Talk:Tribes of Montenegro/Archive 1

message: I propose that this article is renamed to "Bratstvo and Pleme in Montenegro".  This is because the translation of "bratstvo" and "pleme" into "clans" is misleading and does not give any good reference to their contemporary character. 
Different authors have translated "bratstvo" as either 'clan' or 'lineage' and some  - as 'brotherhood'. In English each of these terms have different connotations. 'Lineage' for instance is defined in anthropology as a kin group that can trace its ancestry from a particular person in history and recount all the descendants from that person to the present day (which is not always the case in Montenegro). In addition - lineages are most usually discussed in context of Africa (e.g. in Evans-Pritchard's famous works). 'Clans' are also problematic. On the one hand they are conceptually connected with Scottish highlander system. On the other hand, clans are often used to describe contemporary criminal association and in this context used in contemporary Montenegro (in Serbian form - as 'klanovi') but this kind of usage is not usually connected with the traditional kin groups of 'bratstva' in Montenegro. Brotherhood in turn in English represents usually fictional kinship (as in religious organisations).
Moreover - usage of terms like clan and tribe has been criticised by many authors because it often reflects misleading etnocentric views of 'developed' western researchers to the 'undeveloped' and 'tribal' 'rest'. What has been often described by the same terms in different parts of the world may represent different things in reality.
Renaming also will help avoiding the problem of whether these are Serbian, or Montenegrin or Albanian or indeed ancient Illirian (as several authors have speculated). The system of bratstva in Montenegro is characteristic not only to (orthodox, christian, Serbian/Montenegrin) population but also to Albanians and extends to Albania and Herzegovina.
I also would argue against the classification of bratstva into 'territorial' and 'lineage'. Partly because of the above terminology issues but mostly because this does not have any sense from the point of view of real situation. Each bratstvo can have people who live more closely to each other and some - that live in distant parts of Montenegro and/or abroad. Thus - in fact both are the same and this classification is artificial.
Bezvardis 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Bezvardis.--Dzemper 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the article to "Bratstvo and Pleme in Montenegro" 

message: I am not aware of this. What used to be called Eastern Herzegovina in the 19th century(Banjani, Drobnjaci)is now part of Montenegro. The reference to Herzegovina should be removed. The only reason I can see for its existance is to present Plemena as not exclusively Montenegrin.Momisan 11:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the comment. I corrected the text accordingly. --Bezvardis 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What parts of Herzegovina have Plemena?

message: I have no bad intentions. The current names gives a total of 0 Google search results and violates the basics of English language (and is unsourced - as per WP:NOR). Thereby, I rv back to its original naming. Also, I'm removing the Serbianization of the article (English language please!). --HolyRomanEmperor 09:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, no, no 

message: The Montenegrin Zbor glavara (the collectivity of each and every Head of each and every clan) wrote on 21 October 1711 to the Russian Czar Peter the Great: 
:Ми, сва горе наведена племена и старјешине све разумјесмо и Вашем царском крилу главе приклонисмо, и Вашег посланика, Михаила Милорадовића примисмо за нашег команданта и пуковника. И како су били његови стари изабрани у прва времена при нашијех благочастивијех и светопочившијех царевах српскијех, тако и ми са радостију примисмо врлога и храброга који се на боју добро понаша.
Opsti Crnogorski Zbor (now with the Highland chiefs as well) counciled and wrote in September of 1742 to the Russian Czarina, stating that they're: православно-грчке вјероисповијести, синови Цркве Источне, који се налазимо у српској земљи - Скендерији, Црној Гори и Приморју.
The Zbor Glavara wrote to a Chief in Russia ин 1752, stating that its: у далеким странама српске земље, у предјелу црногорском.
The Crnogorski Zbor wrote to the provider of Kotor, Justinian Bert, on 24 October 1765 that they're: православне вјере христијанске и закона Цркве Восточне, а рода честна и света славеносрпскаго.
The Zbor Glavara announced in June of 1789 that they're of цијеле заједнице Срба Црногораца and wrote to the Russian Empress Catherine II about themselves: ми Срби Црногорци нећемо бити остављени без помоћи and then add: кад бисмо имали организацију и џебану ми бисмо сву нашу славну српску земљу испод ига варварскога отели, с нашом браћом Србима који се сада налазе наоружани с намјером да ударе на непријатеља са свих страна.
The Zbor Glavara wrote in 1792 openly to the Venetian Senate: 
:Ми смо хвалећи Бога цвијет од вјере и од закона православнога грчаскога, језика и славнога јунаштва српскога. 
The Свеопшта народна скупштина Васојевића brought at the end of 1829 or beginning of 1830 the Vasojevici Code in 12 Points:
* 1st point: 1. Да се беспоговорно умире сва братства васојевичка и србљачка. Ко не буде олџија, да буде нагонџија.
* 4th point: 8. 8. Ко српско украде па се уфати, да плати дупло и кметовима ручак. Ако се не уфати, да му је арам.
-- Please try to understand the context that this is written in, this was almost 200 years ago, colloquialisms change after time. This is true for the term "Serb", which in this time was a synonym for Orthodox Christian, and was freely used interchangeably in this manner within Montenegro.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.205.232 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zbor 

message: I would suggest avoiding politics (as much as possible). The reason why I suggested changing the title of this article (see above in this discussion) is that the English term 'clan' does not correspond well with the reality in Montenegro and in different English language sources 'plemena' and 'bratstva' are being inconsistently translated as clans, tribes, lineages, brotherhoods etc. Moreover, they are to a great extent unique and therefore should not be mixed/directly compared with 'clans' in other parts of the world. 
Regarding whether these are 'Serb', 'Montenegrin', 'Albanian', 'Illiric' or whatever - I know that some people can argue to loss of voice regarding this, therefore I suggest to avoid this proprietary approach and simply treat it as a social phenomenon existing in the territory of present-day Montenegro. Moreover - it is strange to have a list of 'Serb clans' with at least two (Piperi and Kuci) which are described as 'Serb/Albanian'. Meaning - plemena are difficult to describe in terms of nationality and better stick to the territory. That does not avoid all problems, but allows to escape unnecessary political debate.
I also previously had removed the 'dispersed ancestral clans' since their definition is unclear. All 'bratstva' today are 'dispersed', i.e., members of bratstva are not all living in one territory but all around Montenegro and indeed - the whole world. Plemena on the other hand are a territorial unit and as such cannot be 'dispersed'. Please correct me if I am not right.
Also - please someone who has better knowledge than me regarding particular plemena/bratstva go over the list of them and try separating bratstva from plemena. I suspect the current list is badly mixed up. I have never heard that there were or are almost 100 plemena in Montenegro (as it is in the current list)
--Bezvardis 08:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please try avoiding politics 

message: Referring to 'serbianisation' of the article, i.e., usage of native terms instead of 'tribe' and 'clan' please read the articles in Wikipedia which define and describe what is 'tribe' and 'clan' and then try comparing them to 'bratstvo' and 'pleme'. You will see that there are some overlaping but also significant diferences as well as drawbacks of these English terms when applied to particular situations. This additionaly explains why the English 'clan' and 'tribe' should be avoided here.  --Bezvardis 09:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on terminology 

message: As far as I understood, there is a lot of controversy regarding the issue if the Drobnjaks are Montenegrins or Herzegovinians. They are considered Herzegovinian, and they geographically are surely in Herzegovina, but as far as I know, they're Old Montenegrins. --PaxEquilibrium 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drobnjaci 

message: I would just ask you to start being objective on issues connected to Montenegro and Montenegrins, and to set your political or other feelings aside when contributing. Serb clans- the title itself is absurd enough, let alone the rest of the article. Try going to Cuce, Njegusi, Rijecka Nahija,Cevo,etc. and tell them their clans were and are Serb, you will get shot... I'm sick of people having no immediate contact or enough knowledge on the issues assuming everything according to their nationalist POV. I don't want to edit this article, because some of you will rv it and substantiate it with a big load of BS as usually. Sideshow Bob 15:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think that the title is absurd, when 99% of the ethnological and historical works about these clans call them Serb clans? If you went to Vasojevići and told them that they were not a Serb clan, I believe you would get shot, too. So that modern politic crap in Montenegro is POV. --Djordje D. Bozovic 16:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me "Djordje", but back up your statements, because 99% of the ethnological and historical works on these clans do not necessarily call them Serb clans. Besides the Serbian ethnologists and historians, usually the term "Montenegrin Clan/Tribe" is used among respectable historians. POV is generalizing and basing your information on a select few scholars who's opinions agree with yours. You and I both know that changing the title of the article to "Montenegrin Clans" would be the fair and non-POV thing to do, because it is being not only historically, but factually/geographically correct. 72.211.205.232 (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop the propaganda

message: I'd like to say that Shkreli, Kelmendi, Kastrati, and half of Hoti are not part of Montenegrin Malsi, but are in Albania.  And I can also say that no Malsor clan claims any Serb origin.  A few families here and there do (one, Bojaj, originally came from Niksic), but not whole clans.  I know Serbs claim that Trieshi, Hoti, and Krasniqi were kin with Vasojevici, but that isn't true.  Hoti descends from one man, Keq Preka, who lived in Bosnia for a little while and then settled in modern day Hot (he named after the original Hoti tribe, which was destroyed in a war with the Balsici and the remnant of which fled into Albania where they still exist today).  I've heard Hoti is the "older brother" of Trieshi, but I don't know if that's true.  As for Krasniqi, they probably got lumped in with Hot and Triesh because a branch of Krasniq is related to a branch of Hot.
All this stuff about Hoti comes from a book called "Hoti Gjenealogjia e Pjeseshme e Tij", which has all the different families of Hoti, there history, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.41.58.183 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malesia/Malsija clans 

message: What are the double articles for? What's the point in having two separate articles on the very same topic with the very same text. I believe this modern-day ethnic Montenegrin name should not be applied to what existed before that name came to be used. You cannot say that medieval Doclea was a Montenegrin kingdom, because there were simply no people who called themselves Montenegrins in the Middle Ages; be honest and admit that :). Same goes for these clans - they were always referred to as Serb clans. They were not even all included in the territory of Montenegro before the 20th century. --Djordje D. Bozovic 16:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's stupid, and I changed it into a redirect. Nikola 07:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Montenegrin clans]] 

message: Let's use the logic here - if our clans are Serb(ian), why aren't there any clans in Serbia itself? If so-called experts can explain this, I'll give up on trying to prove the obvious absurdity of this article's title, and parts of its content... Let me hear from you, what clan is there in Serbia, apart from Zemun clan? Sideshow Bob 20:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once there were clans all over Europe. In the past every people was organized into clans. Later clans and tribes mostly disappeared. Some Serb clans remained in mountainous parts of Montenegro and Herzegovina. In Scotland, clans remained in the Highlands too, but in the Scottish Lowlands there are no clans. Tribes and clans, as a primitive way of uniting, only remained in undeveloped mountainous areas such as Herzegovina and Montenegro, or the Highlands. --George D. Božović 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you forget about the good amount of mountainous areas in Serbia or Bosnia, yet we see no clans there. Your logic fails miserably. 72.211.205.232 (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: If Serb clans exist, please could anybody name to me at least ONE Serb clan in SERBIA.
Name of this article should be "Clans in Montenegro"
:Clans - or tribes - as a primitive way of uniting once existed all over the Balkans. Later they dissolved, but some of them remained in the undeveloped mountainous parts of Montenegro and Old Herzegovina. That's why there are no clans in Serbia anymore, partly also because of the huge migrations towards north and west during the Middle Ages. Serbia, whose population mostly emigrated towards the present-day Vojvodina and Croatia, then was largely settled by people from Montenegro and Herzegovina. They continued to track their ancestry to some of the Serb clans of the old homeland, but being separated from the clan centres, they normally started forgetting it, because in Serbia tribal ancestries didn't matter that much as in Montenegro and Old Herzegovina, where the remaining Serb clans actually were, where they still existed. --George D. Božović 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although your proposal is quite thoughtful, the article is titled "Serb clans" because this is the usual term applied to these clans, or tribes, in the works of scientists that studied and described them (cf. Jovan Cvijić et al.). I believe any other title would be at least a little bit of original research and would not be this accurate, e. g. there are no Serb clans in Montenegro only, but also in Eastern Herzegovina, and even Albania as well, and therefore such titles as "Montenegrin clans" or "Clans in Montenegro" (the first one carrying an ethnic connotation connected to modern Montenegrins, and thus so not appropriate) would be partly incorrect. --George D. Božović 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, or Jovan Erdeljanović. Both him and Jovan Cvijic belonged to clans from Montenegro, by the way. --PaxEquilibrium 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And both were born/raised in Serbia and supported Serbian nationalistic regimes no doubt. Hey, this isn't POV right? Long Live Greater Serbia! 72.211.205.232 (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SERB CLANS? 

message: Can anyone explain why are Drobnjaci put into Highland Tribes? There are (and there is no arguing about that) seven Highland Tribes and that are Vasojevići, Moračani, Rovčani, Bratonožići, Kuči, Piperi and Bjelopavlići. They are even called Seven "Brda". It is pretty straightforward to count to seven so I cannot understand why there are now eight highland tribes... Drobnjaci are from Old Herzegovina and therefore I am removing them from Highland Tribes part. 89.77.106.218 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Highland Tribes and Drobnjaci

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose It is generally preferable to use a recognizable term in English than a more exact term in Serbian. This is the English Wikipedia. A contrast, if any, with the Scottish and the anthropogical senses of clan belongs in the article, probably at least sketchily in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
How about making 2 separate articles: "Serb clans" and "Clans in Montenegro?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.6.235 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Considering that you take up Ćipur, who has been banned from every single forum, and his 100th nick remains still only on Cafe del Montenegro, where he is still tolerated and put up with, I think no explanation is needed. A proven fact is that the term applied for these was "Serb clans", and that, yes, its individuals considered themselves Serbs, in whatever scale (next to Albanians for example). As for the fallacious claim about Serbs forming no clans (?), this was already discussed before. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose It is generally preferable to use a recognizable term in English than a more exact term in Serbian. This is the English Wikipedia. A contrast, if any, with the Scottish and the anthropogical senses of clan belongs in the article, probably at least sketchily in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
How about making 2 separate articles: "Serb clans" and "Clans in Montenegro?"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.222.6.235 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Considering that you take up Ćipur, who has been banned from every single forum, and his 100th nick remains still only on Cafe del Montenegro, where he is still tolerated and put up with, I think no explanation is needed. A proven fact is that the term applied for these was "Serb clans", and that, yes, its individuals considered themselves Serbs, in whatever scale (next to Albanians for example). As for the fallacious claim about Serbs forming no clans (?), this was already discussed before. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have restored this to Serb clans again and move protected it. Please discuss what the name of the article should be and reach consensus over a name rather than keep moving it to different names as you think fit. When agreement has been reached a move request should be made at WP:RM or ask me on my talk page. Thanks Keith D (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: This article should be renamed. Why? Because serb clans don't exist. Only Montenegrin do(or well did).
Only source of information here is ultra serb orientated website. Unfortunatly most of Montenegrin history that is online is on Montenegrin language so can't be used as referance I guess. Even your Jovan Cvijic sad MONTENEGRIN clans... But its known fact that serbs like to change history.. I'm disguasted with these kind of things on wikipedia...
:Yes they did, or every single analyst of them (Jovan Cvijic, Jovan Erdeljanovic, Jovan Vukmanovic, Andrija Jovicevic, Vuk Stefanovic Karadzic, Petar Sobajic, or in more modern times Nikola Vukcevic) throughout the history. It was also their common name. The claim that only the Montenegrins had clans in history is fallacious and simply incorrect.
:If you think that all experts on Montenegrins (Montenegrin and non-Montenegrin) were ultra-serb-orientated, I can't help there. :D
:Jovan Cvijic? Sure he did. When he referred to Old Montenegro (not the other three groups). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The clans documented in the article encompass a geographic area greater than that of present-day Montenegro, especially if you consider migration of clan members to other Serbian regions not organized in clans. So if we look at the naming issue in geographic terms, it would be improper to name the article Montenegrin Clans since they are not geographically Montenegrin. I have no problem with people opting to become "Montenegrins" and not "Serbs" but I must object when in order for people to do so, they must believe in a false history and force others to believe their false construct of reality. PaxEquilibrium, I tip my hat at you for having such a fine common sense approach to these things.XJeanLuc (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If take the time to trace the family origins of all of these "Serb clans" from Hercegovina and/or Northern Albania, you'd find that migrations came from Montenegro no doubt. Thus the name "Montenegrin clans" would be appropriate. But oh wait, you both don't believe in the Montenegrin ethnicity's right to exist! Oops forgot. 72.211.205.232 (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montenegrin Clans 

message: I am a Nedic.  Miomanovici od Vasojevici. Which you would all recognize as a name from Crna Gora, near Bijelo Polje. This was my fathers name. My mother is a Petrovic.  Also a name from Crna Gora of Njegosh. Both of them grew up in Vojvodina, Banat region. Having said that, do any of you think that our fore fathers who lived together, and fought together would have argued this difference?  I highly doubt it!  I consider my self a Serb and a Montenegrin!  Same religion, same language, same food.  Come on my friends, let's really stop this division, it's exactley what our ancestors told us not to do, is it not?  What's next, skin tone, hair color, eye color, foot size, waist size, which yard is greener, who's side of the field is longer!etc... Did not All our blood get spilled in invaders trying to divide us all? I grew up with very old prominant lineage and I also grew up with a healthy sense of pride, but not ethnocentricity!  We are a great people that have produced some of the richest poems, beautiful art, and great thinkers of all time thus far in history!  Does it make any sense now to give in to such hostility towards one another?  I would hope not for the sake of our mothers and fathers of our people! I am just as proud of being a Montenegrin as I am to be a Serb! I pray that you all appreciate what I am trying to say. By the way, many of our people who live in Vojvodina do not think of themselves as a different ethnic group, as well as our people in Kosovo, or from Bosna i Herzegovina.  WE ARE ALL THE SAME, WHATEVER WE CALL OURSELVES!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojislav nedic (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow this is great for you, hurray? 72.211.205.232 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are all the same Serbs and Montenegrins! 

message: I am a Nedic.  Miomanovici od Vasojevici. Which you would all recognize as a name from Crna Gora, near Bijelo Polje. This was my fathers name. My mother is a Petrovic.  Also a name from Crna Gora of Njegosh. Both of them grew up in Vojvodina, Banat region. Having said that, do any of you think that our fore fathers who lived together, and fought together would have argued this difference?  I highly doubt it!  I consider my self a Serb and a Montenegrin!  Same religion, same language, same food.  Come on my friends, let's really stop this division, it's exactley what our ancestors told us not to do, is it not?  What's next, skin tone, hair color, eye color, foot size, waist size, which yard is greener, who's side of the field is longer!etc... Did not All our blood get spilled in invaders trying to divide us all? I grew up with very old prominant lineage and I also grew up with a healthy sense of pride, but not ethnocentricity!  We are a great people that have produced some of the richest poems, beautiful art, and great thinkers of all time thus far in history!  Does it make any sense now to give in to such hostility towards one another?  I would hope not for the sake of our mothers and fathers of our people! I am just as proud of being a Montenegrin as I am to be a Serb! I pray that you all appreciate what I am trying to say. By the way, many of our people who live in Vojvodina do not think of themselves as a different ethnic group, as well as our people in Kosovo, or from Bosna i Herzegovina.  WE ARE ALL THE SAME, WHATEVER WE CALL OURSELVES!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojislav nedic (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are all the same Serbs and Montenegrins! 

message: Whether the members of the clans in question are Serbian or Montenegrin by ethnic identity is completely irrelevant to the name of this article. The clans are always called crnogorska plemena "Montenegrin clans" in BCMSxyz, because that's where the phenomenon exists. Zocky | picture popups 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of this is true. There are tribes outside of old Montenegro. There are also tribes outside of today's Montenegro, f.e. in Herzegovina. The tribes are commonly called "srpska plemena" in Serbian. Nikola (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I still oppose the move. What you wrote is mostly inaccurate, and you haven't added any new info that hasn't been discussed before. Nikola (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with your assessment of the current title, but I don't think that the article should be split.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to Montenegrin clans 

message: It is irrelevant weather the clans predate Montenegro or Montenegrins. Indians predate Americans, yet, we don't use Indian names for American settlements. The clan structure is a characteristic of all Orthodox population of Montenegro, weather Montenegrin or Serb, thus, correct name would be "Clans in Montenegro". This is an encyclopedia, and its articles should be put in a current historical context. You can argue, although on another website, what the clans in Montenegro used to be, but today those are not Serb clans. Nije bitno... (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your assessment of the current title, but I don't think that the article should be split.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The name of the article is misguiding and shameful

message: The Montenegrin ethnicity developed with the fascist propaganda of Sekula Drljevic in the WW2, the nationality was then founded upon that premise by the communist government in an ethnocide of Serbs in 1948' where they were forced to identify with the generic regional term 'Montenegrin', since identifying as 'Serb' would imply monarchist tendencies.
'Ethnic Montenegrin' culture before 1948' is non-existent and so are the ethnic-Montenegrins themselves, since it was a nation-state of the Serbs since the early-middle ages, until 1948' when it shifted to the generic regional term 'Montenegrin' in favour of national-socialist and anti-monarchist tendencies.
In other words one can only speak of ethnic Montenegrin clans, and ethnic Montenegrin culture after 1948'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.248.192 (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Montenegrins''' as an ethnicity exist since 1948'

message: Translates to Brotherhood. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bratstvo 

message: I would suggest Tribes of Old Montenegro, the Hills, Eastern Herzegovina and the Maritime as the best article name, to avoid POV, ambiguity, and thus correctly describe the tribes from the historical and anthropological view.--Zoupan 11:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your rationale because the sorting criteria for tribes is certain territory, not an ethnicity. If the name you proposed is used in the sources on this topic I support the renaming.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally! A worthwhile suggestion after years of debate. --Prevalis (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The current intro paragraph contains multiple issues that need to be corrected:
1) the title of the article is 'Serb Clans' but the paragraph starts referring to tribes. This should not be so
2) the paragraph rather than giving a summary engages into vaguely referenced historical and pseudoanthropological (because there is no source mentioned nor any reference to a source that could be described as anthropological) discussion. 
3) the claim that tribes consist of brotherhoods contradicts the info that is given later - tribes (as plemena) were territorial units, clans (or bratstva) were families that lived in the territory. New ones could arrive and join the plemena and some could leave and join other plemena. Therefore connection was residency.
4) the paragraph claims that the were zadrugas in Montenegro, however, zadruga to my best knowledge is a construction made by social scientists and in addition Montenegro has never been among the territories that have been mentioned to have such form of social organisation. 
I suggest restoring the old intro paragraph
Bezvardis (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph 

message: *--Zoupan 18:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: See Talk:Montenegrin_clans/Archive_1#Name. "Montenegrin clans" only refers to those of Old Montenegro. As already discussed, terming these, as a whole, as "Montenegrin" is wrong. There were the tribes of Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje, as well. The Montenegrin tribal assembly only encompassed those of Old Montenegro. Using "clans" (bratstva) is equally wrong. Either the anthropological/historiographical Tribes of Old Montenegro, Brda, Old Herzegovina and Primorje, or Tribes in the history of Montenegro.--Zoupan 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposition is too long and against title style, as well Brda, Primorje and Old Herzegovina are and were part of historical Montenegro, including them in the title is ridiculous. By "Montenegrin" isn't considered the tribe/clans from Old Montenegro (as Cvijić divided them), yet tribe/clans from Montenegro ie. Montenegrin clans, as if they had been in Serbia would be called Serbian clans.--Crovata (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculous? Brda is not Montenegro. The terms are not synonymous. "part of" does not equate to "the same as". Cvijić did not divide them — that's ridiculous. The regional and historiographical divisions should not be neglected. The demonym Montenegrin is false in this respect. If we are going to have an educational article, let's not neglect the pillars of science regarding the subject.--Zoupan 20:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not false, not false as "Serb". Why are you making things up? Why the title was reverted?--Crovata (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Why you nominated "Category:Members of Montenegrin clans" for speedy deletion?--Crovata (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because none of those are members of Montenegrin clans. One parent category for the tribes is enough.--Zoupan 21:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How they are not Montenegrin clans? From them only Maleševci couldn't be considered "Montenegrin".--Crovata (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are tribes of Brda or Old Herzegovina. They are not Montenegrin clans.--Zoupan 22:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Brda and Old Herzegovina are historical regions and parts of modern Montenegro - thus they are Montenegrin clans. You're making things ridiculous. In ex-Yugoslavian countries these tribes-clans are not called "tribe of xxxx", yet simly "Crnogorska plemena" - "Montenegrin tribes". Now withous consensus you again reverted the title to the one you personally want, actually as seen from above - the score was 2 vs 1 against you.--Crovata (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Crovata, requesting that a page be moved and having an admin oblige without any votes for or against does not constitute consensus (especially when you misleadingly classify it as "uncontroversial"). 23 editor (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving a page from wrong title "Serb clans" to correct "Montenegrin clans" is "uncontroversial". Only to someone who has something personally with Serbdom will find such a change "controversial". Obviously many editors here cannot neutrally edit without personal POV interference. What will be article named after "Montenegrin clans" is what this discussion should have been, instead became an unconstructive (personal) and war-like topic thanks to you guys.--Crovata (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

text: The move is controversial because all the clans are ethnic Serb clans. They are not Albanian. They are not Vlach. They are not Roma. They are Serbs, and something like half of all Serbs in Serbia and an even higher percentage in B-H are descended from said clans. Enough said. 23 editor (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They are Serbs or Montenegrins, not only Serbs. They don't live in Serbia, they don't originate from Serbia, yet from Montenegro, and some Herzegovina. Thus they are Montenegrin clans.--Crovata (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Beside, do you have census data from 2011 which shows that clans mostly declared as Serbs?--Crovata (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is unbelievable: ""They are Serb or Montenegrins, not only Serbs." then "yada yada yada" yet "Thus they are Montenegrin clans". Does this necessitate "an eye exam" or "a head exam", too? Is this native fluency for real or just for show? Maybe some hidden agenda perhaps? No, thank you, we are passing the offer. This time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.55.214 (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't understand what you want to say, neither what's is your intention and stand. Do you have something to say about the article, discussion and constructively contribute to it, or not?--Crovata (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait what? What intention? Whose stand? Yours? Census data, you say? Serbs? Why Serbs? Why not data that shows clans declared as Serbs? You have it? No? If you have something relevant to say and constructively contribute here, do it. Otherwise, why are you here? Are you here only to troll about evil Serbs and their Serbdom? Or do you have some other conspiracy theory in mind? Doh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.121.55.109 (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just...? No comment.--Crovata (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Crovata it's clear you don't have much knowledge about these tribes. Slobodan Milosevic and Karadjordje are from the Vasojevic tribe, the Obrenovic dynasty from the Bratonozic tribe, Boris Tadic from the Piva tribe, Radovan Karadzic from the Drobnjaci tribe, Vojislav Seselj from the Rovci tribe, Arkan from the Ceklin tribe, if you see a pattern here you will understand that it's these tribes that are the nucleus of the Serbian ethnicity and that your opinion is uninformed. Critikal1 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed move 

message: Paul Dishman is a marketing expert. He should clearly not be used in this article.--Zoupan 09:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not an amateur, but was only included because of his statement which related to others.--Crovata (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishman 

message: what is this nonsense?--Crovata (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what is the nonsense is placing a section named "Origin", made up of studies and theories on some tribes at the top of the article, instead of naming it neutrally (Vlachs and katuns), under a section named "Anthropology". The clear-cut word origin should only be used in the scope of how the tribes came into existence, not about the term "Vlachs" and different views on that term (and interestingly, an added unconnected biological study to push your POV). This article is about all tribes, as a phenomenon, not about your insistence on, let's be frank, pseudohistory. The origin section should be about kin families, consolidation, survival under Ottomans, semi-independence, etc.--Zoupan 10:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No - "Origin" is about the origin of those tribes, problem is your POV as subjectively don't want to accept that Vlachs were an ethnic group, and not social designation. Their origin is complex and related to the Vlachs and Albanians ie. Romanized population which is shown from anthropological studies - that their Slavic origin was very limited and not in such a proportion like some scholars (Serbian) wanted to be. It doesn't push my POV, my POV is neutral and doesn't disrupts my editing. We as editors only cite what reliable scholars wrote. Many, actually, majority of scholars support such a POV on Vlachs. This is not pseudohistory, yet objective and scientific answer to political and national revisionism to meet the ideological fabrications you constantly support. "...survival under Ottomans, semi-independence" have nothing to do with word origin, yet history. --Crovata (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Origin is about the origin of the phenomenon, tribes, as a social/political organization, not individual ethnic origin (POV). Your POV is in line with Croatian nationalism, depreciating Serb ethnogenesis, clear from the un-neutral corner you edited this article. Instead of expanding actual information on the tribal society, you have transformed it into an ethnicity-matter, clear from miles away that your intention is to make "Vlachs" the subject, not a subset. This is your pseudo-history. Don't mix frogs and grandmothers. Vlach studies should not be in the introductionary part of the article. None of the monographs on the tribes have Vlach studies as introductionary sections nor use Vlach as an identificatory term for whole tribes. "word origin"? What are you talking about? Do I have to remind you the scope of the article again and again? --Zoupan 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Origin of the tribes, any group of people, is primarily their ethnic origin (which secondarily includes other elements as part of certain identity). However, their organization and culture have separate section. That POV goes along historical sources evidence and facts, unlike Serbian historiography which intentionally ignored and denied others ethnic identity due to political connotations. In concern of this topic influence of political-cultural ideology on scientifical historiography is more strong in Serbian than Croatian historiography. Many of those articles are in the proccess of editing, and that's not an argument. Again, stop making Straw man, those are not "Vlach studies", yet obvious studies about this tribes. This tribes, as even Serbian POV indicates, had strong native-Vlachian origin. Denial of this fact is simple revisionism.--Crovata (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I am not forcing nothing, you're twisting the scope of what "origin" means and studies openly and clearly discussed. Stop talking about me. Stop putting your personal agenda with obvious Serbian POV. Stop putting your words into my head. I am not disregarding anything. I have read more than enough, know more than you about the whole topic, as well on the issues about the Vlachs. Not talking about the bad article style by moving "origin" to the bottom of the article. Was it intentional so public wouldn't immediately see it? Do you know what even "ethnic group" mean? Are you an idiot not connecting tribal society with ethnic identity? Are you confusing ethnicity with nationality? From the first day from Morlachs only thing you knew was citing Serbian and unreliable sources which  "proved" that those communities were Serbs. You're inventing any Straw man possible to push forward Serbian POV. If only thing you know is ignorance, twisting, supporting nationalistic ideologies, censhorhip - then your personal issue belongs to admins noticeboard. The End.--Crovata (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually rename the section to ethnic origin? I rest my case.--Zoupan 14:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This way it want confuse you with "social/geo-political" and other connotations.--Crovata (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Stop with revert as we already broke 3RR. Removing sourced and related information is not supported by any of the NPOV rules.--Crovata (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not impose your POV of all-encompassing "ethnic origin". Do not add genetic studies related to Montenegrins overall, and not the tribes, to the article in order to further your POV.--Zoupan 17:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you aware that only one whose imposing his personal POV is yourself? You did not bring one valid argument (and there is not one) to remove reliable and related sourced information. The anthropological and genetic studies are highly related to the theories at "Ethnic origin", showing that the previous thesis about small native influence, while strong Slavic population who "anahilated indigenous tribes", became Slavic Serb tribes, is simply an ideological construction not reality.--Crovata (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought all valid arguments. I only removed unconnected "a new cultural-historical drift" and "Paleo-anthropological studies". You are moving far away from the subject and focus of the article. Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
* Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
* Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
* Blocked sock:Ajdebre. 
* Blocked sock:Ajdebre.
So, could you please stop confusing these tribes with pre-historic tribal/ethnic groups and pushing your POV? The concept of ethnicity does not, in the least form, apply to these tribes with the designation "ethnic Vlachian". Stop synthesizing.--Zoupan 06:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

text: I am not pushing any personal POV - that's scholars POV. You have none NPOV principle to back up your intentional distortion of facts and meaning of the word "origin", as well removal of connected information. Cites above talk about organization origin and characteristics, not ethnicity and their ethnic origin. I reverted again your edit, you can add back your new contribution/copy-editing, but not removing reliable and highly related information and move to other section according your own wish. For 100X time I am warning you - stop WP:OWN!--Crovata (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Deliberate misunderstanding of the terms tribes and origin in this respect, likely due to interest at Bulgars, Utigurs and Onogurs, and I believe also anti-Serb sentiment (?). Distorting facts about what these tribes were/are, making up "scholar POV", adding a huge chunk of "ethnic origin" which in no way describes an uniform "ethnic origin" of these tribes (the article is about tribes, plural form). Synthesizing material for POV does not help the article.--Zoupan 19:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Again the same story, you intentionally ignore and twist the meaning of the word origin, as well origin of the tribes, were they Montenegrin, or Utigurs. As well, you intentionally avoid other editors remarks, push personal POV on the meaning of the word origin as both historiography and anthropology show those tribes had non-Slavic (ie. non-Serbian) origin. You, and Serbian new companion Vladimir, intentionally twist the balance (in text or layout) of the article. All in all, what Bulgars or Utigurs have anything to do with the article? In which way by interest in them misunderstood the terms tribes, origin? At least, you have a whole section "Ethnicity" at the Bulgars article which show how complex ethnicity is, and how by censorship and ignorance of anthropological studies the (Serbian) ideologies prevail.--Crovata (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is still not an uniform "ethnic origin" of all tribes. Genetic studies on Montenegrins are still not related to the overall subject. This article is not the least comparable to the Bulgars, and it is only more alarming that you make this comparison and still don't get what has been said over and over again.--Zoupan 03:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You're not higher authority than other editors to allow and disallow reliable and related sources, and till now did not substantiate with single NPOV principle. Stop making "own" article as seen in the summary "the article should be an overview of the concept", and I am making alarming comparison? Of course it is not comparable to the article of the Bulgars (You brought that up, I asked you before what Bulgars and Utigurs have anything with Montenegrin tribes), but there is only one concept of the "origin" of the "ethnic tribes". Your remark that it "should be" something else is only further proving that you want to deny part of their history - that the tribal organization of the katuns is not related to the Vlachs. Moreover, the section now titled "Origins" is crucial to be understood as the "origin of the tribal organization" has roots in Vlachian katuns, were they historically before ethnic non-Slavic "Vlachs", or social shepherds "vlachs", their initial origin is non-Slavic, which is confirmed also by up to date anthropological studies. There is also slight digression on the both POVs in the scholarship (it is not undue or without balance), seriously important to the understanding of the tribes origin. Removal of related information, twisting of "layout" and "topic" from "Montenegrin tribes" to "Vlachs" is not how Wikipedia is edited.--Crovata (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: Dispute resolution on both "Origin" and "Title" at Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Crovata (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Safe to say Arthur Evans (1885–86) is outdated? Bold removal.--Zoupan 19:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's indeed outdated. As is also the concept of Dinaric race and the "racial profiling" using craniometry. Vladimir (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoupan, you're such a hypocrite - if A. Evans is outdated (and it's not since to him build other modern scholars, neither the remark by Vladimir) for the article, then please don't have double standard and stop to cite "outdated" scholars and sources in other articles.--Crovata (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: ...but he is? You are free to question any outdated scholars and sources in any articles. Stop with your uncivility.--Zoupan 21:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoupan, stay on-topic, everytime I or someone hits the truth you're bringing forward some "uncivility" and twisting facts. You're the authority to decide if he is outdated, You who countless times cited even older sources? By what critera you explain "outdated"? Is it time, is it by scholarship progress?--Crovata (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: stay on-topic. Both. 1885–86 was 130 years ago.--Zoupan 03:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, Ancient or Medieval sources should not be cited due to the same criteria, even those scholars who worked until and since the 1940s (Evans died in 1941) and after to the certain point as the scholarship in the progress became even more scientifical, critical and neutral, and less ideological and national-political, a good example are historiographies of post-Yugoslavia. If we go by this criteria then many authorities, including Evans and J. B. Bury to name few, would not be cited in Wikipedia, but that is not the case.--Crovata (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated 

message: Since significant information was edited, the new difference contribution to the article should be appropriately restored by editor who brought it, but without censor and layout change discussed above substantiated by nothing else but personal ideological POV.--Crovata (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to what policy? Without censor? Your revision is, as stated countless times, UNDUE and POV-pushing.--Zoupan 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to edit the information back or not? Reliable and related information can only be UNDUE and POV to those who cannot see and edit without any national or ideological interference.--Crovata (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You are too funny. You need to understand what has been said (read #Origin), not disparage me. That "information" is not actual information, but changing the subject.--Zoupan 04:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps is better to be funny, "not" to understand, changing the "subject", but according to the logic, principles, neutrality, science, rather than to be on the side of those who try to impose/defend nationalistic ideologies without understanding their subconscious activity.--Crovata (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New contribution 

message: Why is Anzulovic (1999), "Serbia is genocidal", used as a source? He is nowhere near the article subject.--Zoupan 05:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is "Heavenly Serbia: From Myth to Genocide", not "Serbia is genocidal". With "Reference(s)"-notes one can see that the source is on topic.--Crovata (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anzulovic 

message: The Title should be reverted to "Serb Clans" as that is the only historically accurate term for these Tribes. "Tribes of Montenegro" is inaccurate due to a large amount of tribes not being in Montenegro (Zupci, Ljubibratici, Malesevci, etc.) and historically Old Herzegovinian tribes never belonged to a state named Montenegro until 1877, as well as the Seaside tribes and Highlander tribes until later. The only thing that unites these tribes is Serbian Orthodoxy, Serbian language and tribal legends of descent from Serbian nobility, so the historically-used term "Serb Clans" is the most appropriate name for this article. Critikal1 (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Serb Clans" is not an ethnohistorically accurate term, especially when you remove and distort historical facts, invent "descent from Serbian nobility", ignore the existence of both Montenegrin nation, ethnicity and language.--Crovata (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "Serb Clans" receives 378,000 hits on google, while "Montenegrin Clans" only 160,000. Serb Clans/Tribes is the widely used term for the tribes by all professional historians and ethnologists (Jovan Cvijic, etc). The Montenegrin nation and language have nothing to do with this. Critikal1 (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use quotation marks when googling phrases. While "Serb clans" has 685 hits, "Montenegrin clans" has 6,090 hits, if that's your measure of relevance. As for your suggestion, this has been discussed again and again and this was concluded to be the most adequate option. Sideshow Bob 09:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Revert

message: There appears to have been edit warring over this article by various IPs since September which have been reverted by several editors with accounts. I have reverted to a version before this IP edit war and as an initial step locked the article against IP edits. Please discuss the changes that are required to the article and agree on the content. Numerous edit summeries suggest using the talk page but no one has actually made a step to do this. If there is an agreement then ping me and I will unlock the article. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring