Talk:Montenegro/Archive 4

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

Ethnicity

"In 1945 president Tito’s communist regime began a propaganda campaign to distinguish Montenegrin Serbian identity from that of Serbia proper. In his academic paper, Montenegrin Dr. Terzic, of the Historical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts notes that: “Montenegrin separate national ethnic identity was proclaimed by Tito's Communist regime in 1945 through the words: “Montenegrins are different Serbs than other Serbs”). However, this decision was based on old strategy of destruction of Serb ethnical, cultural and spiritual area. Through entire Montenegrin history, Montenegrins have considered themselves as ethnic Serbs by nationality"

This part of the article should be totaly removed. Academics of Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts are well known for their biased, unreliable theories made for the sole purpose of expanding Serbian nationalism and ideas of Greater Serbia. And these couple of senteneses are picked up from this text "Ideological roots of Montenegrin nation and Montenegrin separatism" which was on njegos.org - probably the most biased and one sided website dealing with Montenegrin ethnicity you could find 0_o If you have any solid evidence for supporting these claims keep it, but untill then removal should be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.73.37 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2011

This is a scholar viewpoint. Though it is biased, it is widely supported and thus should enjoy the due coverage. Also note, that being biased doesn't equal to being untrue; in this particular case the claim about the lack of separate Montenegrin national identity before the communist Yugoslavia is unilaterally supported by sources prior to at least WWI. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Define "widely supported" - by whom? Do you have a Reliable Source to cite to prove this? The whole area of the Balkans is so fueled by nationalism and, to an extent, grudges against their neighbors of the former Yugoslavia that we should be relying on objective, Western academics who have no stake in the "fight," so to speak. That means that some historians who are objective within Serbia-Montenegro-Croatia-et al are unfortunately sidelined (for now,) but that's the best way to achieve an unemotional, NPOV wiki article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, what do you want to prove with RS? The academic statement? Sure, the history, ethnicity and language questions suffer from strong biases, but we have no unbiased sources, so we have to deal with the reality we have, which is the amount of several contradictory opinions, with each of them having some (effectively, same) acknowledgement. We can't just silence the question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"Montenegrin Language"

There is no "Montenegrin language". First of all, it isn't even "Montenegro" but Srna Gora. Montenegro means nothing. Second, it is Serbian, not Montenegrin because in the Serbian/"Montenegrin" language, it would be Srno Gorski but that is not a language, it is Srpski. All the people from Srna Gora are known for is their snobbishness, considering they could claim independence (Look at their population!) and that they are lazy. They don't do anything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. Crna Gora...
  2. ...which is known as Montenegro in English (through Italian (Venetian) name).
  3. It's very nice of you to comment on Montenegrins, but how does this all deal with language? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. English sometimes confuses me.
  2. Well, if you put it that way, it's literal English translation is Black Worse.
  3. Your comments were only critical of mine, not making a point on my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Montenegro is translated from Italian as "Black Mountain" in English and as "Crna Gora" in Serbo-Croatian (compare: "Черногория" in Russian). (Yes, I know that in modern Serbo-Croatian word "planina" is by far more popular then "gora" in this sense; still this meaning also exists) It is believed to be a name Venetians gave to the territory around Cetinje. Regarding the language: it is called "Montenegrin" in Constitution of Montenegro, and around 40% of population of Montenegro believe that they speak it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Why can't it be changed to "Montenegrin/Serbian" with a reference to its non-recognition by the ISO added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.130.3 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Because in this context it is verifiably Montenegrin, like it or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Montenegrin Language

It is stated above that "Montenegrin language is not recognized by ISO and majority of population of Montenegro." While the part concerning ISO is true, the part concerning the population is not. The fact that the majority of Montenegrin citizens did not declare to speak Montenegrin themselves does not mean that they don't recognise Montenegrin as a language.

On the other hand, it would be safe to say that the majority of those who declared to speak Serbian(42,88%) do not recognise Montenegrin as a language, but they definitely do not include the majority of the entire population of the country. 

85.94.111.117 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

I think that "In popular culture" section should be removed because it is not appropriate for an article about some country. Here is a list of sections in articles about countries without this kind of sections. Anybody against deletion of this section?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Has the Montenegrin economy exited recession?

From "Economy": "The country is expected to exit the recession in mid-2010, with GDP growth predicted at around 0.5%" Well: has it? 88.114.254.39 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

According to an article published on 28 March 2013, Montenegro is still in a recession, with evidence based on preliminary reports from Monstat. Further details are available at http://www.bankar.me/2013/03/28/crna-gora-je-u-recesiji/#more-30767 --Prevalis (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Restored monarchy?

On 12 July 2011 a law was passed by the Montenegran parliament which to a large degree restored the monarchy. This should be reflected in the article.203.184.41.226 (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to Zakon o statusu potomaka dinastije Petrović Njegoš, passed 12 July 2011, there is nothing within the articles of the law that dictates any restoration of the monarchy. Politically, the law does allow the Montenegrin President, Premier and the Speaker of Parliament to appoint the representative of the dynasty to a non-political role within government (Predsjednik Crne Gore, predsjednik Skupštine Crne Gore i predsjednik Vlade Crne Gore mogu ovlastiti predstavnika potomaka dinastije da obavi pojedine protokolarne i nepolitičke poslove.). That's as much power they're going to get from a democratic Montenegro that supposedly feels "bad" for the loss of the monarchy. Just my two cents worth. --Prevalis (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
They have avoided calling Montenegro a monarchy, but it is as much a monarchy as Sweden or Japan. The head of the royal family has the same status and pay as the president. That is more than merely having a role within government.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
No, they do not have the same status. Please read the actual law. In any case, a few secondary sources would be necessary to make such an claim, esp. such an exceptional claim. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro is board with Kosovo,too

Montenegro is board with Kosovo,too.Kosovo has received 97 international recognition,and Montenegro has accepted the Independence of on the 8th of october 2010,You have to edit thid,thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.56.131.171 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 14 November 2012

about ethnic groups - muslims is not a group , this is a religion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.221.151.120 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

"Muslim" is not an Ethnicity

Montenegro topic page lists "Muslim" as an ethnic group, along with other true ethnic groupings. Muslim is not an ethnicity any more than Christian, Buddhist, Wiccan, Hindu, or Atheist are ethnic groups. Muslim is what the label for a person who is a follower of Islam. It is a religion, ideology, or even a culture, but not an ethnic group and should not be presented as an ethnic group. Christopher. [1]

  1. ^ http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-islam-and-muslim/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.112.109.42 (talk) 24 July 2013‎

It has a long history of being used in an ethnic sense in the Balkans. What about Jews? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Language Dispute

I think the current situation is not neutral. I have not changed it because we should first discuss it here, instead only adding the data on where these languages have locally an official status. According to the last population census (2011), a minority (37%) in the country has declared that they call their native language "Montenegrin", while most (43%) call it Serbian. If we count only the speakers of the Serbo-Croatian (Central South Slavic Diasystem) linguistic continuum, it leaves with a majority of 49% who consider that the language is named "Serbian". In the discussion of a question of territorial distribution of Montenegro's linguistic communities, Montenegrin holds a majority in 3, and Serbian in 15, also on the brake down to settlement level the Serbian language being in an undisputed position of being dominant across the vast majority of the country's populated parts.

While it is true the Montenegrin is the country's national language, this still leaves this situation unresolved, as I think we do not have a single Wikipedian article on a country in which the majority language enjoys only regional/minority status of recognition. I propose some form of recognition in the introducing section. It should also be added that it is no lie that most inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia speak in scientific terms the same language, despite the claims of many domestic experts and politicians. The Parisian Centre d’études slaves for examples has just recently presented a common grammar, acknowledging all four (Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian) 'ethnic' names, in the authorship of Paul-Louis Thomas and Vladimir Osipov. The same position seems to be the dominant one in USA, with the LA University of California and one of the worlds' most prestigious, Harvard, acknowledging that they are AFAIK a single language and that such is dominant in American linguistic studies. While I'm not sure that it could be said for all of Europe (however certainly there are voices from the European Union regarding the integration of the Western Balkans, hinting that it would be in practical terms not very reasonable to recognize and in practice realize the rights entitled to the same language four different times), it certainly stands for the English-speaking world making it relevant in terms of this article in specific. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia recognizes its uniformity and uses the BCS (Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian) name, and it is actually worthwhile noticeable that at least some of the institutions of the EU have accepted that, noticeable in the officially titled language of the European Commission in the Republic of Croatia. Other sources of non-official nature such as The World Atlas of Language Structures make no doubt that it is Serbo-Croatian, with various alternative names.

Even in terms domestically speaking, one of the linguists who took part in the standardization of Montenegrin, Croatian linguist Ivo Pranjković, acknowledged that Croatian and Serbian, and even Montenegrin, constitute an identical language. The other key man in the standardization of the Montenegrin language and co-author of the Montenegrin Grammar (officially passed by the Board for the Standardization of the Montenegrin language) along with Pranjković, likewise Croatian linguist Josip Silić, has made similar claims that these are all the same language, though acknowledging different standards. Although not as pertinent to the thread, I'd like also to remind everyone that Silić is also one of the authors of the first official Orthography of the Montenegrin language; its coauthor Ukrainian linguist and Croatist Ljudmila Vasiljeva (who is also along with Silić in the Expert Committee for Montenegrin's standardization) has expressed opinions almost identical to her domestic colleague. The topic is exceedingly popular as of recent, since yet another Croatian linguist, Snježana Kordić, recently published and then kept on popularizing her work on the claims of all these standards belonging to a Pluricentric language for which she accepts the traditional 'Serbo-Croatian' name. Kordić is in some ways a spiritual successor to the German Slavist Bernhard Gröschel, who categorically dismissed local nationalists and shortly before his death, made somewhat of a mockery of the process of standardization of now even Montenegrin (although seemingly it will not be the last one, with the ongoing standardization of the Bunjevac language).

This Ex Yugoslav linguistic controversies, highly politicized and largely caught within extreme ethnocentric biased viewpoints, opens up the question whether the Wikipedia should follow the scientific norms, or recognize the political situation in the ground. As it strives to be an independent source of at least a modicum of credibility, I think in logical terms the former should be concluded. I should also here note that the opinion expressed above, speaking in domestic terms, this position is not exclusively limited to personal considerations of esteemed linguists. It is actually reflected in the ground as well; the native language taught in schools is called Montenegrin-Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian Language and Literature, and the Law on Lower and Middle Education. The law specifically acknowledges the uniformity of the four mutually intelligible, mentioning, and I quote, the same linguistic basis efficiently not recognizing them as separate languages and that as such minority communities such as the very significant Bosniak one, should not be entitled to treatment of a separate language; also acknowledging all four names but still naturally giving the national language's name precedence over the others. This effectively means that the Ministry of Education and Sciences of the Government of Montenegro officially recognizes that the four languages, despite actually being that very part of the government under which the standardization had been actually officially sanctioned. This is not limited exclusively to Montenegro, as in the education system over in the neighboring Republic of Serbia it is actually learned that there are only four South Slavic Languages, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian, the last one being named as the national language of Serbs, Montenegrins, Bosniacs and Croats.

However, if the majority of editors disagrees with this and we go along acknowledging the political reality (regardless how that may be self-contradicting, as I've actually sited a law passed by the Parliament of Montenegro to the above), then we must also fully do so, indiscriminate of all positions. That also includes not favoring Montenegrin which is as already concluded the nation's minority language (or for that matter name for a language) - both in terms of all of Montenegrin inhabitants, and speakers of what I could despite all the controversies that it could potentially attach call our language. The majority language (name) is Serbian, and the Montenegrin authorities acknowledge that as I've mentioned the Law to the above, which makes a clear distinction between the minority statuses of Bosnian and Croatian (giving a favorable position only to Montenegrin despite being a minority language to it having a national status). This is very very well known to the Council of Europe, whose Committee of Ministers has in the last official Recommendation to Montenegro (2012) stressed that Serbian is not a minority language in there. It should be worthwhile noted that the CE has also asked MN to resolve or at least make clear the status of the Serbian language, because it is constitutionally defined as in official usage however the recent rulings of the constitutional court (quite controversial in nature themselves) repeat that the official status of the non-Montenegrin languages officially sanctioned in the Constitution of Montenegro is limited to provisions of protection of cultural heritage pertinent to human and minority rights obligations. This whole mess in this article is evaded through a construct "Regional languages", although there is little explanation to its name, which should arguably be minority - leaving the door open to the question how can a majority language enjoy a minority status.

Ignoring the facts I've mentioned to the above is impossible, and such is also the current version of this article, presenting a Montenegrin POV instead of an objective NPOV. To this it can be only concluded the fact that some might dispute, that in the process of dividing Serbo-Croatian, Montenegrin could be considered a variant of Serbian. This is of course a much more point of view of mostly Serbian linguists, while the opinion on that in Montenegro is more divided (although, it is worthwhile to mention, the ordinary populace clearly calls it mostly Serbian and not Montenegrin), however there does exist some form of (globally speaking) consensus. A fact that further contributes to this is that, differently from the Bosnian or Croatian (and their respective standards), Montenegrin and Serbian have got two standards each, and one of those is common i.e. completely identical (and that goes even e.g. when compared to Danish and Norwegian Bokmål). The Montenegrin language has god no SIL code and if I understand the situation well it is precisely the reason why a total of four different Montenegrin Wikipedia requests have been rejected by Wikimedia's Language Committee, the recommendation being to those Wikipedian users who want to write in Montenegrin use the Serbo-Croatian or Serbian Wikipedia. The SIL considers Montenegrin just a variant of Serbian, as can be seen on its Ethnologue website, and no request for granting ISO code for Montenegrin whatsoever is currently in procedure. The Indo-European family tree contains no Montenegrin in its Western South Slavic branch and the same position can be concluded from the 'World Atlas' I've already mentioned a little to the above. When recently the US Library of Congress has made the decision to acknowledge the linguistic division of S-C into three (not four) languages, under the guidelines Montenegrin literature has been divided into the Serbian category. There has been no change to this in the meantime and literature stemming from Montenegro is traditionally filed under Serbian. Now, I do not want anyone here to misunderstand me and interpret me as if I am trying to push something due to some sort of a hidden agenda against the Montenegrin - we clearly cannot treat it like the Dutch-Flemish situation, due to a not inconsiderable amount of political support and the fact that Montenegrin has got a national status. But as I have already written in the beginning of this paragraph, ignoring all of the indisputable facts I've listed is paramount to approving a completely biased article. --Drivast (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody desperately wants this country to have a 73% Serbian ethnicity

Not really involved in this, but somebody is editing this page in order for it to show a 73% Serbian ethnicity and they seem to rely on this source http://www.monstat.org/userfiles/file/popis2011/saopstenje/saopstenje%281%29.pdf

There does not seem to be any such info there. I will leave you guys invested in this to make edits, I do not wish to be involved in a Balkan brawl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.84.76.114 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

What about the climate?!?!?

There is significant good information in the article but not a single mention of what Montenegro's climate is. 09:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)2601:19B:401:221A:C969:9AC:6820:B15 (talk)M. Hilliard 1/8/16

More info on Russian involvement in October 2016 coup attempt

There are many more articles in the news in Feb. 2017 from WP:RS sources about a possible coup attempt involving Russian agents.

No Slavs under the subhead Middle Ages and the Arrival of the Slavs

The word "Slav" does not appear once in the two paragraphs. No named Slavs, leaders, conquerors? Who was/were the first? There are named people in the two paragraph, but they are not identified as Slavs, nor marked as arriving. Leaves the reader (me) a mite confused. MaxwellPerkins (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Bizarre and ahistorical sovereignty chronology

Duklja's origins are shrouded in mystery. To say that the state was founded in a particular year (625) is blatant speculation. In addition, the terms Duklja and Zeta were used interchangeably by contemporary sources, so saying that Zeta was "recognized" (by whom?) in 1077 is absurd. From the 11th to 14th centuries, Zeta was a crownland of the Kingdom of Serbia. It only became a fully-fledged state after the dissolution of the Serbian Empire (c. 1373). The Prince-Bishopric was not founded in 1516, but after the Great Turkish War, in 1696. Finally, the chronology superfluously states that the Prince-Bishopric turned into a de facto monarchy in 1767. Internal political machinations are irrelevant. 23 editor (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montenegro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Reds

Unexpectedly, the uprising took hold...."

Unexpected by whom? Sca (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

the biodiversity section needs fine-tuning

Many statements are in reference to the Mediterranean Sea rather that "in Montenegro" - this should be tweaked to the Montenegrin coast, and so on. The reference used is not in English and cannot be verified by me and most other English Wiki readers - a solid English RS is needed here. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Montenegro for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Montenegro is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Montenegro until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 02:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Category:Slavic countries and territories

It is currently being proposed that Category:Slavic countries and territories be deleted. This article is part of that category. The relevant discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 8#Countries and territories by language family. The discussion would benefit from input from editors with a knowledge of and interest in Montenegro. Krakkos (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Removal of text and sources

@J. M.: @Bassball Batman: @Khirurg: @Hazhk: @DerTorx: @Amanuensis Balkanicus: @Theo Moraes Teixeira: I am pinging several editors who worked on the page in the last month or so. As you can see a number of sources were removed, the part which describes how some priests were attacked have been removed as well. (in the Politika article the man who was attacked talks about it). The part which states that this law applies not only to church building but to estates as well, has also been removed. This law applies to all the property of the Serbian Orthodox Church. We had something similar in the Balkans in the Communist era. The part which described protest as massive has also been removed. According to local news sources around 100.000 protested (which is 1/6 of the country!).[1][2][3][4][5] I seek help and mediation, as I think that we have a POV pushing and Wikipedia:I just don't like it taking place. The whole "fake news" diff (reminds me of someone's tweets) was not explained. Thank you, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 12:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Now we have the watered-down version which dismisses the word - protest. I guess that such a small economy depends on tourism section and this does not look good - at all (that motivation comes to mind, but that is off topic). Most of the sources (foreign and domestic) use the word protests, which is 100% appropriate. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
1) The sources removed were fake news about a priest being injured by the police, which was proven untrue, and even if it was true, I think it would be the first time in Wikipedia history that the fact that someone twisted someone else's arm was inserted in an article about a country; 2) The word “estates“ was deleted by mistake and subsequently restored, while “protests/demonstrations“ are mentioned three times in two sencences; 3) The number of 100.000 is wishful thinking which was reported by Serbian media. There were no such numbers in Montenegrin media, regardless of their political position. I do not see the point in playing with the numbers, and no one denied that protests were well attended at times; 4) This is an ongoing current event so the rules regarding such cases should be respected, and edits should be made on the basis of neutral information, rather than inflammatory propaganda articles and nationalist bias which permeates some editors' edits; 5) The editor complaining has a long history of heavy nationalist POV, and is guilty of every single offence that he/she is accusing me of, but that is something I really have no time to discuss if the administrators still turn the blind eye to his/her disruptive activity. Sideshow Bob 13:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
We have no arguments or sources proving that they were "fake news". If a high-ranking church official - vladika (equivalent of Bishop) Metodije was attacked during protests,[6][7] than that is notable. The description is per NPOV and just shows that the protest also had a violence note to it. The number is up to 100.000 and not 100.000, it was reported by all respected medias (Politika, Danas, Pečat, Nedeljnik, NIN). Of course that such descriptions would not be presented in the Montenegrin medias, which are funded by the government which is trying to push the law. Once again you posted no evidence, which only shows that you are attempting to discredit my work, which is rather sad. Basic rule of going per NPOV was respected and everything was written neutrally. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with ethnic and linguistic maps from 2011 census

This maps are not accurate. I just checked Budva municipality which is colored as having less than 50 Montenegrin's, while in 2011 census there were 51̹̥̘ percent Montenegrin's. Also the linguistic map is not accurate as Niksić is colored like having more Serbian than Montenegrin speakers, while the census of 2011 shows the opposite. Tritomex (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan

has an editor from the fight on the Taiwan talk page edited this? it reads identically to that intro. Irtapil (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Map

Someone needs to correct Kosovo. 2A02:587:E23B:7D00:3575:883F:500E:884B (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Montenegro"

Template:Largest cities of Montenegro has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

[!] Reporting breaking changes

Hello,

I would like to inform you that breaking changes have occured on the english version of this page. I believe the edit is the one from March 8 2022, at 14:45 (UTC). The main problem is the disappearance/formatting of the header and infobox of the article.

Thanks for all of your work and I hope my message helped you a little.

Maxmagix (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)MaxmagixMaxmagix (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Geographic location in relation to Croatia.

Croatia is currently listed as “southwest” of Montenegro, which I wouldn’t consider entirely accurate or acceptable. JtLea7 (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Albanian at the top of the infobox?

I just noticed that recently the Albanian name of the country was added at the top of the infobox. The official language of Montenegro is Montenegrin and both alphabets (latin and cyrillic) are official, while Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian and Croatian are in "official use".

I believe that usually only the official languages are mentioned at the top of the infobox, so in my opinion Albanian should be removed.

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe it was added since in the Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian and Montenegrin Latin scripts it's written the same and the Cyrillic script is the same with Serbian Cyrillic. It's actually mentioned in the first two citations in the lede (A and B). So Albanian was unique compared to the other Serbo-Croatian languages in my understanding, but also the "official use" needs to be explained to what actual level is. S.G ReDark (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @S.G ReDark, I completely agree with your statement:

(...) but also the "official use" needs to be explained to what actual level is.

The confusing thing here is definitely what "official use" means, especially since the constitution distinguishes official language and languages in official use.
Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

Who r u, which note — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.145.87.136 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing of RS

For the new account, here is a link to WP:RS, also here is a link to a source you are removing [[1]] which is a open access and easy to read what is says, please do not remove it.Theonewithreason (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for the information. I have of course read the source cited in the article before I did any changes to the article, which is why I decided to edit it. I also read the WP:RS main article after you posted it, before the second edit. I have seen other wiki pages with internet sites as references in them, so decided to go forward with the edit. I will look into the Talk section of WP:RS to see how to approach the problem in general, since Im new here. Im not going to get hung up on one sentence in a huge article, but I do want to check how these things work.
The source you have given does come from a respected historian (Crampton), but it is outdated, from almost 30 years ago, and the referenced text of his book (page 16) is merely a surface level side remark about the population in Montenegro. It is not referenced by any historical source, and thats because that chapter of text and the book is not even remotely about Montenegrin demographics. Hell, that remark may probably even be based on the old false information about the 1909. census, that there were 90% "Orthodox Serbs" in Montenegro. This was widely believed in the 90ies, when the book was published, and was only years later debunked. In reality, the 1909. census was religious, the results were that 90% of Montenegro was of the Orthodox denomination, and there was no census on nationality or ethnicity until way later.
Furthermore, the sentence in the article itself is false. While the Serb nationality was present in Montenegro by the end of the XIX, it was certainly not prevalent during the entire early modern period (16th - 19th Century), as the link I provided below proves. Even Vuk Karadzić, who considers most of the South Slav people to be Serbs, states that "Serbs" (Slavs) who arent Eastern Orthodox don't call themselves Serbs - Srbi svi i svuda (written during the 19th century -1849).
The source I have given is not an author POV opinion article, as per WP:RS. It is a collection of texts and facsimiles directly from historical documents and each of them is denoted where it comes from. Im able to track down most of them in history books and published documents, if needed as a reference in the article (author, book name, page), but some of them probably arent digital uploads. This site has all of them listed and collected.
Additionally, the source I submitted also has digitally scanned pages of 2 historical documents referencing my edit, which is the same method of access used for the Crampton book you mentioned, just not the whole historical text.
Finally, my point is this: how do I do perform the edit according to the edit rules of Wikipedia? Is it OK to reference them in books and articles if the books arent uploaded online? Erasmus2001 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The main problem of the portal you gave is mostly highly opinionated interpretation of authors on this specific internet page. Second problem is that through this page is impossible to find which books and sources are cited, therefore we don′t know do sources actually exist or do they actually say what authors of internet page are claiming. that is why internet portals are not considered reliable source. You should find books, sources with possibility of WP:V so that it can be visible to anyone who wants to read them. Just like Crampton. Thank you.Theonewithreason (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

"NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 26 § NATO occupied FR Yugoslavia until a consensus is reached. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Census 2023

According to the recent estimates published by the end of the Census that is taking place this December (2023), the population of Montenegro is at least 618'351 (last Census (2011) it was 620'029). Please make sure to update the population segment with the new data, as it currently shows the population as 602'445 which is not true. Source - https://www.vijesti.me/vijesti/politika/687491/popisano-618-351-stanovnika-raskinut-ugovor-sa-popisivacima-koji-su-koristili-pisi-brisi-olovke 79.140.150.190 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

At the very beginning, it reads "is a coumtry" instead of "is a country". Freshsushiroll2 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 (2)

In the very first sentence, please correct the spelling of "coumtry" to be "country." Corrective linds (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Duplicate request PianoDan (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2024

No need for albanian name in the first sentence of the page Markosrbija10 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ Beta, Piše: (2020-01-01). "Više hiljada ljudi protestovalo u Podgorici protiv Zakona o veroispovesti". Dnevni list Danas (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-01-23.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  2. ^ "Crkvene pesme, ikone, ori se "Ne damo svetinje" - protesti širom Crne Gore ne prestaju FOTO/VIDEO". B92.net (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  3. ^ Nedeljnik.rs (2020-01-02). "Protesti širom Crne Gore ne prestaju: Molebani, šetnje i povici "Ne damo svetinje"". Nedeljnik. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  4. ^ Aleksandra Bogdanović (2020-01-02). "PROTESTI ŠIROM CRNE GORE NE PRESTAJU! Hiljade ljudi na ulicama Podgorice, orilo se "NE DAMO SVETINJE" (FOTO+VIDEO) | Dnevno.rs". www.dnevno.rs (in Croatian). Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  5. ^ "Cijeli Herceg-Novi stao u odbranu svetinja - Na molebanima širom Crne Gore 100.000 ljudi | Trebinje Live". TrebinjeLive.info (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  6. ^ "Владика Методије се опоравља на ВМА од последица полицијске интервенције • Радио ~ Светигора ~". svetigora.com (in Serbian). Retrieved 2020-01-23.
  7. ^ "Владика Методије: У једном моменту мислио сам да је то крај | Српскa Православнa Црквa [Званични сајт]". spc.rs. Retrieved 2020-01-23.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Montenegro/Archive_4&oldid=1224287010"