Talk:2016 Montenegrin coup attempt allegations

Plot
, plot, maybe; the trial is underway. Military conflict? No. Add any claims and names in the article body with inline citations.--Z oupan 06:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Separate article
This article should be separate from 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis, for now.--Z oupan 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:2015–16 Montenegrin crisis. Please complete this article 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis. Follow the consensus of March 2017.--TaaniOk (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ...?--Z oupan 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

2016 Montenegrin coup d'état plot → 2016 Montenegrin coup allegations – Given that the convictions against the alleged participants were overturned earlier this year, renaming this article is entirely warranted until a new ruling is rendered. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Given that the plot was detailed by a judicial process, and not limited to statements and accusations of politicians, it has more weight and as such should remain with the current title. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support This was the title for over 7 months before one user changed it. Omitting that these are allegations by an autocratic government is absolutely WP:POV. --Ranko Nikolić (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Current title has major WP:NPOV issues. If their is a final verdict confirming the allegations then we can change. --MareBG (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator's comment. Elserbio00 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment courtesy ping to editor who first disputed the move, . --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Many WP:RS use the word alleged when describing this and so allegations is appropriate to use for the title until/if the claims are ever confirmed. Ничим неизазван (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support agreed with OP. РудиЧајевац (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to express my concern regarding the atypical behavior of the last votes:
 * The move discussion did not have much activity since it was started, on 1 December. However, four days later and in the span of 9 hours, six new editors joined, all holding the same position and in some cases only voting and agreeing with the nominator. Most of them have only a sporadic activity in the English Wikipedia. From what I see, none of them had edited in the article either, making a notification by the Watchlist unlikely, if not near impossible.
 * Most of the users main Wikipedia is also the Serbian version. For instance, РудиЧајевац has 3,929 edits in the Serbian Wikipedia (as of the date of this message), compared to only 14 in the English Wikipedia; Ничим неизазван likewise has 4,578 in Serbian, while having 57 in English. Similarly, MareBG has 89,256 edits in Serbian and 620 edits in the English, and Ранко Николић has 139,829 edits in Serbian but 1,609 in English. Both of the last ones are sysops in said Wikipedia.
 * In the case of РудиЧајевац, they did not edit for 9 whole months, since 12 March 2021, before joining (by saying "agreed with OP"). They have edited merely twice this year, including the comment above. I hope this isn't interpreted as opposition for more participation; quite the contrary, I believe more involvement is important. However, considering the circumstances, I think it's important to ask how did the editors learn about this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Please dоnt make unneeded insinuations about my recent activity. This topic interest me, as well as topics related to Montenegro and its political history. I day-to-day follow the topics in the media as well as the Wiki projects of the former Yugoslavia. This vote is listed on WikiProject Montenegro, which is on my watchlist. Other editors, (except of my bruh ) on whose behalf I cannot speak, are also active on the project. Reasonable arguments have been made. It would be desirable to "strike" the arguments, not other editors, only this procedure will be successfully and democratically completed. Thank you. God bless. Ничим неизазван (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * While my point stands based on the timing and the amount of editors, I kindly appreciate this explanation. Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 4 August 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is for waiting until the retrial finishes. Feel free to start a new move request whenever that is. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  06:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

2016 Montenegrin coup d'état attempt allegations → 2016 Montenegrin coup d'état plot – Original title and WP:COMMONNAME due to use in reliable sources, including the ones used as references in the article. The issue was subject to a judicial process, meaning that it has a higher bar than just declarations from officials or allegations. NoonIcarus (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Concerns about the participation from Serbian Wikipedia users can be consulted in the last move discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now I would wait until the retrial outcome to decide whether this was a real thing or not. It's quite possible that the "plot" was made up in an attempt to sway the election. The fact that it went through a judicial process is somewhat irrelevant in a country with major state capture issues. Number   5  7  08:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose  Per my previous comment. Ranko Nikolić (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The matter is still before the courts and continuous changes to the article's name is leaning towards WP:FUTURE. ElderZamzam (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do not change name before the retrial starts, if there is no retrial, it stays an allegation. It would be better to wait until the end of the trial of at least one defendant. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)