Talk:Montenegrins/Archive 2

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)

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)

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.

• 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.20.129 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

And will You tell me why are Croats and Albanians aliens? --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikola Smolenski (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

"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)

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.

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)

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 [1] 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.

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" (PDF). 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" (PDF). Kokkalis Program on on Southeastern and East Central Europe.
   3. Srdja Pavlovic. "Literature, Social Poetics, and Identity Construction in Montenegro" (PDF). International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 17, No. 1, Fall 2003 ( C° 2003).
   4. Payam Akhavan, Robert Howse. "Historical Elements for "Understanding the Yugoslav Question" by Dušan Nečak". Yugoslavia, the Former and Future: Reflections by Scholars from the Region. Brookings Institution Press. p. 17. ISBN 0815702531.
   5. John R. Lampe, Mark Mazower. "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. pp. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

You can say that Montenegrins are Serbs and I think that too, tough I'm a Croat, but it's not important what You and I think it's important what the Montenegrins think and they think they are a separate ethnicity. They are the same as the people of Wales who were under the English people for 1000 years and you can say that they're assimilated as the Montenegrins are by Serbs. This independent Montenegro is nothing but a thief/gangster state of Milo Đukanović who gets much money by the hotels on adriatic sea. Montenegrins are Serbs thats for sure but they don't think that, Slovenians are Croats but they don't think that and I or you can't change that with our opinion. Carib canibal (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, some (most?) Montenegrins do not think that they are a separate ethnicity. Others, think that they are. They are heavily divided on the issue.

Actually it's not that way. Until recently the main scholastic and popular opinion was that one part of the Serbian people separated itself from the rest of the Serbs and over the centuries started to build its own identity, therefore no, the Montenegrins are not Serbs, and probably would be absolutely impossible to assimilate them into Serbs. The ethnogenesis of the Montenegrin people has its roots in the late 15th century - and it still lasts today. But the direction it has been always heading is the one away from the Serbs. As Slavs lowered down into smaller groups, the process, due to unique and characteristic geohistorical circumstances and history's events, continues. Another example are the Bunyevs.

Montenegro might've been a thief/ganster state once, but it surely is not so today in 2008.

I am not aware the same problem exists with the Slovenians. Care to elaborate? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Said opinion was imposed by Communist government and the ethnogenesis of the Montenegrin people started in 1945. What you write is your wishful thinking. Nikola (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)