Talk:Marko Miljanov

message: Are approximately 600 more like these, but I'm going to finish my statement with a convincing one:
: Код свега овога што реко(х) и што би још има оваквога рећ, осуђивао сам себе и тебе с млогијема - да ми Срби нећемо умјет вјерни бити ни послужит како треба господара ни отаџбину, зашто смо више ми тога дужни но други. --PaxEquilibrium 14:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There... 

message: It is not controversial whether he could be referred to as a Serb, but Montenegrin, rather. He was not a Montenegrin, of Montenegrin clans - but a Highlander (the Kuchi were/are a Highland clan). The (political?) concept which would make him Montenegrin (born and lived inside the Montenegrin state) fails here. He himself never truly naturalized as a Montenegrin, and referred to Montenegro as just one of the Serb lands which are potentially able to free his people. --PaxEquilibrium 14:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Otherwise 

message: Editing doesn’t mean just erasing all the facts that you don’t like! That’s sheer vandalism. Use the discussion page to send info that you consider can be proven as true. 
Just a small explanation about what I’ve changed back (except for returning the paragraphs that Momisan didn’t like):
1. From all the quotes that are given in the article and above it is more than clear that Miljanov can’t be a Montenegrin Serb since the article on Montenegrins states them as an ethnicity.  “Montenegrin Serb” is far more confusing than simply saying “Serb from Montenegro”.
2. Take a peak at the same quotes and you will see that none of Miljanov’s books can be labeled as “Montenegrin literature” since such term was unknown until a few years ago. Miljanov wrote to all Serbs and (as he says it himself) in Serbian language. The only literature except the Serbian one to which he belongs is the Serbo-Croatian one, since all the people in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia speak the same language and that language is certainly not Montenegrin!!! --Dultz 01:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can play with labelling as much as you like, however, "if something acts like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck...", you can call it a horse as much as you like! Marko wrote, spoke, and acted as a true Montenegrin, his language is Montenegrin vernacular. All literary works written in the Montenegrin vernacular ( or Zeta dialect, if you prefer) belong to the Montenegrin literature regardless of the nationality of the writer. Ivan Mazuranic is a best example.Momisan 05:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each power and crown has shown a lack of conscience towards Serbs. They pity us of Turkish Tyrany to put us under their own. It looks, walks and even quacks like a duck indeed. Zeta dialect is a dialect of Serbian language, hence works written in it belong to Serbian literature. Nikola 04:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Momisan 

message: :"In his book "Prva Pohara Plemena Kuča" he explains that he uses the term "Serb" as a religious term not an ethnic one, thus proving the fact that Marko was ethnically Montenegrin."
He does nothing of the sort. The actual text (from both sites you have quoted, both of which I consider unreliable), is:
:"Ljulja Palumbov, a Turk from the village of Ledina, Pale Lekin, a Latin from the village of Banjkana, Pupan Dedin, a Serb from Berove" etc
Discarding your forum "source", the other site doesn't offer any analysis of this statement. You are interpreting it as meaning that Serb is merely a religious marker. This is original research, which has no place in WP. That is the reason why I am reverting your edits.
Leaving that aside, using your logic, since Serbs everywhere referred to Muslim converts of Serb origin as Turks, the entire Serbian identity is merely religious and therefore a Serbian ethnicity does not exist! Having made this momentous discovery I suggest you proceed to the article about Serbs and nominate it for deletion :) Being serious, your confusion comes from the fact that Serb identity is heavily rooted in Orthodox Christianity - so much so that the vast majority of converts during the Ottoman period to Islam or in the west to Catholocism adopted another ethnicity, partly because by the very act of switching religion they rejected a central part of the Serbian identity, and partly as the majority of Serbs who remained Orthodox viewed them as non-Serbs. This lead to the shorthand of Serb meaning an Orthodox Serb, while generally excluding converts (Islamic, say) of Serb origin who would be referred to, and would often consider themselves, (in this case) as Turks, despite being ethnically Serb. Was the Turkish identity merely Islamic? Of course not, but that was a large part of it ;) I hope you see now that you've mixed up two very closely related but different things :) --Methodius 10:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got any proof of that theory (so that it's not WP:OR)? Because a lot of them back then (even Miljanov if I recall) called quite a few Muslims and Catholics "Serbs" too. --PaxEquilibrium 22:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the anon