Talk:Montenegro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


redirect?

sorry for my noobishness(if i placed this in teh wrong place) but MgO (magnesium oxide) redirects to here, i think its time for a disambiguity page 

-----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.229.79 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

well, MGO is not acronym for Montenegro, real acronyms are MNE or ME (sometimes on sport events are used MON or MN, but that acronyms are used by MONaco amd MoNgolia)Stefke (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


ARTICLE

Is there any administrator here?Montenegro did not elect to enter union with Serbia,it was draged into it.King Nicholas opposed it,goverment of Montenegro opposed it,majority of montenegrin people opposed it.You have independent reports from American and Canadian officers who were sent to investigate and who confirms what I am talking about.It has been enough of Serbian propaganda.Please let me edit this article.Even flag is not correct.It was tricolor with silver eagle on it.Last time I read articles about Montenegro,everything was ok,and now I see that someone edited it and made a proserbian propaganda.Comon people,have some sence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.123.198 (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Ethnic cleansing of Croatians in Boka Kotorska

Before the agression of the Serbian-Montenegro army against Croatia the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Boka Kotorska was Croatian. Boka Kotorska was taken away from Croatia and given to Montenegro as a present from Tito. Never in history was Boka Kotorska a part of Montenegro and the inhabitants were always Croatian. It s the only beautiful part of Montenegro in fact.

Carla del Ponte seems to care a lot about the Serbs driven out of Croatia and Bosnia but doesn 't give a darn thing about ethnic cleansing of Croatians in Boka Kotorksa and Vojvodina. Seems as if it's ok if the Serbs are doing it... Where as the Croatian taxpayer is even required to rebuild the Serbian homes in the Krajina the same should apply to the Croatinas in Boka Kotorska: Return of all Croatians into Boka Kotorska.

I'm sorry to say but Boka Kotorska was never an part of Croatia. Before Boka was given to Montenegro it was of Italy and several other countries. Tito did't gave Boka as a present to Montenegro.

Boka was an part of the Byzantine Empire, from who Montenegrins come from. After that period Boka was taken away by Venetia [1].

See also [2]

After that period it was claimed by Austria-Hungary.

So please read some information before you say some unlogical, selfproduced things.

Sorry BUT You got it wrong: Croatia was part of Austria-Hungaria and the Venetian empire. AND during the Austrian empire Boka Kotorska was always under Croatian jurisdiction and settled by a Croatian majority before the ethnic cleansing during the ninetees. During Venitian times Boka was governed by some group of Croatian aristocrats paying allegance to Venice.

The Prevlaka question

For more than 500 years Prevlaka- the Croatian peninsula at the entrance of the Boka Kotorska- was in the ownership of the Republic of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). After the fall of the Republic it became part of the Austrian empire. Today all of the landlords on Prevlaka are still Croatians.

Nevertheless Montenegro claims sovereignity over the Peninsula which is another example of Serbian Montenegrin expansionist dreams.


Both of the above two statements are ridiculous. I don't believe there should be mention of the **** various ex-Yugoslavs have found themselves in with respect to cross-national boundaries. Place these comments somewhere else por favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.188.67 (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

1999 bombings

According to the BBC article cited in this article targets in Montenegro were bombed by NATO during the Kosovo war. But what kind of targets were they if they were only barracks and other infrastructure of the federal military was targeted and local infrastructure was left intact it should be mentioned. I remember that NATO in some ways respected Montenegro autonomy from Serbia. Mieciu K 21:51, 30 October 2006. Thousands were killed. (UTC)

Translation of Crna Gora

It says that "Crna Gora" litterally means "black mountain." I think "Montenegro" in Italian would mean that, but in Serbian, Black Mountain would be "Crna planina." What? The RSJ ¿Qué? 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Either one [3]. Maybe I should raise my babel userbox or you should decrease yours? ;) // Laughing Man 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"Gora" can actually mean either forest or mountain. Example: Biogradska Gora, means Biograd Forest and the mountain between Serbia and Macedonia, Crna Gora, means Black Mountain
Montenegro was named for the black forests of Mount Lovćen and probably the mountain of Lovćen itself. This is according to historical accounts. Crna Gora 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks... The RSJ ¿Qué? 02:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Another question, on the website of the Montenegro Gov't, I keep on seeing the translation "Republike Crne Gore" instead of Crne Gora.[4] Which one is more correct? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is conjugated for adjective/subject agreement, as is often the case with Slavic languages. Chris 01:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Crne Gore means "of Crna Gora." In Slavic tongues, instead of a word for "of," they use a word-ending. It works the same as the genetive case in Classical Latin. Rathersane (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

"Recognition in popular culture following independence has been swift, with Montenegro providing a setting for the James Bond film Casino Royale (2006 film), the location of the titular casino (relocated from the fictional French town of the novel, Casino Royale)."

This is wrong. Not one scene was shot in Montenegro. It is Karlsbad in Czech republic what is presented as Montenegro.
December 06, Sjenica Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjenica (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, Sjenica. Karlsbad provided the setting for the casino itself, but most of scenes that take place in Montenegro were shot there. This is often the case in movie industry. Eg, Dr Zhivago was shot in Madrid, not in Russia, etc. It would probably be too expensive to film those scenes in an actual MN resort, such as Sveti Stefan. Karlsbad place wasn't used for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.0.99 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
More importantly, The article currently reads "provides a setting", not a filming location. The passage as it currently stands does not refer to the location in which filming actually took place. --207.13.210.202 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)--207.13.210.202 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The film was shot in the Czech Republic, Italy and I think in the UK. Non of it was shot in montenegro.

The Agenda

The end of the Economy section mentions "The Agenda". Creepy name aside, can someone please write about it (or remove it)? --207.13.210.202 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"The Agenda"

The comprehensive plan by the Montenegran Government to "explode tourism"-- location-based plan focused on constructing touristic centers around already existing sites of interest-- domestic spending gets limited to site/"main street" upkeep-- attracts foreign investors with thematic tie-ins for hotels, restaurants, etc.-- Major Weaknesses: Montenegran government employs a few professional psychologists to explore thematic ties to sites/events for wider appeal (for instance the oro dance can be adapted thematically to a number of interests), however the psychologists are primarily of Italian origin & thus may not address non-european psychology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.188.77.47 (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Capital

There's English version of constitution on official government website (DOC file), which states: 

Article 7.
THE CAPITAL CITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE
The administrative centre of Montenegro shall be Podgorica.
The capital city of Montenegro shall be Cetinje.

It is similar to Netherlands case, where Amsterdam is a capital officially (location of Queen), but government are situated in Hague. Read: Cetinje is a location of President, Podgorica is a location of Parliament and Government. I believe this should be listed like other countries with multiple capitols.

-- Serguei Trouchelle 01:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! The capital is Podgorica as it has always been since July 13, 1946. The seat of government, parliament, AND PRESIDENT is in Podgorica. Cetinje is only the seat of the Kingdom of Montenegro in exile. And besides, only capital cities have embassies, and Podgorica has them and do you see any in Cetinje, no. Besides, no one in Montenegro nor in the world say that Cetinje is the capital of Montenenegro, but instead, they say it is Podgorica. And also, that consitution was adopted in 1992, very outdated, and a new one is due next year. --Crna Gora 01:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually many embassies in Israel are in Tel Aviv or other major cities and not in Jerusalem, because some countries don't recognize Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.--Carabinieri 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong you are:
  1. President's residence is definitely in Cetinje. I've seen it with my own eyes, and you can google to see its pictures, for example, on President's website. I placed one to Cetinje's page.
  2. About embassies: I've talked about Netherlands, for example US embassy is located in Hague, and Hague is NOT a capital.
  3. About constitution: outdated or not, it is active now, and Wikipedia should contain actual data, not forthcoming.
  4. About forthcoming constitution: it's draft lists TWO capitals, and Montenegrin as official language, and Cetinje is defined as a seat of President. But you cannot use this anyway, because it's a draft and not an active document. -- Serguei Trouchelle 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The answer to your debate is simple, the Capital city is where the parliment sits. It is always the centre of government and politicsl The government's website information is contradictory leading to this confusion here. The location of embassies is not an argument but does lend minor support to Crna Gora's view. Also the President can be located outside the capital. Also the need to update the consitution is no argument. This is only definition and that is where the Parliment sits and thats Podgoria. Buffadren 17:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
This debate is absurd, we don't need people to teach us what city is the capital of our country. A few embassies and a President's residence don't make Cetinje a capital. Cetinje is the old royal capital, Podgorica is the capital of Montenegro. End of disscussion. Cheers! Sideshow Bob 18:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No, they're right, Sideshow Bob! Montenegro indeed has two Capitals, as pointed out at every single one of its official websites. --PaxEquilibrium 21:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we insert this -'Montenegro has two capital cities, Its de-facto, parlimentary capital and largest city is Podgorica, while Cetinje is designated as Prijestonica -the old royal capital and is also the residence of the President . Buffadren 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Current version is acceptable and accurate. I reckon there is no need for further discussion on this issue. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 20:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

US state of Maine adopts country

The Maine national guard recently adopted this country, not much info has been released yet. Anyone have any luck finding any? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.228.117 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea, sure. This is untrue information. Stop your vandalism. --Crna Gora 01:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Adopted huh? :) Maybe this is what you were talking about? Anyway, I don't see how this is relevant for the article. Sideshow Bob 02:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Would'nt you think this would be more relevant in the Military of Montenegro article? --Crna Gora 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats exacxtly where to put it, if anywhere Buffadren 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:36 (UTC)

The links have been suggested for trimming

The External links need trimming back. Those interested cast suggestions Buffadren 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Highest Peak

I watched documentary about Prokletije on Montenegrin national television claiming that there are several peaks higher than Bobotov kuk and that they are shared with Albania. This article however claims Bobotov kuk as highest point of Montenegro. Luka Jačov 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You might have a point: http://www.komovi.cg.yu/crna_gora/index.htm says that Bjelić (2,524) and Kolac (2,528) are a couple of meters higher... also, here. Duja► 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Luka, you are absolutely correct. There is one peak in the Prokletije call Maja e Roşit (or Rošit in Montenegrin) that is 2 metres higher than Bobotov Kuk. However, Duja, I can't seem to find Bjelić or Kolac by the Prokletije region in my geographical map of Montenegro. I will look a little deeper into this subject. --Crna Gora 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, never mind. According to one of Duja's citations, Bjelić is Maja e Roşit (or what I thought was Rošit). For Kolac, however, I'm still trying to find. I've checked all three maps I have of Montenegro and they proved inconclusive. However, I'll still keep looking. However, I suggest changing the highest peak of Montenegro to Bjelić (Maja e Roşit), for now, until I find proof of any mountain by the name of Kolac in Prokletije. Or, we could just keep the current highest peak and just mention that there are 2 that exceed its height. Opinions? Comments? --Crna Gora 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Contrary to the summary of the last edit in the article, the above discussion did not clearly conclude that Kolac is the HP. I have been looking into this too, and I am confused by the information that I find. The claim that Kolac (2528m) is the HP of Montenegro is made here, but on this page there is a link to a map which contradicts the claim, showing nothing in the Kolac area on the border or within Montenegro higher than 2512m, and the main summit of Kolac within Albania. This is supported by my 1:50,000 Russian topo of the area. Is there more reliable evidence that there is a higher peak than Maja e Roshit on the border or within Montenegro? If not, I think that the main article should take an NPOV stance. Viewfinder 03:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

History section grammar

Montenegro's army bravely defended Serbian withdrawing to Albania in the Battle of Mojkovac.
This sentence sounds awkward, but I don't feel sure enough of the intended meaning to attempt to fix it myself. Would someone more knowledgeable please make this idea clearer? Thanks, and kudos on a great article, editors. --fleela ±alk 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

27th independent state

I find this claim rather too low. Is it a typo for 37th? Setting aside the other Balkan states for the moment (although Greece was not even technically dependent on the Porte), there were a dozen substantial states in the rest of Europe, a dozen in South America, half a dozen in Central and North America, plus Japan, China, Persia, and the Ottoman Empire (plus numerous debateable cases: Monaco, Morocco, Korea, Siam...). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Resistance against the Turks

Although the Ottoman Empire controlled the lands to the south and east from the 15th century, it never fully conquered Zeta.

I feel this needs a little expansion. According to Elizabeth Roberts in The Realm of the Black Mountain, ‘Like many myths this one is based rather more on wishful thinking than on historical accuracy. With the departure of the Crnojevići at the end of the fifteenth century these lands too – comprising no more than four Turkish sub-districts or nahije – became part of the Ottoman Empire, but whenever the opportunity presented itself, the Montenegrins rebelled against Ottoman authority [...].’ Later she says that ‘Their unruliness coupled with the difficulty of the terrain soon led the Ottomans to renounce the struggle to collect anything but the basic poll tax, and to tolerate, grudgingly and within limits, an increasing degree of self-rule’ (pp. 12-13).

So it seems to me we should more accurately say something along the lines of, Although the Ottoman Empire eventually took nominal control of the area, they never successfully subdued the populace and were ultimately forced to allow them a degree of autonomy. I also think we should add something here about how important the idea of resistance against the Turks is to the Montenegrin national consciousness. Widsith 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Early Group Tourism to Montenegro

It seems that the Austrian and Finnish travelling agencies were the first to start, after the members of Eastern Block state runned travelling agencies, direct tourist journeys to Montenegro when Jugoslavia allowed both Austrians and Finns to travel in Jugoslavia without any visa formalities in 1964. At least Finnish travelling agencies took at ones Montenegro as one of their targets arranging journeys for small groups (there were not by that time many big hotels). The first journeys were made to Herceg Novi then also to Budva, and to Ulsinj near the Albanian border. Peharps there should be also in the main article even a mention of Budva earthquake which destroyed the historical Budva in 1960´s. With special arrangements actress Sophia Loren owned her holiday villa near Budva during the Tito time in Jugoslavia, which she used her "hiding place" outside of the sight of the western "paparazzi" scandal journal reporters and photographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.205.131 (talk) 05:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Former coat of arms & flag

Shall we remove from the article symbols of Montenegro during period of SR Yugoslavia due to they were never used since independence and this is article about independent country. Also what do you think about making new article about Republic of Montenegro (1993-2006) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefke (talk • contribs) 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the independent country but anything about its history (which started long before the recent independence) should be included. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create Republic of Montenegro (1993-2006). See Poland for example, all its previous forms are documented in the same article, regardless of the times this country's borders have changed and independence been lost/restored. On the other hand, Slovak Republic (1939–1945) exists to document the first existence of the independent Slovak Republic. I don't know, really... But anyway, information about the history of Montenegro prior to the 2006 independence should not be summarily removed. Húsönd 14:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The old flag & coat-of-arms shouldn't be removed, since AFAIK they're still "legal", despite not being used at all. There is no new Constitution, and the one from 1992 is still in act. The current flag and coat-of-arms were introduced in an irregular session of the parliament in 2004, and unconstitutionally adopted the new two state symbols. So we should wait they're in the real sense of the word "replaced". And no, it doesn't make sense to create that separate article. --PaxEquilibrium 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggesed that because article Socialist Republic of Montenegro exists, and between that and present Montenegro exists gap. Also here old symbols are present at content called "Government and politics". They more refer to "Union with Serbia".

Pax, I strongly disagree that they are official. Visit www.vlada.cg.yu and see what official symbols of Montenegro are if you are not sure. See UN web site and see with which symbols MNE is recognized. By old constitution F.R.Y. is still "legal", isn't it?

Stefke 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to keep all data from 1991/1992 when the modern-day Montenegrin state was formed in one piece. The Communist state can remain for the one before (since 1945). That's because the old symbols aren't quite yet old.
No, because FRY doesn't exist. And yes, MNE is internationally recognized with that Flag & Coat-of-arms - thus, that is why they are in the table in the top. However that doesn't change the fact that they are in the same status as the Flag and Coat-of-arms of Vojvodina. They're not yet legalized, and were irregularly adopted in the first place, three years ago. --PaxEquilibrium 11:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Where it says 'becoming the world's newest sovereign state.' Doesn't that date the article unnecesarily? Wouldn't it be better to just say 'becoming a sovereign state.'? Granite26 19:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Internet TLD

.me is active! take a look at http://www.nic.me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.126.242 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Budvamore.jpg

Image:Budvamore.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Language

Part 1

Montenegrin has been proclaimed official in the Constitution. That is a great leap, but Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be influenced by political acts. I have nothing myself against Montenegrin or any other language - but it is POV and thus improper according to Wikipedia's terms to use it in that manner. In addition to that, that footnote reflects this very thing. --PaxEquilibrium 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My view on this matter is at User talk:PaxEquilibrium#Montenegro. Montenegro may exist only politically but, at the end of the day, all languages are political (Serbian is also a political construct, as are all the post-Serbo-Croatian languages). But another issue: why are Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian listed under Montenegrin? I think that we need to explain what status these languages have in Montenegro. If they are all official languages equal in status to Montenegrin (like in Bosnia and Herzegovina), then they should all be listed on the same level as Montenegrin. If they are only "officially-recognised minority languages", then they should be listed in the footnotes (see Sweden), or perhaps using the special "recognised regional languages" line, like at United Kingdom. Ronline ✉ 14:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It cannot be connected with Bosnian because of several things. Firstly, the Bosnian language factually exists, i.e. those who want to understand Bosnian can do so by finding Bosnian-language-educated professors, reading Grammars and Primers. There are works specifically written in Bosnian language. However, there is no such thing with the Montenegrin language - it doesn't exist beyond a paper adopted into legal act (politically) several days ago. Additionally, 100% of speakers of the Bosnian language consider their language a language - over 80% of the speakers of the Montenegrin language, consider it a dialect of Serbian, while only 20% think it's a separate language.
In the end I understand what you want to say - but see Moldova and Talk:Moldova#.22Moldovian.22_Language.3F. I am trying to pair up for general neutrality of the Wikipedia, and hence that. As you can see, all my proposals were rejected - and the current version is in my opinion a bit too POV, and probably even more from your edge of view. --PaxEquilibrium 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think the situation at Moldova isn't ideal either, even though the Moldovan language case is slightly more complex. In 1989, the Moldovan SSR adopted a law attesting to its "Moldo-Romanian identity", a law which hasn't been repealed yet. People are now using this to show that in fact the term "Romanian language" does have official recognition in Moldova. In my opinion, it's nothing more than technicality, since as per the Constitution, the language is exclusively called "Moldovan", and all agencies that do use "Romanian" do so informally. But, in any case, I disagree with the "Moldovan/Romanian" listing there.
I don't have a big problem with the status quo, I only think that the footnote is a bit simplistic in that it doesn't really capture the controversy associated with the Montenegrin language. As to the Bosnian case: linguistically, I don't see why Bosnian exists as a separate language any more than Serbian does. The only reason why it is more readily classified as a language is a political one once again: because it has been around longer than Montenegrin, and has thus developed the necessary "infrastructure", like education, dictionaries, literature, etc. The same will most likely happen with Montenegrin. Ronline ✉ 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
And when it does, I'll introduce it. ;)
BTW Moldovan still has problems, though proclaimed practically six decades ago. Montenegrin was proclaimed a bit over six days ago. --PaxEquilibrium 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should respect the constitution, and by painting the language as "serbian" it is POV because it is equal to saying that now, Instead of the official language of Bosnia, being bosnian, but Serbo-Croatian.
The name change is political and factual. The language itself may not be factual now but will be soon after standardization which will be introduced into the country shortly. Critikal1 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does respect the Constitution - see the table. However using "Montenegrin" in the direct text is excessively POV, just as is using "Moldovan" in Moldova-related articles.
Well, if you're so convinced - just hold on for it. ;D --PaxEquilibrium 23:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think "Serbo-Croatian" would be more neutral than solely "Serbian", because the umbrella term "Serbo-Croatian" includes all the current languages: Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian, and Montenegrin. --George D. Božović 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should transcribe the name in all the languages spoken in the country, starting with Montenegrin, now official. Even if the creation of this language is politically motivated, this case is not the only one of its kind. And it's inevitable that from now on sources will document the official language of the country as Montenegrin so I guess we should simply follow suit. Húsönd 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources are documented like that for almost three years by now. And yes, it's not the only one of its kind - and all other examples in Wikipedia are unused in such manner. --PaxEquilibrium 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If the official name of the country is Republika Crna Gora, and if the official language is called Montenegrin (no matter if it really is Montenegrin), then we must state that Republika Crna Gora (the official name) is the country's name in Montenegrin (the official language). --George D. Božović 21:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not anymore - the "Republic" has been taken out from the name, it's just "Montenegro" now. --PaxEquilibrium 10:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but the point is nonetheless the same. --George D. Božović 11:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

By Constitution Montenegrin language is OFFICIAL LANGUAGE; while other (Bosnian, Croat, Serbian) & Albanian have "official STATUS". (I think it should be mentioned like this in Wikipedia) That means all documents from Serbia, Croatia or Bosnia are not supposed to be translated. Albanian language is used in towns with big Albanian minority, like Rožaje and Ulcinj and e.g. street tables are in both languages there. Stefke 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to public service RTV Montenegro, from 1st January 2008 on, 3 unique Montenegrin letters (if compared with Ser-Cro) can be used by people and firms. Also names can be given / firms registrated using letters " ś ", " ź " and " dz " Stefke 01:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to see it's already starting... --PaxEquilibrium 10:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I see no reason what so ever to state the official name of the country in a foreign language (Serbian in this case). It is highly POV and obviously politically motivated. Wikipedia does not exist as an outlet to further people's political agenda, but to provide reliable, VERIFIED, official information. Let us remember that Serbian language became official in Serbia proper in 2006, untill then it was Serbo-Croatian. Please do not misuse Wikipedia to further political goals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.3.199 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 8 November 2007
What makes it foreign? --PaxEquilibrium 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This is how the Brussels article begins and I suggest the similar thing for Montenegro article --Avala 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Brussels (French: Bruxelles, IPA: [bʁysɛl], and sometimes incorrectly [bʁyksɛl] by non-Belgian speakers of French; Dutch: Brussel, IPA: [ˈbrɵsəɫ]; German: Brüssel, IPA: [brʏsəl]) is the capital of Belgium...

yes, but look this one much more closer one: 

The Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian: Fudbalski Savez Bosne i Hercegovine, 
FSBiH; Croatian: Nogometni Savez Bosne i Hercegovine, NSBiH; 
Serbian: Фудбалски савез Босне и Херцеговине, ФСБиХ or Fudbalski Savez Bosne i Hercegovine, 
FSBiH) is the chief officiating body of football in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Perhaps I'm inserting this in the wrong location. Why is it that it was decided that the Bosnian and Croatian names for MNE not be included in the intro. It could appear basically like this: Montenegrin/Serbian: Црна Гора, Crna Gora; Bosnian/Croatian: Crna Gora; Albanian: Mali i Zi. I am going to make this edit onto the page mostly so I could get a response to this question as to why it has not been done before as all of those languages are national in MNE. Gkmx (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I found my answer though I do disagree with the reasoning —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Stefke (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

every language has right to be present on WP, for example see Bosnian or Old Church Slavic wikipedia. I suggest to include on Montenegro-related topics Montenegrin language to avoid any confusion. Why would Montenegrin case be different than Bosnian or Croatian??89.188.32.8 15:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For obvious reasons. Croatian and Bosnian languages are standardized, and people actually "know" what it is, but Montenegrin is factually non-existent. Another difference is that most Croatian and Bosnian speakers consider their language a language, whereas most speakers of the Montenegrin language do not, considering it just a dialect of the Serbian language, rather. Other reasons are less important, compare the situation to the Moldovan language. --PaxEquilibrium 19:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
However, the official name of the country and the names of the cities and towns have to be stated in the official language, and it is called Montenegrin, no matter what language any of the citizens speak or what they consider it to be. The Constitution of Montenegro calls the official language Montenegrin and thus any official name (of the country, of a town...) in Montenegro is in the official language called Montenegrin. The official name of the country - Crna Gora - is in the official language, and the official language is called Montenegrin in the Constitution. --George D. Božović 11:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Refer to Moldova. --PaxEquilibrium 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
oh, it's great, that Montenegrins demand the independent language! we (Ukrainians) support you! still century ago Russians claimed that there is no separate Ukrainian language, that it is just the dialect of Russian, and even nowadays some Russians think so! we are so same with you in our history! but this Russian fascism destroyed our language a lot. i hope, that if Montenegrin isn't still strong enough, you'll make Montenegrin the language uniting whole Montenegro. i'm sure, you have a right for your own language and to decide on your own which language do you want! i love Montenegro! :) --Riwnodennyk ✉ 13:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's nice, but this isn't a forum. ;) --PaxEquilibrium 15:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Montenegrin has been proclaimed official in the Constitution. That is a great leap, but Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be influenced by political acts. If that is so then what are you doing here Pax? For example Serbian is Ekavian dialect, Montenigrin is Ijekavian - so according to dialect it's much closer to Bosnian or Croatian. Your claim is: Serbian language? Just because Montenegro was under Serbian political pressure in last century? Isn't your engagement in this article just another political act? Continuation of agressive Serbian politics towards their neighbours? And what happens if we set this problem in opposite direction: how many original Montenigrin words became "Serbian" in last 200 years? Another difference is that most Croatian and Bosnian speakers consider their language a language, whereas most speakers of the Montenegrin language do not, considering it just a dialect of the Serbian language, rather. If you ask some proud original Montenegrian about it the answer will never be Serbian language! Sources are documented like that for almost three years by now. And yes, it's not the only one of its kind - and all other examples in Wikipedia are unused in such manner. Of course Montenegro is not under Serbian hat anymore for 3 years, so people can freely call their language however they want and obviously Montenigrin is official now. What's the problem? This isn't a forum. Zenanarh (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm ensuring that some form of calmness and neutrality is preserved. No, Serbian is both ekavian and iyekavian dialect, Montenegrin is...well, none yet defined (although it'll probably be iyekavian). :) No, but because Serbian was always the language spoken in Montenegro, the term "Montenegrin language" is being brought into usage only lately, and is still a matter of great controversy - to be solved soon, I hope. The other way around is the political act. I do not understand what do you mean by "..how many original Montenegrin words became "Serbian"..", could you elaborate please? Well, I asked just for you my family this night, and they declared Serbian language. ;) Also, what is "proud original Montenegrian"? Please define. You're however, wrong. Montenegro broke its union with Serbia only a year ago. Of course t'is not be a forum - we're discussing the article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I was a bit surprised when you appeared and wrote that, I expected that you'd write that Montenegrins are Serbs, since you even consider that Macedonians are Bulgarians. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Can you precise exactly where did I said something like that? I mean your last statement... Do you feel good with your manipulations? Zenanarh (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure I can. On 20:05, 14 November 2007 as an anon (78.3.25.194), which you signed on 20:06, 14 November 2007 on your talk page: "I can say this: Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula,...". --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
My advice to you is to read better that which you write. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Where exactly in Glagolithic alphabet was used only by Croats in Croatian lands and Bulgarians in Macedonia (around Ohrid lake) in all Balkan peninsula you see this: Macedonians are Bulgarians? Well, my mistake was that I didn't note a reference: O porietlu i domovini glagolice i ćirilice. Vienac, Zagreb, XV/1883, 27, 441. It was just a citation. However, this is not suitable for this talk page... Zenanarh (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since we are using "Montenegrin/Serbian" it would be more accurate to have "Crna Gora/Црна Гора" rather than "Црна Гора, Crna Gora". My version would be represent the strong preference of the Latin alphabet in the Montenegrin language and the preference for the Cyrillic in the Serbian language.Gkmx (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Note on edit that the language portion was not changed, just the ordering of the native names in Cyrillic v. Latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The pushing of Latin was there only during the struggle for Montenegrin sovereignty. Montenegro is now independent and there is no such thing. Besides, the Constitution clearly says Cyrillic and then Latin (though declaring them equal). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Your statement is in contradiction with the data in the "Montenegrin Language" wikipedia article where it states, "The proponents of the separate Montenegrin language tend to prefer using Latin alphabet over the Cyrillic, which was traditionally used in Montenegro before 2006." Though both alphabets may have equal legal status, "the pushing of Latin", is still there post-2006 as indicated in the article. My edit was intended to reflect the preferences of the respective languages in accordance with the order of appearance of the languages in the initial sentence. While the "pushing of Latin" is no longer done in attempt to gain sovereignty it certainly continues in attempt to forge an identity that is not a Serbian one. If it is true that "pushing of Latin" is non-existent, then I suggest you visit the Montenegrin Language article and delete the aforementioned sentence. At the moment we have intra-article contradiction with respect to the Montenegrin language's preference for the Latin alphabet. As to the ordering of words in the MNE constitution, thats all fine and dandy, but still not a reason to have the Latin/Cyrillic format that I used reverted. Latin/Cyrillic identifies the preferences among (Montenegrins that are pro-Montenegrin language supporters)/(Montenegrins that are pro-Serbian language supporters). I will now revert.Gkmx (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that wasn't such a division. Latin was used by some of the ultra-sovereignists (including nationalists) and from that it spread onwards, it wasn't really a split on two halves in this case - but then again, why is this so relevant at all? ;) You also removed the italic, btw. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The removal of the italic was to represent the two variants as equally as possible. I do not know whether or not this is against a convention of Wikipedia. Simply why its relevant - to represent the Montenegrin language as acurately as possible for the reasons described, or implied, above.Gkmx (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
....which is, as you know, hampered by any sort of factual existence for now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
True... So use the original version, then? It really is a minor point. I originally figured that if Wiki is going to entertain the idea of a Montenegrin language, might as well do it in a way that attempts to portray the language for what it is - a tool of cultural separatism (there probably is a proper term for this). I believe that the version with Cyrillic first is more representative of the Montenegrin population's preference in that it has a stronger connection with the Serbian language as Serbian is the popularly prefferred name of the language in MNE. My edit of Latin/Cyrillic was to be more true to the separatist nature of the Montenegrin language, but this came at the price of side-lining the popular preference in MNE. So perhaps the original presentation with Cyrillic first is the better solution. I think I shall revert myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkmx (talk • contribs) 22:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

Well, I don’t see any reason to omit Montenegrin language. I suggest to put in Montenegro-related articles Montenegrin because Montenegrin language is ‘’REALITY’’. Also after standardization in case of introducing new letters (‘ś' 'ź' and 'dz') on Montenegro-related articles must be used new letters Montenegrin. Letter Ś is used widely in Montenegro, and must be introduced. However, another 2 are used mostly in old, Njegos Montenegrin speech; like in original version of Gorski Vijenac (by Njegos) which Dositej Obradović translated in Serbian.


About the last Montenegrin census: Census papers initially were looking like this: 

Question no.# 2:
Language spoken: 
1) Serbian
2) Albanian
3) Croatian
4) Bosnian
5) Roma
6) Other

Because of protest of public opinion, language question had open style.

However, people who answered they speak “Serbo-Croatian”, “Croato-Serbian”, “Serbian of iyekavic standard” or simply “Serbian” were listed as Serbian speaking (and that’s about 60%). In that 60% are included citizens that didn’t want to pronounce they speak Montenegrin until standardization of Montenegrin language, and that number is huge!

I really wonder how some 22% of citizens dared to say they speak Montenegrin, although it wasn’t standardized! And I admire them.

So LAST CENSUS WASN’T REFERENDUM WHAT LANGUAGE SHOULD BE OFFICIAL IN MONTENEGRO!

I will repeat once more what means that Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian are having official status: that means Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian documents, books, etc. are acceptable in Montenegro and are not supposed to be translated.

Also every citizen in Montenegro have right to speak in his mother tongue, as is guaranteed by UN. Also Montenegrin language should be present in Wiki. Loud and proud! Stefke (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Montenegrin language isn't omitted - refer to the state table. "Montenegrin language is REALITY" is a bit not understandable, what are you trying to say? Refer to Moldova-related articles.
The statement that the Ś character is widely-used in Montenegro is really false. Are you in Montenegro? And Dositej Obradovic didn't translate the Mountain Wreath from Montenegrin to Serbian.
That's not correct, Montenegrin was also a choice. The ruling coalition them campaigned for citizens to declare Montenegrin official, Milo Djukanovic on TV stated and wrote that Montenegrin is his native language. I'd AFAIK reckon that 22% (mostly the DPS electorate) after all that work is very, surprisingly low. ;) We can remember how the pro-Serbian opposition used naughtily this census to its advantage, claiming that the greatest defeat of Djukanovic's policy can be seen through there. That that people who declared as such were listed under "Serbian" is new and very odd to me. Why do you think that?
And this an encyclopedia, which has got to do nothing with democracy, politics or anything like that. ;) You should then yourself ask why is a minority language proclaimed (the prime) official in a country? "Loud and proud"? I don't understand, but what the heck is that supposed to mean??? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Try this phrazeiolgy- The 'Montenegran dialect of the greater Serbo-Croatian language' as a fair summary.--86.29.245.177 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear PAX,

Well, I disagree with you that real solution for Montenegrin language case is located over Carpathian Mountains. Moldavians declared they speak language called "our language", and thats their right, and I respect it. Yes, I agree with you that Reality of existance of Montenegrin language is not understandable, especially to some pro-serbian nationalists. Some of them simply don't get that Montenegro is souvering state and Serbia has nothing to do in Montenegrin internal affairs.

Look some Bosnia-related topics such as Football Association of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Montenegrin has been proclaimed official in the Constitution. That is a great leap, but Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should not be influenced by political acts. I have nothing myself against Montenegrin or any other language - but it is POV and thus improper according to Wikipedia's terms to use it in that manner. In addition to that, that footnote reflects this very thing. --PaxEquilibrium 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC) / This sentence sounds really chauvinistic and anti-montenegrin!!! Why is Serbian language better than Montenegrin? Why to assimilate everything what is Montenegrin under Serbian umbrella? Even you said once "I agree to remove the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, it's a very tiny and unimportant self-styled religious organization" (on Talk:Montenegrins.)

Why you think that Montenegrins do not use ˝ś˝? Even that character exists in Serbian language as a "character for writing substandard speech" (that's something like “IPA” in English). Montenegrin language is even official even in Serbian firm m:tel (mobile operator), part of MTS, as well as in Hungarian T-Mobile CG

About the census> all people who declared they speak Serbo-Croatian, as they learned in schools, are listed unfairly under Serbian speaking. How many times I have to say you that census in 2003 wasn’t referendum for official language in present?!

I will give you one citation: "There exist 3 kinds of lies:

1) Simple lie 2) Bigger lie 3) ‘’Statistics’’"

‘’And this an encyclopedia, which has got to do nothing with democracy, politics or anything like that. ;) ‘’ – Yes, but I don’t see why is for you important to exclude Montenegrin as much as possible! I don’t get why is wrong for you to write ‘’(Montenegrin: Црна Гора)’’? That is absolutely correct, without doubt!

Pax, why on some wiki pages where exist hyperlink to web site of Montenegrin government [[5]] you put constantly that page is in Serbian language? THAT WEB PAGE IS IN MONTENEGRIN AS I CAN READ (C-r-n-o-g-o-r-s-k-i), AND IF IT IS IN CRNOGORSKI THAT MEANS MONTENEGRIN LANGUAGE! Or should I call you from now on MIRKśA JEDNADŽBICA (standard Montenegrin name delivered from Mirko, as PAX = Mir = Mirko=Mirkśa; Equilibrium = jednadžba -> jednadžbica).

One more thing, why you always blame for everything DPS? It sounds as really cheap anti-DPS propaganda! If you don’t like DPS, simply go to elections and VOTE! (of course if you have Montenegrin citizenship. Or it might be again that nasty DPS "stole" it from you ;) ) What a hell do you think Montenegro is?

Why do you think Montenegrins should be not proud of their own language? Please give an explanation for that.Stefke (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stefke, I used Moldova simply to compare the problematic situations. I'd hardly doubt majority of the Montenegrin people and various linguistic experts are "pro-serbian nationalist", be it even nationalists. The main issue is that there are some qualifications for one considering a language, just like there are about statehood (e.g. is Montenegro internationally recognized, does it function with its own institutions on a state basis, etc...) - such "qualifications" to call them, simply do not reach the merit of a true language. But of course, that's why underlined yet, because there is a high possibility that will change, soon enough.
That is not connected that much - Moldovan-related subjects are far more.
I do not understand what do you see in that sentence "chauvinistic or anti-montenegrin". That reminds me of something Vojislav Seselj would say (no bad faith intended to compare you two IMHO). Serbian language isn't better than Montenegrin = it's just more a reality/real than it. As for the Montenegrin Orthodox Church I completely stand by my statement ans see nothing incorrect in it.
Well I shall repeat again: it would be both slightly incorrect and a bit POV to put it precisely that way.
I like the nickname you gave me. :)
I don't blame DPS for everything, but for most of the things, yes I do. Just like I blame SPS for most of Serbia's problems. Am I the only one? No. Is it a morally-based thing? Yes. Since you already mention it, obviously not democratic in that precise manner (you know to what I am referring - citizenship and voting rights).
That is absolutely no relevance to this issue. But if you truly want to know, I don't really understand how/why should any nation be proud (!) of its language. ;) And to add in the end - Serbian language is probably more "primary" to the Montenegrin people than Montenegrin. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of the name 'Mirkśa' before. I've only heard of Mrkša. The letter ś truly is rather interesting, but do not put it everywhere - it has its proper place based on etymology (such as śever alright, but šubara or sukob, and certainly not 'śubara' and 'śukob'). Have in mind that. --George D. Božović (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Not name, NICKNAME. Most common nicknames with ś are Maśa for Marko, Śobo for Slobodan, Śaka for Slavica.Stefke (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
A little side-question - how would ś be in Cyrillic? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Pax, there is none, yet. The originally proposed letter for ś in Cyrillic is the Cyrillic equivalent of the letter s with the accent mark on top. --Prevalis (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Well tat's too foolish. Wouldn't "Щ, щ" be far more appropriate, or at least its historical predecessor (before Ivan Peter oddly moved the lower line from the center to the right)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Щ, щ" would have been more appropriate, but Vojislav Nikčević obviously hadn't thought of it. @Stefke, no matter if it is a name or a nickname, there is no etymological support whatsoever for ś in either Maśa, Śobo or Śaka. Such habit is rather called babbling. --George D. Božović (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Щ would not be appropriate because it represents the sound shch (šč in Serbian), which is inapproriate for ś as ś is supposed to represent the sound shya (šj in Serbian). --Prevalis (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
But as long as its not used, I suppose it would be OK. --PaxEquilibrium 14:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It's actually sj in Serbian (given that Serbian sjever, sjedim corresponds to Montenegrin śever, śedim). Щ exists in Russian and is pronounced like in Ijekavian dialects of Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and western Serbia (the so-called "soft Š" or "soft S"). Nikčević also used the very same explanation for the letter Ś, stating that it exists in Polish and represents the same sound. ;) Anyway, the common Cyrillic S with an accent is far less appropriate and rather unusual. --George D. Božović 23:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Đorđe, have you ever been to Montenegro and hear how they normally speak. Believe me, ś is not pronounced as sj as you had originally claimed. It is rather pronounced as šj as I had originally said. And don't give me some bull, saying that "Щ, щ" is pronounced as šj (or as you call it the "soft š"), of which it's not. --Prevalis 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
George was talking about linguistic evolution - do not bound yourself to a single interpretation of a character (even the non-existent ones). --PaxEquilibrium 11:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
True, I was rather getting on the etymology (sĕver : sjever : śever) and not pronunciation. I know perfectly well how to pronounce ś because it exists in my native dialect, too. Russian Щ indeed is pronounced as "soft š", most similarly to Polish and Montenegrin Ś. --George D. Božović 15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I was in specific referring to the Old Slavic predecessor of the character (before Peter the Great made it "Russian" with that change) used by the Serbo-Croat ancestors not long ago. --PaxEquilibrium 15:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
However, the Old Slavonic predecessor indeed was pronounced as the consonant cluster št or šč, and it's still pronounced so in modern Bulgarian (unlike Russian). ;) --George D. Božović 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HDI

Any source? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page given the constant history of edit warring to enforce a POV. It has been going on too long. The question of whether the language of the local name "Crna Gora" is Serbian or Montenegrin has been going on for months, every single day. Please discuss you issues here and come to a consensus. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have extended the protection due to the lack of a consensus. Woody (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The question has actually been resolved to the up. There is only one anon that keeps constantly bumping, despite the in-warning following the language bit in the article - furthermore, his version is protected, which means that he will not return and discuss regarding the article either - the protection goes at his benefit. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure it's just one anon, I've seen a lot of IPs... If that's the case, the protection can be downgraded to just semi-protection. But anyway I must say that an agreement about the language is far from evident here on this talk page. Perhaps we could start a straw poll just to make clear any consensus on this matter. Húsönd 00:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
There are several IP addresses editing this article. 213.133.17.186 seems to be the most prolific. That is an IP address registered to "Drustvo za telekomunikacije "MTEL" DOO". It is not the only address doing it however, I count 4, two come from the United States, one from Serbia, and one from the Council of Europe. I don't think there was a consensus above and I second Husond's suggestion, though it is vulnerable to canvassing. Woody (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of people who edited few times. Montenegrin language is official language of Montenegro by highest law act - Constitution and on it's wikipedia page official language must be used for it's name. I haven't seen on any other Balkan state's wiki page that language is constantly being edited. This is clearly act of hatred toward Montenegrin people by Serbs.

To sum it all up: Montenegrin language is official language of Montenegro and there is no reason for any editing. And please, don't use last census as evidence. It was like 5 years ago and situation was different.

I just registered so signing this. --SS.Nolimit (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there was - I originally took it from the Moldovan-related articles, which seem to be subjected to a similar controversy.
Wikipedia is not based on local political events in the World (at least not solely and/or directly).
The problem exists there clearly. The population census cannot be so swiftly dismissed - 4 years and a month or so is a very short time indeed. People do not change rapidly over the night. The standard practice is that a population census is valid for 10 years, when it legally stops being so a new one is conducted - we means that we can't expect a new one before 2013 sadly, and then it's bound to differ greatly.
The main problem is that the new Constitution of Montenegro has proclaimed a language - which in essential fact does not (yet, I draw) exist, to be official. There is no written standard, and nobody knows what that precisely is. In some schools "Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian" (like in Cetinje) is taught, while in others "Serbian" still remains (e.g. in Pljevlja). The teachings are all based in a similar situation to the Republic of Moldova, all based either on localism (local speech) or on written Serbian standard. That's why, it would seem harshly WP:POV, to introduce this - it (as much as paranoid this might sound) would as if promoting the work of the Montenegrin government (which would inevitably lead to a formation of a distinct Montenegrin language some day [not now]), rather than presenting the neutral reality, on which this on-line encyclopedia is based. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand Montenegrin (as it is at this moment) not as a distinct language but simply as an official name for the language in Montenegro. When you put it like that, it implies that all Montenegro-related articles should use the language name Montenegrin (as it is the official name). On the other hand, perhaps labels Serbian/Montenegrin or locally — as in Montenegro (locally: Crna Gora, Црна Гора) — are in a way the "win-win solutions"? --George D. Božović (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the situation calls for a mention of what the Montenegrins call the language in the context of discussing what it really is, which is not a distinct language. As an American, I speak English, and find it incomprehensible that there would be a nationalist campaign to rename English "American". I would suspect that different dialect of English are further apart than those spoken in Serbia and Montenegro - for instance, it's only with very great difficulty that I can understand anything a Scotsman says, and even some dialects in England are hard to make out if the speaker is going too fast. Imagine in every place that used English decided to rename the language! You'd have Canadian, American, South African, New Zealandic, Cayman Islandish, etc. And what would Ireland do? There is already an Irish language, even though most Irish speak English. So I guess you would have to have Irish Type One and Irish Type Two.

Anyway, as an encyclopaedia, we need to describe the facts as they are - if someone is trying to figure out which language is spoken in Montenegro, "Montenegrin" is not going to help as an answer. I think sometimes people forget this is supposed to be a reference tool, not a platform for nationalist ideology. Jpiccone (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the below could perhaps be a satisfactory solution for both sides:
Any comments? The Montenegrin language comment could be placed as a note at the bottom of the article instead, but that would probably displease those who see it as crucial for the start. Húsönd 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, such a form of a footnote is already applied in the country's table, where it says "Montenegrin", but with a footnote at the bottom explains its problematic of factual existence, in the wake of the Serbian language. I'm gonna wait to see what others say, as the whole controversy seem dull to me - I want to pertain neutrality, but at the same don't want to promote a controversial political elite that reigns power in a country. This still reminds me of the insanity that we had over at meta during the (failed) request for a Montenegrin wikipedia, WP:CANVASSING in which several low-ranking Montenegrin political leaders used the Montenegrin media to call the people to register and vote; among others the Cafe del Montenegro forum was used to gather votes, and maybe the most scandalous of all, the Information Technology Association of Montenegro, which has established an on-like wiki-style Montenegrin encyclopedia, has actively "campaigned" during the vote... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could launch that straw poll and establish a threshold of contributions for participants. That should prevent any canvass. Húsönd 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a good idea Hus. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The Montenegrins speak, as we have always spoken, the Serbian language. Some politicaly-motivated act of a ruling elite that is even undemocratic, shud NOT influense the Wikipedia. --PPNjegos (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Montenegrin language is as old as Serbian. What do you think we spoke before serbia interfered with us? Serbians fascists are trying to make and show Montenegrins as Serbs. There IS Montenegrin language and it is used EVERYWHERE in country. Do as you like, if you decide it will stay Serbian, there will be yet another lie about Montenegro on wikipedia decreasing value of it. Montenegrin language is reality, there is no need for proof or anything. IT IS SPOKEN AND USED IN COUNTRY AND SHOULD BE USED HERE.--SS.Nolimit (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please observe WP:CIVIL, refrain from writing in all-caps and, above all, refrain from making personal attacks against this or that people. Wikipedia has zero tolerance against this kind of hate speech. So please calm down and be civil. Thank you. Húsönd 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Serbian language was formed in the early 19th century, and 1818 is the year when it was for the first time published. So, to answer your question - Serbian language is "old" over 190 years. Considering that this has yet to be done with the Montenegrin language - it's 0 years.
"Before Serbia interfered with you"? What precisely do you mean by that?
The Wikipedia represents the reality, and not some political events, as PPNjegos pointed out - there are various dialects spoken in Montenegro of the Serbian language. Some consider it a separate and distinct language, though that more-of related to a national will of self-determination of those Montenegrins, who wish to express their assertion of Montenegrin sovereignty as an independent country from Serbia - which, by the way, is perfectly understandable. But it does not relate to linguistics.
That's where you wrong. On Wikipedia, there is need for proof of everything. Additionally, with this kind of speech, do you really expect to be taken seriously? Please calm down and read WP:CIVIL. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbian language was formed in the early 19th century, and 1818 is the year when it was for the first time published.

— PaxEquilibrium
That is, the modern literary Serb[o-Croat]ian language was formed in the early 19th century, and the Serbian language itself is, of course, much older. The spoken language started to develop from the very time of migrations of Serbs to the Balkans, and in the Middle Ages it had already influenced the literary (Old) Church Slavonic language, giving rise to the Serbian redaction of Church Slavonic. For example, all the characteristics of the Younger Shtokavian vernacular (Eastern Herzegovinian), including the accentuation and the Ijekavian rendering of yat, were already fully formed by the 15th century! --George D. Božović (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you know what I meant - a written modern proclaimed standard. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to add an interesting trivial thing - the modern Serbian language was adopted for the first time in Montenegro in the first half of the 19th century, in Serbia it was only accepted in 1868. ;D --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on language reference in the very first line of this article

Ok, a straw poll might be the best way to easily determine if there's any consensus here regarding the Serbian/Montenegrin edit war that's been going on for months now. But before we start any poll on this matter I think that a threshold should be imposed for participants, as canvass in and off-wiki would be likely and prompt (as was in the past). My suggested conditions for participation are:

  • Only users with accounts registered until 7 January 2008 (last day before protection) may participate;
  • Only users with at least 100 contributions may participate;

Do these conditions sound okay? Húsönd 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, Serbia got millions of people that visit wikipedia while Montenegro doesn't.
There will always be more Serbs to ruin everything for Montenegro on polls. Also, I am not spreading any kind of hate. I do have not so nice feelings toward special kind of serbs and I am just stating whats real. --SS.Nolimit (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understood these conditions. Serbia does not have millions of Wikipedians that are actively old editors of Wikipedia - I think that there are 4-5 or so who are active.
Serbians fascists...more Serbs to ruin everything for Montenegro on polls..special kind of Serbs. I'll be damned if this (along with several other comments) doesn't constitute hate speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it as it was and be patient. Wikipedia is not a crystaball. --Edin Sijercic (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why a Straw Poll is a Bad Idea

First of all, I don't think I've edited this article before, I'm in no way connected to the region and I consider myself pretty neutral regarding the language issue. Some editors, surely with the best intentions, have suggested that a straw poll should be used here. Unfortunately, that's a very bad idea. Straw poll can be useful in some situations, but not deciding the name of a language in any country. The reason for this is that, unless I'm very much mistaken, the constitution of the country already establishes a name for it. This is the case for most countries, so I'd expect it to be the case in Montenegro as well? If that is the case, then that is the name that should be used in this article and no straw poll can get us away from that. Even if 100 straw polls on Wikipedia resultated in calling the language of France Latvian, it still wouldn't matter. Personally, I have no idea whether the constitution of Montenegro establishes a name for the language and if it does, I don't know which language it uses. The point here is that a couple of Wikipedians cannot simply decide by a poll what the language of a country should be called. JdeJ (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just checked the article and a couple of related articles, and it appears as if the constitution of Montenegro establishes Montenegrin as the name of the lanugage. Is this correct? In that case, the whole discussion here is prety much void. If the constitution establishes that name for the language, then that is the name to be used on Wikipedia. If someone does not agree with that view, they could always bring it to WP:AC but I should point out that unless they have exceptionally strong argument for why the constitution of the country in question should be disregarded, they would save themselves much time by reading WP:SNOW first. JdeJ (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
JdeJ, WP:SNOW would certainly have no application here. It is true that straw polls aren't the best mechanism to settle disputes, but they're ultimately an effective alternative to find out if there's a consensus regarding something. You should read the discussions above, because it's not just a matter of what the constitution of Montenegro says, it's a far more complex situation. It is a fact that the Montenegrin Constitution has designated the national language as "Montenegrin" but, is that a language at all? Would a political decision suffice for creating a language? And this is quite important because Wikipedia is totally independent of political decisions. And also important is the fact that the Montenegrin language isn't regulated by any institution nor it possesses an ISO code. Imagine that Switzerland writes a new constitution and designates "Swiss" as the language spoken by its French-speaking community. Would that suffice for changing the article about Switzerland and replace "French" with "Swiss"? That's what's being discussed here. And until now no consensus is evident so a straw poll could help. Húsönd 17:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You make many good points. I've read the discussion on Wikipedia and I'm recently aware of the debate since many years. I'm a linguist by profession, so these matters are what I spend most of my days researching and teaching :) To answer your question about whether a political decision is enough, the answer is yes and no.
It's no in the sense that it doesn't change much linguistically. You will find very few linguists who think Montenegrin is a language of its own. Same thing applies to Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian, most linguists agree that they are one and the same language. Another language that most linguists doesn't recognise is Galician. Linguistically speaking, it's a Portuguese dialect. Other languages that are of dubious independence linguistically include the Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian, Danish) and Dutch (linguistically, it's no further from Standard German than many German dialects). Hindi and Urdu is a non-European example of two names for what virtually all linguists consider to be one language.
But the answer is yes in the sense that political decisions are almost always enough. The language of [Croatia]] is recognised as Croatian and the language of Serbia is recognised as Serbian. The official language of Galicia is called Galician, the official language of Pakistan is called Urdu while the main language in India is recognised as Hindi.
In other words, there is nothing unique about the case of Montenegrin. On the contrary, it is a very typical situation, the like of which appear in the world very frequently. For that reason, we've got plenty of situations to compare with. The most recent example in Europo is that of Catalan and Valencian. Vritually all linguists agree that they are the same language, but the regional government of Valencia declared that the language of Valencia is called Valencian. That was a purely political decision just like the one in Montenegro, and similar decisions have been taken all over the world many times. It doesn't change much linguistically, but it does change the terminology. So the constitution of Montenegro cannot change the fact that the language is the same as in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, but it has full legitimacy to establish it as an independent language politically. JdeJ (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
You also raise good points, but it's important to note that despite its political endorsement, the Montenegrin language hasn't reached the level of independence and recognition that have Galician, Urdu, Croatian, etc.. Ultimately, the political decision to designate Montenegrin as the language of Montenegro may become effective (when the ISO code and regulatory institution are created), but per se I'm not sure if such decision would suffice for us to change the reference to the national language in detriment of Serbian. At least not for now. Still, I'm quite neutral in this matter and I'm just willing to find a solution that is acceptable for both sides. By the way, I'm a linguist too (but not by profession) and I don't recognize Galician as a Portuguese dialect. I believe that's just wishful thinking of most Portuguese linguists whom, by promptly accepting Brazilian as a Portuguese dialect, can't be expected to refrain from trying to predate another closely related language. Húsönd 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice meeting a colleague - and I see you're Portuguese, so you surely know both the Galician situation and the Valencian/Catalan at least as well as I do, and probably much better. It's interesting to note in passing that I've heard the same opinion from other end of the spectre, that Galician was "created" by Spaniards who didn't want to recognise that Portuguese was spoken within Spain. As I said, though, I'm no expert on that particular field.
I agree completely with you, the recognition of new languages is almost always a gradual process. I'm sure we both agree that a political decision usually is one of the first steps - I can think of many cases where a political situation has started the process (such as some of those I've mentioned) but few cases where it's the other way around. If anything, a political will can even stop dialects from being considered languages of their own. The High Alemannic German dialects are much more different from German than many languages in Europe are from their closest neighbours, but since the political will in Switzerland is for them to be considered dialects, that's what they remain. Needless to say, language regulation is of course another very crucial step. As long as there is no regulated version of Swiss German but just many spoken dialects, they aren't likely to develop into a language. Here I must confess that in the case of Montenegro, I'm not up to date with the language regulation. That would be beneficial to know. So it seems to be the situation that Montenegrin is in a gradual development towards being a fully recognised language and then the question is of course at what stage Wikipedia should acknowledge this. Ok, that's a matter that I could see fit for a straw poll although if the decision is to keep refering to the language as Serbian for now, that might have to change in a relatively near future. JdeJ (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. :-) We're in complete agreement. Personally I think that the best option for now would be stating the language of Montenegro as Serbian, while adding a note that its constitution designates it as Montenegrin. In the future, with more consistent recognition, we could have Montenegrin mentioned first as the language of Montenegro. Húsönd 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
For every modern Montenegrin-related subject? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
If / when it is changed here, it should be changed for all articles related to Montenegro, yes. It wouldn't make much sense to call a language one name in some articles where it appears and another name in other articles.JdeJ (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well the suggested form might seem a little buggy to add on all of the related articles. That's why I support keeping patience and waiting. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the Montenegrin language's regulation - it's not regulated by anyone anywhere. That's precisely the point of this problematic. Even Valencian seems stable (in a way), so the situation is very different. May I also note that only two months ago the new Constitution of Montenegro was adopted, which changed the official language from just Serbian to also Montenegrin, so this whole situation is a bit "still fresh" if you know what I mean. Of course, that is bound to change and Wikipedia should respect a neutral view - but changing it right now, seem quite POVish. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't call either version POV. Two years ago, we should (and did) definitely use Serbian. In two years time, we should mnost probably use Montenegrin. The question is then when it would be appropriate to change. Personally, I think the best option would be to change it rather soon. My personal opinion is that there is no such thing as a Montenegrin language, but my personal opinion does not stop me recognising that once a constitution has been adopted, it should be respected. When / if such a change is made, I think the article on the Montenegrin language should reflect that it really is the same language as Serbian. The article on Valencian states already in the introduction that Valencian is a way to refer to the Catalan language in Valencia. The article then goes on to discuss the matter at length, providing room both for the view that it's a variety of its and for the view that it's a variety of Catalan. It also lists some of the main differences between Valencian and Catalan. All in all, it's a very nice and NPOV article that has been free from edit wars despite being on a heated issue. JdeJ (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you didn't say something different from me. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, I don't think any of us seem to be in any wild disagreement :) JdeJ (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Do as you like. Montenegrin language actually have everything any other language have and only problem is it only recently got officially accepted as official language(again) so many things are unclear. I can copy/paste huge articles about Montenegrin language here but it would take too much time to translate them and even with them in end decision would be same.--SS.Nolimit (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, wrong. As you can read above, the Montenegrin language doesn't have what the other languages have. It has yet no ISO code and isn't regulated by any institution. Basically, the only thing it has is an official recognition by the Montenegrin constitution. Húsönd 22:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You all keep forgetting that this might end up like Austrian or American language attempts...just some silly political moves quickly discarded by the paths of the histori and completly forgoten. :) PPNjegos (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And how do you know if it has those things? Do you live here? Yes, it doesn't have some things but it's being used and in close future all will be done for it so we can continue this discussion then. And believe--SS.Nolimit (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC) me, Montenegrin language will survive.

From what I gather PPNjegos lives there, and yes, I've been to Montenegro myself. This brings me to the question whether you live there, since you don't know that it has not ISO nor written standard whatsoever. I doubt that "it's" being used, since we're not precisely sure yet what that "it" is. Also, considering the pace things develop around here, yes I agree future - but not likely close. To "survive" (heh) it first has got to be created in the first place. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

It got written standard and all that, just it's not published and I don't know what's the hold up. In close future it will be. Before end of this year everything about language will be clear. For years we had everything about language ready but sadly no actions were taken before and now one of people who wrote new grammar and everything died last year so that slowed process too. --SS.Nolimit (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. There are just countless proposals. The one you're referring to is of Vojislav Nikčević who died in Belgrade last year, one of the greatest proponents of a Montenegrin language. But, he not only failed to finish his job, but also his proposals were not accepted and didn't spread.
There are countless questions. Among them, whether three new characters should be introduced or not, and what's more importantly, what will be their Cyrillic counterparts? And what's more, what will be the verbs/cases? There are countless proposals. (Re)introductions of archaisms, keeping modern Serbian or adopting both. Then what Serbo-Croat dialect will it be based upon? East-Herzegovinian or Old Zeta-Sanjak? Will hyper-iyekavisation be enforced or not?
The reason why there's no move is, among others, because of Nikcevic's death, so most consider(ed) that the Montenegrin language project is dead. However a Bosniak scholar (Adnan Čirgić) has studied the Montenegrin speech at the Croatian Zagreb University and has become the first PhD professor of the Montenegrin language, and he is bound to start from the bottom a project for a written standard which will be adopted, based primarily on the speech of Podgorica's Muslims. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I got some documents that show what language was used before Vuk Karadzic came and took our language from us but it's not on English. Should I try to translate them or? The texts are quite big tho... --SS.Nolimit (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to Montenegrin language in precise?
Sure, as long as its not that Wikipedia:Patent nonsense of Jevrem Brković. You should also post over the links here, it'd be faster as quite a lot of users understand Serbo-Croat. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion moved over to User talk:SS.Nolimit. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be quite nonsensical if the language you’re referring to is in fact the local dialect of Montenegro (one of the regional dialects), which was somewhat suppressed by the literary language of Vuk Karadžić’s in the 19th century. Every region in former Yugoslavia, just like everywhere in the world, has its local dialect, and some of these dialects were used in writing by local authors before Vuk Karadžić’s language standardization process in the 1800s. If that’s what you are getting at, then it makes no point nor it proves the existence of the Montenegrin language. --George D. Božović (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a short historical summary:

  • In 2007, the state of Montenegro proclaimed the unstandardized "Montenegrin language" official, but next to "Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian"
  • Late 2004, the Montenegrin government (Democratic Party of Socialists of Milo Đukanović) enforce "Montenegrin" on numerous locations, in areas where they are locally in power the standard "Serbian language and literature" books are reprinted under the name "Montenegrin, Serbian, Bosnian or Croatian language"
  • In 2004, the government renames the language taught in schools from "Serbian Language and Literature" to "Mother Tongue and Literature"
  • In 1992, the Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro returns the official language as "Serbian language of the iyekavian dialect"
  • In 1974 the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Montenegro proclaims official "Serbo-Croatian language"
  • In the 1970s Serbian name is in schools fully and completely swapped by by Serbo-Croatian
  • In 1944 Axis client state is destroyed by the Partisans and Serbian language restored
  • In 1941 the Nazis create a puppet state in Montenegro, with attempts to establish a unique "Montenegrin language" in it, but failing, just switch to "Croatian"
  • In the first half of the 19th century Petar II Petrovic-Njegos, the Prince-Bishop of All Montenegro, is the first one to adopt Vuk Stefanović Karadžić's proposals for a literary "Serbian language", which is subsequently introduced into schools as a taught language
  • Before that, in the 18th century, "SlavoSerbian" was the language used in Montenegro, admixed with the national language (that would soon be made literary Serbian by Vuk)
  • From the transformation to a Theocratic State in 1516, to the return to secularism in 1852, the official language used was the Church Slavonic.
  • Since 1484 (Montenegro conceived as a state), the language applied was the Serb-Slavonic, or the Old Slavic language of the Serbian recension

Now, apparently, this citation is applied by proponents of a Montenegrin language, as its sole mention in the history:

  • A citation of Vuk Karadžić: It is shocking how the knowledge about this people [Montenegrins] advanced so poorly in Europe. Most scientists and diplomats better know what happens at the Nile or the Euphrates, how the peoples live there and how they are called, than e.g. in Herzegovina or Montenegro. The French colonel Vialla, who in 1813 passed through Montenegro, says that the Montenegrin language (which, he claims, he spoke) is a dialect of Greek!

However, in Vuk's words we merely see the following: Vuk notifies how the world is ignorant about Montenegro, using the example of a French colonel who, though passing through Montenegro, makes an absurd claim that a certain Montenegrin language is a dialect of the Greek language, which he even (falsely) claimed to have spoken. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Montenegrin language" in Vuk’s words does not mean "the language called by the name Montenegrin, distinct from other South Slavic languages", but merely "the spoken language used in Montenegro" (and thus "Montenegrin"). The word "language" doesn’t by default mean "a separate linguistic unit", it primarily means "the system we use for communication". Therefore, every region and every town and every individual can and do have their language: e.g. "the language of Belgrade". It is called Serbian by its speakers, and it is the Serbian language, but if you want to emphasize that it is this one particular variety spoken in Belgrade, you can say something like "the Belgradian language" (Serb. beogradski jezik/govor, jezik Beograđana), but that doesn’t mean that there is a distinct language called "Belgradian". Vuk’s words are taken out of context by those who claim that this quotation proves the existence of the Montenegrin language, "a distinct language called by the name Montenegrin". It doesn’t, it only has regional connotation and the syntagme (phrase) "Montenegrin language" is used by accident, Vuk could have also said "the language of Montenegro" or something similar, and the context would still be the same. (Just because he used these particular words — "Montenegrin language" — it does not prove the existence of such separate linguistic unit in the 19th century.) --George D. Božović (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, no George. You misread. Read again ;D. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In original, "који је... обишао Црну гору, вели за Црногорски језик... да је дијалекат Грчкога". It would be the same as if Vuk had written "који је... обишао Црну гору, вели за њезин језик..." (= говор којим се користе Црногорци, да је дијалекат Грчкога), and similar. --George D. Božović (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Read the whole paragraph. The point is that Vuk tried to point out how little about Montenegrins is known in Europe about the Montenegrins, quoting one French colonel who even travelled to Montenegro, that claims that a Montenegrin language is a dialect of Greek. The point of the whole thing is to show how even those Europeans who come to Montenegro can claim blatant nonsense, including some of the very people who have come to it. :) The point is in the obscurity of the colonel's claims. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. You were saying that the colonel had claimed that there was a Montenegrin language, which is a dialect of Greek, and both these claims were called absurd by Vuk, but I don’t think so. I believe the colonel said that the language of the country he had visited — Montenegro — is actually a dialect of Greek, which Vuk finds rather obscure, and only randomly uses this particular wording, "Montenegrin language", in order to describe the colonel’s fatal mistake. If Vuk had written anything similar to this particular phrase, the context would still be the same, however the proponents of a separate Montenegrin idiom would have not claimed upon this quotation, because their claims are only based on the wording Vuk used and nothing more (the particular phrase "Montenegrin language", as if the phrase itself proves the existence of such an idiom in the 19th century). --George D. Božović (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
May I notice that this argument is mostly pointless? Sometimes, people call languages by names of territories where they are spoken. Today there are people who mention American language, Mexican language, Swiss language and so on. The language spoken in Montenegro has been called "Montenegrin language" by this colonel and "Serbian language" by just about everyone else. That means simply that the colonel wrongly called the language by the name of the land it was spoken in. Nikola (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Montenegro (Montenegrin / Serbian: Crna Gora/Црна Гора (pronounced [ˈt͡sr̩naː ˈɡɔra]), Albanian: Mali i Zi ([ˈmaʎi ˈi ˈz̟i])) is a country located in Southeastern Europe.

Leave the semantics on just what to call the language for the appropriate article (Montenegrin language). Neıl ☎ 14:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply wait for 3-6 months to see if we're gonna all change it to "Montenegro", or as PPNjegos pointed out perhaps still leave Serbian (in which case we would have to turn it back). We're gonna have to apply the agreement to all Montenegrin-related modern subjects (and there are hundreds of articles).
Time will show importance. I'm not saying that this is a bad compromise - it's good, since it'll probably be accepted by everyone. But this is an encyclopedia, and we gotta keep for the long run. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Most sure not. The Wikipedia is about neutrality, and not support of silly individual political acts by some people. PPNjegos (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This simple proposal appears to be a satisfactory compromise, likely to be accepted by everyone. Acknowledges both Serbian and Montenegrin as the language, an issue that can be further explained down the article. Húsönd 00:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
However, I'm pretty sure that there would still be some edit warring on which of the languages should be mentioned first. Húsönd 00:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I went for "alphabetical". If ordering things alphabetically causes edit warring, let me know and I will happily block the idiot responsible. Neıl ☎ 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Can I take this a sensible compromise and a consensus? Is it safe to unprotect this now? Woody (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As uninvolved admin asked to take a look #2, I would say so, but let's wait for some of the actual parties to comment. Neıl ☎ 16:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm gonna remain neutral and wait out what the others say. By the way, should I mass-edit to apply this to all modern Montenegrin-related subjects? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Noooooo. No. Please don't, mass-editing on such a touchy subject will cause more problems than it solves and potentially spark off a few hundred more edit wars. Let's just get a compromise on this one article that everyone can live with, and worry about other articles later. Neıl ☎ 11:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the edit you made last, is actually not WP:OR. Indeed the Bloc for Independence identified with Latin and Unionist with Cyrillic (though Cyrillic was the prime script), and after 2006 independence Latin is (getting) dominant in MNE. The Montenegrin language propositions so far account solely Latin, and not Cyrillic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Most surely not! Politically propagating and promoting the views of a minority revisionist political elite that sadly has a grip over one small part of the world, is something we cant simple do. PPNjegos (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos...

I had my honeymoon in Montenegro this past July and I have some great photos I would like to upload to this page... the photos do not do this great country justice... how do I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekaterinburg07 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

See here Wikipedia:Uploading images. Next time you have a question about using Wikipedia go to Wikipedia:Help desk, you will probably get a much quicker response there. The article talk page is really just for discussing the article itself. SpinningSpark 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Symbols

I can see no reason why this could not be amended immediately, but the former "royal flag of King Nikola I" to which the page refers was different to the present flag of the republic of montenegro by having a silver border and a silver eagle in the centre. When the flag was adopted for the modern republic a conscious decision was made to change the colour from silver to gold. The section is otherwise quite right about the dropping of the initials NI from the shield on the eagle that referred to Nikola I.

The royal flag of King Nicholas was a tricolor with the coat of arms, actually. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

It is very biased to describe the Republic of Kosovo as a Serbian Province. We should adopt the neutral sounding "Kosovo" rather than "breakaway province of Kosovo" or "Republic of Kosovo".

Clearly, Kosovo fulfills the all attributes of a state - it has a defined territory, a defined people and defined government.

The only countries that refuse to accept it are countries without a vested interest in preventing the right of countries to declare independence, bacaue they have provinces which might want to breakaway, for example:

Canada with Quebec; Spain with the Basque Country; Serbia which claims Kosovo; Bonsia with the Republic of Srpska; Russia with Chechnya; Cyprus with Northern Cyprus; Sri Lanka with the Tamil Northern areas; China with Taiwan and Tibet; Azerbajan with Nagorno-Karabakh; Georgia with South Ossetia and Abkhazia Moldova with Transnistria

Countries without a vested interest in preventing independence have invariably recognized the independence of Kosovo. 2007apm (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

As in the page of Albania, we should clearly state that Montenegro borders Kosovo, not the province of Serbia!--Arbër Let's talk 15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Kosovo doesn't have a domestic authority, but an international protectorate, and it doesn't have sovereignty over the territory it claims, nor the population. Technically, Kosovo doesn't fulfill the criteria for a State. But what is important is that only a part of the world has recognized its provisional institutions' unilateral declaration of independence, and most importantly, Montenegro didn't, so the wording is OK for now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for now it may be Ok, but your arguments are not coherent with your point. First off, Kosovo does have a domestic authority - the Kosovo Police Forces. Second, Kosovo is sovereign because it has clearly determined borders, and its GOVERNMENT has full authority over the territory within those borders. That's to clarify your knowledge.
Now, let me provide an important counter-argument, in order to show your logical fallacy. First, if we, Wikipedians, edit each article according to the viewpoint of each country, then we become completely biased as we express the view of that country. For instance, in the article on Montenegro, if we express Montenegro's conception of its borders just because Montenegro does not recognize Kosovo, we are being biased. As a counter-example, take Taiwan and China. Second, I believe we should strive for the FACTS in order to pursue NEUTRALITY!--Arbër Let's talk 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not correct. The provisional Government is there to help the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, which is the true 'Sovereign' of the territory - and not the (up to recently) Provisional Institutions of Self-Government. The Kosovo Police Force is just that which it is - police (there is also the Kosovo Protection Corps). The key factor is the true 'Army' of the region, which is the foreign Kosovo Force (of the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization). Moreover, there are territories (like North Kosovo) which are completely rebellious and de facto independent.
Yes, I am aware - and this is neutrality. This does not just simply base on Montenegro's personal opinion, but on the also fact that the Republic of Serbia itself doesn't recognize Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence. And what's more important, neither does the vast majority of the international community. I'm not saying that this won't change, but you must keep on mind that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and that it should represent the current neutral reality. If we put that Montenegro borders with "Serbia and Kosovo" that would be highly POV, because it would respect the views of say just the Republic of Albania (next to several others) recognized Kosovo, totally undermining the more important and major(ity) factors. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrum, those are poor arguments at best. Bare in mind you are talking about an article within ENGLISH wikipedia. Since most of the english-speaking world, including the US, UK and Australia accept Kosovo as an independent state, we should treat it as such in all english wikipedia articles. Anything else would be POV. It has been noted you often push for a serb nationalist agenda, especially when articles on Montenegro are concerned and against all logic and verifiable information. Do not do this. Wikipedia is not a forum for national frustrations, POV and unverified claims. It is a free encyclopedia, which, by the looks of it, you would benefit from more by readig than editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.3.107 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, don't get me wrong, but I think that's an irrelevant argument. This Wikipedia is the Wikipedia in English language, and that's the farthest as it goes. Yes, true, sources in English are more favorable than in another language in here, but Wikipedia is not some sort of an English-lobby political institution. :D I have no idea who noted that. Could you be more specific, please? If you read this talk page and this article's history, you'd see that I have remained neutral on the national subject of the language, and supported neither side, leaving the consensus to be worked out. Also, please comment the content and not the user, and from your last comment, I AFAIK see emotional frustration in there. :) Please read WP:CIVIL. Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PaxEquilibrium, thank you for your comments, which are apreciated, however I thought I would point out a misunderstandingin your analysis. You say that the Government of Kosovo and the Assebble of Kosovo are there to help the UN. Clearly this is not the case, the UN, EU and NATO and there to help Government of Kosovo. 2007APM 22:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs)

Looking at the above comments it appears a consensus has formed that Kosovo is independent, consisting of 2007APM, 213.240.3.107 and ArberBorici. PaxEquilibrium appears to be in a minority of one. 2007apm (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The institutions were put up in 2001 in order to help UNMIK administer Kosovo. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FLAG?

Why under the flag, in description is writen in a lot of languages, but none in Montenegrin. And is writen in Bosnian? But not in Montenegrin? Montenegrin langauge should be replaced by that Bosnian! - Rave92 —Preceding comment was added at 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Calm yourself down. Bosnian is recognized as one of the minority languages of Montenegro. Montenegrin indeed does deserve to be in the template as it is the official language of Montenegro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prevalis (talk • contribs) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And it is in the template. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But, why in Bosnian? Bosnian is just language in use, Montenegrin is offical language and it needs to be replaced. There is section "Bosnia and Herzegovina" and they can put it there, where the language is offical. -Rave92

Demographics

Muslims are mentioned as an ethnic group.I was under the impression that they are considered a religious group...Amenifus (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

A unique case is Former Yugoslavia. In it, the a-national Muslims didn't tie themselves to any existing nation - so they were recognized as "Muslims by nationality" in the 1960s. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it.I actually stumbled upon the article shortly after the previous comment.Amenifus (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links Section

I assume that warning was put on the links section because people were putting in too many links. But now the links section is very small compared to other country entries. Would it be OK then if I put in links for the Offices of the President and the Government of Montenegro, as well as the Official Tourism website? Every other country entry has links like these. Inkan1969 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has posted to explain this links ban. Because of that, when I have time I am going to go ahead and add the three links I've listed here. Inkan1969 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of" or not "Republic of"?

I read somewhere the Republic of Montenegro must be called only "Montenegro" without a long form since 19 November 2007. But this Constitution of Montenegro seems to call it "Republic of Montenegro". That one is not as clear, particularily in its Article79 §9. Who knows the truth? Švitrigaila (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Odd Constitution. "Republic of" left out. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Odd constitution: the Head of the State is called everywhere the "President of Montenegro", except in article 91 where he is called the "President of the Republic". I guess it'll make a huge jumble when the Parliament decide to remove the President of Montenegro: it will be argued that the Praliament have the right to remove the "President of the Republic", not the "President of Montenegro". Don't you think so? Švitrigaila (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh! It seems so. :))) Anyway, the Constitution was brought very rapidly because of European integrations and the national questions (constituent peoples, official language, possibility of future change of national status & religion) composed 95% of the matters, no one actually being interested in the remainder of the technical part of the Constitution. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo again

This article must by all means state that Montenegro has a border with Kosovo in the first paragraph. Let's just come up with a neutral solution that would neither state that Kosovo is all independent nor all Serbian. Húsönd 03:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Was, but an anon removed it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is still not fully recognized country. So, let's follow the rules, such as 1244 UN resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko2m (talk • contribs) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are not wikipedia rules, unlike rules like searching consensus on the talk page *before* making changes on a disputed lead to remove Kosovo from it. Also, see Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Kosovo for other arguments for inclusion of Kosovo. I totally disagree with following an old UN resolution, even if it's still effective, and ignoring the very recent declaration of independence of Kosovo, the recognizition as an independent state by several major countries, and the maps that you can look at on the link above. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I shall post my message from Husond's talk page, which is significantly relevant to this issue. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This does not depict the precise image who disputes Kosovo's status.

I proposed the following order:

1) Montenegro conducts a delimitation of the border with Kosovo: we're introducing Kosovo (as part of Serbia, but introduce in the beginning)

2) Montenegro recognizes Kosovo: we mention it normally along the other three countries, but note its disputed status (by Serbia)

3) Kosovo internationally recognized: normally mentioned along the other countries, with a footnote saying it's claimed by Serbia

4) Serbia recognizes independence: normal

For instance, I support(ed) introducing Kosovo to the Republic of Macedonia intro, because it is conducting a delimitation (which means that it indeed border Kosovo and not Serbia, also factually recognizing independence - Montenegro conducted no such thing and it "really does" [whatever that meant] border Serbia at Kosovo). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we'll have tons and tons of users and complaints who keep saying that it is POV, because it depicts the views of a minority of the international community, undermining the majority.
It's no CRYSTAL, it's just a plan when/if to introduce the reference.
Cheers, friend. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Kosovo must be mentioned in accordance with the articles on Albania, and Macedonia. Because 43 countries recognize Kosovo as an independent state, something must be mentioned.--Arbër T •  ? 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Two quick language issues

Bringing language up here again might prove dangerous, but anyway:

  1. Are Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian to be considered "full" official languages or not? If they are, Mali i Zi should be included at the top of the infobox; and if not, the languages should be marked in some way as special cases under "Official languages" in that same infobox. Otherwise the infobox seems to contradict itself.
  2. Are there any differences at all between the pre-2007 official language and the post-2007 official language – apart from the name? Not that the change in self-identification isn't important to note, but the Demographics section currently reads, at least to the uninitiated, like the Montenegrin government actually replaced the majority language with an entirely different language spoken by only 22% of the population, which is of course a very false image of the reality of the matter. -- Jao (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure what "full" means. Could you clarify? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, not really, since I don't know the usage guidelines for the country infobox. My point was simply that if it is official enough to be listed (without qualifiers) under "Official languages", it must also be official enough to have the country name in the infobox, and vice versa. -- Jao (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The guideline is Article 13 (Language and Script): "Official language in Montenegro is the Montenegrin language. Cyrillic and Latin scripts are equal. In official usage are also Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian languages." --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
"official usage" stands for "recognised languages" more than "Official". I think name in albanian should be present only in "Name" sub article, but with IPA symbols. IPA should also be add to other languages. It's silly to mention name in albanian twice. Another thing: I think name in Slovak "Čierna hora" and Bulgarian "Черна гора, Cherna gora" should be written as Čierna Hora and Черна Гора85.94.110.116 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The name was changed with the bringing of a new Constitution, yeah. Nothing else. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is really no reasonable justification for deleting other recognised languages/languages in use. Montenegrin is the official language, while Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian are in use (recognised) - see article 13 of the Constitution. There is no reason to ommit Bosnian and Croatian, while keeping Serbian. If we are naming languages that are also in use, instead of just the official language, then they should all be mentioned, not just Serbian. Especially as Montenegrin is considered to be more similar to Bosnian than it is to Serbian. It is also undisputed the language used to be considered a dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language. I see no reason for deleting that either. What ever consensus was reached before, it does not conform to info verified in references, nor to POV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjanik (talk • contribs) 11:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the concluded consensus. Only the major language, the sole reason why Albanian is mentioned - is because it's different. Totally different in spelling than other ("Црна Гора / Crna Gora"). They've sorted out a similar thing over for the Republic of Macedonia article, removing Serbian e.g. and leaving only Albanian.
Montenegrin is considered to be more similar to Bosnian than to Serbian by whom? Also Bosnian and Serbian are affirmed languages with written standards, Montenegrin factually does not exist.
You should also not remove every single reference to anything "Serb" from the article. Or remove countless other links, references or data, it's very damaging to the article. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There obviously is no "consesnsus", then, as all sides never agreed to it. Again, I must ask what possible criteria are you offering? The Constitution knows no such thing as "major language", nor does linguistics. It is your invention, so please don consult WP:POV, carefully. If we are mentioning Serbian and Albanian, we should also mention other two consititutional languages. Macedonian situation is altogether different. We may reasonably do one of the two: 1) leave only the official language (Montenegrin) and ALbanian because it's different, or 2) Mention all the constitutional languages, which is something I am strongly in favour of. The only reason you will not agree to this is to present Montenegrin language as if it is Serbian
By the science of linguistics, I hope that may be good enough for you, lol. Montenegrin does have a written standard and it had it for centuries - Vuk Karadzic gave an early description of what he called "montenegrin language" in his "Montenegro und die Montenegriner" (Vienna, 1837). It is now standardized by Matica Crnogorska, Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts as well as the University of Montenegro, which all constitute a part of the Committee for standarization of Montenegrin language. Saying "Montenegrin factually does not exist" reveals an obvious political bias, sorry.
You should not replace verified information with unverified one (see WP:V), nor should you add "serb/serbian" where it is completely uncalled for. "Serb" this and that is mentioned more times in this article than "montenegrin", it's completely bizarre. Saying things like montengro was a "Serbian principality", even beggining the history passage with that is just rubbish and complete historic falsehood. You should not add unsupported references to Serbia/Serbs just to make the country look like a part of Greater Serbia and Montenegrin as Serbs. This is really bizarre behaviour and yes, extremely damaging to the article.

--Perjanik (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is, please do not complicate this.
The Constitution affects the matter, but not in general. Same as the Macedonian.
The option 1) you mentioned is the one applied to the article.
You have totally misinterpreted the 1837 work of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic. Are you aware of that?
I have no knowledge of that. As far as I know it is being created / standardized. Perhaps you have some newest information? Mine last comes from Adnan Cirgic's PhD.
And on the other hand, you should not outright remove every single reference to the Serbs. ;)
You could be no wronger. The "Montenegr-" is mentioned for a total of 193 times. "Serb-" is mentioned 54 times. Please compare the two numbers. Fine, every peace shall receive credible references.
BTW, some of your changes are very damaging to the article and even outright bizarre. You complain about that, and yet you add that Zeta is "the newly acquired Serbian land" (?) in the history section; you remove the word "fascist"; you add the totally and completely unnecessary " signs in the table; you keep removing the most recent domestic population estimate; and you even keep removing the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church at the bottom of the article. :D
In the end, I'd also question your personal competence regarding this article. In the edit summary of [ this lengthy controversial edit], you wrote:
"Prijestonica" is traditional Montenegrin word, while "prestonica" comes from another language altogether (Serbian); Pls do not defy Wikipedia policies by extensive deletions of proper references
Which only points out to your lack of knowledge on the matter. To correct you on the matter, let me point you to the wrong direction. This is the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Montenegro, Article 7:


Now I am aware that the newest Constitution from 2007 does not use the Montenegrin word, but applies hyperiekavisation using the word "Prijestonica", but you should know that this is not historically Montenegrin or linguistically at all, but possibly as an attempt to differ the Montenegrin from Serbian. You're not also going to claim about predlog, are you? :D However, we have yet to see what shall be of the two versions the one used in the Montenegran language. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


All right, I've called your edits bizarre, but this is now officialy becoming ridiculous. That doesn't mean you'll hear me laughing - an apparent attempt to misuse Wikipedia and turn it into a platform for nationalist propaganda is deadly serious to me. May I try to appeal at your sense of morality: try to act as an impartial editor, try to restrain national feelings and leave them aside, make a serious attempt to act in an intellectually honest way - which, sadly, is now not the case. I always presume good faith in another, but you are crossing the line with ad hominem and other PA attacks, that happen to be directed at me, and I'm not reffering to this talk page alone. Please try to understand this is not considered to be an acceptable behaviour here in Wikipedia community. Nor is intellectual dishonesty one either, nor is semi-trollish behaviour and intentional deleting of other people's work when it is well-founded and referenced. Please do not do this - not to me, not to the others as well. Just because you're persistant and, pretty obviously, have too much free time on your hands, doesn't make you right. Please see wikipedia policy on WP:POV, WP:V and vandalism as well.
Now, no there isn't. Nor is the nature of Wikipedia such that there can be such a thing as a permanent consensus on anything, given that people who never took part in such a consensus constantly arrive. A consensus applies to the parties involved and nobody else - that's international relations 1.01.. Furthermore, the Consitution is of PIVOTAL importance here, as well as the opinion of eminent institutions involved in the ever-changing, ever-living matter of language: in the case of Montenegro the institutions in question are none other than those mentioned above. I am not aware of any other official authority in MNE and would like to hear who can speak with more relevance than the Academy, Matica, University. The option 1) is CERTAINLY NOT applied in this article, not at all. THe option 1) would imply leaving the official language (Montenegrin) and albanian alone (Albanian only b/c it's so different). What we have here is a form of "Montenegrin/Serbian", where Serbian is the only slavic language taken from the group the Constitution designates as "languages in use/usage". Firstly, there is no reasonable justification for this - why would we discriminate against people who speak Croatian or Bosnian? Secundly, one gets a strong feeling the "Montenegrin/Serbian" form was chosen in order to provide assumption that MOntnegrin is actually "not a language at all", as you claim above, but a form of Serbian. That's heavily POV. My personal POV would be that all those 4 languages are actually 1 language with 4 different national name and that there equally inprecise and unjustified to call them just Serbian, just Croatian, just Bosnian, just Montenegrin. Be that as it may, that is MY point of view and I will not present it here on WIkipedia ; Further: I certainly have not misinterpreted anything and certainly not a book of linguistics, which happens to be one of the areas I happen to hold a degree in. Nor would I allow myself to do anything of the sort. But if YOU have read the same work, you would surely find more reasons to agree with me than not. This leaves a strong impression you've made that claim (about me misinterpreting "Montenegro und die Montenegriner") having never actually read the text in question. ; You do not want to get me going on dr Cirgic's PhD - to your probable surprise, I do not think highly of his work. There is much better case to be made for the Montenegrin language; Again, I AM NOT "outright removing every single reference to the Serbs" - this is completely false. If you've even bothered to check, you'd see I actually added a few useful informations concerning Serbs and the role of Serbia proper. But don't let that discourage you from making unfounded claims. What I did and will continue to do is to remove HEAVY POV from the article. POV that had a pretty obvious intention to present MNE as a rightful part of a Greater Serbia and Montnegrins as historically Serbs. This I will correct - you can rest assured. ; LOL...you do have too much time on your hands - the number itslef is not the issue, although it is still pretty high - it is WHERE the word "Serb-" is placed. It is placed exactly where it should support a highly agressive nationalist agenda, while "Montenegrin" is pushed to the lateral margins of the text, or mentioned in a context that would give it an inferior, local, non-national meaning. This is highly POV, highly dishonest and borders on chauvinism. Why don't you see Montenegrins do the same with the article on Serbia? ; You say "your changes are very damaging to the article and even outright bizarre". Now, you do understand that just repeating your colocutor's sentence is a sign of intellectual weekness in a debate, don't you? Just repeating what i've said and making the same assumption is simply not good enough, it is even rather childish. As for the edits you've mentioned: yes, the article claimed Zeta was "a Serbian state", which is not true, it was the predecessor of the Montenegrin state and an heir to Duklja. It was incorporated into Serbia - rather forcibly. This is pretty undisputed by historians, so I fail to see you point. My form "newly acquired" is the description of those events in shortest and mildest possible terms, but this is simply not good enough for you. You want it all for the good old mother Serbia. May I say how borderline pathetic wish that is? All nationalism is pathetic, do remember that. Yes, I did remove the word "fascist" as that is POV. ISM was a puppet state of fascist Italy, just as, say independent Serbia under Nedic was a puppet German state and Pavelic' Croatia etc... but in the case of Montenegro, that fact alone doesn't make it fascist yet. Please read the definition of fascism and try to make a comparison with, again I say, puppet regime in place at the time and you will not find it to be fascist. What ever it was, fascism it certainly wasn't, nor is anyone reputable claiming that to be the case. I disagree those signs are not necessary, to the contrary. And I certainly did not delete anything of the sort, is your concentration lapsing or what? As for the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, again, I have no high opinion of them, but still did no such thing as I would never force my POV on this or any other article. A behavior you might do well to mirror.
The way you're questioning my competence may be laughable to some, if it didn't consitite an obvious PA (please read Wikipedia policy on personal attack). Your problem is not just the lack of knowledge - which makes one wonder why do you insist on editing when, as someone told you previously in this talk page, you'd do better to read - but rather a poor use of logic. You denounce the new Constitution of an independent Montenegro, but you do not hesitate to bring in the Consitution of 1992 - a wartime Constitution, agreed upon by a semi-legitimate Assembly controled by the Milosevic regime in Belgrade. It was this Assembly and this Constitution that changed the official language from "serbo-croatian" to "serbian", in order to confirm its subservience to Belgrade. So, the 1992 Constitution was written in Serbian language intentionally - hence the use of "prestonica" instead of Montenegrin "prijestionica". "Prijestonica" is not, as you claim (POV again), a "hyperiekavisation", but a word in the literary Montenegrin language. Be that as it may, you call upon a Constitution when it suits your purposes, but refuse to accept its authority when it doesn't. This, as I've said before, is a behaviour known as intellectual dishonesty. It won't do you no good. And that points out not just to the lack of knowledge, but also to the lack of sound, well applied reasoning. And you keep revealing your motives for this little edit war of yours: you say, in a funny little attempt at creating a mini conspiracy theory, that "the word is possibly as an attempt to differ the Montenegrin from Serbian". Oh, is it now? The only people I've ever heard of using "prestonica" are those who used the ekavian form of Serbo-Croatian, ie what is now Serbian. Or does this conspiracy of "prijestonica" stretch all the way back to the XIX century, when it was widely in use? The official website of Cetinje (the town in question) calls itself "prijestonica" of Montenegro (see [6]) and the Constitution calls it that as well. These words are doublets - get used to that in the future. Also, the same word is used in Bosnian and Croatian, or are they also making an attempt at "hyperiekavisation" in order to make their respective languages different than Serbian? How odd. It must be a Conspiracy! Maybe you should edit their articles senseless in order to present them as Serbs and their contries as parts of Greater Serbia. I'm sure they'll love that the same as we love this. And another thing: it is, to the best of my knowledge, completely undisputed that Montenegrin was considere to be a form of Serbo-Croatian, just as it was completely replaced by Serbian in the brief period of Serbian political dominance over Montenegro (1991-2006). Why do you keep deleting that important data? It may be well known to people from the region, but it is certainly not to others and it is still well worth mentioning. Or is it not Serbian enough for you to leave unchanged? As for myself, you can rest assured I will always be correct this sort of POV - maybe not promptly because of other obligations, but one should never allow political passions to triumph over science and reason, as it seem to be the case with you.
Please do not delete relevant information and fill the article with POV and controversial claims.

Regards, --Perjanik (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those links, I am very much introduced into Wikipedian policy. You on the other hand, should read them too, because your edits are destructive to the article.
Yes it is. It just recognizes the factual controversy over the Montenegrin language. Putting simply "Montenegrin" instead of "Montenegrin/Serbian" is one POV. Putting simply "Serbian" instead of "Serbian/Montenegrin" is yet another POV extreme, that does not belong.
There's no discrimination, as there is no at the Republic of Macedonia article. BTW, maybe because their lack in numbers?
I have indeed read Karadzic's whole book ("Montenegro and Montenegrins"), which I can't say (that) I have received the image for yourself. Let me quote the entire part, it is "II The People":
So since you are PhD linguist, could you analyze this work of a Serbian linguist, who also considered that Montenegrins were ethnic Serbs and himself is a Montenegrin?
I have double checked your edit. It appears that I was right and you wrong all along. Yes, you have removed references to Serbs in general, including nonsensically the "Serbian Orthodox" one. No, you appear to have added only into line 93 ",the newly acquired Serbian land,", next to "then called Zeta", which comes pretty contradicting if you this is not an error and you really claim that Zeta was a Serbian land. You have also removed that Montenegro is the newest recognized country in the world, the "Prestonica" word, the fact that Zenta was a hereditary land for Serbian Monarchy's successors, nonsensically add non-corresponding % to the demographic table, remove the entire section from the demographic data and remove the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church article at the bottom of the article, the final being also surprising and not really understandable. You have also claimed that "Montenegr" is mentioned more times than "Serb" - and yet you can see that the proportion is 200:50.
There is no such, on my part or anyone else's who wrote that article, neither hidden nor open, agenda.
If you are attempting a personal attack offending my intelligence and person - that is not very nice on your from your part, and is not allowed in the Wikipedia. The problem is actually that you have not been reading what I wrote at the talk page, or at least didn't do it thoroughly and patiently, since you missed the list. I rewrote it to the second section to the up (Yes, you have removed references to Serbs in general, including nonsensically the "Serbian Orthodox" one. No, you appear to have added only into line 93 ",the newly acquired Serbian land,", next to "then called Zeta", which comes pretty contradicting if you this is not an error and you really claim that Zeta was a Serbian land. You have also removed that Montenegro is the newest recognized country in the world, the "Prestonica" word, the fact that Zenta was a hereditary land for Serbian Monarchy's successors, nonsensically add non-corresponding % to the demographic table, remove the entire section from the demographic data and remove the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church article at the bottom of the article, the final being also surprising and not really understandable.)
We have a misunderstanding over here. If you check your edit, you shall discover that it is you who keeps adding that Zeta was a "Serbian land" in the first place and I who keep reverting that. ;0)
That the remains of the remains of the Doclean state (of which Zeta was only a part, the term only in foreign literature slowly replacing for a more broader territorial region) were conquered by the Serbian state from the Byzantine Empire in the second half of the 12th century by a Doclean nobleman by the name of Nemanja, yes, is undisputed by many historians. But remember the states before, of Ceslav Klonimirovic or other rulers of old, or even that of the Vojislavljevics. In any case, there is also pretty undisputed by historians that Docleans, Zetans, Highlanders, Boccans, Montenegrins and Herzegovinians were Serbs, but we still need to avert to the realities of today and present both sides of the coin.
Nedić's Serbia was a fascist puppet-state. No doubt there.
Then recheck your edit. And stop committing personal attacks (refer to WP:NPA). You removed the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Do you see know how especially bizarre your edits are?
Please save Wikipedia's space and do not write long posts which actually contain little or no information. I render that it is actually - if not obviously - a lack of your knowledge on Montenegro and the Montenegrins, rather than mine. For an example, you have given me a link to the official website of Cetinje, and noted that it calls itself "prijestonica", without obviously actually reading the very site you gave me. To the upper left it says "PRESTONICA CETINJE", and here is the text from the description of the Prestonica:
And if you read the entire page, you'll notice that the official name of the location in precise is "Prestonica Cetinje". This reminds me of the moment back when you pointed over to the official website of Milla Jovovich, which calls her Serbian, and you continually point it claiming that she isn't. Please, I beseech you very very much. Pay a little more attention when you read things. By the way, why is also their official e-mail prestonica@cg.yu? :) Whether the reason is influence from Serbia or many Montenegrins' origin from Serbia after the Ottomans overran it, the Montenegrin speech does have ekavisms. Predlog is just one example. Prestonica is another, but as we see Prijestonica is being pushed in the 21st century by some circles. Reka was another example, although almost no one uses it, and uses rijeka instead.
As long as you keep making such destructive and generally damaging to the article edits, I shall revert them in order to save this article. Please remain calm and continue discussion over at the talk page, in order to evade possible disciplinary (re)action.
Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
P.S. As for the end, I'd also like to point out that the Serbian language is not solely ekavian-speech, but also (and historically, primarily) iyekavian. Same as it uses two dialects, Eastern-Herzegovinian and Sumadinian-Vojvodinian. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, as you seem to display typical characteristics of troll behaviour, I am no longer convinced a serious and impartial editor should even bother discussing your damaging edits. You seem to have completely abandoned all neutrality, if indeed you've ever paracticed it. I have instructed you to read Wikipedia policy and become more versed into the way things work around here. You have either refused to do so or, even worse, have done so and you still continue to defy Wikipedia policies, namely on: neutrality, POV, personal attack, civility, verification, original research, weasly words and vandalism - please see, read and try to remember: WP:Neutral_point_of_view, WP:POV, WP:PA, WP:CIVILITY, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:Vandalism. Futhermore, adding to my troll-behaviour theory, you seem to simply repeat MY warnings and accusse me personaly of the exact type of behaviour you're displaying. And this is where disciplinary action indeed should be taken, so bewarned. IMO, it is YOU who are damaging the article, insisiting on POV and controversial claims. There is no such thing as "controversy" regarding our country's language, other than the one serbian chauvinist circles claim. Leaving just "Montenegrin/Serbian" form is POV and an act of discrimination and you've completely failed to address concerns I gave about the form you persistantly are trying to force upon this article. It is discriminatory to mention "Serbian" and not to mention Croatian and Bosnian - either leave the official Montenegrin language stand alone (+ Albanian b/c it's so different) or present them all. You have just confirmed my suspicion concerning the reason of your otherwise unreasonable insistence - you believe, as you say, that Montenegrin is "not a language", but a form of Serbian. Does it even make any sense to appeal at your conscience and reason again and make you understand this constitutes a POV? Also, you're saying Bosnian and Croatian language should not be there "because of their lack of numbers". And then you say there is "no discrimination". Are you serious? Is this a joke? The Constitution certainly doesn't discriminate against these people because of their "lack of numbers". I don't care: if there were 5 ladino-speaking people in Montenegro, and if the Constitution would accept ladino as one of languages in usage, I would make sure it is mentioned here. You, on the other hand, seem to think less information is better than more and you will be the chief arbiter on what info is presented and what info is not presented. It doesn't work that way here, sorry. I will always give way to more information when faced with such a choice, just as most people here would.
The "Montenegro und die Montenegriner" (german original, published in Vienna, never translated into english) is a book I am now certian you've never even held, let alone read. You are citing a badly chosen paragraph mentioned several times in discussions concerning verious articles here - a good indication that this is the full extent of your familiarity with the book, as well as the fact the text is in english, as it appeared there. The analysis you've asked for cannot be a linguistic one, since the main point there is not linguistic at all: Vuk says "All Montenegrins are Slavs". This is undisputed, although, judging from the edits I'm pretty sure you make out of spite and in spite of reason and arguments to the contrary, I'm also pretty sure you'll dispute this as well. Vuk continues "...of the Serbian branch of the Greek law. Only in the Kucs are there several thousand Albanians Catholics." - as I already said, this is a badly chosen citation, as Karadzic is clearly speaking about the religion in Montenegro and gives us an important indication - that Montenegrins are "of the Serbian branch of the Greek law", ie are orthodox christians and are called Serbs because of it and only in that meaning. At the time, it was most common to say "srpska vjera/turska vjera/latinska vjera/civutska vjera", meaning "serbian faith/turkish faith/latin faith/jewish faith", rather than "orthodoxy/islam/roman catholicism/judaism". As Petar I Petrovic Njegos once claimed, only a few decades earlier, the russian tsar is a Serb, as he is of "serbian faith". There was a dual meaning: religious and ethnic one, as Petar II clearly shows in the "Mountain Wreath": "Ne, vladiko, ako Boga znadeš !

Kakva te je spopala nesreća 90 teno kukaš kao kukavica i topiš se u srpske nesreće ? Da li ovo svetkovanje nije na komu si sabrâ Crnogorce" Obviously, "Serbian misfortunes" are someone else's - so there is a difference between ethnic and religious use of the term. Back to Vuk Karadzic now. Still, this tells us nothing of the language. Vuk points to the scarcity of information about MNE in the West at the time and says "A French colonel by the name of Vialla, who traveled through Montenegro in 1813, tells that a Montenegrin language (which he claims he supposedly spoke) is a dialect of Greek!" ie the French colonel most certainly never had a chance of speaking Montenegrin language and misinterpreted it as greek - undoubtably, there is such a thing as a Montenegrin language, spoken by what he just called the Montenegrin people, but it's not a dialect of Greek, it is a Slav language, which is the obvious point Karadzic is making (see the begining of this citation). Vuk Karadzic wasn't a Montenegrin, but a Serb, sorry. Most Serbs would probably be offended at your assumption that he was not a Serb, but Montenegrin - which makes your arguments and your edits even more bizarre. Vuk was from Trsic, in Serbia. His parents came from Bosnia (Bosnian Serbs). Most schoolchildren in what is now fmr. Yugoslavia know this. You, on the other hand, seem no to.

No, I've checked it as well, and you are completely wrong and I suspect intentionally so. I have tried to presume good faith, but when confronted to what clearly is a trollish behaviour, it becomes just too obvious to ignore. There is really no contradiction, I'm following the historical data presented - it is you who do not or will not understand the simple meaning of the sentence. Zeta was a Montenegrin state acquired by Serbia - acquired being a more neutral term of historically more correct "annexed". I have chosen it in order to avoid any controversy, but you and you alone seemly will have none of it. I do not claim, nor does anyone, that Zeta was a "Serbian land" per se, but that it was taken by the serbian state into which it was incorporated. This is generally undisputed by even Serbian historians, it is a very odd thing to delete. Montenegro, factually, is NOT the newest recognized country in the world, Kosovo is. As I've said previously, I don't like it, but there it is - and it certainly was recognized by most of the countries whose official language is english, as someone pointed out above. As this is english Wikipedia, and they recognize it as independent, this Wikipedia should reflect that instead of bringing readers into confusion - to a british or american person, it is Kosovo that is the newest recognized country. My country, Montenegro, doesn't recognize it, but it would be POV of me to inforce that view. The same goes for you and your Serbia. Yes, there is such an agenda and it is no longer hidden, but rather obvious - you are denying the existence of not just the Montenegrin language, but our nation as a whole - this is only too obvious from both your edits and your discussion. At the Milla Jovovic talkpage you've just mentioned, you claim our nation was invented by Milovan Djilas in 1945 and here you claim our language does not exist, but is a form of Serbian. I'm sure many people find this to be not just POV, but outright offensive. Btw, why not Serbo-Croatian? You keep delelting any mention of that language although it was official on the territory of Montenegro untill 1991 when it was changed to Serbian by the wartime Constitution. Serbian Assembly was more prudent - Serbian language became official in Serbia proper only in 2006, when the 1989 Constitution (with Ser-Cro as official) of that country was changed to the present one. I guess the wartime parliament of Montenegro, controlled by Milosevic, had to prove its subservience to Belgrade. Now, again you're displaying a typical troll behaviour: I complained about YOUR personal attacks and you respond by almost the exact words I've used (as you seem to have gained that habit), accusing ME of the same instead of correcting your behaviour. Indeed, as I've pointed out, it is not an acceptable behaviour here and you should consider yourself warned, as you are heavily in breach of many Wikipedia policies by now. Stop insulting me and stop the edit war you've started. Not understandible to whome, sorry? It seems to be blatantly obvious. Again, on Zeta, it is indeed I who keep adding it was acquired by Serbia and thus Serbian land for a time - as eg Serbia was a Turkish land for a time in the sense it was a part of a Turkish Ottoman Empire. Is this disputed? I am not aware of that ;-). You say "In any case, there is also pretty undisputed by historians that Docleans, Zetans, Highlanders, Boccans, Montenegrins and Herzegovinians were Serbs" Sic!!! Docleans were predecessors of Zetans, as Zetans were of Montenegrins, as these are all different names of several incarnations of the Montenegrin national state. You are revealing your political agenda again by placing them (ie Montenegrins) in the same line as "Boccans" (the inhabitants of the geographical area of the Bay of Kotor) and Herzegovinians (inhab. of the geographical area of Herzegovina). Thus you hope to indicate that being Montenegrin is not a national, but a local identity based on the geographical area. That intention is pretty obvious and less than honest. You continue: "Nedić's Serbia was a fascist puppet-state". I guess all of us can be thankful you agree at least on something with history and well verified data. You've continued with personal attacks I've warned you about and directed you to read Wikipedia policy on it. And you again accussed me of the same simply because I've turned your attention to your behaviour not being in accordance to Wikipedia policies, or good manners, for that matter. You also continue to repeat my description of your edits - bizarre indeed. Instead of claiming my posts contain "no information", you would do better to read them carefully and impartially judge for yourself, as you would then undoubtably find that I'm right, as well as other editors whose edits you continue to revert. It seems that edit war is your preferred weapon of choice - mine is sound argument, but I am beggining to be discouraged with the possibility of reacheing you by that. Instead of editing the article in a controversial and extensive way, and repeating my arguments in the opposite directions, and ignoring or misunderstanding their points, you would do better by reading them carefully, as well as the available literature on the subject. Neutral literature, mind you. May I humbly suggest the exellent work of one of Montenegro's most emminent historians, professor Zivko Andrijasevic, of the University of Montenegro an institution you continue to ignore, "Kratka istorija Crne Gore (1496 - 1918)". It is excellent for beginners. Yes, I have removed the "prestonica" word, as others did before me, as it is not a word from the official language. As for the official Cetinje website (you seem to have a problem with official sites in general), again, you are intentionally misleading or simply failing to understand. The title of this webiste, as it clearly states, is "Zvanicne stranice prijestonice Cetinje". Obviously, the website text wasn't changed since it was first written in the then-official (1991-2006), Serbian language, while the title was. If a city claims it is X, we should report it claims to be X (ie prijestonica). You also ask "why is also their official e-mail prestonica@cg.yu? :) ". The same reason why is their extension still .yu instead of .me - it wasn't updated to official and traditional language, nor to the montenegrin domain - .me. And this does constitute a certain lack of reasoning on your side, one must admit. You claim: "many Montenegrins' origin from Serbia after the Ottomans overran it". Really? Serbs claim the opposite - they run to Vojvodina, Krajina region and other parts of what was to become the realtive safety of the Habsburg monarchy, not to war-torn Montenegro that was in almost perpetual struggle against the Turks - what would be the point of that, especially considering the size and barren landscape of MNE. You claim something completely the opposite of the official historyography that believes Serbia was at various times populated by Montenegrins, not the other way around - please see Wikipedia policy on original research, this is no place for such a thing here. Furthermore, you claim, "the Montenegrin speech does have ekavisms. Predlog is just one example. Prestonica is another". I really don't think this is worth discussing - it was generally accepted that area of Montenegro is completely, yes completely iyekavian - prijestonica and prijedlog being some examples out of many. Now, you say: "...but as we see Prijestonica is being pushed in the 21st century by some circles". Just a couple of edits ago, you've claimed "prijestonica" was NOT a traditional Montenegrin form and you edited my neutral version of the article on those grounds. Now you claim it was - otherwise how could it be "pushed in the 21st century". Also, the Constitution in its Montenegrin form, calls Cetinje "prijestionica" and we should respect that. "Reka was another example, although almost no one uses it, and uses rijeka instead." Other than people who settled from Serbia proper during the times of Yugoslavia and the brief State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, nobody ever used ekavian in MNE. Ekavian is endemic to Serbia and some parts of Croatian Slavonia. This is just one of your attempts to make Montenegrins appear as Serbs, instead of a nation in their own right. And it's a pretty obvious attempt at that. You also fail to comprehend the semantics have changed - Serbian language is limited to Serbia since the disintegration of Serbo-Croatian, and it is exclusively ekavian - at one time radovan Karadzic tried to change the dialect of Bosnian Serbs to ekavian by decree. It ended in failure, as the people never accepted it and continued to speak what is now Bosnian, although they may still call it Serbian for various, mostly political, reasons. You have failed to comprehend my point concerning the number and placement of "Serb-" and "Montenegr-" adjectives in the text, and you are intentionally ignoring the arguments given.
I have warned you time and again of your failure to comply with numerous Wikipedia policies which you persistantly defy.

You continue to sabotage this article and use weasely words throughout (see Wikipedia policy on that as well). You continue to disregard arguments given and ignore everything that doesn't suit your purpose of subverting this encyclopedia and making it into a platform for a particular political/ideological idea. I suggest you put that energy to a better use - reading might be one of them.

I shall continue to act in order to preserve the integrity and neutrality of this article and save it from your extensive, disturbing, improper, damaging, destructive and ultimately confused edits. I will attempt to salvage this article from these shameless atempts to make it into an instrument of political propaganda and to use Wikipedia as a platform for furthering a nationalist agenda and POV. I shall continue to do so in order to protect this article, when ever my time permits. You can rest assured of that. I suggest you listen to reason and end this edit war you've begun. Furthermore, if you persist in simply ignoring my arguments, making baseless accussations and personal attacks, as well as disrupting and gravely damaging the article, i will see no point in duscussing it with you any further.

--Perjanik (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out and reminding me of those Wikipedia rules, I am very much well enough introduced to all of them, as an experienced editor I should be. I fair I have not abandoned all neutrality, but I do admit that being a direct participant in a dispute - so far I have acted as an impartial 3rd party - makes obviously full-scale neutrality excessively impossible. On that account, it would seem that you yourself have conducted severe violations of WP:V (which include some most very unusual, such as removing every single reference to Serb- whenever possible and blatantly conducting nonsensical edits, which include an addition that Zeta was "a Serbian land", removal of the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church and plain removal of sourced parts of the article) and well as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, alluding to a possibility of lack of intelligence on my part. Please read Wikipedia's policies and you shall find out one very significant sentence: 'Comment the content, and not the editor'. You seem to have composed unnecessarily long comments which rather seem to be concentrated on myself, instead of this article, conducting an analysis of me as a Wikipedian editor, rather than explaining word by word what precisely is the problem of this article. I will ask you to change this in the continuation of our discussion.
Leaving just "Montenegrin/Serbian" is a recognition of the reality and a neutral resolution to the problem. Leaving solely "Montenegrin" is as much as one extreme as leaving solely "Serbian", not recognizing the yet fully unstandardized elements of the Montenegrin language and self-styling of most of Montenegro's inhabitants with Serbian as their native language. Leaving solely "Serbian" is also POV, unrecognizing the fact that it has just been introduced into the new Constitution of Montenegro as the official state language.
Yes, I have in full completeness read actually most of Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic's works. It is true that Eastern Orthodoxy was on great part overlapped with Serbian, the cause of it was the influence of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the societal life of the Serbs, but the terms were more than obviously not completely & exclusively synonymous. However, there was in 1837 absolutely no Serbian Church, or it at least was unrecognized and didn't include the regions of Montenegro and the surroundings. Next to that, please let me quote other parts of the article:
















And here is an example of the language, talking about local terms used by the Montenegrins, in the part on Law and Order:


So, no, I do not think that the problem is anywhere in me. Maybe you yourself haven't read truly Karadzic? As for his origins, it is very offensive to claim that Most schoolchildren in what is now fmr. Yugoslavia know this. You, on the other hand, seem no to, when it would seem that you are the one who doesn't know that. His father is from the Drobnjak clan, along with numerous people from Jovan Cvijic across Zivojin Misic to Radovan Karadzic. His mother was an Ozrinic, and if you posses at least some knowledge on the local clans, would know who they were. I sincerely doubt that any Serb would've offended if I stated that to them, because that is the truth. His parents were not Bosnian Serbs, and yes, as the matter of fact, that is what I learned years ago in a school when I was a kid, and anyone who knows at least a little on Vuk - definitely knows at least this. Perhaps you had the wrong teachers?
Still, "the newly acquired Serbian land" implies that Serbia liberated Serbian lands outside under Byzantine and Hungarian rule. If you insist incredibly on that part to remain, OK, but it's more than bizarre, especially when compared to your other edits. And what about the removal of the newest statistical demographic data, or the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church?
Recognized means truly recognized. Montenegro has been immediately recognized by a majority of the international community, received open entry to all international organizations, and most importantly, recognized by the Republic of Serbia and entered into the United Nations. I am very much aware of that claim from before, but one should keep in mind that this is not the English language's encyclopedia - the only thing is that yes, it is in English language, unlike the other encyclopedia. I have no problem with introducing Kosovo into the intro, when it signs the border delimitation treaty, which was finished with the Republic of Albania and is currently in progress with the (Former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia. In any case, there are insinuations that Montenegro might recognize independence of Kosovo on or after 16 June 2008, which would mean that nothing of greater scale needs be done but wait, if true. I have an abundance of "my countries", and am certainly not here to impose as a governmental agent the point of view of them, nor should the Wikipedia be based upon it.
One could say that yes, I am denying the existence of a Montenegrin language. But some I disputing the independence of the Republic of Kosovo. When Kosovo achieves international recognition, I will change my opinion. When relevant things occur, I shall likewise change my opinion regarding the Montenegrin language. This has absolutely nothing to do with me, as I have no direct or indirect influence over the developing matters. You have just claimed that I claim that your nation was invented by Milovan Djilas in 1945 and that I deny the existence of the Montenegrin nation. That is both contradicting and false. First of all, if I ever claimed such a thing, then I most surely would've not denied the existence of the Montenegrin nation, if it was created 63 years ago, I am certainly not denying its existence today. However, that is incorrect. You probably misinterpreted my wording, the fathers of the Montenegrin nation were Petar II Petrovic Njegoc spiritually and Nikola I Petrovic in act, if not Ivan Crnojevic. Let me quote myself from Talk:Milla Jovovich:


As you know, invention and recognition are two very, very different words. Fact is that in the first Yugoslavia (the royal one) which existed from 1918 to 1945 there was a tri-unity of three peoples: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and not Montenegrins, who were considered Serbs. It is in 1945 that the Montenegrin ethnic group received recognition as a separate from Serbia and the Montenegrins received a separate republic from Serbia in the Yugoslav Communist Federation. Therefore, one may see that you have interpreted my words completely wrongly.
Usage of Serbo-Croatian might be hampered by its factual non-existence anymore, but is indeed acceptable to me. I however, do not see how it helps explain the Montenegrin:Serbian problematic. I afraid you are not correct. The new Constitution was brought in 1992, and not 1991. Also, why do you persistently call it "wartime", including insisting upon the adjective's inclusion in this very article? You are also wrong regarding the (old) Serbian constitution. It wasn't brought in 1989, but in 1990. The 2006 change was just officialisation of the change from "Serbo-Croatian" to "Serbian" with the break of the major linguistic groups that was conducted in 1993, that is also restandardization of the Serbian literal language. The 1992 Montenegrin change just followed the collapse of Yugoslavia - restoring the old domestic name for the language spoken, Serbian. And you also seem to forget that up to the 1950s and 1970s the prime name for the language spoken in Montenegro was 'Serbian language'.
In any case, there is also pretty undisputed by historians that Docleans, Zetans, Highlanders, Boccans, Montenegrins and Herzegovinians were Serbs. I stand by that. That includes global science, amongst them Fine, Hupchnik or Curta, all the way to more closer historians like the Romanian Nicholas Jorga. The same thing you can find out if you open any of the following encyclopediae: the American Encyclopedia Americana, the British Encyclopedia Britannica, the German Brockhaus Encyclopedia, the French Brockhaus Encyclopedia, or the Vacitan City's Catholic Encyclopedia. If citations need be acquired, I shall have no difficulty.
Placing them in the same line or not, that was not established by me, but by the finest and greatest people educated in the history of the local clans. There is no intention to present the Montenegrin term as non-national, but solely to apply all the historic namings for the region, which as you see, I have when I have added the Zetans and Docleans there.
Excellent as it may be for beginners, I do not read 3rd grade literature, or in general modern with nothing new presented. I have greatly dedicated my life to the study of Montenegrin history and culture, and only read the most thorough works and direct sources. For example, I directly read what Kekaumenos and John Skylitzes wrote, directly the Charters of the Nemanjics, Balsics and Crnojevics, and only the finest and neutral works, which include some of the greatest Western experts on Balkan history, amongst them John Fine for an example. I have read through the histories of the Petrovic-Njegoss and their works, those of the Boccan famous historians, that of Johann Christian von Engel, the Montenegrin Dragovic brothers (Marko and Zivko, very first true and objective Montenegrin historians and lawyer), Pan-Slavist Konstantin Jireček, Croatian historian Ferdo Šišić, just to name a few. In fact, there is a book I can indeed recommend you to download and read. It's the Second Part of Volume II of the book "History of Montenegro". It was printed in 1970 in Podgorica and written by the greatest Montenegrin experts in the field of history, of the Montenegrin Historical Institute. Here is the link. That altogether makes Andrijasevic's quite short history of Montenegro completely irrelevant to me in precise and does not really make him an eminent historian in my eyes. I advice you to read thoroughly and credible historical sources.
File:Grb-Cetinja-glava.gif
Coat of Arms of Cetinje
Whether or not the Montenegrin language will use the hyper-iyekavisation "prijestonica" or the traditional "prestonica", that remains yet to be seen. I have pointed you out to the image of the Coat of Arms of Cetinje. I have claimed that its official name is Prestonica to this day, and the official website confirms that:


It is more than obvious that the title of the actual web page, which by the way is only edited by some moderators, is one of those examples of hyper-iyekavisation I had mentioned before. I can post you hundreds of internet links or quote works of the modern days who use "prestonica", rather than the hyper-iyekav "prijestonica", for the Communist period you have the book to which's link I gave you, - if you require this I shall have no problem, no difficulty, just inform me - but since it is more then obvious that you claim that this is a result of Serbia's influence since the 1918 unification, however, that is a fallacious opinion, and I shall prove it by quoting pre-1918 Montenegrin writings. If you refer to the 1914 book "Code of Law" printed in Cetinje, a work of the greatest Montenegrin experts in Law Zivko Dragovic, you shall notice a peculiar thing - Cetinje is called Prestonica. If you refer to the very first Montenegrin Constitution, you'll find out that the capital of the Princedom of Montenegro is in 1905 officially caled Prestonica. And now, please let me quote the 1903 Constitution of the Holy Synod of the (Serb-Orthodox, Metropolitan or whatever) Montenegrin Church:


The following is an excerpt from a letter of Prince Nicholas I Petrovic to Serbian King Alexander Obrenovic, on the advices regarding the Austro-Hungarian threat, the year is 1902:



This is from the Clubbists' paper "National Thought", the issue of 1 October 1906, in an article on Cetinje's gymnasium:


Or how about the "Cetinje Herald", issue 8 May 1910, on the escadrille of the Italian navy arriving to Bar:


Here's one from the 19th century, the Geography school textbook from 1895


And the next citation is the very oldest poem of Nikolaj, when he wasn't yet even a monarch (dated 27 April 1859), called "Let's drink Wine!":


...or how about from Nikola's drama "The Prince Arvanite":


Give me also the freedom to quote Duke Marko Miljanov Popovic, from the 19th century likewise:


Or perhaps the head of the Montenegrin Church Mitrofan Ban, from 1890:


Or Mitrofan's declaration to the Montenegrins regarding unification of the Serbian Orthodox Church, from 12 September 1920, his right hand Ivan Kaludjerovic reading his letter in front of a crown in the Cetinje Monastery:


What was the name of that edition in Cetinje from 1910 regarding Nicholas' jubilar anniversary of reign? "Pedeset godina na prestolu Crne Gore 1860-1910"
Let's hear a part of Prince-Bishop Peter II Petrovic-Njegos' "The Hermit of Cetinje [a Serb to his Serb kin]" from 1834, Cetinje (this especially, again, comes as a shock, since I cannot believe that there is a Montenegrin that didn't read Njegos):


Peter II's work "The Light of Microcosm" from 1845:


The following is from Peter II's most famous work, and in general the opus of Montenegrin and Serbian literature in general - the Mountain Wreath of 1847:


Or Peter II Njegos' "False Tsar Stephen the Little" from 1851:


Peter II's "Svobodijada", published in 1854:


Let's hear a little from Prince-Bishop Peter I Petrovic Njegos, his "Short History of Montenegro":


And now Petar II's letter to Jeremij Mihajlovič Gagić from 30 October, 1830, Cetinje:


Peter II's letter to Mehmed Ressid-pasa from 17 July 1832:


Petar II's letter to Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic from 27 October 1843:


Peter II's letter to Vincent Balarin from 9 June 1846:


Peter II's letter to Croatian Ban Josip Jelacic from 20 December 1848:


You should also check Peter's plan for restoring a Serbian Empire from 1807, Dubrovnik was supposed to have been its prestonica.
Peter I's poem "Sons of Ivan-bey":


On 26 February 1776 Prince-Bishop Sava Petrovic-Njegos writes to the Russian Metropolitan Plato on the restoration of the Serbian Pec Patriarchate plans:


But how about something from the Medieval times? This is a part of one of the oldest parchments from the Cetinje Monastery, from the year of 1484:


So, as you see, what happened in 1992 was usage of not only a standard Montenegrin word - but also a historical one, as it stood in the historical only Montenegro's constitution as an independent country. It was neither any sort of influence from Serbia, nor any attempt to write the Constitution in ekavian Serbian, as the Serbian language is both iyekavian and ekavian - which especially seams peculiar, to write a whole constitution (Predsjednik) in iyekavian and leave out that single word - but plain inclusion of a traditional Montenegrin word, and yes, ekavian. I hope I have proven to you that "Prestonica" is a Montenegrin word, rather than "Prijestonica", which an isolated hyper-iyekavism, today pushed forward in political aims.
I understand that modern-day's ignorance might lead to such fallacious opinions on 'prestonica', but regarding the 'predlog', I must say I am pretty much shocked by your claims. Did you ever watch Montenegrin television or read Montenegrin papers? Let me point you towards the official website of the Parliament of Montenegro: Predlozi zakona i drugi akti Skupštine. Searching through the collection of propositions for laws, one can easily find everywhere Predlog and nowhere prIJedlog. If you'll claim this as well as being something a result of ekavian influence from Serbia, I could easily find the records of activities of the Montenegrin National Assembly from 1905 to 1918, to prove to you that 'Predlog' was the official term back then as well. In that aim, let me quote HRH Nicholas on 28 August 1910, on the Predlog of raising Montenegro from a Princedom into a Kingdom.


Let me also remind you of the Predlog o uniji Crne Gore i Srbije, on which even Sekule Drljevic had worked. But never mind that, let's now go to the 'reka', instead of 'rijeka'. As I have said, I do not believe that anyone at all in Montenegro uses the ekavian version of the word, but your statement Other than people who settled from Serbia proper during the times of Yugoslavia and the brief State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, nobody ever used ekavian in MNE. is more than obviously incorrect.
Regarding the 'reka' instead of 'rijeka', you have just reminded me of another thing which was used - 'mesto' instead of 'mjesto'. Let me quote some of the printing presses, this is Bozhidar Vukovich of Podgorica, he wrote this in 1520:


This he wrote in 1536:


The following are also the Podgorichanin's words, from 1537:


This is just one of the many examples of ekavism in Montenegro during the 15th and 16th centuries, most probably results of Serb refugees into Montenegro from the Ottoman Turks. An example are the subsequently established printing presses in Skadar and Podgorica. Another ekavian heritage is the ekavian linguistic corpus found in the speech of the Mrkojevici coastal clan, as I have mentioned before. I hope you have learned a lot, and in any case if you are interested in Montenegrin linguistics, I am sure I could shed some light on other facts. For instance, in the Sanjak area the Nominative is iyekavian "djete", but the Genitive is ekavian "deteta", and in Podgorica's area the Nominative is ekavian "dete" and the Genitive iyekavian "đeteta". You should also know that in Serbia iyekavian is present in the Sanjak part, and in general western-to-southwestern Serbia, as well as the Metohija part of Kosovo, and although almost completely extinct, the archaic form, in central-to-southern Serbia. That Iyekavian is a little more preserved to the northeast, to Negotin's frontier. And interestingly enough, a certain level of iyekavian pronunciation is quite standard to south-central Banat in Vojvodina.
Regarding the migrations, I was not speaking at all about the Montenegrins' colonizations of the central region that is / later became Serbia in the 19th, 20th and to an extent 18th century (with the slow trend going to the present day), but to the 15th and 16th century Serb refugees that fled from Ottoman lands and nestled in Montenegro, that way creating also mythic origins and bringing their traditions into Montenegro (the Orlovic family being just one example out of many). Let me quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, for an example:


Or the Encyclopedia Britannica:


There were big migrations of the Slavic populations from Old Serbia. For an example, the 1416 Turkish census records that almost the total population of the Prizren district inhabited and founded new villages around Skadar and Podgorica. You have Jovan Erdeljanovic, no one in the entire globe has ever researched more the Montenegrin clans more than him. I suggest finding his book "Old Montenegro" from 1911. Or, if you want someone 'more domestic' to sort of speak, you have Jovan Vukmanovic (though he concentrated mainly just on the Pastrovics). The new arriving population mostly assimilated the autochtonous old and by numbers surpassed them. It is not opposite, you only seem to not be informed of the historical fact. Serbian historiography oh-so-much touches the fact, refer to the humongous project of a group of various Yugoslavian esteemed historians in many tomes known as "The History of the Serb People", covering the times from the very beginnings all the way to the Yugoslav unification. In the end, I shall quote Prince-Bishop Basil Petrovic-Njegos, from his History for the Russians from 1754:


..or the Montenegrin Chieftain's Council from July of 1804, in the response to the Russian Emperor upon the threats of Prince-Bishop Peter's arrest on his stay in Russia:


Regarding the movement which forced the Bosnian Serbs to speak ekavian pronunciation, rather than iyekavian, ti much more came from Serb extreme nationalism and violent hatred towards the Croats and Bosnian Muslims, as well as the fear of assimilation into the Bosnian-Herzegovinian western society and a desire to form a Greater Serbia. The Bosnian Serbs do not speak Bosnian - neither factually nor officially. They speak Serbian, iyekavian pronunciation and Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. It is such official, they learn it at schools, and it has been fully standardized since the war. Also, there is an important differentiation between the speeches of Serbs and Bosniacs you seem to have forgotten. The Bosnian language is based upon the Eastern Bosnian dialect, while that of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the East Herzegovinian dialect of the Central South Slavic Diasystem. They both share the same pronunciation (iyekavian) but as you see, not the dialects of Serbo-Croat. You seem to have statist understanding on languages, naming the corresponding languages by the country (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian,...). With the fall of Yugoslavia Serbo-Croat collapsed in 1993, as the two languages made attempts to abolish the unifications which were in process in 1850 and 1950. It is completely wrong to say that it was limited to he Republic of Serbia - when the truth is it was for also the Republic of Serbian Krayina, the Serb Republic and the Republic of Montenegro, and it is plain ignorance to claim that Serbian language is solely iyekavian, when it uses both pronunciations (both ekavian and iyekavian). In fact, one should keep on mind that iyekavian is actually the original form of the Serbian literary language, with ekavian added only afterwards.
I hope you have now noticed your mistakes. Cheers and no hard feelings, --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
What to think of a person who complains about the length of someone else’s response and then provides one longer than most discussions here? What to make of a person who begins this discussion by personal attacks, using ad hominem arguements and questioning my “competence” (see above), who breaks every single aforementioned Wikipedia policy and still persists – while claiming he/she is “well enough introduced to all of them, as an experienced editor I should be”. You should be but you’re not. This is also telling of how your personal agenda is clouding your judgement – this particular discussion is called “Two QUICK LANGUAGE issues” and you have made it into a lengthy discussion about widely known and undisputed facts of various disciplines. If this is in fact the case, if you are well introduced to Wikipedia policies, then we’re dealing with an intentional disregard for those policies or common courtesy for that matter. And as for experience, I have noticed the distorted picture and falsification of Montenegrin history, language, culture and politics you are presenting in various Wikipedia articles. I shall certianly make it my business to correct those numerous examples of POV, unbased and misleading information, as I’m sure will other honest, neutral editors. I have come to believe you have obviously abandoned all neutrality and decided to further your personal political and ideological agenda by the means of conforming Wikipedia articles to those same personal views and nationalist feelings. I also believe we should proceed with correcting the unspeakable damage you have done to this and MANY other Wikipedia articles. It is also my belief you have falsly presented yourself as an expert in the field, although the amateurishness of your “contributions” and arguments is more than obvious to anyone even vagely introduced to the subject or any intellectual field at all. I have repeatedly appealed to your sense of honesty and neutrality, and always in vain – this is a mistake I shall certainly not be repeating again. You have severly violated all of the policies mentioned above and are persistant to the extent that would call for some type of action. Although you do seem to have some feeling of it, when you seem to believe neutrality is “excessively impossible” – if this is indeed the case with you, as it certainly seems to be, may I suggest restraining yourself from any further editing? Certianly, if one is incapable of controling oneself and incapable of acting in a neutral, intellectually honest way, one should do better by READING rather than EDITIG, which is my friendly suggestion. As for my edits, they are neither unusual nor did I ever remove “Serb-“ “wher ever possible”, but only at those instances it was completely uncalled for. I have even added some information regarding Serbia and its relation to Montenegro – information you keep reverting inspite of the fact it is completely undisputed. This would include, for example, the Serbian army withdrawal to Corfu during WWI and the role of Montenegrins in defending their flanks – a military feat without which the Serbian army would be caught and most probably annihilated by the Austo-Hungarians. That is just one example, an information mentioned in the shortest possible form. You keep removing mention of languages recognized by the Constitution, while preserving a form that would support your POV – that Montenegrin is a non-existent language, something you have openly addmited. You act in a discriminative way and openly admit to that as well, justifying your deletion of Croatian and Bosnian languages by the “small numbers” of these people in MNE. You are completely unaware of the fact their numbers are inconsequential – the Contitution has recognized their languages as “languages in usage” and we should reflect that fact. Of course, the fact that Serbs consisted only 7% of the population (1991 census, a significant rise from the previous 3% (1981)) when Serbian language has been introduced by the wartime consitituion is something you seem to be unbothered with. The idea of opening the article on Montenegro by a false claim that it was “ a Serbian land from the Middle Ages” is obvious enough and so is the intention behind it – it cannot be tolerated in any neutral article. As for Zeta, I have explained that previously – the form of the sentence is clearly “newly acquired” – a form you seem to be the only one not to understand. It means that Zeta was NOT in Serbian POSSESION previously, but was annexed by Serbia. A statement I have tried to avoid exactly because I knew it would be controversial, and have thus chosen this compromise. You continue to accusse me of commiting WP:CIVIL AND WP:NPA by simply repeating the same issues I havecomplained about – see above. This, again, is a typical behaviour of an internet troll. You fail to correct your behaviour, so you accusse me of the same. It doesn’y work that way, sorry, we are not children. The idea I have alluded to the possibility of lack of intelligence on your part is simply false and you know it. I have alluded to a lack of reasoning when it comes to your edits concerning Montenegro. Reasoning can be impaired for various reasons, not least by blind ideological fanaticism, something I DO accuse you of. I have come to believe that your personal political and nationalist persuasion has rendered you utterly incapable of any neutrality regarding articles on Montenegro. And while I have commented the content exclusively, you, on the other hand have decided to respond by PERSONAL ATTACK, directly questioning “my competence” – see above, which provoked me into responding by conducting an analysis of your destructive behavior here. The persistant refusal to confront my arguments has made it necessary to comment your reasons for this attack as well as for you non-sensical edits and blatant reverting of everybody else’s edits – not just my own. As for my “unnecessarily long” comments, I think you have surpassed me in that field, as well as everyone else on this talk page. I have took the time and space I have thought to be necessary to explain my edits and the way your personal view (or mine for that matter) should not even come into picture here. I have also tried to make you aware of the reasons for you own action, which seem pretty obvious to anyone but yourself – reasons that come down to hatered towards Montenegro and its people, as well as a political chauvinism and misusing Wikipedia to further a Serbian expansionist political agenda. All of this is very obvious from your edits, to some extent you even addmit to it, but when I attempt to draw your attention to both your unacceptable behaviour and insults directed against me – something I have indured with some patience – and to the logical fallacy of your edits, you find yourself hurt and and insulted. This is very childish, to say the least, and so is your simple reapeating of my complaints in opposite direction, right down to repeating my exact words . And we should take you seriously after that? Again, you persistantly ignore my arguments and therefore I was forced to make an analysis of this odd and bizarre behavior, all in hope it would make you come to your senses and abandon this destructive and ultimately fruitless path.
Leaving just "Montenegrin/Serbian" is NOT a recognition of the reality and a neutral resolution to the problem, on the contrary. It elevates one of 4 languages in usage (as described by the Constitution) to the position of the official language, with obvious implication and intention you’ve addmited – to question the existence of theMontenegrin language per se. You also disregard the fact that Montengrin inhabitants have “self-styled” Serbian as their language while the old constitution was still in place, the constitiution which claimed Serbian as the official language in Montenegro for the first time. It WAS a wartime Constitution and I don’t think there’s anyone who would seriously dispute that. It was introduced in a situation when a vast majority of the citizens claimed they spoke Serbo-Croatian, but this is something that doesn’t seem to bother you at all. Political reasons for this change were obvious and I’ve provided a universally accepted explanation above. So, Serbian language was official in Montenegro from 1991-2007, while it is official in Serbia proper only from 2006, when the old Serbian constitution was replaced and Serbo-Croatian replaced by Serbian with it. Your form elevates this language, unofficial in Serbia proper untill fairly recently and not official in Montenegro anymore to the status of an official language! This I find deeply disturbing. Is it possible you do not see any POV in this? And you still do not understand why you need to be analysed if you don’t see it? My form – mentioning ALL these languages – official Montenegrin being the first, and followed by Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian represents a neutral and reasonable solution to the dispute.
As for your aquaintance with Vuk Karadzic’s work, you may cliam you have read it in its entirety – I have no way of verifying this – but this is hardly the feeling one gets from this discussion or your edits. My personal sense is that you have obviously read none – or managed to misunderstand them all, especially “Montenegro und die Montenegriner”, as I have already shown . Amateurish copying and pasting from internet sources such as Rastko or Njegos “serbian land of montenegro” does not impress anyone, let alone a serious academic. Firstly, there was no such entity as an “Serbian Orthodox Church” in those days, not under that name. The national prefix to most (thankfully, not all) orthodox churches, regarded by some theologans (including His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I) as an example of ethnophiletism (formerly known as cleronationalism, repeatedly condemned by various church authorities), has not appeared in orthodoxy untill the era of romanticism. And it was not introduced to fmr Yugoslavia untill 1922, when Serbian Orthodox Church was created by expanding the authority of the Patriarchate of the “Orthodox Church in Serbia” to encompass Montenegro as well. Your claim of Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro at any previous date is false, unsupported by anyone including the Serbian Church, and in any case constitutes original research, how ever misguided. “Serbian” and “Orthodox” was for many centuries a synonymous, just as was “Turkish” and “Islamic” or “Latin/latins” and “Roman Catholic”. Even today, Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska consider their muslim neighbours to be “Turks” because of their religion and call them as such, although Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks are obviously of Slavic descent. Or are you disputing that? In all the sillyness of contemporary folk songs, examples of this identification still abound, eg in the song “Dok nam nije Srpska vjera dala Legenda Mladic Djenerala Podigle se sve Natovske sile da bi Ratka zivog uhvatile” – silly as it is, this is exactly the way some people still talk, completely unconsciouss of the distinction between religion and nationality. It was this identification that has made possible for Peter I Petrovic Njegos to famously claim the russian tsar to be “a Serb” because he is “of Serbian faith”. And we clearly read, ““Turci, braco – u kam udarilo!” , “Nijesmo li braca i bez toga,/ u bojeve jesmo li zajedno?” or: “Kakva braca, ako boga znate,/ kada gaze obraz crnogorski,/ kada javno na krst casni pljuju!”, to mention just some of many examples. Even earlier, in the middle ages, it was common for all orthodox people to be named as “greeks” in the west, or “greek christians”, as Martin Luther almost exclusively writes. After the fall of Byzantium, that identification was transferred to the most numerous population (Serbs), at least when it comes to people from this region. Out of numerous other examples, Dr Goran Komar, that wrote some decent articles on the Bay of Kotor, although somewhat corrupted by his national and political view and as such to be taken cum grano sali, writes in his “Planinska sela Dracevice pod vlascu Venecije 1687-1797” (ed. 1997) : “Da je srpska vjera bila kroz srednji vijek više specifično hrišćanska, ili preciznije institucionalizovano hrišćanska, da li bi srpski narod a posebno srpski narod u dijaspori, u sitnim svojim okrajnim partama, izdržao tolika teška iskušenja i zadržao svoju narodnost”. Although hardly usable for other purposes, it shows us how strong this identification is and was so even only 11 years ago. And “Istocnik”, a publication of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Canada recently said: “Mozda i jedino onako kako su srpska vjera, jezik i narod opstali kroz vijekove ropstva” (see http://www.istocnik.com/articles/37/sveisto.html). As for your numerous, badly translated, citations of Karadzic, I fail to see their relevance – some of them confirm Montenegrin national identity, others do not (Karadzic, a Serb from Serbia living in a time of their national movement, might have regarded Montenegrins to be Serbs, but we have no confirmation of this), other confirm my arguments concerning identification of Serbs with Orthodox people in general, but none tell us anything of Montenegrin or Serbian language, other than what I’ve said previously – Karadzic clarly speaks of one. He might have made a bad historian or an ethnologist, but he is remembered as a linguist and is relevant only because of his work in this area. Some of these quotations also seem to confirm the clear national difference between the two groups such as “Amongst all the Serbs women are very much submitted to men, and in Montenegro they almost keep them as slaves.” – clearly, Montenegrins are not in the same group as “all Serbs”, otherwise he would’ve said “...except in Montenegro”, rather than “…and in Montenegro”. But you keep misunderstanding them because you look at this and other examples through your particular political/ideological lense, rather than an objective, methodic, logical one, as a serious and methodic scholar should – as someone who has years of scholarly research behind him, and at various european universities, I can tell you this is the only relevant way. People will not take you seriously otherwise, not even here on Wikipedia. Vuk Karadzic’s father is from Bosnia, a region around the town today known as Bijeljina. There are no serious claims to the contrary – other than the very telling equasion you make between Vuk Karadzic and Radovan Karadzic – something I find to be nothing short of scandalous. The theory you mention, if we should indeed call it that, is a form of naïve pride people from the area of Niksic municipality have, claiming Nikola Tesla originated from Vilusi and claiming many notable people from surrounding nations originated from there as well. This is very probably an example of an inferiority complex, due to small achievements of the area. Serbs (real Serbs, those from Serbia, not the new Montenegrin Serbs) would consider these claims offensive or laughable – depending of the personal disposition, I can confirm that, having lived in Belgrade for many years before going abroad. They consider it an attempt to hijack their notable people, as indeed it is – just as we consider the same regarding numerous Montenegrins some people here wish to present as Serbs – even including our royal family. Which reminds me of the fact you are also reverting my correction of “monarchist party” into “royalist” – you either fail to see the distinction or this is just a part of your vandalism, which I believe to be the case. A monarchist party exists in a republic and fights for the change of the republican system into a monarchic one (such as in case of restoration of monarchies), while a royalist party is the one that supports the King (Prince, Emperor, monarch in general) in an already established monarchy. Back to Karadzic’s origins – his mother was not from Ozrinic (Niksic) clan, and your dubious genealogy would make him fully Montenegrin and not Serbian at all – as Serbs do not have clans at all – this is a social structure that never appeared in Serbia, at least to the best of my knowledge. It is endemic for highland societes, such as Montengrin and Scottish society. Anyone who knows anything of Vuk Karadzic, knows his parents were Bosnian Serbs who settled in Trsic – for your information, it is a village in Serbia. Who ever thought you otherwise was dead wrong. "The newly acquired Serbian land" DOES NOT imply that Serbia “liberated Serbian lands outside under Byzantine and Hungarian rule”, but that it has just acquired it by annexing the feudal ethnic Montenegrin state of Zeta – you are obviously incapable of following that scholarly form so I’ve changed it by erasing “Serbian” – something you will certainly accusse me of just the same.
It is not for you or me to judge what constitutes a country “truly recognized” – and it’s difficult to see any particular importance of Serbian recognition of Montenegro – equating it with the recognition and acceptance by the UN is truly grotesque. It is completely insignificant what YOU have a problem with or not and what YOU consider to be a fully recognized state, including the border treaty and so on. Is it even worth mentioning how deeply POV this is and how obvious it is from the very form of your sentence “I have no problem with introducing Kosovo into the intro, when it signs the border delimitation treaty”. Well, tough luck. My argument was that Kosovo is recognized by english-speaking countries, that most people who consult english Wikipedia are those who use english as their first language and come from those countries and that not reflecting that would be confusing. I am NOT advocating introducing Kosovo as an independent state into this article or anything as controversial as that. I am clearly erasing a false peace of data – the one that claims Montenegro to be the newest independent country, which is no longer the case and would lead english-speaking people to believe Montenegro declared idependence AFTER Kosovo, which is false. As for your insinuations about the recognition of Kosovo by Montenegro, this is REALLY not the place for such speculation and does nothing to change the fact just mentioned. I do not want to get into an equally tiresome political discussion with you, nor is this the place for something like that – PLEASE try to understand that and try to find some other place to vent your national frustration – internet forums and chat rooms or whatever. Wikipedia is NOT an internet forum, you have completely misunderstood its purpose. DO NOT misuse Wikipedia to expose the view of Serbian government or any other – it is not a proper thing to do. Kosovo has achieved international recognition – although it is not a member of the UN, which is not a prequisite for a country to be called “internationally recognized”. Countries existed before the UN was established, they will probably exist after it’s gone. Switzerland wasn’t a member untill 2002, when it became the 190th member of the organisation. Does this mean Switzerland wasn’t a recognized country before that date? No, it doesn’t. Please try to understand the irrelevance of your arguments and the way an encyclopedia is composed. Your personal opinions are of no consequence what-so-ever and neither are mine. It is not for you to judge whether something is relevant or not – more information is always better than less and this is one of the reasons we have Wikipedia in the first place. You are undermining its mission and its purpose. You are not ashamed to say directly : “One could say that yes, I am denying the existence of a Montenegrin language” – should I say more? Is it possible you don’ t understand this is POV and you should NOT try to further your irrelevant personal opinions here? Further, you say: “You have just claimed that I claim that your nation was invented by Milovan Djilas in 1945 and that I deny the existence of the Montenegrin nation. That is both contradicting and false. First of all, if I ever claimed such a thing, then I most surely would've not denied the existence of the Montenegrin nation, if it was created 63 years ago, I am certainly not denying its existence today”. This is one example of how you fail to apply logic – there is no contradiction although your claim is false. You claim it was an INVENTION of Djilas, but you are deniying the REALITY of a separate Montenegrin nation in order to support the Greater Serbia agenda. This couldn’t be more clear and there is no contradiction. Your specualtions about who was “the father” of Montenegrin nation is equally POV, OR and as such is not worth any consideration here. You have claimed, and continue to do so, that Djilas has invented a non-existant national identity and is responsible of its “recognition”, as you have just addmitted to that as well. You are obviously not distinguishing between ethnic identity and nationality – a common mistake in this region. National/ethnic identities do not need to be “recognized” by anyone, nor is there such a process. Djilas was one of the people in the Communist Party who insisted the Karadjordjevic supression of national self-determination of Montenegrins should not continue in the post-war period – that is all. And he is to be applauded for that. Firstly, your poor grasp of history is breathtaking – the first Yugoslavia did not exist in the period of 1918-1945, but 1929-1945, from the 6th January Dictatorship (also known as the Karadjordjevic dictatorship) untill the end of WWII. At least do read [[7]] , if nothing else. Conveniently, the same article calls the murderor Racic “a Montenegrin”, directing at wikipedia article on Montenegrins, while the identity of all noteworthy Montenegrins is changed to “Serb”, not least by you. Do I see this as a part of a nationalist agenda. Oh, yes, I do. In 1945, you say, “the Montenegrin ethnic group received recognition as a separate from Serbia and the Montenegrins received a separate republic from Serbia in the Yugoslav Communist Federation”. This is your odd interpretation of these events and again POV derived from the fact you consider Montenegrins to be just another groups of Serbs and try to deseminate such view throughout this and other articles. What history tells us is that Montenegrin ethnicity was again possible to be expressed freely, after being supressed since the shameful annexation of 1918. Montenegrins didn’t “receive” anything they were not entitled to – and please stop changing the fact MNE was REDUCED to the status of a province in 1918, which is an apt and neutral description of what happened.
It is very gratious of you to accept the “usage of Serbo-Croatian”, but this is not the point. The point is you keep deleting the fact Montenegrin was previously considered a dialect within the wider context of the Serbo-Croatian language, official in MNE untill 1991/2 and in Serbia untill 2006. You are bothered by that fact because it’s in the way of your project of depicting Montengrin language as Serbian, Montenegrins as Serbs and Montenegro as “Serbian land from the Middle Ages” onwards. This is deeply intellectually dishonest. I call it wartime because it was wartime and this is undisputed – I also insist upon that adjective’s inclusion because it clearly shows that what it says should be taken cum grano salis and because it shows that other powers were at work that forced the Assembly to such a drastic measure - to change the official language to Serbian although the vast majority of the population spoke Serbo-Croatian, something that doesn’t bother you at all, although you insist upon the idea most people in Montenegro considered their language to be Serbian in 2003 – only too natural considering this is something the Constitution has been telling them for 12 years – a Constitution still in power at the time of the census. As for the Serbian one, you conveniently call the 2006 change (from Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian to just Serbian) “just officialisation of the change”. Mind you that no change was brought about if it is unofficial and this is not something we should be presenting here in Wikipedia. Obviously, Serbian is a language newly introduced to Serbia proper, while Montenegrin change in 1991/2 was a new and alien introduction of a foreign name for the Montenegrin language spoken for centuries. The reason for this was political and brought about by pressures from Belgrade, as I’ve explained previously.
As for “finest and greatest people”, I would dispute that. Anyone truly educated in the history of Montenegrin (not local but national) clans, would know such social structure never existed amoung Serbs – not one clan can be found in Serbia, not now, nor in the historical records. You have placed them in such an order to present Montnegrin identity as a local one, that is clear and transparent. It is hardly worth noting how exceptionally arrogant it is for you to dismmiss a work by an emminent historian as “3rd grade” – it is a liberty no true intellectual or scholar would take and such arrogance is a “give-away “characteristic of an ambitious philistine and pompous amateur. Nor will any true scholar be impressed with a litany of names well known to an average undergraduate, some of them very controversial amoung serious researchers in the area. I, however, have no ambition nor intention to educate aggressive, offensive vandals nor to direct them to worthy literature they are likely to misinterpret if left without guidance. I have neither ambition nor time for such a fruitless and pointless endavour. The only thing you seem to have dedicated your life to seems to be the destruction of other people’s work and false representation and interpretation of facts . I have directed you toward colleague Andrijasevic’s work in the hope it is short enough for you to read and clear enough to make you question the validity of your stand. I see now you are not in the least interested in their validity, nor intellectual honesty at all – but only of “pushing the envelope”, furthering an aggressive chauvinist agenda you are unashamed to admit – an agenda of denying the existence of an entire nation, its language, history and culture. I am now also certain you will stop at nothing to do this.
Your idea of “prijestonica” as hyper-iyekavisation is false and constitutes a POV. I’ve already gave you the argument concerning the use of “prestonica” in the text of Cetinje’s official page – the text has not been changed since the re-introduction of the Montenegrin language to MNE and is still in Serbian, while the TITLE has been changed – as one can clearly read “PRIJESTONICA”, in standard Montenegrin. You have decided to disregard and ignore this argument as well as others and I shall not repeat them – one can always scroll up and read them again. As for examples, historic and contemporary, you are just to google or read relevant historic and literary work that originate in MNE – again, my lack of ambition to educate anyone here applies. There is nothing peculiar in foreign language influences being limited to one or several word, or to a group designating a particular branch of knowledge (eg. german words for automobile parts and similar). It is largely undisputed “prestonica” was pushed into use out of political motives. It is also ignorance, modern-day or otherwise, that is responsible for the shock of the use of montenegrin “prijedlog”. If one is versed in the science of etymology (which IMHO I am), one shall know prijedlog (or serbian “predlog”) is an amalgam of pred/prijed (in front) and “log-“, an old hindo-european rooth (“rooth” is not an adequate word and is borrowed from semitic group of languages, as hindo-european do not have “rooths” per se) constituting the base of greek “logos” (“word”, amoung other numerous meanings), or montenegrin “logika” etc. “Prijedlog” is therefore something that comes in front of the “final word”, decission ie it is a “proposal” – as it is with words “naprijed” instead of serbian “napred” and so on. The same argument applies here – “predlozi zakona” was in fact a form used while the Serbian language was official, is this so hard to understand? “Prijedlog” and “prijestonica” are not pushed for any political reason, but because these are word from the standardized literary Montenegrin language and as such were in use by Montenegrins for centuries. As for the XVIth ct. examples, they are irelevant to our discussion, as they are not even in modern Montenegrin – nor Serbian. There were NO “Serbs refugees” in Montenegro, for reasons I’ve already explained well-enough. It is a popular myth, wagely supported by poetic “sto se ne sce u lance vezati/ to se zbjeza u ove planine”, but this is an artistic view of history, not an objective one and you seem to be utterly confused by it. You have to learn to distinguish between those two. Sorry, not only that I had nothing to “learn” from you, but that you seem to be either unwilling or incapable of interpreting historic and linguistic material – probably because of the lack of formal education, but I do not wish to speculate on this, nor is it of any interest to me. I am not merely “interested” in Montenegrin linguistics and history. Your point concerning the use of iyekavian is Sanjak is an example of your confusion: Sanjak is mainly populated by Bosniaks and these examples are from Bosnian language, not Serbian nor Montenegrin. However, they do reveal the greater similarity between Montenegrin and Bosnian than between Montenegrin and Serbian, something which is a subject of ongoing research. True, “a certain level of iyekavian pronunciation is quite standard to south-central Banat in Vojvodina”, but this is unremarkable as it is mostly standard to Montenegrin and Bosnian colonists who settled there after WWII. It is also unremarkable that it used to be or still is present in the Metohija part of Kosovo, as it was historically a part of Montenegro, taken from it by the Serbs after the annexation of 1918. Most of the orthodox population in Metohija was ethnic Montenegrin untill recently. Serbs escaped from the turkish yoke mostly to Vojvodina and Krajina where they enjoyed the protection of the Habsburgs, not to the war-torn and economically passive region of Montenegro. Of course, this didn’t stop them from taking the land from the Habsburgs when opportunity arose. I agree when you say that “Regarding the movement which forced the Bosnian Serbs to speak ekavian pronunciation, rather than iyekavian, ti much more came from Serb extreme nationalism and violent hatred towards the Croats and Bosnian Muslims, as well as the fear of assimilation into the Bosnian-Herzegovinian western society and a desire to form a Greater Serbia” which is what I’ve said – they have changed their language from Serbo-Croatian to Serbian and tried to inforce the use of Serbian( ie exclusively ekavian), but the people never accepted it. They still speak pure Bosnian factually, just as they call it Serbian formally. It is not MY “statist” understanding of languages – it is the factual understanding now widespread amoung our colleagues, since the desintegration of Serbo-Croatian/Croato-Serbian into separate linguistic entities. “it is plain ignorance to claim that Serbian language is solely iyekavian” you say. Indeed, it would be. I’m not claiming that. Serbian is NO LONGER both ekavian and iyekavian, although it used to be, just as Serbo-Croatian used to be. I hope I’ve gave you enough reason to question your fundamentalist beliefs and at least provided you with a glimpse of how a scientific argumentation is conducted. I consider that your misinterpretations are now proved as such and will be edited in the article in order to preserve its neutrality and purify it of all flase information, illogical claims, bizarre notions, POV and OR, as well as all of this confused, clumsy propagandism you have indorsed, but I trust will not after this guidance I’ve provided. Your last revert claimed it was “for the last time”. We certainly hope so, so that we can proceed by correcting whatever damage you have done to other articles on Montenegro. You position is now utterly compromised by your obvious lack of neutrality, please remember that. I certianly have lost all hope you will see your mistakes. For my part, this discussion is over, as you PERSISTANTLY disregard and ignore every single argument contrary to your own position. This makes any further discussion with you utterly futile. Your misleading edits unsupported by credible sources and all instances of POV, will be changed. Now and always. What you seem not to understand is that you cannot “win” this by simply reverting other people’s credible information – even if I would give up in disgust, there will always be other people watching.
All the best to you, --Perjanik (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol, what can I say except - you asked for it. :)))
Again I shall point you towards this: Comment the content, and not the user. Most of your words seem to be shallow and wasted for assaults upon my person, rather than this very article or our discussions. It is also a bit hypocrisy upon your part to list every Wikipedian rule, and then continue to make yourself wording which are just above the borders of civility (you...you...you...), and then openly style yourself as an "honest, neutral editor". It is therefore to my belief - I am open to having a false assertion - that you are attempting some sort of bluffing, amazing anyone with gigantically long posts - including attempting to do so for myself - thinking that no one actually reads our discussion. I might be wrong, and in that case I apologize, but to me that seems evident, as you keep ignoring our actual dispute.
No I shall not stop safeguarding numerous articles that are on my watchlist, as your edits are not contributive - or are, essentially, destructive to the article.
I hardly believe that almost every single mention of "Serb-" is "completely uncalled for". A part of Zeta, the Lower one, wasn't under Serbia - but it is false to claim that all wasn't. Next to that, it was before, historically, a part of it. I see that you have dropped most of your bizarre edits, and that is good. That means that there is some progress. However it is most highly impolite on your part to hide them and pretend as if they had never happened. Admitting could've been a gesture of good will and a positive move for our ongoing discussion. Some of them included addition of totally unnecessary percentages to the table, removal of the entire latest demographic info section, adding "wartime" to the constitution and continually removing the link to the Montenegrin Orthodox Church article. As for the info you have introduced - when you showed up you have already caught on a work of shortening this article. And yes, that part shall be further cut down, instead of expanded. The statement that it is "completely undisputed" is also, false. And if you are an expert on the issue, you should know that. It is disputed by Henry Baerlain, Milorad Ekmecic and a wide array of experts on the matter, including myself.
Regarding the language issue, I keep reverting to the compromise that was created after long and arduous discussions whether it should be "Serbian" or "Montenegrin" and whether "Albanian" belongs there. This was created as a compromise between the conflicting sides, presenting both and honoring the Montenegrin:Serbian problematic at the same time. It is highly inappropriate and very naughty on your part to change without amending the consensus reached here, especially since you can see the commented out warnings on the two language points, which are clearly meant to be there for anyone who attempts to unilaterally impose change. And thus, that part I shall keep reverting if you keep on POVpushing it.
The percentage of Montenegrins opting to identify as Serbs has little to do with the Constitutions itself. By the way, you still have not explained why do you continually attribute it as "wartime"? So what? In 1909 there were 95% Serbs. The fact that I indeed do admit the problematic of the Montenegrin language is the same that I admit the problematic of Kosovo's independence. And the 1992 constitution has not simply "introduced" Serbian to Montenegro - it has returned the historical language of Montenegro that was there before the 1960s. You seem also not to be bothered by the fact that most Montenegrin citizens also self-identified their language as "Serbian" even before. I would also be interested if you define what precisely makes it 'war-time'.
The notion "a Serbian land from the Middle Ages" is nowhere in the article, but you cannot blatantly remove sourced information by reliable sources anywhere in any case.
"persistant refusal to confront my arguments". I'm sorry, but that is all I do. And instead of studying me as a human being or concentrating all of your thinkings upon myself, I suggest you do the same for my arguments.
You have made again yet another mistake. The old Constitution wasn't brought in 1991, but in 1992. And it is not "Serbia proper", but the "Republic of Serbia".
The term "Serbian Church", "Serbian National Church" or "Serbian Orthodox Church" existed in 1219-1532 and 1557-1766. It was obviously not introduced to Yugoslavia in 1922, and I do not know how you intend to explain that. And you are once again wrong, there was no "Patriarch" of the Orthodox Church of Serbia, a common Patriarchate was created afterwards, nor was Montenegro subdued to it, but it was a common creation of all Orthodox Churches on the soil of former Yugoslavia.
"might have regarded Montenegrins to be Serbs, but we have no confirmation of this". You are again wrong. He is often considered a Serbian nationalist, since he openly considered the Montenegrins and many others as Serbs. If you think that there is no confirmation, you probably have not read most of the things from Karadzic. Drawing straws amongst the words of this man, what is more a somewhat Serbian nationalist, is really ridiculous and indeed childlish.
Usage of new Montenegrin Serbs is identical and insulting to new national Montenegrins that do not consider themselves Serbs. A similar clan system indeed did exist in Serbia, but for geographical reasons it was never created as the one in the northern Dalmatian hinterland, Herzegovina, Montenegro, or Albania. The notion that "Serbs do not have clans" is so simplified, so I suggest that you start serious studies instead of copy-pasting posts from the Cafe del Montenegro forum.
You have really twisted Njegos' words (both Peter II and Peter I), but if need be, we can go into this problematic as well. I will only mention Njegos' work from 1833: "A Serb thanks Some Serbs for Honor". The first ("A Serb") refers to himself, the Prince-Bishop Peter II, and the latter (Some Serbs) refers to the traders of the Lumbardic family, a Catholic Serb family from Dubrovnik, with home he spent some time back in 1833. How does this possible collide with Radoslav Rotkovic's theory is beyond me...
Yes, it is not on you or me - but on the United Nations.
The fact that in 1918-1945 Montenegrins (save for the occupation 1941-1944) were consider Serbs, has absolutely nothing to do with me. I consider that Montenegrins form 43% of Montenegro's population and Serbs 32%. That is what is "my agenda". If you have any proof that Montenegrins were recognized in the Kingdom, I'd be glad to change my opinion.
Your definitions go beyond the borders of rational. I have shown you examples from the 19th and early 20th centuries regarding the wording, and you have simply and entirely ignored this. You know claim that it was irrelevant, totally changing your opinion that it was absolutely never in usage and that it is a traditional word. And now you actually claim that all official data was from 1992 to - and is still today - issued in ekavian?!?!? I mean what am I really supposed to think - that you are somehow trying to "pull yourself out of the mess you created"? The least thing you could do is admit that you were wrong.
You may claim that there were none, but you and Spiro Kulisic will find yourselves outside of that which sources and historiography in general claims...which should also be the prime used for the Wikipedia, and not your personal opinions, which is classified as a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.
My last advice - make things concise, clear, and stop dedicating half of your post to myself, rather than the subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no "dubious genealogy" except that I have cought you that you openly do not know Vuk Karadzic, after conducting a blatant personal attack, stating that his origin from Bosnia is learned in schools and that I obviously didn't. Vuk's father Stefan Joksimovic Karadzic was born natively in Trsic, whle his father, Joksim Karadzic, migrated from the Drobnjaks to Trsic, like many during the era because Trsic was found completely abandoned and empty due to the Ottomans - it was repopulated by Montenegrins and Herzegovinians mainly. Stefan Joksimovic Karadzic was born right in Trsic in 1750, while his father, Joksim Karadzic was born in 1720 in the Drobnjaks. Vuk's mother Jegda is of Ozrinic, and she was born there (yes, in Niksic's vicinity] in 1753, marrying Vuk's father just a year before his birth. The Drobnjaks remained akin and close to Vuk over ther decades, and festifities on his birth are regularily held, with a delegation always coming to Trsic. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Let us quote what Vuk writes about the Bay of Kotor:



...or what he continues about Montenegro:


And no, it is not me who created the "two quick language issues" into a lengthy discussion - if you scroll to the up, you shall notice that it is yourself. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New city codes

From next month will be applyed new city codes for EVERY municipality in Montenegro. That means every city will issue own car plates

new codes are: Andrijevica (AN), Danilovgrad (DG), Žabljak (ŽB), Mojkovac (MK), Plav (PL), Rožaje (RO), Tivat (TV) i Šavnik (ŠN).

I ask if anyone can change those codes to those municipalities as well as for pages AN, DG, MK, PL, RO, TV and ŠN

sorce: http://www.dan.cg.yu/?nivo=3&rubrika=Hronika&datum=2008-05-12&clanak=14709577.222.16.23 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Internat domains - urgent

We must change addreses of all Montenegrin websites that ends www.sonething.cg.yu into www.something.co.me89.188.32.8 (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, we have to change addresses only of those Montenegrin websites that so changed from gh.yu to co.me :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Hi, I made some changes to this article and they were discarded :(

I have some things to change and I would like to ask for permission. Please Change the Serbian/Montenegrin just to Montenegrin because it is Montenegro and not Serbia. The Montenegrin language (for now) is almost equivalent to the Serbian ijekavian accent spoken in Montenegro so I propose Serbian/Montenegrin to be changed just to Montenegrin. Also prijestonica/prestonica. The first one is on Montenegrin (Serbian ijekavian) but the second one is on Serbian ekavian. The ekavian variant is not used in Montenegro so I propose to you to change it only to prijestonica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apiya (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In constitution Cetinje is described as a PrIJestonica. 89.188.32.8 (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Glavni grad i Prijestonica

Član 5

Glavni grad Crne Gore je Podgorica. Prijestonica Crne Gore je Cetinje. 



Ljudska prava i slobode

Član 6 
........  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.188.32.8 (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion to the up several sections to discover the case in Montenegrin speech. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)



Are there any administrators here?Montenegro did not elect to enter union with Serbia,it was draged into it.King Nicholas opposed it,goverment of Montenegro opposed it,majority of montenegrin people opposed it.You have independent reports from American and Canadian officers who were sent to investigate and who confirms what I am talking about.It has been enough of Serbian propaganda.Please let me edit this article.Even flag in Kingdom of Montenegro article is not correct.It was tricolor with silver eagle on it.Last time I read articles about Montenegro,everything was ok,and now I see that someone edited it and made a proserbian propaganda.Comon people,have some sence! 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.123.198 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the first matter, there were elections for the Great People's Assembly of the Serb People in Montenegro. They were Western-styled and French-inspired, in an effort to increase the democratic system - usage of Electors and predetermined to represent different classes of the Montenegrin society. What reports from American and Canadian officers? I recall just one journalist article...and heard a lot from H.R.W. Temperlay, the commander of British forces in Montenegro, and from Henry Bearlain.
The tri-color with a silver eagle was never flag of Montenegro during the Kingdom age. It was a blank Serb tricolor, with the middle being Light Blue, rather than dark. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montenegro/Archive_2&oldid=1085444081"