Talk:Montenegrins/Archive 1

Anonymous vandalism

Let me take a moment to analyze some of the de facto vandalism that the anonymous user from verat.net and infosky.net had done so far... if we ignore the plain old censoring, there's one set of fairly interesting commits after my integration.

• changes the relation reference from just Serbs to include other Southern Slavs (and later used "and Croats")
• changes "they enjoyed a distinct state from other Serbs" to "Montenegro was a fully-fledged independent country" — implying that the Slavs of Montenegro weren't like the Slavs in Raška, Travunia, etc, that they weren't Serbs
• changes the KoY's action to be "desire for unification" rather than actual "unification", mentions that this was meant to be unconditional and that the crown was a Serbian dynasty (here Serbian meaning Serbia proper)
• notes appeal of the KPJ during WWII in more length
• says that the Montenegrin nationality post-1945 was a reintroduction, not an invention
• rephrases the mention of different ethnicities, and notes that the Serbs in Montenegro don't agree with the others
• changes Milošević to be "Serb from Montenegro" rather than "Montenegrin"

And then there's some censoring in these edits, too.

I'm going to apply some of these changes, although in a much more nuanced way. The page should in the end benefit from this pro-Montenegrin standpoint just as much as it did from the pro-Serb standpoint. --Joy [shallot]—Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

Apparently they either didn't notice, or it wasn't good enough. I'm going to investigate the option of banning the entire block if this continues. --Joy [shallot] 15:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, there was some editing... but still too stubborn with regard to removing stuff. Sorry, but we must stick to some standards, and this is unacceptable. --Joy [shallot]—Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 6 November 2004 (UTC)

Guys, dont delete the population figures of montenegrins in croatia. Whether it is your view that they are serbs or not, it doesnt matter, because on the 2001 census of croatia, there was around 5,000 citizens that declared themselves as montenegrins,....not serbs. so please leave this figure there. it is important imformation for readers to know where the ones who call themselves ethnic montenegrins live around the world.

here's a webpage link showing the 2001 census of croatia:

http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/Minorities/2._FRAMEWORK_CONVENTION_(MONITORING)/2._Monitoring_mechanism/3._State_Reports_and_UNMIK_Kosovo_Report/2._Second_cycle/2nd_SR_Croatia.asp— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.101.203 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

State tradition and new borders

the border areas of the 20th century Montenegro weren't part of the old Montenegrin state

Hmm, this isn't much of an argument. It could just as well be argued that Montenegro simply expanded from its historical core to include those other areas, no matter how large they are. Similar to e.g. how Serbia expanded northwards or indeed how Boka Kotorska became part of Montenegro, too. I'm going to drop it. --Joy [shallot] 09:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"numerous historical documents confirm"

Numerous historical documents confirm that Montenegrins have felt that they have Serbian ethnic identity.

We need to qualify this statement better, otherwise it sounds weaselly. I presume this refers to stuff found on Njegoš's page etc? Any detail would be most welcome. --Joy [shallot] 13:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On 12th of May I wrote a section "Montenegrins on their ehtnicity" that stated exactly what Joy asked here. Now I see that it has been erased by user Monosig on terms of not meeting standards of objectivity. However, my section was composed only of QUOTES together with original texts. How can this be labeled as unobjective? Perhaps it could have been re-writen or better translated, but to remove it totaly is utterly unfair. I demand some kind of answer or response. If no good answer is provided I will return my section back into the article. --Dultz 00:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Albanians in Montenegro

Article makes no mention of ethnic Albanians in Montenegro, a small but politically significant minority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.224.32 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 February 2005 (UTC)

Probably because it is not an article on Montenegro, but on Montenegrins. Nikola 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction

I have firmly believed that I have noted what is contradictory in the article, but it seems that I haven't... anyway, the first part of the article asserts firmly that Montenegrins were Serbs; But later it speaks about "unification between these peoples, most so between the Montenegrins and the Serbians", "the régime recognized, sanctioned and fostered a national identity of Montenegrins" etc. Nikola 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It says "Serbians", not "Serbs", referring to the fact that they are the people of "Serbia". I don't see the contradiction. --Joy [shallot] 14:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It also says "National identity", not to mention other examples from the article: "closely related to Serbs", "occupation by Serb forces" etc. Nikola 08:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

What is controversal with the Montenegrin nation? I think that the warning should be removed. HolyRomanEmperor 21:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is controversial that it exists. Nikola 12:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not ethnic Montenegrins do exist, I know since I am one, and so is over 48% of Montenegro, so quit with your biased greater-serbia propaganda please! Thanks. User:Critikal1—Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tall Nation

This nonsense about Montenegrins being the worlds tallest people deleted. It is totally unfounded with nothing to support it and with me actually being from Montenegro, I know that it isn't even true. At 1,80 I am tall in my native Bijelo Polje but very short in Europe. Batsos —Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree the people as a whole probably average closer to 5 ft 10.

But parts of the coast of Croatia, and the Dalmation coast, do have villages where men are averaging over 6ft.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.204.83 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

...I have never found this. I lived in Dubrovnik in the early 90s and I travelled frequently around that part. Myself, I am only 5'11, about 181cm and feel very tall in Dubrovnik, Trebinje, Cavtat, Niksic, Podgorica, and Kotor. In theory IF one man is shorter than me and the average is 6ft, one will be taller, and so on and so forth. But in Dubrovnik you get one young man, about 6'0 or 6'1 and his twenty friends wil all be shorter, the smallest two will be under 170. I found this always, in my case, I was the tall one! Where are they meant to be 6'0? (ps. it is still short in Europe). Jordovan —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No they are taller than that, definitely taller. I know that areas like Bijelo Polje, Savnik and Pljevlja, the male average rises clearly above 6 foot (183 cm), probably closer to 190. I mean, to see a lad who is 2 metres tall and all his friends over 2 metres is nothing unusual there. I mean older people too! Celt 3 February 2006

1,80 from Bijelo Polje? Let me guess, you are a 9 year old girl Batsos, then you'd be, let's say, slightly above average (in one or two classrooms) for your group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolcanic (talk • contribs) 09:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrins have been recorded as the second tallest people in the world after some african nation, I'm pure Montenegrin, my mom's 5'10" my Dad's 6'2" and I'm 6'3".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are the tallest. The African 'nation' you refer to is some little tribe. Ie that particular tribe, is the tallest by average, however, not that nation in which they are in, if you get my drift. Hxseek (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable Montenegrin Serbs

In response to Duja: Zeljko Raznatovic Arkan was definitely Montenegrin. He was actually born in Slovenia of all places, but his father Veljko is from Montenegro. During his Ceca wedding festivities Arkan made a point of wearing a traditional Montenegrin attire before changing into a WWI Serbian uniform. Also the custom of shooting an apple off the bride's roof is clearly Montenegrin.

Current Serbian President Boris Tadic was born in Sarajevo but his father Ljubomir (Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences Member) came from Montenegro (born in the village of Smrijecno in Piva region). I thought this was a pretty well known fact since it was all over the SCG media when Boris ran for President.

Vuk Karadzic was born in Trsic in Serbia but both his mother and father came from Montenegro. Entire Karadzic clan hails from villages on Durmitor mountain like Petnjica and such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.239.140 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Frankly, if we'd start to dig out, we'll probably find that some 80% of Serbs have some Montenegrin ancestor or origin (myself, AFAIK, included). Duja 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading that ethnographic research shows that majority of the population of central Serbia (Sumadija etc.) is of Montenegrin origin, the area has been cleansed by Turks and them Montenegrins started settling in it. This would be very interesting add for this article and Serbs, if someone would find a reference. Nikola 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good example of complicated ethnical identity of Montenegrins is Slobodan Milosevic, well known Serbian president. His father was from Montenegro. Slobodan identified himself as a Serb. At the same time, his brother declared himself as Montenegrin.

Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was also Montenegrin who declared himself as Serb.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.69.85 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

King Alexander of Yugoslavia, grandson of King Nicholas of Montenegro, was born and raised on Cetinje and considered himself always as Montenegrin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.171.142 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all fine and dandy guys but the truth is Arkan is only half montenegrin as well as Boris Tadic(Half-montenegrin) so that makes them partly montenegrin, not full blooded, and which ethnic group they choose to lean towards was up to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegrins Are Serbs

There are no "Montenegrins" All montenegrins are Serbs! Serbs who live in Montenegro. They use Serbian surnames, why is that so? The only ones who don't have serbian surnames are Bosniak ( Serbs Converted Into Islam ) and Albanian. The Royal Families of Montenegro has always been of Serbian Origin. And now Montenegrins are starting a new church... Why do you think Serbs are so bad?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdebre (talk • contribs) 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If you read any real history book you would know that Montengrins ARE a real nation, just not as old as Croats or Serbs, and this is the same as Bosniak thing ( and yeah before 1463. Bosnia was inhabited mostly by Croatians of catholic faith and there were some Serbs descended from those who were refugees in war with Bulgaria in 10th century). Montenegro was placed on the crossroads of many bigger cultures so it is natural that it became some kind of melting pot, just like the USA in recent history, and in that case, creating of a new nation was necessary to happen. You are a nationalist with no background for your daring and inappropriate statements. Nationality is not who your ancestors were, it is your choice so it is ok for Montenegrins to be Montenegrins. So stop sabotaging, you are not competent enough to define a nation's right to exist. Youre no patriot, you are just an obstinate nationalist.

Matija Kukuruzović, Croat, Christian, Catholic and a good friend to all good and peace-loving people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.135.97 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The ones who call themselves montenegrins are all Catholics, Muslims or of mixed heritage, that is my point of view... Not even in 2000 years you would notice a difference between montenegrins and Serbs because there is no difference... Now i mean montenegrins who have Serbs in their ancestry and see themselves as a modern nation: "Montenegrins". The montenegrins active on Wikipedia are all of non-serb origin, calling themselves montenegrins by blood...? that's strange. My mother is from Montenegro, she is a Serb from Montenegro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdebre (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"For example, the number of Croats in Kotor dropped from 69% in 1910 to 7% in 1991; in Herceg-Novi from 70% to 2%; in Tivat from 95% to 23%." - Modern montenegrins are descendants of assimilated croats or muslims or dumb Serbs... I mean that the original Montenegrins were all Serbs, real Serbs of the Serb clans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajdebre (talk • contribs) 07:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please quit your serb propoganda spam, "serb from montenegro", my whole family are orthodox christians from the region and have always viewed themselves as Montenegrins, not including the fact that Montenegro and Montenegrins have history even older than Serbia and Croatia, and was originally a CATHOLIC nation until serbia forcibly annexed it in ancient times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all you can not discuss something about a country and their people if you have never been in that country... I live in Montenegro(Budva) and i know that all so called ˝Montenegrins˝ are Milo Đukanović's pupets... As i see it all of my neighbours have declared Serbian and in Montenegro people do not talk about them selfs as Montenegrin but as Serbs that live in Montenegro.... Please come to Montenegro i will give you a free room and show you what people think... 213.198.232.226 (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Laughed so hard at this text. Full of hatred for Serbs. What is you'r point man? :DVuXman ^talk 02:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serbianboy (talk • contribs)

New drawing of the Montenegrins

I think that the article should contain five links: Montenegrins (ethnicity), Serbs, Albanians, Bosniaks, Croats and Muslims.

The article should include a full history of Montenegrins from the arrival of Slavs in the first half of the 7th century until today. However, the Montenegrins (ethnicity) should include strictly the Montenegrin ethnic group from 1945 to the present. No some view themselves as Serbs or these biased parts about what made them stop being Serbs. Just a clean article. It should also contain the Montenegrin Axis movement of 1941-1945 and the separatist Montenegrin movements in the greater Kingdom before it. --HolyRomanEmperor 18:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Where?Duja 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. You can't avoid the inherit mess in the definition and self-definition. The today's Montenegrins can view themselves as primarily Serbs or primarily Montenegrins, but those are the same ones whose forefathers established Zeta, Duklja and later Montenegro. They're no more or no less Montenegrins because of what they consider to be today; we have similar issues with Bunjevci and Vlachs of Serbia but it's a bad idea to start two articles just because they can't collectively decide. If you (rightfully) complain that the article is a mess, i.e. a mixture of Serbian and Montenegrin PoVs, well, make it better and more comprehensive :-). Most historical things should go to History of Montenegro, though, with only brief summary here. Duja 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, not really. The vast majority of today's Montenegrins are Serb refugees from the Ottomans. Montenegro became a haven for thousands from Kosovo, Metohija, Sandzak, Macedonia and even other parts in the 15th-16th centuries - and they formed the bulk of the population. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

True Montenegrins are not serbs but are descendents of Duklja(Red Croatia) mixed with illyrian docleats, there is a serb minority in Montenegro, and that is due to "refugees".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No. You cannot conclude that just because Duklja was originally Catholic that they are Croats. You are making are retrospective false conclusion. Hxseek 13:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub Group

The Montenegrins are not a subgroup of the Serbian but a subgroup of the south slavs, they are not black serbs and they are not so close to the serbian how is in this articel. Dont forget they are orthodox and spek a closer language to serbien but they are not serbs ther cultur is clouser to west albaniens (malsia of Shkodra) and Dalmatina volk, they have make a war agais the Sultan (last time) together, but the serb from Rusia have destroit alle this units. It was the rusian inters, and the Belgrada Pashaluk with russian money has destroit the peace in Balkan for mor then 100 year. All that, they have dont only for monye and women (pare, picke). More than 1000 years it was betwen the old volk in balkan and slavs peace, till the russian interes was ther. After this they have startit to say for old balkienes, turci (manny albaners are muslim becose they dont wont to be asimiledit from the ruso-serbs). If you wont realy to know who you are ask you at first, Wher is the old volk in balkan, in Mars, Jupiter? How many slavs has arrived in Balkan during the Justian time, 3 milion (with train or airplan in this time)? Wehn this question is answerit then ask youself wher you are going? In Moska or you are going to be a King in your Land --Hipi Zhdripi 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is to hart to be a muslim event if you dont belev thet you are a muslim, but that is better then to be asimiletit. How, you can see the rusian time is over and everybod know now that they wasen not serbs (kosovars). In the futer we are going to see the pure ruso-serb siting in Belgrada pashaluk.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If the montenegrieners amd hercegoviners are serb then you can say that the croats and dalmatina are serbs.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll just let this user's comments speak for themselves. --estavisti 03:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes in this way every time. User the ather to asimilet some volks in Balkan. Is the true Njeggos it was not serb. Evrebody in Balkan is serb or turci, the peopel in montenegr are a frite to say wat they are. If they do that they are turci and are not anymor orthodox.--Hipi Zhdripi 03:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is not a closer people to the Montenegrin than the Serbs. The official language of Montenegro is Serbian, and only around 20% of the Montenegrins speak the Montenegrin language (and that's counted together with Bosniaks, Muslims, Albanians and Croats), making them a linguistic minority. Montenegrins are adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

Also, you say that Njegos wasn't a Serb. Please see Petar II Petrović Njegoš. --HolyRomanEmperor 17:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What has the Serbian Orthodox Church to do wich nationaty of montenegrins. I dont know the Albanein Church and the Rashka Church was together till the ruso-srbs in Balkan commes. Wacke up, ore perhaps you are a ruso-serb and you think that is better to be rusen alls balkaners.--Kanuni 18:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you know in wich time they says that is serbian church. You must read and read, the real church dokument, not the ruso-serb church dokuments. The dioclea it was indiependent. They was together with Skanderbeg. The Belgrad has maket agreement with the Sulltans. Go in Grecce get ther real document you are going to finde out the true for yourself. Don t let they to push you some document that is for this time better for the Orthdox Church, explore the true histori of Balkan. After that comme to me and we cann toolk, and we cann make a better artikel for the serbs, shumadians, rashkali, dugagjinas, moravians ect... afte that we cann speek abaut the Serbien Church and wat is that meaning. The Albanienflag is a part of the Bisntins unter this flag they haw make war agains the turi . And if ou want you can read the Kanun wich is the religon, state, end ewery cande of Law for kosovars.--Kanuni 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The kosovo folk have say to, that they are serb ore turci. But after the true cammes out? What do you think about Sandzak they are muslims only because they don t wont to be asimiletied. You have many, many ruso-serb propaganda that says that 50%, 60% , 70% (and more and more arabiens cifren) in kosovo it was serbs they was orthodox but not serbs. Also my fried at first the real orthodox church of constatinopole must take the power in the hand, and than you are going to know who youu are? The Church of Rashka hase no chance they must say that they are serbs, they thave lost the kosovars after the ruoso-serb cam to Balkan and declaretin the old folk like the turci.--Kanuni 18:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And now pleas let me do my job, if I have time a I goin to help you to finde out wat is mianing a monenegrine. I know who Im and where I am going.--Kanuni 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I love this one, write falsified page then reference it. That's all you Serbs have been doing for the last century! It is not working any more, sorry.Momisan—Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes ethnic Montenegrins are a subgroup of the South Slavs, if you try to put us together with the serbs, might as well put the Croats and Macedonians as well. Your 'greater serbia' is not happening fellas.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Biased!

Really biased and inaccurate article! Anyway, I won't edit anything until referendum is held and Montenegro becomes independent...maybe then Wikipedians - Serb nationalists will realize that greater Serbia won't be achieved through Montenegro, that Montenegrins aren't Serbs, and maybe they'll be discouraged from editing this article into one big lie... --Nije bitno... 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any specfic objections? I know the article isn't perfect, but why don't you tell us what you feel is wrong with it? Btw, some of the "Serbian nationalists" are probably just as Montenegrin as you (I assume you're Montenegrin). Why can't people be Serb Montenegrins without being seen as nationalistic? Also, please sign your posts. To sign them either press the third button from the right (above the editing box) or type this ~~~~. Поздрав из црногорске дијаспоре... :) --estavisti 16:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't signed previous post, and tanx for instructions. What bothers me is the following:

Biased part 2

"The population of Montenegro is presently roughly divided on ethnic and political issues between the group composed of the Montenegrins by nationality, ethnic Bosniaks and Albanians on one side, and the group composed of the Montenegro Serbs on the other. The former group forms a slim majority over the latter and has repeatedly won national elections."

Montenegrins by nationality form a majority over Serbs by nationality by some 10%, which is not that slim, I would say. As Serbs have roughly 30% in Montenegro, Montenegrins, Bosniaks and Albanians together are practically everything that's left, so some 60% over 30% is an overwhelming majority! That's first thing.

"In November 26, 1918, the Podgorica Assembly voted for "union of the people", declaring a joining into the Kingdom of Serbia "::

Our history books say that Podgorica Assembly was't legitimate, that it didn't represent the will of people...

I will continue, just don't have the time right now...

Pozdrav iz Podgorica!

--Nije bitno... 14:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're nitpicking a bit. There are quite a few people who declare as Montenegrins yet wouldn't vote for independence. The last poll [1] showed roughly 46%:41% for independence. The wording could be better, but "slim" isn't that inadequate. Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's legitimacy is questionable indeed. It should be mentioned in the article.Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You probably wanted {{pov}} instead of {{disputed}}. The latter one questions the facts as presented in the article, and the former the form of their presentation. Duja 15:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Biased part 3

"Numerous historical documents confirm that a number of Montenegrins have felt that they have a Serbian ethnic identity"

The very concept of this claim is dubious, so let's put aside the "facts" listed below it. We are of the same ethnic identity, allright...how else could you explane that I am a Montenegrin and my very close relative is a Serb?! But, the problem is that Serbs claim the copyright on that ethnic identity, on the language, on the Orthodox christianity in the Balkans. It is their standpoint that every orthodox christian which speaks language common among the South Slavs(which, again, they insist is calles Serbian, but it is also called Serbo-Croatian, Croatian, Bosnian, Bosniak, Montenegrin...) in the Balkans - is a Serb, and they remain blind to results of recent censuses. How else could you explain that the Podgorica Assembly was stated as a full-credibility evidence of Montenegrins being of Serbian ethnic identity?!

Btw. I think it's shameful that majority of "Other prominent Montenegrin Serbs" are war criminals, that Montenegro publicly renounced, and some poets which would gladly see Montenegro gone and/or merged with Serbia...

--Nije bitno... 18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Чему оволика мржња према Србима? Опусти се мало... Иначе, нико неће да се Црна Гора избрише са карте, ни да Црна Гора постане део Србије, него да живимо заједно. Јер, да цитирам само једног Цетињског Црногорца, "нема Црне Горе без Србије, ни Србије без Црне Горе - Срби и Црногорци су браћа". Ово што кажеш да је срамота, срамота је - ту прво место припада Његошу ипак. А то, што се Црна Гора одриче неких, то нема везе - ми се не одричемо ње. --estavisti 19:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

For user Estavisti do yu have a problem with Njegosh? Wach this...--Hipi Zhdripi 23:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrins are just as much an ethnic group as Croatians and Serbians, anyone who says otherwise is living a lie, true Montenegrins dance the oro, speak montenegrin, eat japraci and oris na vareniku, and listen to Sako Polumenta!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You think? well thats your opinion. True montenegrins are Serbs, belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church, descendants of great Serb clans and warriors, dance the oro, speak serbian, and dont forget their origin!!! Sako Polumenta is Bosniak Muslim (Sandzaklija), you are talking about mixed muslim-catholic Albanians/Bosniaks of the Sandzak and Malesija!! Read montenegrin history, and you will see that Montenegrins never wanted anything more than unification with their Serb blood brothers in the balkans! they died for Serbdom and for a future of liberated Serb lands!! The montenegrin rulers always spoke of this, and NOONE can deny this... im sorry, but Tito brainwashed you real good. --User:Nexm0d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.193.229 (talk) 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Major Rewrite in Progress

Holy and I are completely rewriting the article, so please refrain from major criticisms and bigger edits until this is done. After that... well... Duja 21:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. However, discussions can be led if you only discuss here (talking to Hipi) and state what do you mean... --HolyRomanEmperor 14:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Question

I discussed this with HolyRomanEmperor and decided I should bring it up here.

1. Numerous historical documents confirm that a number of Montenegrins have felt that they have a Serbian ethnic identity;
2. Numerous school certificates, passports and similar documents preserved marked the bearer's nationality as "Serbian"

It seems to me that the second does not confirm the first. Ethnic identity is not synonymous with nationality in English, and this could be confusing — e.g. Someone might have British nationality but Welsh ethnic identity etc. This section could do with rewriting to make the terminology more clear. - FrancisTyers 09:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but we have a problem with Serbian nationalist wich are iussen the religion for nation. They call the serbian state every countrie in wich is one sebian autonom church. They dont seperate the church from the state. This is a big problem with the Sebian Wikipedians in English Wiki. --Kanuni 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Momisan 06:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

White Serbs and Red Croatia

I have removed references to White Serbs and Red Croatia (sic! not "Red Croats"!). These terms found in Byzantine sources are confusing (most of them speak of "Serbs, that is Croats" and vice versa; no scholar has yet found a good explanation on the subject) and do no god to understanding the history of Montenegro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.172.17 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Montenegrins on their ethnicity

I see what's the point of this section but it's so awkward that I can't reasonably see what to do with it, apart from deleting it. That material is appropriate only for wikiquote. I don't think that the article without that overlong list of quotes does not address Montenegrins' Serbian ethnicity in the past adequately (nor anyone of good faith could reasonably deny that), and even if it doesn't in some editors' opinion, this section is not a way to do it. I see its creation and readdition as a clear violation of WP:POINT. I am going to remove it and put it here on talk page if anyone can get a better idea what to do with it, but it's clearly not an encyclopedic content (not to even mention POV issues). Duja 07:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Virtually all of the Montenegrins that left any written record of their times stated clearly that they considered themselves as Serb, that they spoke Serbian language and that their church was a part of Serb Orthodox Church. Here are just some of the volumes of these declarations. Note that many of them predate 19th century and romanticism. As one clearly sees all of these writers consider themselves Montenegrins and Serbs in the same time, Montenegrins as title for the Serb living in Montenegro.

1. Metropolitan Danilo I (1670-1735), the founder of the Petrovic-Njegos ruling dynasty Signature on a hand written evangelium: "Danil, the metropolitain of Cetinje, a Njegos, duke of Serbian land." (Translation from Serbian: "Danil, vladika cetinjski, Njegos, vojevodic srpskoj zemlji")

In a letter to Gavril Golovkin, envoy of the Russian Emperor: "I do not know what will become of my life in a foreign empire, since I would first degrade myself, and then our Serb clans, if I would plead for help from other states and other religions would mock us..." (in original: Ne znam sta ce biti od mog zivota u tudjem carstvu, jer ja bih prvo sebe obescastio, a zatim nasa srpska plemena, kada bih molio pomoc od drugih drzava, i rugale bi nam se druge vjere...")

2. Metropolitain Sava Petrovic (1700-1781) In a letter carried by abbot Vasilije to Russia demanding help for Montenegro: "Especially worthy of all sympathy is Serb land which is not only stripped of all it rights but constantly lies at the foot of the adversaries, and its sufferings and sighs are hard to describe. Only the free Montenegrin dukedom, which is always, as earlier, ready to show its faith and courage to all our Slavenoserb people" (in original: "Narocito je svakog saucesca dostojna srpska zemlja koja ne samo da je svakog svoga prava lisena, nego i stalno lezi pod nogama protivnika, i njena stradanja i uzdahe tesko je opisati. Jedina slobodna knjazevina crnogorska koja je svoju vjeru i hrabrost, kao i ranije, uvijek gotova pokazati cijelom nasem slavenosrpskom narodu.")

3. Metropolitan Vasilije Petrovic (1709-1766) In a letter to the duke of Dubrovnik asking for help: "...to our church and Montenegrin people with a sum (...) as Serbs to Serbs and to your neighbors" (in original: "...nasoj cerkvi i narodu crnogorskomu jednom sumom (...) kao Serbi Serbima i svojijima susjedima")

In his "History of Montenegro" (1754) on his deeds (note that he speaks of himself in third person):"Immediately when the chiefs of the neighboring Serb clans received this letter from the metropolitan and head of Montenegro, they jumped on their heroic feet and started mustering the army to hurry to help Montenegro, its faithful safe haven, on which all Serbs looked upon as their land from where the sun will shine, as a beacon shining in darkness that covered all Serb lands, and telling them that still not all of Serb light is pressed by the cloud, but that there is on a Serb sky one shiny spot that filled with a ray of hope all Serb people for complete national liberation." (in original: "Odmah su glavari okolnih sprskih plemena skocili na noge junacke, te poceli vojsku okupljati , da hitaju u pomoc Crnoj Gori, svojoj uzdanici, na koju gledahu svi Srbi kao na zemlju odakle ce im zasijati sunce, kao na svjetilnik koji im svijetljase u tami, koja bjese pokrila srpske zemlje, i kazivase im da jos nije sve nebo srpsko pokriveno tamom, da nije sve sunce srpsko oblak pritisnuo, no da ima jos na nebu srpskome jedna svijetla tocka koja svemu srpskome narodu ulivase zracak nadezde na opste oslobodjenje.") In the dedication of his "History of Montenegro" to Russian Graf Voroncov: "(...) I, serene shepherd of Slavo-Serb Montenegrin people (...)" (in original: "(...) ja smireni pastir slovensko-srpskog crnogorskoga naroda")

Writing to Duke Aleksander Galjicin he relates how he answered the Turkish demand for to pay the taxes: "You, Turks, have taken from Montenegrins and other Serbs the Empire, vast lands and cities, and what do you ask now from us who live in these mountains?" (in original: "Vi ste, Turci, uzeli Crnogorcima i ostalim Srbima Carstvo, prostrane zemlje i gradove, sta hocete od nas koji zivimo u ovim gorama?")

4. Metropolitan Petar I (later sanctified as St Peter of Cetinje, 1747-1830) In a letter to Empress Maria Theresia: "We wish that the metropolitan of Cetinje be dependent on the patriarch of Pec in Serbia." (u originalu: " Zelimo da mitropolit cetinjski zavisi od Pecskoga Patrijarha u Srbiji")

On the eve of the battle of Martinici (1796) he calls upon Montenegrins and Brdjani (a group of Clans in present south-east Montenegro) to prove that "in them still pounds the unextingushed Serb heart, that still Serb blood boils." (in original: "(...) da u nama neugaseno srbsko srce kuca, srbska krvca vrije.")

In a letter to French general Brad: "Since I didn't clearly understand the last letter of your excellence written on the 12th of March this year, it was necessary that it should be translated to me in our Slavo-Serbian language." (in original: "Nemoguci cisto razumeti pocetajse pismo Vasega Prevashoditeljstva 12 cisla tekucega marta pisano, potrebno mi bjese da na nas slovenoserpski jezik bude prevedeno.")

In a letter to the Russian Emperor: "Oh you brightest of all monarchs, strech your almighty right arm with scepter in it, receive the biggest plead of all our nation, hear our cry and the moaning of our miserable children, take from the Turkish yoke Slavo-Serb people(...)" (u originalu: "<pnarhu najsvetlijij, pruzi svoju svesilnu desnicu sa skiptrom, primi zajedno cijeloga naroda nasu najvecu molbu, uslisi vapaj i stenjanje ojadjene djece, izvuci ipod turskog iga sloveno-srpski rod (...)")

In the letter to the Bjelice clan on the cooperation of Ozrinici clan with Turks: "I pity nothing more than the voice that roams around the world that Montenegrins are helping Turks to slaughter and strangle Christians. In the time when God united Serb people to be liberated from the Turkish yoke. (...) But I hope that other Montenegrins will not this name and disgrace load upon their back and that they will be as all other righteous Serb heroes, which liberated themselves, and now are proceeding to liberate other Serbs (...)" (in original: "Nista vise ne zalim nego sramni glas, koji po svijetu ide, da Crnogorci pomagaju Turcima klati i daviti Hristijane. U vrijeme, kada je Bog sojedinio srpski narod, da se od turskog jarma oslobodi (...) Ali se nadam da ostali Crnogorci nece to ime i sramotu na sebe nostiti nego da ce biti sto i ostali posteni junaci srbski, koji su sebe oslobodili, pak idu da i druge Srblje pomognu osloboditi (...)")

In the letter to Belgrade metropolitan Melentije: "Hope for progress, o my brother, on the good of beloved fatherland, and mostly of all work with your kind advice and science to plant in the hearts the gone-by Serb lords." (in original: "Podvizajte se i u napredak, brate moj, o polyi ljubeznjejseg otecestva, a najvise radite svojim blagorazumnimi sovjetami i naukami nasazdat na srca gospode srbske prezde.")

In a letter to Russian Emperor Aleksander: "All of Christianity, all of Slav people, an accordingly also Serbs Montenegrins look at the face of our mother and benefactress mighty Russia (...)" (in original: "Cijelo hriscanstvo, sav slovenski narod, sljedstvano tome i Srbi Crnogorci cajut blagopriznateljnago ozarenija Materi svojej i pokroviteljnici mocnoj Rusiji (...)")

In his "Short History of Montenegro" he speaks how the ruler of medieval Montenegro speaks on his departure from the country: "(...) knowing that you will not reach consensus among you: for this reason I leave instead of me metropolitan German, and after him future metropolitans, until God thinks of some better way for the Serb kin." (in original: "(...) ali znajuci da se vi u izboru necete saglasiti medju sobom: iz tog uzroka ostavljam mjesto sebe Mitropolita Germana, i po njem buduce mitropolite, dokle eda Bog pomisli za Srpski rod na drugi bolji nacin.")

In a letter of Montenegrins to Brdjani he says that he reflected "on all misfortunes which befell our Slavo-Serb kin from treachery and discord" and then that they swear to continue the fight against the Turks "looking at the example of our deceased fathers and forefathers, who with their weapons defended themselves from the time of the destruction of our Serbian Empire, and then from the times of our last Duke and Lord Ivan Crnojevic." (in original: "na sve one nesrece koje su se sloveno-srpskome rodu nasemu od izdaje i nesloge dogodile" and "primjeru blazenopocivsih roditeljah i praroditeljah nasieh, oruzijem svoiem branili od vremena razorija nasega Serbskago carstva, a potom od doba poslednjega Principa i Gospodara nasega Ivana Crnojevica.")

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duja (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying promptly, Duja! I do agree with you, perhaps this is the best place for a long list of quotes like this one. I did it only to show that there are "numeral historical evidences" that Montenegrins are Serbs and the quotes speak for themselves. There can't be ANY doubt in that and this should be clearly stated in the article, if we are searching here for hard facts and truths. There is a plenty more from where this came from, it is only a selection from the book of Batric Jovanovic "Montenegrins on Themselves" (Crnogorci o sebi, Beograd 1989).--Dultz 13:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also corrected the gramatical mistakes in the text bellow...--Dultz 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the majority of Montenegrins are slavicized ALBANIANS, think about it the tribes of Piperi, Vasojevici, and Kuci were all formerly Albanian but pressured into become orthodox and Serbian. Seriously though, you can't deny it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.165.57.70 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted material

The simplest explanation for returning the material is that on Wikipedia, stuff should be improved, not deleted outright. The section now presents some relevant quotes. Obviously, the selection is POV, but to remove them would also be POV. --estavisti 15:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

See above. I removed the material not solely on the basis of being PoV (and I properly moved it to talk page rather than outright deleting it), but more on the basis that it's unimprovable. 5 kB of quotes just to prove the point (which is not even seriously disputed) is not appropriate. We are writing this encyclopedia for readers, not in order to collect every single piece of proof for any particular statement. Duja 15:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the material. One reason is that Montenegro is a hot topic nowdays, and we want people to be able to read this article. That section was unreadable, as it was just a collection of quotes proving a point. Somebody else might have came and introduced same lengthy collection of quotes proving another point. Trying to prove a point by including opinion quotes is certainly not the way to go in this case. E.g. William Shakespeare doesn't have a list of quotes of people saying that he is the best playwright that ever lived :) So, to save the article from POV, unreadability, and WP:NOT, I removed the section. If you guys want to discuss it in the article, I suggest a rewrite, from scratch, using scientific sources, not merely one-sided opinions which may or may not prove the point. --dcabrilo 20:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I don't particularly like just removing a bunch of content, but when it's not salvagable and belongs to another project anyway, there is no two ways about it. --dcabrilo 20:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the point IS seriously disputed by some...like no one sane would dispute that the languages of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Montenegro aren't the same, but they do. I know the section wasn't exactly great, but it was informative. But it seems I'm outvoted on this one... --estavisti 21:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, all this info shall I eventually put in its corresponding articles. All quotations of King Nicholas or Njegos will be placed in their articles - the censi on Serbian absolute majority in Montenegro will eventually be in the (Demographic) History of Montenegro article - all has its place. If you intend to make a, say Ethnic Origin of Montenegrins or any similiar article strictly based/sourced on the studies presented at www.njegos.org, Rastko or others, yo're most welcome to do it. --HolyRomanEmperor 21:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why put Serbs on the list

You have put Montenegrin Serbs on the list of Montenegrins, if they wanted to be Montenegrins why did they put they were Serbs as their ethnicity. I suggest you remove them from the list becouse they are Serbs by ethnicity, and not Montenegrins by ethnicity; they are only Montenegrins by regional affirmation, becouse they were born there and their ansestors have lived there for centuries, not forgeting their Serb name, like some.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.15.14 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Because, unlike other related articles (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc.) in this articles we decide to describe Montenegrins as nation rather than an ethnic group in the strict sense. Even Predrag Bulatović said for his bloc that, quote "We are Montenegrins". Other approach would be quite volatile (look, the split on ethnic affiliation occurs even within members of the same family; also how would one sensibly describe differences in 1921 and 1948 censuses?). Thus, some people might end up in both List of Serbs and List of Montenegrins, because they are both. Duja 09:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you got this all wrong. The montenegrins aren't serbs. The serbs are montenegrins. The "montenegrin" ethnic group does not exist in a conventional manner from the ancient times, because they were true genetic progenitors of the serbs, you could say they are the *real* serbs, wich were not geneticaly and culturaly influenced by turks, bulgars, croats or germanic peoples, because they were living in the hills with a strong moral code.

And that is misleading most people. Serbs today are a product of the serbian state, as are the montenegrins of today. Americans have one supreme state with many nations wich are half-assimilated, the serbian state asimilated every nation within its borders very fast, or vice versa, the serbian nationals living abroad have been thoroughly assimilated and are no longer serbs nationaly, but geneticaly and ethnicaly. For instance, belo blato's residents are the most pecular genetic and linguist mixup in the whole world. ::The kids there speak slovak or rusyn, swear hungarian, and when they get really pissed they curse serbian :DD

The bosniaks during wwI used to claim turkic ethnicity, yet they are most predominantly blonde. Ever seen a blonde, tall nordic-like turk? :D Now they claim they were a special, as of yet unknown slavic tribe, the bosniaks.

The truth is unknown, they may just be croats and serbs who accepted islam. That would be a simple and thankful explanation, but probably isn't.

They have a distinctly different culture, both from croats and serbs, and a bosnian state, was in place, even before the conception of the montenegrin state, during the medieval period. And even then they were a separate entity, consisting probably of croats and serbs under the rule of Kotromanić and Kulinić dynasty, but their ethnicity was unknown, and they had a christian-like church, wich was separate from the serbian, and the serbs and ugars (madjars and conquered croats) state claimed it was paganic. The bosnian monarch could not crown himself as king, he would not be recognized by orthodox or catholic authorities as a sovereign, and imported a paganic church to proclaim him king (until then he was generic "ban", similar to "knjaz", and had to yield and be a vassal of sorts). Under allegations of a paganic church(casus belli), the serbian and ugaric states combined in quickly overwhelming the small bosnain army and dividing bosnia, preventing it from international recognition, and the larger part was taken by the ugars(madjars). Bosnian pagan church priest was called "djed", like modern grandpa, and had nothing to do with catholic and orthodox clergy, but was not islamic either.

That's what they taught me in school about bosnians.

The Pra-Serb state was geographicaly encompasing todays kingdom of duklja, it is the actual cradle of the serbian state. Montenegrins as a nation have been existing parallel to the serbs, because they are serbs, yet that might not be. Their distinct country was not recognized until tribes were united under the house of Petrović. The joint serbian/montenegrian state predates any separate montenegrian state, and is therefore the main scientific evidence to point that serbs and montenegrians are of the same ethicity.

I think more genetic research should be in place in the balkans... that would clear things up... yet it might prove futile. God himself only knows whose blood coarses through our veins.... we got so mixed up we might have more in common with the celts or germans than to the russians.

In russia it is pretty simple, everyone is either slavic or other. And if they're slavic they're russian , belorussian or ukrainian. If they're not, now that's kinda tricky.

this whole ordeal with montenegro might have more merit. Serbians are very mixed, but Montenegrins are usually tall, black haired and strong built, and have other traits. And i'm not stereotyping here, ask anyone from serbia. You can tell a montenegrian in serbia actually by their distinct physical traits.

I'm personaly biased into thinking that montenegrins are serbs, i am against montenegrin independence just because they want do get to the eu, they will be a crime-state of Djukanovic, where he will do as he pleases.

But it's their public will. user:scolic—Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I strongly oppose any "genetic research", racial classification based on antropometrics, etc. and I deem that such approach belongs to 19th century. People are grouped into ethnic and national groups by their individual sense of belonging, which is in turn based on (in no particular order) a) language b) religion c) traditions d) identification with statehood e) kinship. The things cannot be "cleared up" as you wish because they're inherently tangled, and inherently "kinda tricky". "Counting blood cells" cannot lead you anywhere, and self-identification is the only rational way for classification. And if a split on self-identification occurs within the group themselves, the best we can do is to record it. We had similar discussions on e.g. Bunjevci and Vlachs of Serbia. We also had quarrels about "Genetic research" chapters in Bosniaks and Croats because the results are (as expected) inconclusive for anything. Duja 08:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I dissagree, genetic research can be used to prove or disaprove many historic claims. Serbs had enough time on their hands to falsify just about any written source within their reach. If they couldn't falsify, they simply destroyed it. That is why we have only one written source about early Montenegrin history, written by a Montenegrin, left (Ljetopis Popa Dukljanina). That one got away only by a pure chance, burried in Papal and Ragusan archives for centuries. Deliberately, other material sources have never been properly studied, I wonder why? The language, the customs, the ethics and, yes, the genes. Why not?Momisan 07:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

Hmm, it says that the number of Montenegrin Serbs in Serbia is unknown - yet 200,000 is the most accepted figure. regarding the fact that presently, there are 270,000 - 300,000 montenegrins in Serbia and around 70,000 are Montenegrins and most others being Serbs - it's pure calculation... --HolyRomanEmperor 16:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation on worlds tallest nation

It seems that citations are required. I actually thought everyone knew that we were the worlds tallest people. Tapaтaлo —Preceding undated comment added 09:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who "we?" ;;-)

However, this claim comes over and over again. According to WP:RS, I request the claim to be properly sourced before it can be reentered into the article.

• Montenegrins are the tallest people in Europe, with a male average height above 1.90m in the northern towns‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . This is an unusual feature for most peoples of southeastern Europe and even today causes surprise for most tourists visiting Montenegro ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Duja 07:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Overview

I tagged the section with disputed because it doesn't have the slightest connection with reality:

• Montenegro was settled by waves of Slavs in the 6th and 7th century.
  • And how were these Slavs called?
• Its people enjoyed a degree of autonomy throughout their history.
  • Did the people of Montenegro ever existed and how did it called itself if it did?
• Montenegro was annexed by Serbia in 1918 and the Montenegrin citizens were not given any other choice but to register themselves as Serbs in the 1921 and 1931 population census.
  • Montenegro was not annexed. Montenegrin citizens didn't need any other choice as the 1909 census already records 95% of Serbs in Montenegro.
• The disappointment in the union with Serbia led to a movement for re-recognition of Montenegrin ethnicity,
  • This ethnicity was never recognised, hence it can't be re-recognised.
• 90% of people in Montenegro registered as Montenegrin in 1948.
  • 90% of people were registered as Montenegrin; they were not allowed to freely choose their designation.
• With the rise of Serbian nationalism in the late 80's and the media propaganda that followed, number of citizens that declare themselves Montenegrin dropped down sharply from 61.7%, in 1991 census, down to 43.16% in 2003.
  • Complete unsourced bollocks. Nikola 20:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the questions you ask are legitimate, for example how were the Slavs that settled todays Montenegro called. I am not an expert on this,however, I believe that the historian findings are inconclusive, so the term Slavs is the only thing that everyone agrees on. Same goes for other questions you raised in that section. dr Sima Ćirković: Doseljavanje Slovena i Dukljanska država -1976 is a good source for this period.

The 20th century history is thankfuly much closer to us. For starters, have a look here. It should be more than enough to substantiate the claims in the text. My personal favourite, an excerp from a Serbian general's report about inprisonment of a young man because he declared himself a Montenegrin, not a Serb: here

Lastly, which part of the "bollocks" is unsourced and you don't agree on? The rise of Serbian nationalism in the 80s, media propaganda or the percentages?

Regards, Momisan 08:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. The association with the Serb medieval kingdom is in terms of church-state control and linkages between the royal families and not in terms of ethnicity. It is the equivalent of saying that Montenegrans are Croats because they were settled by Red Croats - incidentally, I think there should be mention of Red Croatia in the history section, if only to serve as an illustration over the confusion over identity. I see this debate analogous to the Bosnijak identity debate. The Montenegrans, like the Bosnijaks were autonomous slavs that had an affiliation with either Croats or Serbs at one time or another. But to equate their identity with a Serb one is arrogant and does not respect the free will of those peoples.

This debate over the Montenegran question resonates with the justifications used for the territorial aspirations of Greater Serbia. At the root is the strategy of denying various south slavs their identities and propagating various myths including that Montengrans and Macedonians are really Serbs, Bosnjiaks are really Muslim Serbs, and Croats are really Catholic Serbs. I urge interested wikipedians to consider the debate with the above point in mind, and caution against allowing fringe ideaologies such as that of Greater Serbia to be over-represented under the guise of NPOV.

I also think that there should be a note on how ethnic affiliation has fluctuated according to the colonial ruler. In the Bosnjiak case, when given a chance to declare a separate ethnicity, they did. croatian_quoll 09:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Several issues there:

• There are many Serb Montenegrins and almost no Serb Croats, Bosniacs and Macedonians
• Most montenegrins speak the Serbian language, while the others speak Croatian, Bosnian and Macedonian
• Most Montenegrins are adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church, whereas the others are adherents of the Roman Catholic Church, Sunni Islam and/or the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church
• Currently in the world, more montenegrins are ethnic Serbs, rather than ethnic Montenegrins (whereas these others are ethnic Croats, Bosniacs and Macedonians, respectivly)
• While the West generally supports the Macedonian, Bosniac and Croat nationalities, most encyclopediae consider Montenegrins to be Serbs themselves - or at least dispute the existence of a Montenegrin ethnic group (such as Encyclopedia Britannica for example)— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaxEquilibrium (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not quite sure if I get your point? There are Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia. There are Croats in Bosnia and Serbia? croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, no, no; you don't understand - no ethnic Croat says that he's Serb, and today it's very rare that ethnic Bosniacs and Macedonian Slavs say they're Serbs - while most ethnic Montenegrins are Serbs. Compare the case with the Shoktzi, who most declare as Croats (although that's a little too off). --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, that is a controversial point. The Montnegrans nominally speak the ijekavian dialect which is nominaly associated with Croatian. Hence some purists of the Croatian language see those around Herzegovina, Dubrovnik and ironically Crnagora speaking the most refined form of Croatian. croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing's controversial there. The Serbian language is the language of the Montenegrin nation and the vast majority declare their language Serbian - do most Croats, Bosniacs and ethnic Macedonians say they're language is Serbian? --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• There was a time when the Croat nationality and language was ignore or not recognised, despite its long history. Same applies to the Bosnjiak identity. Give it time. croatian_quoll 00:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• one and a half thousand years isn't long enough? :D --PaxEquilibrium 17:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well not exactly, but it is true in a way. Most Montenegrins in the world, well at least adherents of the Serbian Orthodox Church, consider (or declare) themselves Serbs or at least Montenegrin Serbs, unlike the Montenegrin Muslims, where they declare themselves as Montenegrins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrnaGora (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Firstly, you are not sticking to the point of discussion. It looks like you are disputing that Montenegrins are the ethnic group at all. If you want to discuss that, open another topic. Second, sign yourself, so we know who are we talking to, some common courtesy please.Momisan 04:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The doubtfulness of Montenegrins as an ethnic groups indeed is disputable (yet!) - and this is not my personal opinion (I keep it out from Wikipedia). What's then the point? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, the topic of discussion is the disputed text. Momisan 05:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What percisely is disputed? --HolyRomanEmperor 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Overview chapter :-) Momisan 02:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, funny, ethnic Montenegrins do NOT call themselves serbs at all, neither do ethnic Croats or ethnic Bosniaks, ect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt of a Montenegrin ethnic group, as over 48% of Montenegrin is ethnically Montenegrin, we have our own language, church, food, and culture, very distinct in itself, I can even provide several immigration papers from 1906-1915 of ethnic Montenegrins in Ellis Island registering under Race/Ethnicity as 'Montenegrin', in fact everyone realizes a Montenegrin ethnicity except a few nationalistic serbs such as yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Critikal1 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Major rewrite

Well, I decided to totally redesign the article, cut off large points in history which were not directly pertaining to Montenegrins but rather to Montenegro and History of Montenegro, and add few notes about the controversy which you will hopefully find NPOV. Some more sourcing is welcome, as well as edits.

The old "History" section is located at:

Montenegrins/Old stuff

That should be merged into History of Montenegro where appropriate (Holy, I marked large portions of it as for cleanup 6 months ago—much of Zeta/Duklja stuff is barely readable!). So, Holy, Momisan, CrnaGora, and whoever is interested, please help that the articles get into a decent shape, with appropriate length of sections and main articles (History of Montenegro in the first place -- 1500-1700 looks like a black hole). Duja 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with History of Montenegro. I have had little free time recently. My suggestion is to write only from the 14th century - and only put several sentences about the early history (and put a "see also" pointing to Zeta; while only noting Doclea at the beginning). --HolyRomanEmperor 15:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't event touched on that page, HRE. Will be coming soon :-) Momisan 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of errors I noticed:

Montenegro was not annexed by Serbia. The decision of the parliament may be controversial, and was probably unconstitutional, but it was reflection of the will of Montenegrins.

I don't see why is "Muslim nation" mentioned at all. Is the intention to say that 90% number included Muslims by nationality? Reading the censa results, it appears that it did not, but that there were Muslims who were registered as Serbs and Croats as well.

I am also returning some things which have mysteriously wanished. Nikola 21:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Annexation is defined as "the legal incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity". Montenegro lost its name and identity and became a part of Serbia, willingly or not. Union implies that there are two separate parts, which clearly wasn't the case.

There was no need for "national unification of the Montenegrins and the Serbians" because, as we know from the 1909 census, the only nationality in Montenegro was Serbian. No, don't start me on "Serbs means religion" crap. Momisan 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The intention was just to state that fact. It is a fact and should not be removed. Momisan 07:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"Annexed" is too strong a POV indeed, but "united with" a bit too weak description. I'll try to address the issue.

There's apparently different rendering of the term "national" with native English speakers and with people from our areas (see nation and nation-state) (emphasis mine):

The term nation is often used as a synonym for ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.

The intention (as I read it) of the term "Montenegrin nation" was to refer to the Montenegrin state and its people rather than ethnic group. However, maybe the term "nation" should be avoided where it turns ambigous.

I agree that "Muslim nation" should be avoided in this article; it confuses the issue. Duja 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Montenegro became a part of Serbia willingly. The Great Assembly of the Serbian People in Montenegro (known as the Podgoritza Assembly) voted for deposing King Nicholas, and full-scale union with Serbia. The members of the Assembly were elected by each and every single district of Montenegro.

• Montenegro was a nation, but not an ethnic group (according to the Communist Encyclopediae from the 1960s, they refer to the Montenegrins as of Serb or Serbianized non-Serb origin - it's now facing serious destabilizing moments (hopefully this will pass with the year of 2006) and a full-scale formation of an ethnic group. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at what ( a notoriously pro-Serb) dr Gavro Perazic has to say about the international law aspect of 1918. OKUPACIJA CRNE GORE NAKON PODGORIČKE SKUPŠTINE .

Also a link to akademik Mijat ŠUKOVIĆ: PODGORIČKA SKUPŠTINA. It is beyond belief that a self-declared NPOV champion can say that "Montenegro became a part of Serbia willingly", without a blink of an eye (I saw you, don't worry :-) Momisan 04:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very funny. Truth is that the members of the Assembly were democratically elected and that they adopted what was the official policy (and so-called "purpose of Montenegro's existence") of Montenegro for half a millennium. --PaxEquilibrium 17:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is "annexed" too strong word? Annexation is defined as "the legal incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity". Momisan 04:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Solomon solution :-) OK, accepted. Just a comment, I know some people raised it before, distinction between "Montenegrins" and "people living in Montenegro". As I see, the decision was made to treat them as synonyms without explanation why. My view is that a chapter should be allocated to the evolution of the meaning of the term and how even today it obviously means different things to different people. I will start it, so this is a heads up so noone gets surprised. Another glaring omision is stating that history of Montenegro started with the arival of the Slavs. Wrong for obvious reasons, however, one is most important. Present-day Montenegrins in their culture still have many non-Slavic elements, which cannot be understood without proper treatment of the subject. Also, ethnographic aspect is barely touched upon.Momisan 03:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The explanation is given above in talk — because one couldn't tell a Montenegrin Serb from a Montenegrin Montenegrin by their language, culture, history etc. Heck, even the Montenegrin government avoids the issue as too hot; the incentive to make Montenegrin Serbs a constitutionally acknowledged "constitutive nation" or having "minority rights" has a certain point, but it opens a Pandora's box to the point of absurd (IMO). I maintain that every other approach would be untangible. Since they share all of that, wouldn't it be absurd to explain that the number of ethnic Montenegrins raised from 0% in 1909 census to 90% in 1948 census, back to 45% in 2002? Holy has raised some valid points about Bosniaks and Albanians, but I think it's clear from the context that they're not referred to in this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Duja (talk • contribs) 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

"In both English and Serbo-Croat, the term denotes both the nation and the ethnic group". That is not good enough. The whole topic is about "Montenegrins". If you are talking about "something", i.e. introducing a new term, the meaning of the term should at least be explained. It is not done, instead, a POV editorial decision was made to present a single point of view as a general definition of the term. Also, please sign yourself, so I know who I am talking to.Momisan 04:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)