Talk:Montenegro

Previous discussion have been archived. Archive 1

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)

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:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

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 (UTC)

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.

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:

• • Montenegro (Serbian [which in Montenegro is officially designated "Montenegrin language" by the Montenegrin Constitution]: Crna Gora/Црна Гора (IPA: [ˈt͡sr̩naː ˈɡɔra], ), Albanian: Mali i Zi ([ˈmaʎi ˈi ˈz̟i])) is a country located in Southeastern Europe.

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)

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:

“ Glavni grad Crne Gore je Podgorica

Prestonica Crne Gore je Cetinje.

”

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.

Please do not delete relevant information and fill the article with POV and controversial claims.

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