Talk:Mausoleum of Njegoš

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montenegro Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment on the article

@WikiDan61: I noticed your edit on the Mausoleum of Njegoš article and wanted to share some insights. This isn't about Montenegrin nationalist slant; rather, it's about historical accuracy. In 1918, Serbs entered Montenegro not as liberators but as occupiers, assisted by local quislings. They established their rule,and began suppressing Montenegrin resistance. One of their oppressive acts was to demolish the chapel (the demolition initiated by the Austro-Hungarians) and replace it with a new one dedicated to the Karađorđevićs.

The heart of the issue in Montenegro is a divided identity: half the population identifies as Serbian due to historical imposition, while the other half resists, holding on to a resilient Montenegrin heritage that has withstood centuries of challenges, notably the Ottoman rule. This resilience, or "žilavost," clashes with the Greater Serbian agenda, leading to atrocities and massacres in Montenegro post-1918. It's painful to read references to a so-called "Serbian" Montenegro on Wikipedia, knowing the suffering caused by their efforts to assimilate Montenegrin culture and history, which they often misappropriate as their own.

The concept of "Serbdom," was crafted by Sima Milutinović Sarajlija (the word doesn't exist in Vuk Stefanović Karadžić's dictionary) and tied to the Orthodox Church, which expanded its influence throughout the region, except in the Old Montenegro and the coast. This is evident in our distinct architectural styles, which differ significantly from the Byzantine ideal. Ultimately, our current challenges stem from the imposition of this Serbian identity, a narrative we strive to correct for historical accuracy and respect for our enduring Montenegrin identity.

As I mentioned earlier, this isn't about Montenegrin nationalist bias; it's about the legitimate pride in one's own culture and achievements, and the natural desire to preserve and honor them. This situation mirrors what's happening in Ukraine, where a larger, oppressive force often appropriates elements it finds valuable or interesting, usually for economic gain or to address historical grievances. Ziziphus spina-christi (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziziphus spina-christi: What you have described here is, quite literally, nationalistic bias. Whether the history of the region should be told from a Montenegrin viewpoint or a Serbian viewpoint. I don't disagree with you, but you'll need to provide reliable sources to verify any changes you'd like to see. Presumably, sources written outside of the region (i.e. neither Serbian nor Montenegrin) that might provide a more neutral point of view. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:

The Mausoleum of Njegoš requires an objective description, yet it stands at the intersection of deeply entrenched nationalist biases. The entire narrative of history in this region is skewed by such biases. The existence of Meštrović's Mausoleum itself is a testament to the persistence of the Montenegrin nation, a symbol of resistance against external influences and the attempts to assimilate it.

The Balkans are still entangled in the web of nationalist delusions and divisions. Our recent history is shaped by Serbian dynasties pursuing grandiose ambitions of conquest, crafting and propagating distorted historical narratives. A glaring example is the recent incorporation of the old Duklja and the Vojislavljević dynasty into Serbian history, a stark turnaround from their previous stance of belittling Montenegrin historical legitimacy.

Serbian identity in Montenegro, as it stands, emerged from a collective hallucination, a political project exploited for ulterior motives. Surprisingly, scholars like Wachtel have seemingly endorsed this narrative.

But, how do we discern the truth in such a complex backdrop? If we accept that nationalisms are fundamentally illusory, our measure should be the extent of harm they have perpetrated. By this criterion, Montenegrin nationalism is comparatively benign, having never strayed beyond its national boundaries. In stark contrast, Serbian nationalism has been marked by a trail of violence, atrocities, and even genocide in pursuit of a 'Greater Serbia.'

In a region where monuments are built on illusions, I urge support for the narratives that have caused the least damage, and that, unequivocally, is the Montenegrin narrative.

Please refrain from removing my recent edit to the article while I am trying to gather additional relevant sources, particularly from international perspectives. I kindly request a week's time to complete this task. After this period, you may review the edit again. I appreciate your understanding and patience in this matter. Ziziphus spina-christi (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ziziphus spina-christi: I refer you to WP:BRD, Wikipedia's guideline on building consensus. In a case where a controversial change has been made to an article, and then reverted, the original controversial material should not be restored. Instead, the discussion (that we are having here) should be allowed to play out to its conclusion before the controversial change (or preferably, a less controversial version of it) can be agreed upon. This is a long way of saying that you should not just restore your preferred version until this discussion is complete. You may take your week or more to gather your sources, and then you can propose new wording here on this talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]