Jump to content

Talk:Petar I Petrović-Njegoš/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

General POV and Pretenciousness of the Current Article

  • Saint Peter of Cetinje. Too much emphasis is on Peter's sainthood. While he was a cleric, he was equally importantly a ruler and a historical figure. Sole depiction on frescos doesn't reflect this and is clearly pretencious. Suggest adding a real life portret.Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Episcop is not the term used in English, use Prince-Bishop for Vladika. Exarch (claimholder) of the Serbian Orthodox throne is totally irelevant, if true at all. Need to back this up with citation. Petar I use the term "Serbian" meaning orthodox ,only to denote the religion, as he used the term "Turks" for Muslims. You will have to back up the claim that he launched the first program of national liberation and unification of Serbs. My proposal is: "During his long rule, Petar strengthened the state by uniting the often quarreling clans. He achieved this by peaceful means; by mediation, and moral persuasion. He personally led Montenegrins to two historical victories agains the Turks, after which Turks never again managed to reach Montenegrin capital, Cetinje. Last but not least, he introduced the first written law in Montenegro (Zakonska Stega). His rule prepared Montenegro for the subsequent introduction of modern institutions of the state: taxes, schools and larger commercial enterprises."Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why was this paragraph deleted: "He was made a bishop in 1784. During his trip to Russia (1785), Montenegro was attacked by Turkish forces. When Vladika Petar I returned from Russia, he began a war of liberation.Following his inspirational lead, the Montenegrins prevailed in two crucial battles: at Martinići and at Krusi.At the Krusi battle, the Turkish Army of 30,000 led by Mahmut-Pasa Busatlija and assisted with seven French officers was defeated with heavy casualties by a force of 6,000 Montenegrins led by Vladika Petar I (3 Oct. 1796). In this famous battle Mahmut-pasha was killed. His inspirational speach in front of his army, before the Martinići battle, is one of the finest examples of oratory recorded anywhere and is claimed by Montenegrin historians to be one of the definite proofs of Montenegrin ethnicity. After the victories, Petar enlarged the territory of Montenegro and became virtually independent of the Ottoman Empire."Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why were the paragraph titles "Napoleon Years" and "Consolidation of the State" deleted? Do you opose any title or formatting or just don't like these particular versions?Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is Zakonska Stega deleted from this line: "Petar I is also known as an author of the first Montenegrin law (1798), Zakonska Stega."? It is a correct name, isn't it?Momisan 12:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ehh, there isn't a real-time pic. We'll have to do with what we have for now.
Ok, but we will strive to get a few, correct?Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Correct.--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Good.Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


  • It's weird why you oppose, since ever since Vladika Peter and all the way up to day the Metropolitans of Montenegro and the Littoral wore the titles "Exarchs of the Serbian Orthodox throne of Pec". That's because they wanted to restore the Patriarchate of Pec - but never made it (although they were close in 1912).
I personally have never heard about it, however, church politics is not my area of interest so I will try to keep an open mind. If true, it is clearly a strictly clerical matter that only clutters the introduction. Medieval rulers all had had a half-page long list of titles to make them look more important. I hope you don't suggest we should list them all. My main point is that we should add some structure to the article, separate his statemanship from his clerical life. See what is truly a legacy he left and what is ,at best, interesting trivia. I hope you agree?Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
That's hard to do, considering he's a Holy Man. :) .--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You cannot be serious,right?Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that MOC celebrates it - mainly because the MOC is hardly existent. According to Wikipedia's policy, it's actually too irrelevant (and I doubt that they have formalized him as a saint).
Let's find out. The year 2000 calendar from the MOCs official website here. Same goes for the Wikipedia's policy you are refering to. Can you quote and/or give a reference? Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My general objection was because the MOC isn't formed (unlike the Macedonian, which only is nowhere recognized but its entire infrastructure foromed/formalized).--HolyRomanEmperor 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Show me the rule in Wikipedia you are referring to, otherwise, your objection is overruled. I think we established factuality of the claim. Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that, thanks. Momisan 06:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


In a serious argument, you suppose to quote the source, let's not waist our time. On the topic itself, I only conveyed that there is a school of thought in Montenegro that says that. It sounds reasonable to me, however, I do want to hear counter-arguments and ,perhaps, they will be more persuasive. There is a rigour that have to be observed, though. Momisan 04:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am very much familiar with the school, but I fail to see arguements that support it. For instance, it is clearly divided according to Danilo's Code (Serbian nation; Eastern Orthodoxy); the first free democratic population census was held in 1909, and it registered that around 95% are ethnic Serbs, but 94.38% are Eastern Orthodox (see Demographic History of Montenegro). Then there's the Geography of the Princedom of Montenegro from the late 19th century; which was studied by the students of the 3rd grade of elementary schools: Сви људи, који живе у нашој домовини, јесу Срби, већином православне вјере, а има их мало римокатоличке и мухамеданске.

This is the knowledge of Law in the Kingdom of Montenegro from 1914;

..When it comes to the people of our fatherland, we could never utilize the term ‘Montenegrin people’ in an ethnic context because the Montenegrins are ethnic Serbs and a Montenegrin ethnicity does not exist. Aside from that, within Montenegro’s borders reside citizens of non-Serb ethnicity, yet this does not prevent them from belonging to a political Montenegrin people..
..Montenegro’s borders encompass its sovereign territory. That area is but a fraction of what is denoted as the Serb Lands, which are inhabited exclusively or mostly by Serbs yet politically separated among several states. Two present-day independent Serb kingdoms sprung from those Lands: Montenegro and Serbia. The third portion is in Austria-Hungary and a part in Bulgaria.

Search for a play written by HRH Nikolaj I Petrovic-Njegos: ХУСЕИН-БЕГ ГРАДАШЧЕВИЋ. There, I quote the words of a Moslem Serb:

Нас ће Срба, кад се саставимо
бити близу седам милијуна;

He continues:

О владико, црногорски орле,
ка' ти нико од нашег племена
не зна судбу несрећних Србаља,

Then, take Србин Србима на части захваљује by Petar II Petrovic-Njegos written in 1834 in Cetinje. It was dedicated to the Catholic Serbs in Kotor.

As the topic is about Peter I, it is futile quoting books from 1914 to prove that he was a Serb. I suggest removing the quotes from after 1830 (his death).Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Petar I

In the face of the Battle at Martinici in 1796, Peter called forth the Montenegrins & Highlanders to prove that у нама неугашено србско срце куца и србска крвца врије; and in the face of the battle, he asked them to strike at the enemy 'нашег предрагог имена србског и наше дражајше вољности adding that the Turks и сад боје Црногораца, боје се србскијех витезова, који нијесу вични своју постојбину остављати.

Accuracy of this is disputed by Montenegrina. You should give both quotes, or none. Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You already know what he wrote in 1807 to the Russian General: The Russian Czar would be recognized as the Tsar of the Serbs and the Metropolitan of Montenegro would be his assistant. The leading role in the restoration of the Serbian Empire belongs to Montenegro.

Source needed for this one. Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This Empire would be consisted of a large portion of Dalmatian Catholics - whome Peter I generally considered to be Serbs, or simply will become Serbs and prefer Serbian nationality if they're converted to the Orthodox religion.

Sorce needed. This is an interesting one. It shows, I believe correctly, Montenegrins perception of what the term "Serb" meant for them. It more closely matches todays term "South-Slav" than todays term "Serb".Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The French governor of Dalmatia, ordered by Napoleon Bonaparte, offered 20,000 francs if Petar I would offer the title of the "Patriarch of the whole Serb people or the whole Illyricum". Petar refused in fear of Russina wrath and/or Pope's influence.

Source needed. This doesn't prove that Petar I was a Serb. It is ambiguous, Illyricum is how French named their balkan provinces, from Slovenia to Dubrovnik, Are you suggesting that Slovenia was also Serb? By the same logic, the whole Serb people doesn't have to mean that Montenegrins were considered Serbs.Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As the topic is about Peter I, it is futile quoting books from 1914 to prove that he was a Serb. I suggest removing the quotes from after 1830 (his death).Momisan 02:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I only responded to the claim Serbian=Orthodox. While I re-open my ol' Njegos Database and search up for the sources, take a look at the Short History of Montenegro written by Petar himself. There you'll find some interesting things. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, please respond under the claim itself. Don't tell me you are deliberately clouding the water, do you:-) I will have a look. Interestingly, Montenegrina doesn't seem to have a parallel version, so, this one might be correct, who knows. Momisan 07:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly, Montenegrina doesn't seem to have a parallel version, so, this one might be correct, who knows. Uhh-what'sah, who'sah?!? --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I errased the link *Danilo Klen i Mirjana Strejić: Petar I Petrović-Njegoš - in Montenegrin since I failed to see what kind of source this should be. It seems to be an article on Petar I by some Montenegrin nationalists. Could it be that it is the clouding of the water?

As for the quotes I add the poems of Petar I which you can read in integral versions in Project Rastko. For instance the poem "Second Montenegrin" (Druga crnogorska) starts with the verses О велики царе славни! -

Милост своју не остави
На Србију изливати,
Пробилно низаслати.
Сад је она из тавнице
Истргнула једва лице,
И витешки започела
Производит ратна дјела.
Жели турски јарам сврћи,
себ' слободу драгу стећи
Коју бјеше мати мила
На Косово изгубила,
По издаји злоковарна
Клета Вука Бранкована.
Тебе моле, силни Боже,
Сви Славјани и ја тоже!
Сакруши нам турски гордост
И утврди српску вољност,
Да Србија изобилна
В род и родов' буде силна etc. etc.

Why would Petar I name his song "Second Montenegrin" start with "O great and glorious emperor! - Don't stop to pour your grace on Serbia" if he wasn't considering Montenegro as a part of old Serbia which lost its independence to the Turk and new Serbia which is winning its independance in both 1796 Martinici and Krusi battles and in the First Serbian Rebellion? Was it only Montenegro that fought in Kosovo in 1389 or all the Serbia (see line 12)? How blind and dishonest must one be in front of himself and his forefathers, o Momisan? As the REAL Montenegrins would say "Crn ti obraz bio!".

If I was a Montenegrin nationalist I would stay away from Petar I, Njegosh, Marko Miljanov, Stjepan Mitrov Ljubisha and others cause they were the Serb nationalists to the core. Stick to Sekula Drljevic and Jevrem Brkovic for your "$" litterature and you wont find no one complaining. --Dultz 23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's clear the POV problems

So, what are they?--Еstavisti 14:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarity about his dates of death and birth

The Serbian Orthodox Church celebrates him on October 31st, Gregorian calendar, which is October 18th in the Julian calendar.

That's the case in the 20th and 21st centuries, but he died in the 19th, when there was only a 12-day gap. October 18 in the Julian calendar in 1830 equated to October 30 in the Gregorian. So when exactly did he die:
  • October 18/30, or
  • October 19/31?
Also, I have his date of birth as 4 May 1747. Is this the Julian date or the Gregorian date? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator how come that 70 years after his death, Mountain wrath was translated to Serbian language. From what language was it translated? From Serbian to Serbian?

The official language in Montenegro is Montenegrin and there is no reason why Wikipedia should not recorgnize that. Jovan.k (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jovan.k: It has been for only several years, due to political decree and government policy of nationalisation (in all spheres of life), while pushing hardocre Historical revisionism. Your claim is anachronistic and not based per facts but modern-day times. The issue has been discussed on Wikipedia long ago. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Montenegrin language

@HellooMNE, Unless you can provide a source for your claims that Njegos spoke Montenegrin and wrote in Montenegrin Language don't add such informations to this article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Serious issues

1) The "Unification of Serbs" ideological plan has to historical source for the claim, i.e. there is no such document written by Petar I. The "references" used to back this claim are not reliable sources, as they are nationalist-leaning "historical" works. 2) The alleged cooperation with Karađorđe during the First Serbian Uprising never happened, and there are no sources provided for such claim.

The article should also be substantially expanded using neutral and reliable sources, as such a historic person deserves a more thorough biography. I understand that many editors frequenting these sort of articles are not interested in truth, so go on and discredit me as "anti-Serb" or something similar simply for confronting your politically motivated bias, but you could also be constructive for once. Sideshow Bob 07:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

...These "serious issues" are baseless. You haven't actually elaborated on how your claims are part of the truth, nor presented any reliable sources. Until you present reliable sources supporting or even inclining towards your truth, i.e. the explanation of issues are satisfactory, I have removed the tags. If you're going to do it, do it the right way, you could also be constructive for once.--Zoupan 08:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's ok for you and your buddies to throw around original research and unsourced claims, but it's wrong to contest those claims? Some logic you have... The thing is, I did not present any "claims", but just disputed the allegations that are not based on sources whatsoever. So provide RS or delete them, but please do not act as if you own these articles, it's getting boring really... Sideshow Bob 09:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Eh, what? What you are doing now is exactly that. It's not OK for you to throw around OR and unsourced claims. I'm all about logic, you clearly aren't. As I've already told you, the facts you are contesting are widespread in historiography (and unrefutable). Fail. Now stop accusing users in article talk pages, direct your focus on material and actual problems, and back your claims up.--Zoupan 09:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
What is the point when your purpose on Wikipedia is destroying any constructive effort towards establishing NPOV? You are on again with marginal nationalist Serbian authors (pan-Serbism section and similar fairy tales), while ignoring primary sources, contemporary sources, or Montenegrin (or even neutral) authors on the issue. The whole purpose of your activity here is spreading false information and historical fallacies, and making it impossible for anyone with no vested interest to participate in article building, since you go on a rampage and destroy any constructive efforts. That's why all normal editors gave up on contributing during the years... I know since I've been here fighting similar POV-pushers long before you made an account. Being more stubborn and hyperactive than others does not make your "arguments" less ridiculous. I will hereby stop any sort of communication with you, and you can continue stalking me if you have nothing better to do with your life, but you will remain ignored from now on. Sideshow Bob 12:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"What is the point?" I rest my case.--Zoupan 14:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petar I Petrović-Njegoš. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Petar_I_Petrović-Njegoš/Archive_1&oldid=1006400802"