Talk:History of Montenegro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Montenegro (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

[Untitled][edit]

I'm a little concerned about the etymology section. Reading through etymology dictionaries and talking to some Montenegrins, it seems generally accepted that Monte Negro is a calque of the original Crna Gora. A Montenegrin was actually very insulted that I proposed Montenegro came first, and Crna Gora from it, and provided me with some sources saying otherwise. I'm hesistant, however, to edit the page at this point, but would like to see support of the claims in the Etymology section. I think that the first metioning of Crna gora was in Otoman empire as Karadok meaning Black Mountain. Historicly never is mentioned before. Also, being a part Montenigrin I agree that a proper name is one in Serbian Crna gora not Italian or any other name. Eg. England is the first name not Angleterre as it is in French the speaking leanguage of some English rulers.

Crna Gora and Montenegro came about around the same time! SERBS gave it the name Crna gora, and for other nations it was Montenegro! the meaning is the same, I think we all know that.

Ambiguity[edit]

'Bar's Serbian Archbishop, Grgur, wrote a magnificent book in poor Latin in 1171-1196 as his personal diary describing the die-our of the realm of Duklja' - was the book in bad Latin or probably more likely Vulgar Latin (or the later Vulgate)? And what is the 'die-our'? Does the writer mean 'death-hour'?

'but the Archbishop never gave up from the siege' - who was besieging who? It is not very clear from the context. In fact this whole section is a bit difficult to follow.

Kingdom[edit]

I found a flag of the Kingdom: FlagRoyalMNE.gif. --PaxEquilibrium 19:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"...only allied nation to loose its independence after the war" ?[edit]

Just one issue. "Montenegro thus became the only Allied nation to lose its independence after the war." What kind of the sentence is this? This way Serbia also lost its independance (it became a part of the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - thus, lost is soverenity). For me this sounds POV as it suggests that the whole Kingdom was actually merely Serbian annexation of its neighbours (which is ridiculous). I suggest deleting this sentence. Regards. nikola

At first, Kingdom of Montenegro was indeed annexed by the Kingdom of Serbia, by the decision of the Podgorica Assembly. Shortly afterwards, Kingdom of Serbia, joined Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which soon became [Kingdom of Yugoslavia]]. So, there is nothing wrong with the sentence. Sideshow Bob 17:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I half-agree with the anon. Serbia also lost its independence. --PaxEquilibrium 18:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Red Croatia[edit]

It seems that someone put in an unsourced sentence about early Doclan principality: 'it as first described as red croatia in 753'

I know this is controversial matter, but i propose editing the statement. I assume whoever included it bases it on the DAI, but this article was not 100% accurate and describes doclea as serbian and croatian at different paragraphs. Left alone, it suggests that montenegrins are descendents of croats . I suggest that we either:

1) state that doclea was settled by both people that would nowaday be considered to be serbs and croats

2) or more accurately, say the area was settled by undifferentiated slav tribes

3) and/ or qualify that it was referred to as part of Red Croatia by some , but the historical recall is often not greatly accurate \

Hxseek 18:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gap[edit]

history, mentioned in article Montenegro Province, Ottoman Empire 1528 and continues from year, 1852 in article Principality of Montenegro, so there exist huge gap, over 300 years are not mentioned! Montenegro existed, but wasn't internationaly recognized. firstly it was "vladikat" (ruled by prince-bishops) and than princedom. how about making article for this 300 yrs period?Stefke 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will write whole paragraphs soon, when I get time (I will mention the 1514-1528 and 1597-1614 Montenegrin sanjaks, the 1604 raids, the rebellions as well as acts in the 1645-1669 Venetian-Ottoman war and final liberation in 1683-1699 Great War. --PaxEquilibrium 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


I think Montenegro should have separate articles during federation with Serbia, as there exist article Republic of Serbia (federal). I think it's time to make article Republic of Montenegro (federal unit). Navyworth (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To my opinion that is very bad, too many articles with too little information. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Primjedba[edit]

Pozdrav Pax, smatram da je i u ovom clanku zarad neutralnosto neophodno izmijeniti dio teksta koji se odnosi na period neposredno po zavrsetku prvog s. rata i da je neophodno pomenuti bozicnu pobunu.

sticker album[edit]

The article is starting to resemble a sticker album, there is no coherent rationale to the pictures. I will soon review it and edit it to improve its look. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)