Talk:Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral

[Untitled]
This article should be moved to Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral or something similar. The current name is a bad and clumsy translation. --estavisti 00:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I have copy-edited the whole of this article for syntax, style, punctuation, spelling, grammar and typos, but I don't know enough about the subject to do anything with the actual meaning. I have the strong impression that it is highly partisan and that someone who can manage to be NPOV in Serbian affairs, if any such person exists, needs to edit it fairly radically. Woblosch 23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed the tag, since you're pretty vague. I'll go through the article in the coming days and see what's what.--Methodius 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the modern section that is clearly POV. I infer that there has been a split in the organisation since the fall of communism, and the author is claiming that the government supports what from his or her point of view is the wrong side. Take for instance this paragraph:


 * These figures became leaders of the so-called "Montenegrin Orthodox Church". Meanwhile, because their "clergy" were without canonical legitimacy in the world of Orthodox Christianity, our disguised communists returned to their "old ways" and illegal methods:


 * That is clearly not neutral, so I've put the POV tag back in but only for that section. Whether the earlier historical material is correct, I have no idea. I'd have thought it ought to cite more sources, but maybe that's just me. Woblosch 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metropolitanate of Montenegro and the Littoral. 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/20110725140742/http://www.danas.rs/20050608/frontpage1.html to http://www.danas.rs/20050608/frontpage1.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues
Article with multiple issues, containing original research without references or refs antagonistic for particular aspect of the article. Usage of Weasel words and phrases is also apparent, with excessive editorializing and some contentious labeling. Article is at times misleading and lacking both in NPOV and sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject of Montenegrin Orthodox Church unification with Serbian Orthodox Church. Lot of works is needed to improve this one.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read Tag bombing. It clearly says: The article either has sources or it does not have sources. There is no need to add tags to numerous unreferenced statements in an article when or  would state equivalent information..--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Firstly, my suggestion to you is to get acquainted with WP:MTR, and how the real tag-bombing looks like, because, not surprisingly at all, you first removed everything, all template messages and inlines, on such a badly styled and backed article, on misguided justification based on misinterpreted "tag-bombing" guideline, which even without issue being raised on the talk page is still extremely inappropriate thing to do. However, it is necessary to note that it seems you did it before even attempting to check the talk page, where the issue has been raised. It is visible that only after you realized that talk page raised the issue, in a section contending article current state, you re-introduced part of the template messages, but without any of the inlines.


 * All being said, you are really correct to the extant of removing inline tags, but only those made redundant by top template messages, not those that describe different issues from one included in article or section templates - citation needed was redundant in particular, and that was my omission. But this still clearly shows that you are using only those bits from the essay on tag-bombing that you thought will serve your aforementioned action. So, I think that you should check entire essay and some more, not just search for bits that suit you. Start with, say, WP:RESPTAG and WP:TAGGING, especially WP:OVERTAG section, and finish with WP:MTR - also certainly try to check some descriptive examples given and see how real tag-bombing looks like. Inlines can only help reader in better understanding top template messages, not create problem, especially those inlines that describe different issues from one included in top of the article or section template message. In this case few required top messages aren't included in the top template to avoid real tag-bombing in the first place, so they were used inline, but than unselectively removed by you. This means that I now have to waste my time again to restore appropriate ones. Badly written articles like this one, require appropriate as well as responsible tagging, what it doesn't need is someone to misinterpret guidelines to justify one's own perception and action, such as removing it completely without discussion or even checking the talk page - if you don't like what happened, if you don't want to see issue contested, than dig in and try to alleviate problematic issues:
 * article should be checked for copy/paste (WP:COPYPASTE);
 * lacking in refs, using questionable or one's antagonistic for particular aspect of the article (WP:IRS);
 * problem with recentism (WP:RECENT);
 * lacking in sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject (WP:PCR);
 * original research (WP:OR);
 * exceptional claim (WP:EXCEPTIONAL);
 * misleading (Wikipedia:Inaccuracy, Wikipedia:Oversimplification / WP:OVERSIMPLIFY, WP:N, WP:WEIGHT);
 * stating opinions as facts and vice-verse (WP:YESPOV);
 * slanted toward one particular perspective (WP:RNPOV);
 * lacking in NPOV (WP:NPOV);
 * usage of weasel words and phrases (MOS:W2W > WP:AWW);
 * puffery (MOS:W2W > WP:PUFFERY)
 * excessive editorializing (MOS:W2W > WP:EDITORIAL);
 * some possible contentious labeling (MOS:W2W > WP:LABEL).

-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , using additional "according to whom" tags does not change the tag bombing nature of your edit. The article was viewed thousands of times in past few years, without anybody raising such massive concerns, so I am uncertain if such massive tagging is constructive. Please revert yourself and raise issues at talkpage one by one, without edit warring.
 * Will you please be so kind to explain why did you write ... not surprisingly at all... part of your above statement? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * First, let me see if I understood you correctly: you have no intention in engaging this article problematic remarks, statements, and paragraphs, which I tagged for you or anyone who may be interested in improving it, so that you get some sense where to look for intervention, but you are willing to complain about those very tags, which I spent some valuable time placing, because they are obviously annoying to you, so, instead you are asking me to now remove them myself or else, you are going to accuse me of edit-warring ?
 * Here's thing: there is no edit war over this issue, not by me anyway, unless you don't know how to WP:MTR.
 * Anyhow, just from curiosity: who is going to mend all the raised issues even if I list them "one by one" - which I won't, of course, as I already did more then required of one editor. If article was viewed "thousands o times" in years past and nobody raised any concerns, who is going to spend his valuable time on my complaints now, suddenly ? Or, you just want to hear them "one by one" so that you can try to somehow resolve this without much of a fuss and without engaging problems, and eventually remove tags by making arguments for each that aren't really an arguments - just like this one you made about questioning if it's constructive to tag, and appropriately for such a badly written article I must add, just because it was being "viewed thousands of times" in number of years "without anybody" complaining, as if that's a good enough reason not to (or to bail-out on every such encounter). Tag situation, as it is at this point, isn't excessive nor it qualifies as "tag-bombing" - for that I am asking you not to misinterpret essay on tag-bombing, instead I suggest again: study WP:TAGGING and all associated WP's, which I indicated in my previous entry. And for issues, as you can see, and I hope you looked at it, I raised issue by issue already, although nothing compels User to go such long way and express it in such a clear way. But now everyone interested have a thorough list of problems together with appropriate tags to help, and if you are one who is interested, dig in, improve this article.
 * PS. What do you think is greater problem: your move which incited such remark on my part, or remark itself? It is unsurprising to encounter "gate-keeping", removal without discussion, and similar behavior surrounding articles concerning Balkans.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , the discussion would go much more smoothly without statements that needlessly personalize the issue. This topic will hardly attract huge number of editors. Those who would be willing to participate in the discussion will probably be driven away by huge toxic walls of text written in this section with 30 YOUs and not so subtle behavior accusations misplaced in article talkpage. I know for sure that I will not touch this article with a ten foot pole. This is my last comment in this discussion. All the best. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)