegos from 1855 clearly separates that most of the inhabitants of Montenegro are Serbs, from the other statement that most of them are also Eastern Orthodox

h) numerous documents, birth certificates etc. on which "Faith" is clearly separated from "Nationality", with numerous records of Serbs of Islamic faith, coming from a corresponding clan

i) countless other documents and statements, which completely make the theory unbased and for which it would take me the world to list them. --PaxEquilibrium 08:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]