Talk:Oj, svijetla majska zoro

Why do we think that it is the "future national anthem"? That should be documented in the article. Andris 10:43, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I am drawing the disputes to here. The Controversy section needs to be re-worked. It's highly NPOV and it talks of a de facto annexation of Montenegro, which is not quitte the truth. HolyRomanEmperor 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole article is NPOV (I put the tag), but it is not fair to delete it. Try to improve the section. Emir Arven 17:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Then, why you keep on reverting the Controversy section as-is? It's... (restraining myself... ) highly POV-ed. It's better not to have it than to have it in this form. I'll try to work on it tomorrow, but do you and Nikola have better things to do than revert each other's edits? Duja 20:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

On the second look, I don't see anything better than deleting it. It contains no verifiable information whatsoever -- lyrics have been altered many times in order to make the case of an alleged Serbian heritage of Montenegrins. -- by whom? where? how? -- various forms ... can be found in Serbian press reports and propaganda material, and on the world wide web as well -- please cite one? having been discredited as forgeries, these attempts are widely regarded by both eminent historians and the general public -- by whom? where? -- fiercely independent -- when were they "fiercely independent" except in last 10 years?

It is possible (and even likely) that forgeries have existed but please offer some proofs. What we have here looks like speculation . Duja 20:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Historia magistra vitae est

So, all you have to do is to present history on the objective way. If the original text was mentioning Serbs, Kosovo and so on, why to vanish the truth? Why you do as talibans with blowing up Budda's statues? You can't hide the truth and broke the strong link Montenegro has with Serbs, Serbdom and so on. Represent it the way it should be. Thanks :)91.150.115.244 (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I have original Drljevic's Lyrics, as well as popular lyrics in Montenegro prior to adoption of the hymn. Do you think they would strangle the article? Nikola 12:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

start all discussions here HolyRomanEmperor 21:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If they're significantly different from the current version, I don't think they would. The article is IMO now killed by "Really sung version" -- why repeat the whole text just to state that most verses are repeated? I'm contemplating removing it, leaving only the sentence about it. Duja 10:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Here they are:

A popular version[1]:

Oj svijetla majska zoro,
Majko naša Crna Goro,
Sinovi smo tvog stijenja
I čuvari tvog poštenja.

Lovćen nam je oltar sveti,
U njega smo svi zakleti.
Na Lovćenu NJegoš spava
Najmudrija srpska glava.

Lovćen krase Petrovići
A Kosovo Obilići.
Lovćen krasi grob NJegošev
A Kosovo grob Milošev.

Durmitore je l’ ti žao
Što se Lovćen opjevao?
-Ne, neka ga, nek’ se pjeva
Zasluga je NJegoševa.

Drljevic's text[2]:

VJEČNA NAŠA CRNA GORO 

Vječna naša Crna Goro,
Tvoj Lovćen je car Jadrana,
Ka seljaka tvojih djela,
Kad su čija opjevana? 

Volimo vas, brda tvrda,
I stravične vaše klance
Koji nikad ne poznaše
Sramotnoga ropstva lance. 

Lovćen nam je oltar sveti,
Vazda smo mu vjerni bili,
U njega smo vjerovali
I njime se ponosili. 

Otkada je Badnje Veče
Našu vjeru očistilo,
Među nama, seljacima,
Nevjernika nije bilo. 

Dok lovćenskoj našoj misli
Naša sloga daje krila,
Bit će gorda, bit će slavna
Domovina naša mila. 

Slobode će čuvar biti
Naša brda, naše gore,
Dokle zemlju sunce grije
I dokle se ljudi bore. 

Rijeka će naših vala,
Uskačući u dva mora,
Glas nositi oceanu,
Da je vječna Crna Gora. 

The centaur[3]:

Bože pravde, ti što spase
od propasti dosad nas,
čuj i odsad naše glase
i odsad nam budi spas.

Oj, svijetla majska zoro,
Majko naša Crna Goro,
Sinovi smo tvog stijenja i
Čuvari tvog poštenja.

Moćnom rukom brani, vodi
Kroz oluje srpski brod,
Bože spasi, Bože hrani,
Moli ti se sav naš rod.

Dok lovćenskoj našoj misli
Naša sloga daje krila,
Bit' će gorda, bit' će slavna
Domovina naša mila.

By the way, we'll have to make articles on older Montenegro hymns... Nikola 21:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Did it. Nikola 05:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

So we have Onamo, 'namo!, Ubavoj nam Crnoj Gori and this one (Oj, svijetla majska zoro). But the last has three versions. Could anyone explain it a bit? --HolyRomanEmperor 01:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Why May?

Why is the month of May mentioned in the opening line? The rest of the lyrics don't really make it clear.

The fact that Montenegro's independence vote took place in May 2006 is no doubt a coincidence. :) --Jfruh (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We might never know, but likely because it's generally considered the most beatiful month; "Oh bright down of February" certainly wouldn't carry the message :-). Duja 15:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's possible that it is a reference to an important date in the history of Montenegro, but I can't find anything. Nikola 11:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms

[[4]]Stefke (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Music?

Anyone has the proposed music for the mix of this anthem with Boze pravde, that was supposed to be the anthem of S&M? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Try discussing the issue instead of just switching the two versions of article sback and forth. That's what talk pages are for. Sideshow Bob 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on Rave92's talk page, I don't think we can say that the song is written in Montenegrin, when it was written in 1863, and the term "Montenegrin language" is only introduced at the end of 20th century. Nikola (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate more discussion here, less on individuals talk pages, and rather less reverting. And so would we all, I'm sure William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthem is written in Montenegrin language. At least the current and official one. Rave92 (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Anthem is written in Serbian language. All versions of the anthem are written before Montenegrin became official, and in any way having some language as official doesn't mean that anything written in that country becomes written in that language. In addition, they are apparently going to make Montenegrin standard out of Zeta dialect, but the anthem is written in Eastern Herzegovina dialect. Nikola (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Standard will be similiar to current one. Probably just with addition of letters that are used in Montenegro, and don't have letters. In what language is Lijepa nasa written then? Those anthem were written in Montenegro. The language they use is now called Montenegrin. Rave92 (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a crystal ball, so we can't tell. However, what we can tell, is that when the last version of the anthem is written, the standard language in Montenegro was Serbian, and when the first version of the anthem was written, Montenegrins called their language Serbian. Nikola (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

For the benefit of those watching, and perhaps even for you too, could we perhaps attempt to understand what language it was written in? I see "Anthem is written in Serbian language" and "Anthem is written in Montenegrin language" (ditto). Are the two languages really so similar that its not possible to tell objectively which of these two statements is correct? Also, you both said "is"; I'm assuming thats a tense error, and the intent was to say "was"; but do correct me if I'm wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If standard Montenegrin is ever made, it will be so similar to standard Serbian that differences between the two in this poem will amount to a single word; or, it may be even more similar, in which case there will be no differences whatsoever. Nikola (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Not big difference but here: Rijeka će naših vala, Uskačući u dva mora, Glas nositi okeanu, Da je vječna Crna Gora.

That's Montenegrin, here is Serbian: REKA će naših vala, Uskačući u dva mora, Glas nositi okeanu, Da je VEČNA Crna Gora.

Not a lot, but still anthem of Montenegro is written in first part, which is Montenegrin

Rave92 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian language recognises both ijekavian and ekavian as equal variants. You may read more at Differences between standard Croatian, Serbian and Bosnian#Morphology. Nikola (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand you. R is asserting that Rijeka for REKA and vječna for VECNA characterises M over S. Are you asserting that Rijeka and vječna are valid and common in S too? I'm afraid that "ijekavian and ekavian" doesn't seem relevant - perhaps its a declension thing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, rijeka and vječna are valid and common in Serbian too. Once upon the time, these words were pronounced and written with sound called yat, which was probably similar to English schwa, as rěka and věčna. In some Serbian dialects this sound changed into e, so these words became reka and večna, and these dialects are called ekavian. In other, it changed into je or ije (depending on the accent of the original yat, more or less), so these words became rijeka and vječna, and these dialects are called ijekavian. Both dialects are valid and common, for example much how English Wikipedia has policy about preserving British or American spelling of an article, Serbian Wikipedia has policy about preserving ijekavian and ekavian. In fact, historically ijekavian dialect was more prominent, since standardizer of Serbian language Vuk Karadžić (who, incidentally, was from Montenegro) spoke ijekavian. However eventually ekavian became more prominent because it is spoken in the region around the capital of Serbia Belgrade. Nikola (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but song is indeed written in Montenegrin language. We can go in long discussion here if Montenegrin existed before 20th century ( and it did) and song is written on it. Especially current version of anthem. --213.133.4.146 (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The simple assertion is useless; and its been made before. Don't comment unless you have something to add William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Um...? It used to be dialects (Serbian also), but now they are languages as Serbo-Croatian doesn't exist anymore. Vječna-Montenegrin, Večna-Serbian. In Montenegro is official Montenegrin, not Serbian dialect. Why Wikipedia keeps discriminating Montenegro and Montenegrins? First is when you don't allow Wikipedia in our language (even though even SH has own wikipedia even though it isn't official language anywhere), then this? Rave92 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC

This isn't the place to complain about not having your own wiki. To the substance: NS says Yes, rijeka and vječna are valid and common in Serbian too - do you dispute this? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and explain what the issue is here. In 19th century, when the song was written, this was considered a variant of Serbian language(because only Serbian and Croatian were official at the time, Montenegrin and Bosnian being defined much later, although all four languages are variants of the so-called Serbo-Croatian, but are being called different names for mostly political reasons). However, at this time, this language is called Montenegrin, and it is official in Montenegro, although its differences from the other 3 are minimal. Serbian language does recognise a ijekavian variant, although it is used more by Serbs in Bosnia and Montenegro, while Serbians predominantly speak ekavian. So, the dispute here is more political than linguistical, hence such a fierce edit war. Sideshow Bob 10:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said. It may be added that the language variant in which the song was written, was at that time the standard Serbian. I won't deny the democratic right of a part of Montenegrin population who declare that the name of their language is Montenegrin. But since the name of the official language in Montenegro has been changed from Serbian into Montenegrin, some have obviously jumped into conclusion that anything that has ever been written in Montenegro in the ijekavian Serbian, can now be said to have been written in Montenegrin. We should ask ourselves here, do we want only facts on Wikipedia, or should we allow this or that group's political aspirations (justifiable or not) to be promoted on Wikipedia. Maybe beside stating the fact that the song was written in Serbian, it can be added somewhere in the article that a part of Mont. population name that language as Montenegrin, or something like that. VVVladimir (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. In 19th century, this was not merely considered a variant of Serbian language, this simply was Serbian language. Serbian is not a variant of Serbo-Croatian, it is rather the other way around. And at this time this language is called Serbian too. Most of population of Montenegro and most of Montenegrins call their language Serbian. Nikola (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not complaining, I am saying the fact that Wikipedia does to our people. But never mind that, does it matter that Serbian have ijekavian or not? It is Montenegrin language. Don't see the problem. If Serbian can have their article written Serbian:, Croatian:, Bosnian, why can't we? It is the same language, but it looks like only Montenegrins can't have their language called by their name. Wikipedia is discriminating Montenegrin language, and it shows it very often, one of examples is this discussion. Rave92 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed it does matter. You asserted that you could tell it was in a certain language by the choice of words used. Other editors have said that is not correct: the two langauges are so close that from the text alone, it could be in either langauge. You have not disputed that, so I am inclined to regard your original assertion as wrong. So, we abandon the idea that we can tell from the text, and we need to consider the context. In that case, I could see two possible questions: is it *currently* written in Montenegrin, and was it *originally* written in Montenegrin. NS said above I don't think we can say that the song is written in Montenegrin, when it was written in 1863, and the term "Montenegrin language" is only introduced at the end of 20th century, but this is slightly beside the point, since the article doesn't actually use any tense: we seem to be arguing over the headers. Since no-one seems to be disputing is the official state anthem of Montenegro. Before becoming the anthem, it was a popular folk song of Montenegrins, with many variations. It was a Montenegrin folk song until World War II when Sekula Drljević proclaimed it for anthem of a Montenegrin it would seem to me most natural to use M for the header also William M. Connolley (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But Montenegrins called their language Serbian during the period in question (when it was written, while it was a popular folk song, when it became the anthem). Nikola (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats terribly relevant. Nowhere does the article discuss what the langauge was called when the song was written William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. Why do we have that header above the song and what does that header above the song actually means? Nikola (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are very good questions. Perhaps you should try to answer them before reverting the text any more? If you don't know what it means, what basis have you for changing it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not changing the text, it said "Serbian" for years before Rave92 changed it. Nikola (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You are most certainly reverting it, as I said [5]. Your question above appeared to indicate that you don't know what the header you've been reverting actually means. Your reply seems to indicate that your motive for the Serbian version was that its said that for years. This is one argument, but its hardly conclusive William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, you said:

If you don't know what [the text] means, what basis have you for changing it?

So, I am not changing it, I am keeping it the same.

Of course, it was a rhetorical question. The header tells our readers the language of the text below it. Or perhaps you would disagree? Nikola (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

But what do you mean by the language of the text below it? What the language was, when written? How it may be read, now? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Either? If you would just show the song to a random person who knows the language s/he would most likely tell you that it is in Serbian language. This includes a random person in Montenegro or a random Montenegrin person. Nikola (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that it is written in Montenegrin (because it is the official language currently), and to say that the "folk version" mentioned below is in Serbian, because that is supposedly the old version which is obviously in Serbian(as you can tell from the lyrics, which are also a bit disputable, because that is just one of the versions, but lets not go offtopic). So, my proposal is: The current version is in Montenegrin, the "traditional" one is in Serbian. Sideshow Bob 00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that would not be fair to say because it is not written in Montenegrin. Neither the current version nor the traditional one nor the original one. Nikola (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am just trying to reach some sort of compromise here... Sideshow Bob 22:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a rotten compromise. What principles are behind it?Nikola (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Um... Common sense maybe? If everyone keeps on pushing their POV we are not going to get anywhere in this discussion, but just keep on arguing between Montenegrin and Serbian, without anyone reliable enough to arbitrate between the two sides. And it would be logical that an anthem of a particular country would be written in its own official language, despite the fact how it had been called back when it was written. Sideshow Bob 12:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be logical, but it simply isn't. Nikola (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, if needed. If a single word, or even a single letter in the song was changed when Montenegrin was introduced as the official language of Montenegro, OK, I could swallow it however stupid it may be; but to claim that language of a text is changed while the text remains completely unchanged, well, that just defies logic. Nikola (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(un)locked again

So, I had to block 2 people for edit warring, and the article got protected for a week. I've unprotected it, but... anyone reverting it without providing a very good justification on talk will be blocked (and "the other side are evil stinking nationalists" will not be regarded as good; neither will "this is correct", neither will "see talk above"). And regardless of justification, everyone is on WP:1RR for this article William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, ok, Montenegrin official language in Montenegro. Other languages are official in municipalities where are those people majority. Rave92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

All versions of the song were made before it was proclaimed that Montenegrin is the official language in Montenegro. Hence, they are not written in it. As VVVladimir said, if Montenegrin language is standardized, and if a variation of the song is written in the standard, there will be no dispute about its language. Nikola (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But that is what we know today as Montenegrin. Why you don't edit Croatian articles? They are also written in "Serbian". Rave92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC).

No, it is not. I don't know it today as Montenegrin, and I doubt you do either. And in any way, this song was not written today.

I don't understand your remark about Croatian articles. If you want to say that they are correct, why would I change them? If you want to say that they are wrong, why should then this article be wrong too? Nikola (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand you either. I don't think their anthem was written 15 years ago? Or any

No, but I don't think Croatian standard was made 15 years ago? Do you know of any article about a Croatian song that is in similar situation, that is, made at the time when everyone in Croatia spoke Serbian? Nikola (talk)

article regarding Croatia, guess what, no Serb language. Now tell me what's so different from Serbian that you can't edit there? Because you have no guts to do it, and go to Montenegrin articles and start edit wars. AND YES IT IS, WHAT WE KNOW OF MONTENEGRIN LANGUAGE. I think I better know than you who live in Serbia, which language is spoken in my country. Rave92 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you do not. Nikola (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I do :). Rave92 (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nikola, In 1863 (or whatever), when the allegedly original song was written there was no declared official language within Montenegro, so your claim does not hold up. Furthermore, in 1937, when the Drljevic version was written, the status of the Language's name was quite ambigious. Considering Drljevic published his anthem in 1944 in Zagreb in the Croatian language, you can say the anthem is in the Croatian language then?

William, the basic fact that is needed to be understood here, is that neither a seperate Serbian language nor Montenegrin language exist on a bare-linguistical level. Perhaps they once did in the distant past, but today both are from a linguistical standpoint mere dialects of a greater Western-Balkan Slavic language.

Thus I propose that the language be put as Montenegrin, simply due to the fact that it has constitutional validity and that this Anthem is also included in this constitution. I would recommend deleting these "folk" versions, most of which cannot be historically cited, and only offer the possibility of future edit-wars or arguments. 72.211.205.232 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

"I did. According to Article 13, the official languages are Montenegrin, as well as Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian."

No, official language is Montenegrin, those language is mentioned as language in use in the country. It can be used in where it is minority.

"That is also not true. I have nowhere removed "Montenegrin" or replaced it with "Serbian" - the only act on my part had included addition of "Serbian" next to "Montenegrin", in order to make the article more neutral.

Yes, the reader will indeed, especially because the controversial background of the current Montenegrin national anthem is an ongoing and hot topic. The article as was, was actually far too short and lacked crucial information. I do think the reader will be especially interested in the controversies regarding Drljevic, or the other versions of this popular folk song, but it is neither on me or you to judge what others would be interested in or not, nor should the article be modeled as such.

The Law on National Symbols passed in 2004, was not written in Montenegrin, but in Serbian.

"

How is that making article more neutral? If I add Montenegrin to "Boze Pravde" will it be more neutral? No.

No, reader won't, because anthem can't be controversial. Every anthem on English Wikipedia is edited like that to be as short as it can to show a bit of history, not what some politician said about it. It is not hot topic, just a election tricks. Do we need to edit it every time politicians mention this? How you can add current information about anthem. It is not article about economy of some country that you need to update it like that. "The Law on National Symbols" was written in Montenegrin.

ALSO, do not add anything until we reach here consensus, you can't say you are right and accusing others they are not, and giving your self right to decide over that question.

Rave92^(talk) 17:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment on this, but I honestly have no idea what to say. Looking at the current article version, the differences between Montenegrin and Croatian version of the respective stanzas is in one letter, if I counted correctly. Talk:Hey, Slavs has enjoyed similarly glorious waste of space (and time on editors' part discussing which all "languages" we should use, and when did particular languages "begin"). You probably already know my stance on this whole matter, so I won't repeat it. Have fun ;) --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I invited you because I wanted this to be as neutral as it can, but anyway thanks for contribution. Rave92^(talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you convince me that there is an ongoing dispute whether Serbian (still never fully standardized) is a separate language, or just a dialect of the Montenegrin language (ESPECIALY if the common opinion is that it's a Montenegrin dialect, and even more if both Montenegrin and Serbian are official languages in Serbia), then YES, adding "Montenegrin" to the Boze pravde article should make it more neutral.

A fact that it's NOT something just political rests in the fact that experts also dispute the anthem, and that this ongoing controversy has lasted for over 5 years. I think that my changes positively reflect over 15 years of arguing about this national song, especially the last much-heated 5 while it is the country's official anthem - so no, this doesn't rest exclusively in "election tricks". While comparing to other national anthems, could you please direct me to any other country in which there is so much discussion and where the anthem is so much dispute, with opinions highly divided, like Montenegro?

Regarding your claims on the Law in referral, the answer is NEGATIVE. When the law was drafted, official language was SERBIAN and it was written in Serbian and was written in the Serbian standard. Montenegrin is currently under the process of standardization, so I guess when it is finished, there is possibility of translation to Montenegrin (and other of Montenegro's official languages - Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian, all of which are unlike Montenegrin fully standardized), just like there has been a lot of argument that the Constitution of Montenegro is available only in its Serbian edition, and still not in the Montenegrin (impending the standardization).

If you find the article disputed, put a tag or something and write down what's disputed here, because I dont sea anything you dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNEFORGER (talk • contribs) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's start. I am glad you are FINALY taking part in the thing called "discussion". We can discuss all what you want to add, and if we can't agree, admins can join and decide by looking at our arguments. Now to answer your arguments.

"If you convince me that there is an ongoing dispute whether Serbian (still never fully standardized) is a separate language, or just a dialect of the Montenegrin language (ESPECIALY if the common opinion is that it's a Montenegrin dialect, and even more if both Montenegrin and Serbian are official languages in Serbia), then YES, adding "Montenegrin" to the Boze pravde article should make it more neutral."

There isn't ongoing dispute. Montenegrin language is language for those who think so, and isn't for those who also think Bosnian and Croatian are not languages. Nothing new there. Second mistake is that you say they are both official languages of country. Wrong! Official language of Montenegro is Montenegrin, while others are languages in use which means they are can/are used where that ethnicity is major. If "languages in use" would have the same status, then government web sites and others should add all of those languages on their web sites, documents etc... like you have on Bosnian ones.

":A fact that it's NOT something just political rests in the fact that experts also dispute the anthem, and that this ongoing controversy has lasted for over 5 years. I think that my changes positively reflect over 15 years of arguing about this national song, especially the last much-heated 5 while it is the country's official anthem - so no, this doesn't rest exclusively in "election tricks". While comparing to other national anthems, could you please direct me to any other country in which there is so much discussion and where the anthem is so much dispute, with opinions highly divided, like Montenegro?"

In Montenegrin everything is in dispute coming from the same people and politics party which are pro-Serbian. Anthem wasn't really dispute for 5 years, but just the things that are mentioned before elections, and you can check it. 55%+ who voted for independence sang it on 21 May, and that's legitimate majority (even though I think it's number is a lot higher now). Let's say it's a dispute, there is no need to go for details what what politicians said etc... all that can be said at the end of introduction that is controversy.

":Regarding your claims on the Law in referral, the answer is NEGATIVE. When the law was drafted, official language was SERBIAN and it was written in Serbian and was written in the Serbian standard. Montenegrin is currently under the process of standardization, so I guess when it is finished, there is possibility of translation to Montenegrin (and other of Montenegro's official languages - Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian, all of which are unlike Montenegrin fully standardized), just like there has been a lot of argument that the Constitution of Montenegro is available only in its Serbian edition, and still not in the Montenegrin (impending the standardization).

If you find the article disputed, put a tag or something and write down what's disputed here, because I dont sea anything you dispute. "

Montenegrin doesn't start to exist from 2007. It just got the right name. We weren't talking with rocks before 2007 you know :P. It's like saying all laws in 1980 were written in SH, even though everyone in Serbia would say you it's written in Serbian. It's just different name. All you want to to add to Montenegrin can be used on your Serbian language with Serbo-Croatian, and you should get familiar more with history of Montenegrin language.

"just like there has been a lot of argument that the Constitution of Montenegro is available only in its Serbian edition, and still not in the Montenegrin (impending the standardization). "

Um.. no, constitution is written in Montenegrin language.

Rave92^(talk) 20:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. There is no ISO code (it's, rather, referred to Serbian), Montenegrin is still during the process of standardization and there is no wide undisputed consensus that Montenegrin is a separate language in order to implement it; in most cases, it is rather considered a dialect of Serbian (or in some cases, even of Serbo-Croatian) - precisely as the proponents of a separate Montenegrin language have been pointing out, that they should lobby more in order to receive recognition abroad. AFAIK, this is a problem more, since there is no consensus among literary experts in Montenegro itself, with linguists divided on the issue, as well as the people, among which some consider that there is Montenegrin, and others that it is just Serbian. The status of Montenegrin cannot be in any way compared to Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, I think that's obvious to everyone. I am not saying it wont be able to, but it cannot right now, and Ive read that Wiki shouldnt be a crystal boll.

Of course it is disputed, if it is rejected to be heard in parts of the country, and if changes are announced (and have already been implemented). This has got little to do with political rhetoric, let alone having to do ANYTHING with the 2006 independence referendum. Are you saying that the President of Montenegro and that the ruling party (DPS) are "pro-Serbian"? Change of the anthem has actually already been implemented and you think that that shouldnt be mentioned in the article?

All laws in Montenegro were written in Serbo-Croatian from 1954 to 1993 (not 198), of course that is what I am saying.

The Law on national symbols and the Constitution of Montenegro do not have the new Montenegrin characters. It's completely different if languages have different standards and scripts. The law was written in Serbian Cyrillic script, while the Serbian language was the ONLY official and all documents written in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MNEFORGER (talk • contribs) 01:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

":That is not correct. There is no ISO code (it's, rather, referred to Serbian), Montenegrin is still during the process of standardization and there is no wide undisputed consensus that Montenegrin is a separate language in order to implement it; in most cases, it is rather considered a dialect of Serbian (or in some cases, even of Serbo-Croatian) - precisely as the proponents of a separate Montenegrin language have been pointing out, that they should lobby more in order to receive recognition abroad. AFAIK, this is a problem more, since there is no consensus among literary experts in Montenegro itself, with linguists divided on the issue, as well as the people, among which some consider that there is Montenegrin, and others that it is just Serbian. The status of Montenegrin cannot be in any way compared to Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian, I think that's obvious to everyone. I am not saying it wont be able to, but it cannot right now, and Ive read that Wiki shouldnt be a crystal boll. "

Um.. no? It is not refereed as Serbian. It uses some (not all) ISO code same as Serbian because it didn't get it own code. ISO code doesn't mean that language is in the phase of standardisation. It gots standard, ISO is burecracy thing which will hopefully be done soon. No mate, your statment that it can't be compared to Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian just shows you have no credit to talk here, as you are going against Constituion, and something that is well accepted on Wikipedia. I think that this even can be called fascism, but that's the totally other debate. You might and might not accept that language, but here we must use Constituion of the country over someones opinion on Wikipedia.

":Of course it is disputed, if it is rejected to be heard in parts of the country, and if changes are announced (and have already been implemented). This has got little to do with political rhetoric, let alone having to do ANYTHING with the 2006 independence referendum. Are you saying that the President of Montenegro and that the ruling party (DPS) are "pro-Serbian"? Change of the anthem has actually already been implemented and you think that that shouldnt be mentioned in the article?"

Because some parties reject to hear it doesn't mean it is reject by municipalities. It is performed everywhere in the country during the municipality day. There was incident in Bijelo Polje, and that is sole case. Actually, President is known as more of pro-Serbian part of DPS, and was citisied for his moves. I don't wanna go into politics so much, but since we are mentioning it, here is one interesting article for you: http://www.cafemontenegro.com/index.php?group=23&news=119370

So that incidents won't happen anymore even in Parliament.

":All laws in Montenegro were written in Serbo-Croatian from 1954 to 1993 (not 198), of course that is what I am saying.

The Law on national symbols and the Constitution of Montenegro do not have the new Montenegrin characters. It's completely different if languages have different standards and scripts. The law was written in Serbian Cyrillic script, while the Serbian language was the ONLY official and all documents written in it. "

Hah, well you can say it was written in Serbo-Croatian, but Serbs don't seem to say it like that. They say it is written in Serbian. Montenegrins say all taht is written in Montenegro, is Montenegrin, as it is just standard and name. You use double standards for Serbian and Montenegrin. So what if it doesn't have Montenegrin characters? It is allowed in both ways (for e.g. sjutra and śutra) so that arguments is not valid.

DOCUMENTS WERE WRITTEN IN MONTENEGRIN.

Also don't add anything we don't agree (I mean on text and language) on the article. I will contact Admin to see is it normal to have so much politics involved on anthem article. Rave92^(talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Protected again

I have protected this article for a week because of ongoing edit wars. This does not necessarily endorse the current version of the page. Please discuss this here rather than edit warring. J Milburn (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)