{"id":12178,"date":"2025-12-16T23:40:35","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T22:40:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/?p=12178"},"modified":"2026-02-17T23:40:57","modified_gmt":"2026-02-17T22:40:57","slug":"holiday-hatred-neither-ulcinj-nor-zlatibor-are-welcoming-the-year-2206","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/2025\/12\/16\/holiday-hatred-neither-ulcinj-nor-zlatibor-are-welcoming-the-year-2206\/","title":{"rendered":"Holiday hatred: Neither Ulcinj nor Zlatibor are welcoming the year 2206"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Original article<\/a> (in Montenegrin) was published on 16\/12\/2025; Author: Nina \u0110uranovi\u0107<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of bringing holiday cheer, a photograph of New Year\u2019s decorations has become the subject of ridicule aimed at local authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On social media \u2013 Facebook (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a>, 6<\/a>, 7,<\/a> 8<\/a>) (archived here<\/a>), Instagram (1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>) (archived here<\/a>), X<\/a> (archived here<\/a>) \u2013 a photograph of a sign reading \u201c2206\u201d ahead of the New Year has gone viral.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In some posts, credit for this \u201cfuturistic\u201d decoration, as it has been labeled online, is attributed to Ulcinj, while other users claim that the sign was installed in Zlatibor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cProgressive Ulcinj welcomes 2206.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThey didn\u2019t just miss the year, they missed the century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cZlatibor \u2013 no one literate in the SNS. They\u2019re celebrating the year 2206!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are just some of the comments accompanying the viral photograph.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On one Instagram page, administered by users from Serbia, the post was used to spread hate:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Murat family is celebrating 2206 in Ulcinj. If they don\u2019t have someone singing for the welcome of 2026, maybe one of these lovely \u2018Brenas\u2019 should sing about the theme they celebrate and glorify \u2013 Shekis? A combination of Milogorac, Milo, Dritan, Murat, \u2018GOAT statesman\u2019 who doesn\u2019t even know their own doorstep, so the EU assigns them Serbian territories and creates states, and yet they still can\u2019t distinguish basic numbers?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The photograph showing New Year\u2019s decorations with the inscription \u201c2206\u201d is neither current nor authentic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four years ago, the same photograph from Ulcinj circulated, with one altered detail. At that time, social media showed the number 2202, and users, as well as some media outlets, highlighted what they claimed was a mistake by the local authorities in Ulcinj.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That same photograph, taken from an identical angle, resurfaced this December, but with the digit changed to \u201c2206.\u201d It is clear that a simple digital edit of an old photograph was used to create the illusion of a new mistake in the city\u2019s holiday decorations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, Ulcinj was not welcoming the year 2202, nor was there an error by the Municipal Services responsible for holiday decorations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The image shows a three-dimensional sign whose meaning depends on the viewing angle. From one angle, it may appear \u201cincorrect,\u201d as the year 2202, while from another perspective, it is clearly visible that the number is 2022. Precisely because of this spatial form, the same logic could be applied to any similar 3D sign. Viewed from a different angle, it can easily be \u201cmisread\u201d and presented as a mistake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 2021, the portal Dan published<\/a>\u00a0(archived here<\/a>) a photograph of New Year\u2019s decorations in Ulcinj, clearly showing that, in the central, busiest part of town, the sign reads 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

As was the case four years ago, the Municipal Services did not make a mistake in installing the decorations this year either. As previously explained, the \u201c2206\u201d sign was created by editing an old photograph in order to once again create the illusion of an error.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For all the reasons stated above, these posts are rated as disinformation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cDisinformation\u201d rating is given to media reports that contain a \u201cmix\u201d of facts and inaccurate or partially true content. In such cases, media outlets may not necessarily be aware of the inaccurate information published alongside accurate details. Additionally, this rating will also apply to reports with false attributions or headlines that do not accurately reflect the content in terms of factual correctness.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Instead of bringing holiday cheer, a photograph of New Year\u2019s decorations has become the subject of ridicule aimed at local authorities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":12183,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[316],"tags":[35,719,718],"class_list":["post-12178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-fact-checks","tag-montenegro","tag-new-years","tag-ulcinj"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12178"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12178\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12184,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12178\/revisions\/12184"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/seecheck.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}