| Revision as of 07:31, 30 March 2006 editUnixer (talk | contribs)1,967 editsm demographics← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:57, 24 December 2024 edit undoWizmut (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,763 edits relax archive bot settings |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
==euro== |
|
|
|
{{Recurring themes |
|
|
|
|
|
|] was recognized by ] in December 2017. It is named as an official language in the ]. It is a ] of ]. |
|
I doubt Germany and the EU formally allow Montenegro to use Euro as an official curency |
|
|
|
|The ethnicity of inhabitants of Montenegro is a more political than a historical question. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:*currency: ] - even though Montenegro is not part of the ], it uses the euro after ] and the ] allowed it to use the German mark years ago. Now, since the ] was superceded by the euro, the euro is the official currency of Montenegro. |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
==separatism== |
|
|
|
|action1date=04:26, 4 December 2006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Montenegro/archive1 |
|
''Some Montenegrins have in recent years shown a desire to separate Montenegro from the federation with jist of the separatist movement being among the Slavic Muslim and Albanian minorities who make up some 20% of the population'' -- what does this sentence mean? -- ] |
|
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|action1oldid=91882155 |
|
:I don't know, but it seems to make some kind of sense if you assume "jist" is a typo for "most"... ] |
|
|
|
|action2=PR |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2date=12 July 2007 |
|
::I'd say it's typo for "gist". ] 05:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Montenegro/archive1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action2oldid=143857758 |
|
::In recent years, some Montenegrins have shown a desire to separate from the Yugoslavian/Balkan/Serbian(?) Federation. The separatist movement consists mainly of Slavic Muslim and Albanian minorities, which consist of 20% of the Montenegrin population. --More sense? |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
:::No, it makes no sense at all. I thought the seperatist movement was started by the Montenegrin Parliament and Montenegrin Government, right? |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Montenegro|importance=top}} |
|
:::: Actually you are wrong. The separatist movement started in 1990 with the Liberal Party of MOntenegro (LSCG) which has constitently had about 5-10% of support among the population (among both Orthodox, Muslims and Catholics). In 1992 when the question of Montenegro's future was at stake (referendum on federation with Serbia) the LSCG called on Montenegrins to boycott. Aside from their voters (5-10%) the bulk of the Slavic Muslim and Albanian population boycotted as can be seen from the results on this page . The turnout was 66% of which 95% voted for the union (some 62% with 70% Orthodox Slavs). Each county basically matches with its ethno-religious make-up. Bar with 60% Orthodox Slavs had a 48% turnout, Ulcinj with 73% of Albanians had a 17,54% turnout, Plav with an 80% Slavic Muslim and Albanian population had a 27,63% turnout and finally Rozaje with 87% Slavic Muslims and 4% Albanians had a 10,85%. All of the other counties (with clear ORthodox Slavic majorities) all had majority turnouts. I personally find this exercise redundant, trying to 'prove' what is obvious to anyone who has ever set foot in Montenegro. But I guess that from now on I will not have to discuss the subject. Furthermore if you are interested I can get you poll results which basically point out what I am talking about. Just quoting one from 2001 (VREME) that I have, 5% of declared Serbs support an independent Montenegro, 83% of those who said they were Croats, 89% of those who said they were ] and 87% of Albanians. -- ] 22:00, Sep 23 2004 |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Yugoslavia|importance=high}} |
|
::: And as far as I recall, neither the Montenegrin president nor prime minister are Muslim nor Albanian. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Europe|importance=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=}} |
|
:::: No but the controversial speaker of the parliament Rifat Rastoder is. -- ] |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
::: Are you trying to say that Gjukanovic is in some way an Bosniak/Albanian agent, representing Bosniak/Albanian interests? Let me put in more straightforwardly, did Bosniaks and Albanians bring Djukanovic & Co. to power? No Montenegrin voted him in? Well, I thought Albanians had their own political parties, and so do the Bosniaks. |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|
:::: That is the interesting part, the Slavic Muslims have their own parties (] etc.) however none of them have been in parliament since 1992 and then maybe one or two seats? The Slavic Muslims adore and vote (can be proven with the help of any opinion poll) ], his ] party and especially his junior partner ] party (which has about 40% of Slavic Muslims in its ranks which you can see for yourself as soon as they fix their rotten page http://www.sdp.cg.yu if you go to 'Organizacija'). -- ] |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 4 |
|
:::How long will iditos like yourself continue to blame just about everything on Bosniaks and Albanians? When will you wake up and understand that now even your formal brothers Montenegrins can stand you and your Serb superiority policies any longer. |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
==church== |
|
|
|
|algo = old(365d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Montenegro/Archive %(counter)d |
|
''The main church is the Serb Orthodox Church, though there is also a splinter Montenegrin Orthodox Church established in 1993. The faithful reportedly remain close to the Serb Orthodox Church regardless of the new church as can be witnessed by the attendance of sermons and booming monastic life at the Serb church none of which the other side can boast of.'' |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
This seemed rather biased toward one church, especially the second sentence. I'll strike it and revise the first part to try for a more NPOV. |
|
|
|
|
|
: That's just factual. If you have any information suggesting otherwise please come forward with it. As far as I know, the autocephalists have no spiritual support whatsoever, for one thing they have not built a SINGLE shrine in Montenegro or anywhere else in the world. They are nothing more than a political pressure group used by the government of ]. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
The article states that "Montenegrins are mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians. The two major branches are the Serb Orthodox Church and the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, which was re-established in 1993.". MOC is not a major branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, nor was it re-established in 1993. ] 12:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
------ |
|
|
|
|
|
The previous comment of the article states that MOC was not re-established in 1993, which is a fallacy. The MOC has been legally registered in Montenegro in line with the valid legal system of the state of Montenegro and in line with the laws in Montenegro - which is clearly apparent from the MOC page on Misplaced Pages. The MOC Church is called the Montenegrin Orthodox Church in its formal registration in Montenegro, so there is no space for speculation here. The Church was re-established after a separate existence until 1920 and a ban by the Serbian (then Yugoslav) autocratic King Aleksandar. |
|
|
The article does not claim that MOC is a major branch of Eastern Orthodoxy outside Montenegro. |
|
|
|
|
|
: I thought that this is an old comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The MOC was not banned, and hence can't be re-established. Anybody can register a religious cult-the fact that it is registered doesn't give it any legitimacy. In fact, if MOC's highest "claim to fame" is that it managed to become registered, it has a long way to go until it becomes a church. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The statement "over 74% of Montenegrins are ] Christians, most of whom belong to the ]" is anyway a fallacy, as there is no accurate census that can prove this. One may say truthfully say that "most Montenegrins are ] Christians, most of whom belong to the ]", but a large number of Montenegrins are atheists, agnostics, or otherwise, myself included. Being a Montenegrin does not mean that you are part of the 74% of ] Christians. Sorry, this is the 21st century. |
|
|
|
|
|
: The censa registered religion. Of course, the government of Montenegro is afraid of the results, so they are nowhere to be found. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You can not just delete the fact that MOC followers claim that "all of the existing churches in Montenegro were once part of an autonomous Montenegrin Orthodox Church that was abolished following the union with Serbia in 1918." This is the explanation why shrines are not being built en masse in Montenegro by the MOC, as it claims to inherit the churches currently in the hands of SOC. If we put only one viewpoint in "its following is small to the point of non-existence and it has not been recognised by any other Orthodox Church" it is not balanced. Also, the statement "its following is small to the point of non-existence" needs to be based on fact not fancy. Do you have an official census of followers or is this your speculation? |
|
|
|
|
|
- user 20:28, 04 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
: Emperor Milo and his Milovision are doing a great deal of propaganda, but that doesn't help the MOC one bit. Do you have an official census of followers? ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
------ |
|
|
|
|
|
== Montenegro / Crna Gora == |
|
|
|
|
|
Anybody has ANY idea why is the international name of Montenegro in Spanish? |
|
|
I haven't been able to find this peace of information. Thnx. -- ] 13:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The name comes from the Italian (not Spanish) for "black mountain", probably referring the dark wooded mountains. ] 17:55, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I thought about it, but no, it's Spanish. In Italian it would be Montenero, without G. Which really puzzles me, as Spain is not so close. It's not Portuguese either nor French. Weird, huh? -- ] 04:46, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I'd say it's originating from Latin. This name was made back in the early second millenium when the Venetians sailed the eastern Adriatic coast and noticed the Lovćen mountain covered in black pine... --] 10:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Monte Negro/Montenegro is Veneto, a dialect(?) of Italian which is the word most of the world uses today when referring to Crna Gora - Black Mountain - MonteNegro. Some nations do not use Montenegro but translate literally Black Mountain: Slavs (Cerna Gora, several variations), Greeks (Mavrovunion), Albanians (Mal i Zi) and Turks (Karadag). |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
What puzzles me is why would these countries copy one another because it would be a big coincidence if all of them, seeing for themselves, call the country "Black Mountain". And why don't we have the name that the aboriginals called their land since Slavs arrived there after antiquity. Thus Cerna Gora can't be a possible candidate. Thus I think it either comes from Albanian "Mali i Zi" or Greek "Mavrounion". - user |
|
|
|
|
|
: Eh, what are you talking about? It's like ] - the name is a phrase that means something, so other languages took over a translation rather than a transcription. --] 13:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Why isn't the Albanian version of the name listed at the beginning? I would also say the Greek version, but there are no Greeks there I believe. - user |
|
|
|
|
|
- Spanish kingdom of Aragon ruled the mediterraean seas during the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, having even territories in Sicily, Southern part of Italy, Crete, Sardinia and some greek territory... The name should come from that period. |
|
|
|
|
|
In any case: |
|
|
* in latin, black is: niger-nigri (italian "nero" is probably a later derivation). |
|
|
* Aragonese and/or Venetians sailors probably mixed in crews, speaking a rather similar language mixture. |
|
|
* In Herceg Novi (Montenegro), a medieval fortress town, exists a site called Spanish Tower. |
|
|
|
|
|
No! This name (Montenegro) has no direct connection to Spanish origin at all. It is Venetian dialect a bit different from official Italian! In Florentine dialect of Italian (became official language in Italy), it is Montenero, but Venice has been for a long period adjacent to Montenegro and they influenced its international name. It is not just Ivory Coast that is called this way. USA is also mostly translated in the most of the Languages. Name of romanic France originates from germanic people of Franks and is broadly accepted as international name. |
|
|
|
|
|
On the other side, Germany is called totally differently in different languages (e.g. Deutschland, Alemania, Tedesca, Njemacka etc.). That are totaly different meanings (e.g. slavic Njemacka/Nemcia means "dumb country", originating from the fact that German language was unintelligible to adjacent Slavs at that time!). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Other translated (rather than transliterated) foreign names for the country/region are '''''Svartfjallaland''''' (Icelandic for "Land of the Black Mountain"), '''''Mali i Zi''''' (Albanian) and '''''Karadağ''''' (Turkish) . For related discussions about the use of geographic names in an English-language context see ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. ''//] 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)'' |
|
|
|
|
|
== Figures on population and ethnic division == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dears, |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to report that the figures shown in these pages are somewhat different from point to point. As for total population there are two different (but not so much) figures and the same holds for ethnic minorities' percentages. Albanians are reported to be the 5% (main page)and 7% (link to demographic history) of total pop. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, |
|
|
|
|
|
Eniel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article states that "Montenegrin and Serb identities are not exclusive", but this is not true. They are exlusive acording to the constitution of Montenegro, the constitutional charter of Serbia and Montenegro, and half a dozen separate censuses since the mid 20th century - all of which allow only one national identity to be declared. |
|
|
|
|
|
: No, they are not. The constitution doesn't mention any such thing, nor the constitutional charter, and the census is irrelevant. The fact is, nearly all people who have declared as Serbs on censa also consider themselves Montenegrins. ] 06:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The constitution guarrantees "Protection of rights of members of national and ethnic groups". This means that every citizen belonging to each ethnic group in Montenegro has the right to declare his or her ethnicity freely, without subsequent "ethnic engineering" as you are attempting to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I don't attempt to do such a thing, the rest of what you are saying is true but irrelevant to the issue of exclusivity of ethnic identity. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::There is no significant group of citizens that declared a joint Montenegrin and Serb ethnic background in the official census, as you keep insisting upon. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I have never insisted upon such a thing. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Nor has there been any attempt to invalidate the census in front of the Montenegrin courts. So, the sentence "Montenegrin and Serb identities are not exclusive", is a fallacy and not simply true according to the latest census and the rights of ethnic groups as specified in the constitution. |
|
|
:: - user 17:30, 05 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: As I said, nearly all people who have declared as Serbs on censa also consider themselves Montenegrins. This is why the identities are not exclusive. They don't need to invalidate a census or to declare dual nationality in order to do so. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
These are the raw and unbiased facts (not speculation). On the other hand, it is true that a number of Serbs and Montenegrins may believe that they have both identities - but there is no modern census nor constitutional basis that can support a statement such as "Montenegrin and Serb identities are not exclusive". Many Montenegrins do not feel to be Serb, and never pronounce themselves as such. You can not force national groups to "be Serb" if they do not feel so and never declare as such. |
|
|
|
|
|
: Who has ever said so? However, the opposite is also true - you can't force Serbs from Montenegro not to feel Montenegrins as well. ] 06:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Serbs from Montenegro ARE Montenegrin citizens. Nobody disputes that. But, here you claim that they have Montenegrin ethnicity too?? And then you also dispute the existence of Motnenegrin ethnicity. Although they do not declare themselves Montenegrin?! So this claim is based on your feelings or intuition? The census clearly states that almost one-third of Montenegrin citizens claim to be of Serbian ethnicity - and now you disregard this fact by saying that they "feel Montenegrin as well"? |
|
|
:: - user 17:30, 05 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Yes, you summed it quite well. Serbs from Montenegro are Montenegrins by ethnicity too, and they feel that way. However, they are not Montenegrins by nationality. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"However the number of Montenegrins does seem to be in steep decline since the introduction of the category by the Communists on the 1948 census" seems to imply that the Communist regime declared the nationality of citizens in polls. This is not true, as citizens declared their nationaility in polls, individually. |
|
|
|
|
|
: AFAIK, they did not - they had to select from a list (which included "undeclared"). ] 06:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: You are talking about the methodology of the poll, not the free will of the citizens. The methodology (since 1909) has improved by including and reflecting the evolution of the state and general/global democratic principles. Having a list to choose from - does not mean that you do not have free choice. It means that the methodology is imperfect, but you still freely choose among the available options. This argument also holds for 1909, as I am sure that there was no "Montenegrin" ethnicity as an option on the census - but this does not mean that there was no free choice. In fact, I can almost vouch that there was certainly a "Serb" option in the post-WW II census - while there certainly was no "Montenegrin" option in the 1909 census. |
|
|
:: - user 17:30, 05 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: ''Almost'' vouch? :) It is oftenly alleged that Communists have rigged the census. I haven't put that in an article because I don't have exact information on how did they do it, but it's the only thing that makes sense. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In fact, the Communists - for the first time allowed citizens to declare their nationality as Montenegrin - by introducing the category, which is more important. If it stands like the previous user wants it to stand, then we must add a sentence stipulating that the "Serbian ruling dynasties in the pre World War II Yugoslavia banned Montenegrin citizens from declaring their nationality as 'Montenegrin'" This is as true as the Communist quirp, as the Montenegrin option was obviously not allowed before World War II. |
|
|
|
|
|
: By saying that Yugoslavia banned Montenegrins from declaring their nationality, you assume that there were any who wished to do so. In 1909 the Principality of Montenegro conducted a census on its own. How many Montenegrins did the census record? ] 06:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: You yourself have pointed out the tight linkage between the political realities in the country and the format and rules of the census. It is well known that King Nicholas I of Montenegro aspired to the joint throne that would unite Belgrade and Cetinje, and he put all his efforts behind a policy of shamelessly promoting himself and his dynasty as the best unifying dynasty/ruler for a joint state of Serbia and Montenegro. In this scenario, which was the political reality of Montenegro in 1909, it is not surprising to me that King Nicholas I wanted to promote the fact that Montenegro was the "defender" of Serbdom and the Sparta of the Balkans. Of course, that a census with only a "Serb" option was usecd as there was 0.00% of Montenegrins. But as history has showed, this census never was repeated - not even in the fully free and democratic (non-communist) Montenegro of 2002. |
|
|
:: - user 17:30, 05 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Yes, Nikola did aspired to the joint throne, and he did put his effort behind such a policy, and promoted the fact - and nothing of this shows that "Montenegrin" option was needed at all. And, by the way, Montenegro of 2002 is not at all free, democratic and non-Communist. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The sentence "The validity of the referendum was not confirmed by international observers as the allegedly free and democratic vote, in fact took place during wartime in the former Yugoslavia." is true. So I leave it. Of course, I agree to change "international" into "OSCE, EU and US" - as the referendum may have had international monitoring from Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Byelorussia, and Russia. |
|
|
- user 20:28, 04 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
: I don't know whether it is true, but it surely is irrelevant. The validity of the referendum has never been questioned - by OSCE, EU or US. |
|
|
|
|
|
: By the way, these Communist censa which you are talking about above - did they have international observers too? ] 06:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Of course it is relevant. Poll, elections and referendums in conducted during wartime under undemocratic conditions of media control are always of very questionable legitimacy. You don't even need foreign observers to question this. It's just plain sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: The war was not actually fought in Montenegro, and turnout and result were so high that legitimacy of this census is unquestionable, and no one has actually questioned it. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: By the way, the population censuses are different from the elections and polls as regards international monitors. However, I concede the point that the censuses in post-WW II Yugoslavia probably had no more true legitimacy than the 1909 census in the old autocratic Montenegro. Things have changed, fortunately to the better. (P.S. you forgot to react to the church-related changes - see above!) |
|
|
:: - user 17:30, 05 Oct 2005 (UTC). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I have never said that "the censuses in post-WW II Yugoslavia probably had no more true legitimacy than the 1909 census in the old autocratic Montenegro". Putting words in your opponents' mouth is a telltale sign of ]. ] 20:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
Note that recent edit by 70.131.167.113 is copyvio of . ] 13:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::What is the status on the 2006 referendum on independence? Is it still 2006 or has it been moved to a later date. The article should reflect whatever the lastest news is. ] 05:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Kind of state== |
|
|
The introductory paragraph says: |
|
|
:It is a democratic, social, and ecological state. |
|
|
"Democratic" I suppose refers to the form of government; I think it would be better to be more precise, e.g. a ]. "Social" is unclear. Does this mean that it is currently governed by a party that calls itself "socialist"? Does it mean that it has social programs? And what does "ecological" mean here? That is a mystery. --] 19:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For "democratic" you are right. "Social" means that it has social programs and take care about the citizens that are not able to take care to about themselves. "Ecological" means that its environment is quite preserved and that its regulation protects such environment from future damages. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I have no particular problems with "democratic state". "Social state" is quite unheard of (by me); ] is better, if that's what is meant. As for "ecological", I would prefer the precise explanation given here over a simple "ecological state", which is also quite unheard of (by me). -- ] 17:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::These terms are used in the very constitution of Montenegro . I agree they're pretentious, and it should be noted that these terms are defined there, and should not be taken per se. Also, welfare is a better term indeed. by I'll edit the article to reflect that. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== IOC / UN Code == |
|
|
|
|
|
I know Serbia and Montenegro is currenct SCG...but is there an existing or planned code for Montenegro? Would it be CGR..? Or is this just idle speculation? ] | ] 17:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Totally idle speculation at this point, but I have to confess to doing some checking on my own. To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been set or reserved. There are a fair number of available three-letter options that compress either Montenegro or Crna Gora. Two-letter options (for things like a ]) are where there are real problems. "ME" is the only combination of "M" with a letter from "ontenegro" that is available, while there are no available combinations of "C" and something from "rna Gora". ] 19:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wikipedian Vote for Montenegrin Independence == |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a vote on Misplaced Pages to see whether Wikipedians believe Montenegro should be independent or not. The vote can be accessed at ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Misplaced Pages is not a polling organization. This is inappropriate. --] 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== demographics == |
|
|
|
|
|
there's something wrong with the statistics. Aren't bosniaks the same as muslims ? |
|
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
