Talk:The Mountain Wreath

"Ethnic cleansing"

The article text:

The poem, one of the defining features of Serb nationalism and required reading in all schools in prewar Yugoslavia, is also notable for its celebration of Bishop Danilo's ethnic cleansing of Montenegro (the so-called "Christmas Eve Massacre") in the early 18th Century. [1]

In the poem, the Muslims repeatedly plead for coexistence. One example:

Small enough is this our land,
Yet two faiths there still may be
As in one bowl soups may agree
Let us still as brothers live.

However, these pleas for coexistence are seen by the bishop as merely a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which he finally overcomes. So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion’. And, following his command:

No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
escaped to tell his tale another day.
We put them all unto the sword
All those who would not be baptised.
But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
We put to fire the Muslim houses,
That there might be no stick nor trace
Of these true servants of the devil!

Source: Michael Sells, The Bridge Betrayed: Religion and genocide in Bosnia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 15.

is basically a rip off of this text, written by Sheikh Abdal-Hakim Murad aka Timothy Winter, a British Islamic scholar:

The Mountain Wreath is interesting in several ways. Not least is the way in which the bishop portrays the Muslims, who plead for coexistence. One of them, for instance, says:

Small enough is this our land,
Yet two faiths there still may be
As in one bowl soups may agree
Let us still as brothers live.

Repeatedly the Muslims are shown as advocates of coexistence; but in the poem, this is simply a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which the bishop finally overcomes.

So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion’. And, following his command:

No single seeing eye, no Muslim tongue,
escaped to tell his tale another day.
We put them all unto the sword
All those who would not be baptised.
But who paid homage to the Holy Child,
were all baptised with sign of Christian cross.
And as brother each was hail’d and greeted.
We put to fire the Muslim houses,
That there might be no stick nor trace
Of these true servants of the devil!

So, it is a barely reworded quote from a polemical text by an Islamic scholar, who is mentioning the poem in an attempt to prove his view that the Bosnian War was an religious war against Islam instigated by Christians. What qualfies this man for literary criticism? Can you see how this could be viewed as a non neutral source? And leaving that aside, it may be a copyright violation. So I basically have no choice but to remove this from the article until we resolve it here, which I am more than happy to do.--Methodius 10:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

---

"What qualfies this man for literary criticism?"

The above passage doesn't involve literary criticism. It simply presents a fact (that the poem was required reading in pre-war Yugoslavia), and then presents part of the poem itself. There is no literary criticism occuring here.

By contrast, the five paragraphs above it are full of glowing praise of the poem... which is far worse and less neutral than literary criticism. "healthy dose of humour", "no people had to pay like the Serbs", "insurmountable difficulties", "many subscenes which tend to weaken the action", "basic theme is the struggle for freedom, justice, and dignity"-- all of this is literary criticism, which is actually very uncritical and is intended to show the poem in the best light possible. And no citations are given at all! It has clearly been written by unknown Serbian people who are clearly in favour of this polemical poem.

"So, it is a barely reworded quote from a polemical text by an Islamic scholar" 1. It isn't a polemical text; it's journalism by a professor at Cambridge University. Everything is footnoted and properly documented. 2. So what if he is an Islamic scholar? Does his religion make his work illegitimate? As you have discovered, he is reputable enough to be featured in Wikipedia itself. You are displaying the same attitude as the people he wrote about in the article. 3. Most of what you have deleted is from the POEM ITSELF. So are you saying the poem itself is polemical and not reputable as to its own contents and does not say what it says? 4. The passage in Tim Winter's paper is NOT BY HIM... he himself is quoting it from a book written by MICHAEL SELLS, an American professor who published a highly respected book on religious war and genocide in Bosnia on the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS, a very reputable, non-polemical source. So, except for the one sentence stating that the poem was required reading in pre-war Yugoslavia, the information is derived from non-Muslim scholar MICHAEL SELLS translation of the poem itself and I included a full citation to the book where you will find the quoted translation.

"And leaving that aside, it may be a copyright violation." I already stated it is NOT a copyright violation. First of all, the sentences are different-- I wrote entirely new sentences, which explain the same underlying facts. This is perfectly legal. Second of all, even if I did not write entirely new sentences and quoted those sentences word-for-word, it would easily and undoubtedly qualify as 'fair use' as the copied passage is extremely small relative to the whole text.

I am a copyright lawyer and I *know* what I am talking about.

The poem is clearly about the Christmas Eve Massacre, and there are Serbian sites and books out there which very clearly and openly state that Njegos approved of the ethnic cleansing of Muslim Montenegrins. Clearly you are ashamed that the poem celebrates it, but we all have ugly things in our ethnic histories and it's better to let the truth shine on them rather than pretend they don't exist. The poem says what it says.

---

The text as it stands is not neutral, but two non-neutral sections do not make a balanced article. Now, where to begin?

1. The source is polemical - it is an essay promoting the "reality" that the Bosnian War was "one of militant Christian extremism". The whole introductory paragraph seeks to overthrow what the author sees as established wisdom, is full of conjecture ("Anti-Muslim prejudice was no doubt at work here"), and full of opinion statements posing as fact("the reality, which was frequently one of militant Christian extremism"):

One of the most disturbing features of the war which devastated Bosnia between 1992 and 1995 was the widespread refusal of Western politicians, churchmen and newsmen, to acknowledge the role which religion was playing in the conflict. It was only mentioned, indeed, during periodic denunciations of the risks of Islamic extremism - a phenomenon that, when pressed, journalists working in Bosnia conceded was rather elusive. The reality, which was frequently one of militant Christian extremism, was never, to my knowledge, frankly discussed. The war was, we were told, a contest between ‘ethnic factions’; and the fact that its protagonists were divided primarily by religion, and shared a race and a language, was deemed insignificant. Anti-Muslim prejudice was no doubt at work here: one may assume that if the Serbs and Catholics had been Muslims, and their victims Christians, then the Western mind would immediately have characterised the war as a case of violent Muslims murdering secular, integrated, democratic Christians. Since in Bosnia the favoured stereotypes were reversed, the memory has largely been dismissed, censored and forgotten as an annoying anomaly.

1. It's not his religion or that fact that he's an Islamic scholar that makes his work here of little value. It's the fact that this is a polemical piece and that he's writing outside his field. You've assumed bad faith and insinuated I'm an Islamophobe - I'd apperciate it if you didn't do that. I haven't accused you of anything, I've been perfectly civil so you could try reciprocating.
2. You mention that most of the deleted material is from the poem. Well, I could selectively quote other parts of the poem, you would respond, and eventually we'd have the whole poem on the page. If anyone wants to read it, it's linked to in both English and Serbian, on several sites.
3. Unless you know something I don't, there is nothing to indicate in the source that that passage is from Sells book.

As for the rest of your comments, what do you actually suggest for the article? That we return the text? I've got no objection as long as it's neutral. "i.e. Michael Sells and Abdal Hakeem claim xyz based on passages abc [source][source]. However, [source][source]"

On a personal note, may I say that you're putting the poem in totally the wrong context - a modern context. Not to mention that the events in question and the poem in question are nowhere near as simple as you seem to think.--Methodius 09:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

---

The tone of this discussion is inappropriate for this forum, please take it where appropriate.

There are several reasons for removing the section of this article titled: The Role Ethnic Cleansing:

1) The author of the cited source Sells is porf. of religion and an expert in Islam. Thus the topic of this article The Mountain Wreath is not in his domain of expertise. He doesn't seem to speak the language in which the work is written (or at least doesn't claim to, although some sources describe him as "Serbian American" e.g. here: http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0520216628) nor has competence in literature nor history of Montenegro. The author is not claiming otherwise. His own CV states: "FIELDS OF RESEARCH AND TEACHING COMPETENCE Islamic Thought (Qur’an, Sufism, Philosophy, Literature). Arabic Language and Literature (Classical Qasida, Sufi Literature, Qur'an, Modern Arabic Literature). Mystical Thought and Literature (Greek, Islamic, Christian, Jewish). Comparative Religions. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Religion and Violence." (source: http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/cv.htm as of Feb 18 2008)

2) The cited source is not work on The Mountain Wreath nor its author, Njegos, nor the country (Montenegro), nor the historic period, nor the subject of The Mountain Wreath, not even the literature in general nor it is in any way contributing to the understanding of the work itself. Thus it is at least a stretch to connect the citation to this particular article at all but in the way it is done it is completely inappropriate and out of context.

3) Peer reviews and analysis of the cited source do not claim that the work is in any way an analysis nor examination of The Mauntain Wreath, literary or otherwise. (e.g. see: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewy4.htm, or this: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm or this: http://zena.secureforum.com/Znet/zmag/articles/kronoct98.htm)

4) The whole section starting with the title "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" is completely inaccurate.

 4.1) The title is inappropriate for this article and for the citation which would be out of context if left as is.  Here's from review of the cited book by PAUL HOCKENOS (source: http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm) "Technically, the term "ethnic cleansing" is a misnomer. Serbs, Croats and Bosnian Muslims all belong to the same ethnic group. They're Slavs, descendants of Slavic tribes that migrated to the region in the sixth and seventh centuries. All three speak a common Slavic language and are physically indistinguishable."  

While the term is in use in popular press in relation to the conflict in Bosnia, this is encyclopedic content and the article and its topic are not discussing the modern conflict in Bosnia nor the ethnic cleansing thus we have to be careful. Here it is inappropriate to use it much like it would be to say that Arabs are antisemitic.

 4.2) The main thesis of the cited source is that the modern conflict in Bosnia, the war, was territorial in nature, not only religious, but definitely not ethnic.  Thus the cited source appears to be contradictory to the conclusions made.  Here's another quote from http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/1996d/120696/120696j.htm  

"... nor does Michael Sells argue that religion was the primary cause of slaughter in the Balkans. The war, rather, was one of territorial aggression, orchestrated and actively supported by expansionist regimes in Serbia and Croatia."

Even the author of the cited source himself describes his work as:

"The Bridge Betrayed portrays from a human perspective assault on Bosnia and the resistance by Bosnians. It shows how the genocide was motivated and justified through the manipulation of the mythology of Kosovo which culminated at the 600th anniversary passion play of Kosovo, the remembrance of the death of Prince Lazar--portrayed as a Christ-figure, fighting the Turks at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the "Serbian Golgotha." Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian religious nationalists, including the leaders of the Serbian Orthodox Church, worked to militarize the Kosovo story." (cited from http://www.haverford.edu/relg/sells/reports.html#BBSummary as of Feb 18 2008, also available here: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewy4.htm)

5) The Mountain Wreath has been a topic of numerous studies, articles, books, movies, etc. In the article none other author is mentioned. It is highly inappropriate, to say the least, to dedicate a whole section of this article to an obscure college professor's, especially in this present form, written in a non-academic way. It would never stand to scrutiny in any academic publication.

In conclusion I propose that we should definitely mention that some authors made claims that The Mountain Wreath could have plaid a role in inspiring late twenty century Serbian nationalist movement and politics, and cite the source, but not more than this in this article.

The contribution itself, however, is important enough, but should be (much) improved and moved to one of the pages that talks about the modern Bosnian conflict or Serbian nationalism or ethnic cleansing. It is highly inappropriate for this article.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AmiFair (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The problem with this Ethnic Cleansing Thesis is that NO ethnic cleansing or such has taken part in Montenegro during the Bosnian War. People lived then, and people still live now in a peacefull multi-ethnic environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.110.188 (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor (not myself) has expressed concerns with the neutrality of the "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" section, in part because the criticism comes from a sole source. The thread above notes some concerns as well. I have no opinion on the matter, but it warrants discussion. Tagged and noted, please discuss. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" mainly quotes from the poem itself, in unambiguous terms. Its interpretation is plain and uncontroversial. This is reported on in a highly credible publication (University of Chicago professor, University of California press.) If there is an equally credible source challenging this straightforward interpretation, include it too-- but it would be foolish to withhold this citation until some mythical "alternative perspective" from a credible source surfaces.

It is the "Themes" passage above which is both (a) appallingly non-neutral and (b) entirely unsourced -- it talks about "the presence of the Muslim converts" as a problem that must be solved through "extermination". This passage was written by someone who is highly favourable to the poem-- yet it easily confirms that the "Role of Ethnic Cleansing" interpretation is entirely correct.

I say leave it as is -- the top section is pro-poem, while the "Role in Ethnic Cleansing" is a secular interpretation by a highly reputable source. Yet they both point to the same meaning.

-sky7i 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Break

Dear friend,

You say “leave as is” while I say “remove the nonsense” What makes a source credible? The fact it was published by California Press?! Why would California press care about the poem? They probably offered the best deal for printing. It is common knowledge that the main source of income to professors in humanities is selling their books. The more controversy the better. Citations here and there are always helpful. How much of history of Balkans does the author know? All books I see on his website are pro islam. Why is his attitude neutral? Wish I could read the book myself, but I am too busy for books of that kind. Nevertheless I will always find time to defend The Mountain Wreath.

My motives to defend this monumental work are very clear. I have read the whole poem in its original and quite frankly I can’t find anything controversial in it. I do understand that it is not very appealing to converts. Also, no one who is not somehow affiliated with the ex-Yugoslavia would actually care about this poem. Therefore it is very possible that I don’t need to address you in English, but nevertheless I will try. It would be also helpful if you have read the poem yourself not just keep repeating “highly reputable source”. The translation I am using is the third external link at the bottom of the page. You can read it yourself. Here is why the analysis of the Islamic scholar is wrong:

First of all the book was not a required reading. Only a few excerpts were present in Serbian literature textbooks. The following two were required to memorize. I love to quote these among many others.

My people sleep a deep and lifeless sleep;

no parent's hand to wipe away my tears.

Above my head the heaven is shut tight;

it does not hear my cries or my prayers.

The world has now become a hell for me,

people have turned into hellish spirits.

O my dark day! O my black destiny!

Next one:

No one has yet drunk a cup of honey

without mixing it with a cup of gall.

A cup of gall needs a cup of honey;

they are swallowed the easiest when mixed.

I remember the following read in class:

Selim Vizier, slave of the Prophet's slave,

servant of the brother of the world's sun,

envoy of him who rules all of the earth.

Now be it known, leaders with your Bishop,

that the tsar of all tsars has ordered me

to make a tour of his land long and wide,

to see if all is in perfect order,

to see that wolves do not over-eat meat,

to see that sheep do not wander astray

and lose their fleece in a bush by the road,

to shorten that which is overly long,

to pour out that which has been overfilled,

to check the teeth of all the young people,

to see that a rose doesn't get lost in thorns

and that a pearl doesn't perish in the mire,

and to tighten the reins of the mob

since the mob is like other livestock.

If its not clear from this excerpt, this is a letter from Vizier who is asking the christian to submit to Turkish rule. He also announces taxing. “to check the teeth of all the young people” – take christian boys away and make them foot solders in Turkish army. “to see that a rose doesn't get lost in thorns and that a pearl doesn't perish in the mire” – take Christian girls away from their families and send them to harems.

Here Bishop Danilo refers to Turkish rule:

The wagon was overturned down the hill.

To the cruel men an empire is no good

except to spread their shame before the world.

A savage mind and a poisoned temper

has a wild boar, not a human being.

He whose law is written by his cudgel

leaves behind stench of inhumanity.

Basically the poem is not easy to read and high school students do not read the whole book – just the several passages that I have mentioned above.

Let me continue with the rest.

The analysis provided by an “Islamic scholar” who himself is a convert is extremely naïve and inaccurate, or simply malicious with the intent to convince readers of this article that Serbian people are genocidal and portray Bosnian muslims as the victims of “Serbian nationalism”. Well this is kind of inaccurate, shallow and offensive. First of all, one cannot analyze this part of the poem as if two statements were given at two different press conferences in the CNN style: One from Bishop Danilo and the other by converts to Islam. The whole poem was written by one man; Njegos who was the ruler of Montenegro. Therefore it’s not muslims who are speaking, its one man who was trying to make a point.

Also, throughout the whole book, Njegos is pointing out that whatever is spoken by Turks is a lie:

A merchant lies to you with a coy smile,

a woman lies while she is shedding tears,

but no one lies as deftly as a Turk.

Therefore, the “plea for coexistence” is not a plea, nor it is honest, it is just a lie and a way to buy time while muslim converts keep growing in numbers.

So if you haven’t read the whole poem let me clarify a few things for you. P.P. Njegos put himself in the shoes of his predecessor Bishop Danilo, who saw the following thing: His small country Montenegro was in the way of the expanding ottoman empire. He had a few thousand solders at best, vs hundreds of thousands of the Turkish invaders. The Turks did not come as guests but as conquerors, O,K.?... there is a difference. They offered the following choices to the conquered nations: death, conversion to islam or higher taxes. One of the taxes was the so called “blood tax”. Simply, turks used to take away christian boys from their families and make them foot soldiers for the Turkish army. Now put yourself in a situation of a member of a conquered nation. Would you like your invader who killed your people, who taxed you heavily, who took your kids away to become solders in enemy’s army so they can come back and destroy and plunder their own nation? Would you like someone who imposed his religion on your people by force and death treats? Who is the victim here? Who is fighting for survival? Montenegro is mostly high mountains so there were always parts impossible to conquer. Nevertheless, the weak had converted to islam because they obtained privileges.

In the poem many members of the council want to fight immediately, but Bishop Danilo says:

No ... no ... sit down. Let us talk it over!

If we agree, my brothers, I would like

to invite the leaders of the converts

to a meeting of all of our brothers,

we'll guarantee their lives until they leave.

Perhaps they will return then to our faith

and extinguish the flame of our blood-feud.

Now lets talk again about the plea for coexistence. This is also what the leaders of the converts said when they got together with christians:

In the name of my fair faith, I wonder

what reproach there you are making, Bishop!

Have you ever seen a cup to hold two drinks,

or seen a cap to fit two heads at once?

A small brook runs into a larger stream,

on emptying, it loses its own name;

at the seashore both lose identity.

Are you trying to catch bees in your cap

and with it start a beehive in the woods?

From such beehive no one will eat honey!

You are pushing a stone up hill in vain!

An old tree breaks before it is straightened!

Animals are very much like people.

Each living sort has its own character.

I don't ask 'bout the hen and the eagle,

but does, pray tell, a lion fear a goose?

DOES A LION FEAR A GOOSE I hope you get this one. Very strange plea for “coexistence” Read it again if you don’t understand. In plain English it’s “We are strong, it will be our way” After all, you defend the analysis done by “Islamic scholar”. Maybe you should spend some time reading the entire poem.

Your “scholar” says: “However, these pleas for coexistence are seen by the bishop as merely a satanic temptation, the smile of Judas, which he finally overcomes. So he replies: ‘Our land is foul; it reeks of this false religion”

Totally wrong!

This is the part in the poem that follows the “plea for coexistence”:

We would like to, Turks, but it cannot be!

This love of ours is a strange kind of love.

Our eyes do clash in a terrible way.

They do not look at each other friendly,

but vengefully and even savagely.

The eyes do say what the heart commands them.

Did your “Islamic scholar “miss this on purpose? What kind of analysis is that?

The part that mentions the false religion is this one:

And so began the devil's Messiah[43]

to offer them sweetmeats of his false faith.

May God strike you, loathsome degenerates,[44]

why do we need the Turk's faith among us?

What will you do with your ancestors' curse?[45]

With what will you appear before Milos[46]

and before all other Serbian heroes,

whose names will live as long as the sun shines?

Bishop Danilo was the ruler of the country. His people were converting to Islam for benefits they were given, and practically were not loyal to his rule but to Turkish rule. They were turning against their own people. Would you have liked Bishop Danilo to embrace them, especially in the 18th century? Would you have liked him to say “Please come conquer my land, kill my people, convert the rest to islam who will then do the same, even though you might be doing that we understand that you are peaceful and that you just want to coexist?” Would you like him to praise islam maybe?

Now your sentence ”Role in Ethnic Cleansing" mainly quotes from the poem itself, in unambiguous terms. Its interpretation is plain and uncontroversial. This is reported on in a highly credible publication (University of Chicago professor, University of California press.)”

Of course it quotes the poem only, but the whole poem is made in the way that two opposing sides are talking to each other while one of them (guess which one) is deceitful and the other one is fighting for survival. Yes the Christians decided to fight for their lives, land, honor and freedom. They didn’t to go Istanbul to oppress muslims there. They were fighting against the oppressors in their own land – Montenegro. Look at the map!

Also where is the proof that in the bloody war in which both sides committed crimes Serbs committed crimes because they read The Mountain Wreath?! If it's in the Michael Sells book then point out EXACTLY how Serbs were influenced? When I was in school I don't remember anybody told me that I should kill muslims? Also it is not in the bible. Why don't you read Hadith book of jihad (book 11 verse 2:216), it bluntly says that you should kill for Allah even though you may not like it but it can be good for you. Read your book!

So let's see...your book says clearly and bluntly that you should kill in Allah's cause, while you insist on circumstantial evidence that a poem about fight for survival that is simply literature and not a HOLY BOOK is responsible for killing! Something is wrong here! Is this the kind of logic you use to go through life?

Here is another of your quotes: “If there is an equally credible source challenging this straightforward interpretation, include it too-- but it would be foolish to withhold this citation until some mythical "alternative perspective" from a credible source surfaces.”

“Straightforward interpretation” I don’t think so. I call that an attempt of an “Islamic scholar” to portray the small group of christians fighting for survival as villains while their oppressors are the innocent victims. What is he trying to say? That oppressed nation is genocidal because they fought the conqueror?! Where is logic in that?

Whoever reads the whole poem will understand who is the good guy and who is the bad guy (if i have to use these simplified terms) It is a ridiculous interpretation. Of course I understand why converts don't like it.

“Alternative perspective” – There are many “Christian scholars” who may not agree with your “Islamic scholar” I will make sure I contact some of them. So it is hardly an “alternative perspective” as you say.

I know you are peaceful too but I hope you don’t set my car on fire now because I have quoted the text in which your prophet is mentioned. You know you should add a stub “The Role of Mountain Wreath in 9/11” That would be equally accurate. Then put a reference to someone whose book you want to help sell to university libraries since nobody buys that anyway.

I think this should be enough for tonight. I know that nothing I say will change your “determination” to attack a 150 year old poem for some reason that is I am sure different that just the innate desire of a honest human being to tell the truth to the world. Maybe you are the “Islamic scholar” yourself, or an ex-grad student of the author of the book so you get your cut when the book is sold or in the worst case you just want to defend “the right religion”?

Graduardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.222.225 (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are many points to make here, more than I have time. 1. Michael Sells is a Quaker of Christian background, not a Muslim. He is the main source for that passage, and a highly reputable scholar. He has no reason to be pro-Muslim or anti-Serbian. As for me, you know nothing about my background. To be honest, neither do I... I simply search for truth wherever I find it.

2. Many of your statements are quite chilling. You're not aware of it, but you are accepting the demonization of the Muslims in the poem -- and Danilo's radical "solution" -- as something quite normal and natural. No wonder you defend the poem with such fury.

3. Your perspective is reflected in the "Themes" section of the page. Another perspective, one which is (by Wikipedia's citation standards) much more credible, is reflected in the Micheal Sells excerpt. I'm not trying to censor your perspective, nor do we necessarily have to come to a consensus about what the poem really means. All that Wikipedia requires is that we report on all credible interpretations in a neutral manner. We cannot simply leave out a major published work by a very reputable American scholar on the poem just because you disagree with what he wrote.

-sky7i, 23 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.34.208 (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

However, many (or most) who ever read "Gorski vijenac" would strongly disagree with the above opinion (about this book used as an inspiration for ethnic cleansing). This book is much more than a book about local ethnic and national issues back in 18th century. It focuses around clashes between Orthodox Montenigrins and Montenigrins that converted to Islam, but this was used primarly as a paradigm, quire understandable in the times when Njegos and his tiny state Montenegro were under permanent pressure by the mighty Otoman empire. Since the Otoman empire spread and reached Europe (in 14th century) and as long as to the 19th century, the fear in many European countries produced many political and literature works calling for saving European freedom and Christian faith, often in a much more radical way than it was in Gorski vijenac. And still no one claims that those works are the inspiration for ongoing disputes between European countries and Islamic countries. Such relationship would be a pseudo-historical simplification, neglecting centuries in between. 77.46.172.129 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC) ppnjegos

Muslims are no ethnic group.They r Serbs(from montenegro)who converted to Islam.They did this for social beneficions.They served turks.so they were traitors.So this is the reson why Njegoš wants to clean land from muslims,because they were traitors and with them in Montenegro,Serbs could not prosper.--Vule91 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not read all of the talk page, but I did read the the hole book/poem. I know it`s OR, but I did not found it to be about ethnic clensings, but about the struggle for freedom and the defence of a country...In the book(as in the time of the events) the muslims of Serbia were not very peaceful...and an ethinic cleansing does not imply that half of the "persecutors" are killed themselves...this is more of a battle! AdrianCo (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

To those who are fiercely attacking a 150-year old literary work celebrating fight against the Muslim oppressors who were converting Christians on conquered Serbian land by force, I can suggest to watch the following video about a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Here is the link: http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/282531.aspx His OWN MOTHER ordered him to be killed! This gruesome act approved by the Hadith did not happen 150 years ago in a conquered and oppressed land, but last year in Canada (where you live sky7i). If this is not a statement of the ultimate brutality and ignorance that a religion can impose on people, then I honestly don’t know what is. When a simple cartoon appears in newspapers Muslims get offended and set cars on fire, but when suicide bombers kill innocent people in the streets throughout the world, the same Muslims do not go out to protest against that?! Does it mean that they approve the act of killing of innocent people and don’t want to distance themselves from the killers? Here is how British Mullah defines who is innocent and who is not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4&feature=related You have time to attack other nation’s literature. Why don’t you spend the same amount of time to explain that the suicide bombers are not real piece-loving Muslims? You obviously have plenty of time, but most likely you don’t have the will. Therefore, you should be ashamed to accuse other people of “war crimes inspired by a poem”. Your book inspired so much violence and hatred, but most likely you didn’t even read your book sky7i. Why don’t you watch “Fitna” the movie on youtube? What is offensive there? Quotations from Koran? Are those real quotations or they are made up? Looks like they are real, and that is mandatory literature for Muslims. If that’s what you guys preach when you get together then I am seriously concerned. Let me quote you something from the bible Matthew 7:3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” Basically, don’t you see how ridiculous you sound when the attacks on The Mountain Wreath are coming from people like you?

Graduardo

New York TImes article on the Mountain Wreath

July 27, 2008. The New York Times reports on Radovan Karadzic and how he drew on the "Mountain Wreath" poem in his war crimes. I'll quote just a bit of it here, to keep it in line with copyright restrictions:

The model for Mr. Karadzic’s role as leader was provided by Petar Petrovic Njegos’s epic poem “The Mountain Wreath” (“Gorski vijenac”). Published in 1847, it is deeply embedded in the tradition of Serbian epic poetry and is a foundational text of Serbian cultural nationalism. Set at the end of the 17th century, its central character is Vladika Danilo, the bishop and the sovereign of Montenegro, the only Serbian territory unconquered at the time by the powerful and all-encroaching Ottoman Empire. Vladika Danilo has a problem: some Montenegrin Serbs have converted to Islam. For him, they are the fifth column of the Turks, a people who could never be trusted, a permanent threat to the freedom and sovereignty of the Serbs.

He summons a council to help him determine the solution. He listens to the advice of his bloodthirsty warriors: “Without suffering no song is sung,” one of them says. “Without suffering no saber is forged.” He listens to a delegation of Muslims pleading for peace and coexistence, who are instead offered the chance to save their heads by converting back to “the faith of their forefathers.” He speaks of freedom and the difficult decisions it requires: “The wolf is entitled to a sheep/Much like a tyrant to a feeble man./But to stomp the neck of tyranny/To lead it to the righteous knowledge/ That is man’s most sacred duty.”

In the lines familiar to nearly every Serbian child and adult, Vladika Danilo recognizes that the total, ruthless extermination of the Muslims is the only way: “Let there be endless struggle,” he says. “Let there be what cannot be.” He will lead his people through the hell of murder and onward to honor and salvation: “On the grave flowers will grow/ For a distant future generation.”

Mr. Karadzic was intimately familiar with Serbian epic poetry. A skillful player of the gusle, a single-string fiddle traditionally accompanying the oral performance of epic poems, he clearly understood his role in the light cast by Vladika Danilo. He recognized himself in the martyrdom of leadership; he believed that he was the one to finish the job that Vladika Danilo started; he saw himself as the hero in an epic poem that would be sung by a distant future generation.

Reference: "Genocide's Epic Hero" in the New York Times, July 27, 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/opinion/27hemon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

96.52.162.82 (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I've put in the ==Trivia== section of the article on Radovan Karadžić a description of an unbelievable scene in which Karadžić plays on gusle his famous song '"I can hear disaster walking/The city is burning"' in the house of Vuk Karadžić while his troops are shelling Sarajevo. Amazingly, it was even recored on camera in 1992 BBC documentary. It was later removed by someone on the basis of silly arguments that it "glorifies war criminals" [2].

As for the influnce of The Mountain Wreath - NYT exaggares and makes some very far-fetched assumptions. Indeed lots of Serbs were motivated by propaganda that they're fighting in the "3rd uprising" against the Turks and their offspring, and against gencidal Ustashe, but the intoxication came from the media and was motivated by criminals who headed the war for their private war-profiteering gluttons, by and endless circles of vendettas never forgotten (Yugoslavian authorities did a terrible mistake not to face the people with truth, but insisited instead on "collective amnesia"). Serbian epic poetry has carried out an immense impact in preserving the collective psyche of "heavenly people", but steamrolling the immensly intricate details of Yugoslav war (that requires lots of historical background) into some simple conclusions such as "it was the song that caused it" would be gross simplification, and some would say intentional anti-Islamic propaganda in favour of Bosniaks (who are far from innocent in the 1990s war). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

• 22:04, 19 November 2007 Jeffrey O. Gustafson protected The Mountain Wreath ‎ (target of banned user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]

That was a couple of years ago, so it's possible that the banned user is no longer around, in which case the article can be unprotected. As well as welcoming comments from regular editors I've contacted the protecting admin, Jeffrey O. Gustafson. --TS 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If the above sources are not neutral enough, how about Slavoj Zizek's account about this book (he is an atheist and obviously not Muslim)? He talked and wrote about it many times. The Mountain Wreath is basically Serb "Mein Kampf". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.128.33.18 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Before you pull the nazi card on somebody/something, at least attempt to check whether your source is not being accused of fascism himself (and antisemitism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek#Accusations_of_fascism_and_antisemitism

Personally, his picture on the wiki itself leads me to dismiss him immediately as a babbling idiot because he looks exactly the same as my uncle, sitting in the same pose and babbling about same or similar pointless points, but just because I am pulling an ad hominem right now can not possibly mean that I am wrong, eh?

Just because he babbles that Fascists did not do "enough"(sic) to change the social structure of the society does not make him a credible source, it just makes him a babbling Bolshevik/Marxist as I originally suspected but did not want to mention until I noticed this youtube video in the search results regarding him (google term slavoj zizek):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD69Cc20rw

I have nothing more to say to you. To the rest of the folks reading this:

The world if full of idiots and retards. Just because some want to radicalize things does not mean that we should succumb to that. I find the fact that the english version of wikipedia has a bigger article on Njegos then the Serbian wiki exhilarating and funny, if not depressing and disgraceful for the serbian/montenegrin wiki :) ... Please also read the Graduardo's posts, it pretty much sums up the relationship between the work and serbian/montenegrin peoples and explains the literary background that is thought in schools about it.

--Eoraptor (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"Ideological Controversy"

Can someone explain the relevance of: a) what experts on Islam and Islamic literature, history, etc have to say about this book and b) who quoted this book and under what circumstances? Shouldn't we focus on the words of experts on Montenegrin/Serbian/Slavic/Balkan society, history and literature? If the work itself does not advocate/justify ethnic cleansing why does it matter if some non-experts (like Serb nationalists) think that it does? My grandmother quoted this book many times for various reasons. Should we include that in the article? Just some thoughts. Peace. 77.246.87.57 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. But, if you look at the article history you will see that the so called "Ideological controversy" came in response to significant efforts to represent the poem as a work of propaganda that had a "Role in Ethnic cleansing". These views are based on out-of-context analyses done by Islamic scholars which, however ridiculous, once published and cited are regarded as "encyclopedic verifiable knowledge" and cannot be deleted. In the dispute, the page was subject to vandalism and was lock-protected for some time.

Having that in mind, i rewrote the article to feature views from all sides about the alleged "Ideological controversy" so that:

1.the reader can see for himself the motives for such analyses and assess their accuracy. 2.malevolent users cannot misuse the works of Islamic scholars

If you have time and resources, I would be delighted to see you improve this article with facts and thoughts from reputed experts. Bata 95.180.5.79 (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, I might give it a go when I find the time. There's another thing I'd like to mention. I'll say it here rather than open a new section for it since it was you who edited the article.

1. "among the religion's warring tribes". I genuinely thought this was a typo. I don't quite get the point here. Here's what I think has more sense, in increasing order: religions' (pl.) warring tribes, tribes' warring religions, warring tribes of different religion, warring people/groups of different religion. What it says at the moment is "Religion (as a whole or a particular one) has tribes and they are at war". The last one on my list is the "safest" as the term "tribe" is somewhat vague and I wouldn't say that entire tribes accepted Islam but rather families and individuals. (I might be wrong on this one)

2. "in the pure language of Serbian epic folk poetry" - If the point is that it's written in the pure language of the people as opposed to according to some standard or the common practice at the time (which is what I thought the point was), then I think it should say exactly that. If the point is that it's written in the style similar to that of Serbian epic folk poetry then "style of Serbian epic folk poetry" is more accurate than "pure language of Serbian epic folk poetry". 77.246.87.57 (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. It is/was a typo that I edited by mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.

2. It is paraphrased from Vaso D. Mihajlovic's Introduction to The Mountain Wreath (1930): "Employing a decasyllabic meter borrowed from folk poetry, the play is written in the pure language of folk poetry, a language that never ceases to astound the reader and listener."

In my interpretation Vaso's pure language denotes both the vernacular and the style, but i might be wrong. Given the original citation, feel free to correct the article.

Also, thank you for your many corrections and efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.5.79 (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

In case of Serbs "ideas of national liberation are inextricably linked with killing your neighbour and burning his village"

With this edit User:Bobrayner boldly added emphasized assertion that in case of Serbs "ideas of national liberation are inextricably linked with killing your neighbour and burning his village". I reverted this bold edit per obvious reasons. Instead to follow wikipedia rules User:Bobrayner decided to start edit war and again inserted removed assertion with justification that it is sourced.

I am against adding above mentioned assertion for obvious reasons. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

In controversial Balkan topics, it's sadly impossible to please all editors all the time. However, our content should reflect what reliable sources say rather than how a few editors feel.

Judah covers the topic at length; I tried to compromise a bit by cutting it short and just focussing on the key points - and I put it in a quote box so it's more obviously somebody else's voice rather than wikipedia's voice (which is why this was problematic). Could we reframe the quote in a slightly different way - would that be an acceptable compromise? I have, so far, resisted the temptation to add a paragraph based on Noel Malcolm's perspective... bobrayner (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The content of wikipedia is based on consensus. Not every referenced assertion should be added to the articles just because it is referenced.
• The quote you added is of such nature that it can maybe even be considered as hate speech because it vilifies a person or a group on the basis of one or more characteristics (in this case ethnicity). Someone who don't AGF in your case could see your actions as ethno-nationalist tendentious editing (that is, a pattern of edits whose main purpose seems to be to make a particular nation or ethnic group look good or bad, even if the individual edits themselves are not objectionable). This is my last comment about this issue on this talk page. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Consensus is important as supplementary to policy. Labeling RS as hate speech because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is quite disruptive as regards decorum and it'd be prudent to avoid it. That being said, the quote should be used in prose form.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've returned it without the quote box and with an attribution to Judah. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti gain a consensus before removing information referenced by reliable sources. Proclaiming something "hate speech" simply due to personal dislike or because you find it offensive is not a valid reason to remove the info. In any event Wikipedia is not censored. Also attempting to get the last word and shutting down any further discussion is absolutely inappropriate. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues

In the section "Ideological controversy", several fairly long stretches of text are borrowed from a source, the article by Srđa Pavlović [3] When reading Pavlovic's article one immediately recognise the wordings of the Wikipedia entry. The section should be reworked, reworded and when quoting the source verbatim, citation marks should of course be used. --Stighammar (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You are right. Duplicate Detector confirms your concern (link). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The Mountain Wreath was a composition of older Epic Poetry

It should be noted somewhere in the article that Njegos' Mountain Wreath was not a completely original work, but rather a combination of earlier Serbian Epic poems concerning the Montenegrin Inquisition. In Njegos' earlier book "The Serbian Mirror" (Ogledalo Srpsko) published 1835 (11 years earlier than MW) he includes traditional Serbian epic oral poems concerning the events that occur in The Mountain Wreath. The oral folk poem "Srpski Badnji Vece" directly deals with the events in the Mountain Wreath, featuring the main characters, Vladika Danilo, Batric, Vuk Micunovic and others. I believe it is important to note that the story of this work is not fiction made in 1847, rather based on oral history in Montenegro from 1699/1700. Critikal1 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226200001/http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/njegos/index.html to http://www.rastko.org.rs/knjizevnost/njegos/index.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)