Talk:Podgorica Assembly

Untitled
The mention of a Greater Serbia is completly irrelevant to the Assembly - and incorrect - so is the POV-ised portraying of the Serbian government. Thus, I am placing a totallydisputed tag.

Moreover, the ridiculous mention of a Montenegrin Autocephalous Orthodox Church (cca 1920s) is unconnected - and it implies that it originates from the 650s... Very interesting for Slavic pagans... The Autocephalous branch of the Eastern Orthodox Church in Montenegro was founded in the late 18th century, recognized (partially!) and formed throughout the 19th century as well as constitutionalized at the beginning of the 20th century. However, it was reunited with other Serb branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church in 1920 - just as it was its sole goal... Anyway, this is totally irrelevant with the actual assembly. --HolyRomanEmperor 08:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased, but what about the previous one? There was no mention of Montenegrin's resistance to unification, and no mention whatsoever of general Montenegrin's malcontent with way the things were done.

This is no perfect article, and I intend to work on it, but the notion of cute little unification which occured to everyone's approval just bothered me. It is widely accepted that Podgorica Assembly was no legitimate nor it was legal. It did not represent the will of the Montenegrin people. I'm aware this one is too inclined the other way for an encyclopedia, but it's yet to improve...Nije bitno... 20:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's better not to mention it at all, rather then simply mention it wrongly, or aginst Wikipedia's policies. :) ANyway, I think that you can handle this article (can you, or should I take care of it myself?), however you must understand the expression of my face when I saw the year of 650. :0) --HolyRomanEmperor 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm no expert in Montenegrin church, nor am I proffesional historian, but I think I can manage to at least cut out biased and inaccurate parts of the article, and leave a short, but acceptable one. Will get to it as soon as I find time... Nije bitno... 15:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm some sort of a historian - and I'm most definately certain that the Montenegrin Orthodox Church (the non-canonic one) was formed in 1997 and still maintains its quasi-existence today. The autocephalous Montenegrin branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, however, partially existed ever since its formalization in 1894, up to its inclusion into the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1920. I'll leave you to handle the article. --HolyRomanEmperor 10:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits
A lot of sloppy additions to the article. The State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are not the same, and the author got them mixed up. Also, Alexander I of Yugoslavia wan't the king in 1918, his father was.--Methodius 00:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Kingdom of Yugoslavia only existed under that name from 1929.--Methodius 00:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "After the Assembly announced its decisions, they chose a delegation led by Gavrilo Dožić (who would become the Serb Patriarch in 1938), to inform the King of Serbia of the decisions they had made. The delegation handed the decisions to Alexander I of Yugoslavia on 17 December 1918."
 * Did they hand them to then Prince Alexander or King Peter I?--Methodius 00:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was King Peter I of Yugoslavia. I got confused because his son was planned to be the king of the newly-made unified Kingdom... Thanks for pointing it out, though. Sideshow Bob 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem--Methodius 01:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could find a better source than montenegrina.net eventually, since it's hardly the most unbiased site.--Methodius 01:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Montenegrina.net and Njegos.org put together sort of balance each other out, don't ya think? :) Sideshow Bob 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't generalize. It really depends on which articles. Some of the articles in Montenegrina regarding Montenegrin clans are absolutely bril

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) 01:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)