Talk:Podgorica Assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] 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 brilliant, and on the other hand I'd always choose King Nikola Petrovic-Njegos and/or Petar II Petrovic Njegos over Jevrem Brkovic; regardless on which site they're presented. ;) It is not the problem in Njegos or Montenegrina, but in their parts. Each deserves careful inspection. For example, Montenegrin has an article of an encyclopedia by Matica Srpska which has "Serbs" and then "Dalmatians", "Montenegrins", "Bosnians",... but regardless that it means nothing, it shows that Matica Srpska published it before it was founded.
And I also do not like its administrators. I became wondered that their Guestbook has only several (many-year-spanning) posts which glorify the site, and I decided to make a test. In a weeks' time period, I posted 2 posts in which I declared the site was a Saint, and one on which I criticized its every single bit. And guess what? After 8 days the two positive ones came out on the Guestbook, and the bad one didn't. They're searching through posts and later putting only the good ones at the site, and that is a very dishonest thing. --PaxEquilibrium 12:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I know Montenegrina webmaster, we have exchanged quite a few e-mails a couple of months ago.The "administration" of the site is made up of Montenegrin college students, and supported by a number of historians who contribute to it. Also, they have no governmental support whatsoever, so they are somewhat struggling to finance the whole project, which has now expanded to presenting and preserving the entire Montenegrin culture. Also, their monthly newsletter I receive has a number of interesting articles.
BTW, there is a facsimile of the order by Serbian Army after they went in to Montenegro in 1918 to ensure the goal of Podgorica Assembly goes through. There it is. Sideshow Bob 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Meh, after the Matica Srpska document, I don't know if I can believe scanned documents in Montenegrina. ;)
It's slightly funny that it says "occupier" when they actually came as the "liberator" (though the text seems to form like martial rule). BTW what are "Yugoslav troops"?!? And also, know that these exactly the same rules were applied for liberated territories of the Kingdom of Serbia (and in the seized border areas, and even later for a time in Vojvodina). Montenegro was no exception, this was just as a means to take control of the whole place (with 3 years of hostile occupation under which the whole population forgot what's law and went to the woods to oppose it). I think this document is quite a bit misrepresented, as it seems it only serves to show that the Central Powers' (terrifying) occupation was nice... --PaxEquilibrium 16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

I think we have some New Style/Old Style dates to untangle. According to the Ekmečić article "Скупштина је заседала од 24. до 29. новембра 1918. године." but the fascimile of the Act of the assembly says it was passed at the November 13 sitting.--Methodius 02:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have information that it was held in 11-16 November, and I think that one's authentic. Also, see this. --PaxEquilibrium 12:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but are those the Old Style dates? Either they are, or some of the other sources mistook them for OS dates. Also, I think it would be good if we could get a transcription of the Odluka, chop out some quotes and such. Except I can't hardly read the bloody thing, even when I download it, zoom/sharpen/play around with the contrast etc--Methodius 14:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You mean the facsimile? I have no problems reading it.But translating the whole document...I don't think I have time, or patience for something like that. Sideshow Bob 16:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Transcribing = putting into form like this page, not an image file. It's pretty hard on the eyes, wouldn't you agree? It's legible, but the strain of reading such tiny, blurry writing is too much.--Methodius 00:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

This article is pro-Serbian POV because of this reasons:

  • 1) Book writen in reference is speaking about Serbian agents which are working on Montenegro territory for union between state from 1866. This is not allowed to be writen in article.
  • 2) Similar to that books from reference in article are speaking how serbian military has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military and royal family before election has ended. This is not allowed to be writen in article.
  • 3) Question if new state will be federation or Serbia will annex Montenegro is writen in reference books. This is not allowed in background part of article where it is writen only about "dream" of Montenegro population to unite with Serbia. Writing about this in backgroung part of article is not allowed.
  • 4) Writing in article that parliament has voted under serbian military "protection" is not allowed.
  • 5) Writing in article that Italy has wanted independent Montenegro under italian protection is not allowed because "Italians" are bad guys but Serbs which has wanted annexation of Montenegro are good guys.
  • 6) Even fact date questions in article are not allowed. I am really tired of this nationalistic editing.--Rjecina 15:36, 05 January 2008 (UTC)
    • 1) The link is not necessary a reference, I myself put the external links to every single source, with all versions. Serbia has worked greatly to unite with Montenegro since the beginning of the 20th century (with "agents") and not 1866.
    • 2) It may be written, however carefully because the statement itself is biased.
    • 3) Because that has nothing to do with the Background. :)
    • 4) What does that precisely mean?
    • 5) It falls simply down under the granted mandate. The Italian armed forces went outside their zones in an attempt to occupy the other territories of Montenegro, which would probably mean that they'd enter war with Serbia, Britain, France and America, as well as that they'd have to fight the majority of the population. Similarly to that which happened in 1941, no?
    • 6) Nationalistic editing? What are you talking about Rjecina? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • 1) It is funny how somebody can write book in reference and then say this pages of book are speaking truth, but this other pages are having false claims. Funny :))
      • 2) Do you want to say that Serbian military orders from 1918 are biased ?
      • 3) In background part of article there is many biased statements (example:Montenegro had planned and prepared unification with Serbia for more than a full century)
      • 4) When we edit articles from history we must stop thinking and start writing facts. With that I want to say that our "job" is not to mean but to write without intepretation !!
      • 5) Again this dream how Italian armed forces has wanted to occupy Montenegro. During Italian operation only legal goverment of Montenegro has been king Nicholas goverment. If they have not protested this action then this has not been attack on Montenegro.
      • 6) It is better to say that this has been Greater Serbia style of editing ?
      • 7) For the end I am having 2 more question ? If everybody has liked this sort of annexation why has only 5 of 56 members of 1914 parliament supported this events ? I will not even question slaughter of Montenegrins by Serbian forces ...--Rjecina 8:00, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
        • 1) I don't see what's funny in there. I include all the links available. The Kosovo article has numerous links pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian. Some of the pro-Serbian links go to even madly support of Slobodan Milosevic, while some of the pro-Albanian write nonsensical revisionist histories. But you don't see in the article that Milosevich is one of the greatest heroes in the world, nor do you see how Illyrians lived in Kosovo for thousands of years and continue to live through the Albanians in Kosovo continuously without stop to today from the Iron Age either, do you? :)
        • 2) I said that the claim is biased, because it seems to:
          • a) support a hostile occupying force (the aggressor in a war, the enemy)
          • b) claim that a man who wasn't even there was detained by the Serbian forces
          • c) claim that a supporter of unification who freely returned and joined the Radicals was stopped by the Serbian forces
          • d) claim that a dead man was halted by Serbian forces
        • 3) That is actually true. Official Montenegro planned and prepared it even long before the First Serbian Uprising, when Serbia was created:
            • Here is one example: in the 1876-1878 Ottoman wars the agreement was to renew the Serbian Empire with Milan Obrenovic of Serbia as Emperor and Nikola Petrovic of Montenegro and the Highlands as Patriarch of the renewed Serbian Orthodox Church
          • What other statements do you not agree with?
        • 4) I understand that, but what is "under protection" and why do you want it in the article?
        • 5) They have not protested during the Serbian liberation of Montenegro either. And there is no "dream", that did occur.
        • 7) How do you know that only 5 of 56 supported it? Also, what alleged slaughter of Montenegrins by Serbian forces are you talking about? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
          • To end this discussion I will write about which facts we agree:
          • 1)We agree that books writen in reference part of article are speaking about serbian agents in Montenegro which are working for union from 1866
          • 2)We agree that Serbian military has not allowed return in country of high ranking state or military officials which has been against union before parliament vote.
          • 3)We agree that there has been different thinking about version of union inside Montenegro.
          • 4)We agree that parliament has been under Serbian military protection during voting.
          • 5)We agree that Montenegro goverment has not protested entry of Italian forces in Montenegro.
          • 7)Data about 5 of 56 is from historical documents (I will show source in right time). About slaughter read you can read Chicago Tribune of 1 september 1919
          • Because you accept that all claims writen by me in article are true your reverts are clear example of vandalism and POV editing because of which I do not see point in futher discussion about this article--Rjecina 14:24, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
            • 1) Not quite.
            • 2) Of course we do not.
            • 3) Sure. So?
            • 4) Nope.
            • 5) Yes. And? The Montenegrin government in exile also hasn't ever protested/mentioned any slaughter.
            • 7) I don't understand. How come now isn't the right time? That is a journalist article, normally far-fetched - but killings did occur, and they were indeed horrible. According to some (possible overestimates, but still), almost 3,000 Montenegrins died in the tiny civil war. But the Serbian Army itself, had little or none at all part in that conflict.
            • Read again - as I have told you over and over again, I do not accept all those claims, because of n times repeated arguments. And please see WP:VAND, I'm starting to think "Creation of SCS" was right. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Points of dispute

  • In article is writen how Montengro has always wanted union with Serbia but you are deleting all words which are speaking about Serbian agents working in Montenegro for union between states. This is confirmed by sources !!
  • You are refusing to allow writing in article about Serbian orders which has not allowed return of members of Montenegro military forces and royal family until election has been finished. We are having sources which speaks about that
  • In article need to be writen about different opinions of Montenegrins about union. 1 part has wanted something similar to federation and another more or less annexation.
  • During assembly voting he has been under serbian protection.
  • There has not been attack of Italian forces on Montenegro because Montenegro government has not declared this action to be agression. This government has protested slaughter of Montenegro martyrs (words of government protest) by Serbian forces.
  • Fact that 90 % of 1914 Montenegrin parliament (and ministers from all Montenegro governments) has been against this union or better to say annexation is another important fact which need to be in article.
  • We must write in article fact that elections for assembly has been against Montenegro law.
  • "Only" 3000 persons has been killed during "civil war". This has been 1 % of Montenegro population !!!. During Croatian War of Independence number there has been "only" 0.2 % of victims if we look all population. During War in Bosnia and Herzegovina number has been something more of "only" 2 % killed. It is funny how in many Serbian sources all 3 wars has been civil wars.

Because all this historical facts confirmed with sources are not in article my only comments is that today version of article is showing Serbian thinking of this union.

There is no need to be afraid. We will have RFC in near future. --Rjecina (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Both the Montenegrin and Serbian political elite (leaders) have always wanted to achieve unification, yes. I don't understand what're you precisely objecting. Perhaps you should cite the wording here at the talk page, which you would desire to be in the article? We could then work it out and include it into the article itself. The one you introduced was POV.
    • Yes, because one of those whom these sources allegedly speak indeed did return (and was a chief proponent of unification IMHO), one was detained as per being Collaborator (and then released and pardoned very soon), another wasn't even in future Yugoslavia and the top jewel is the non-living one. ;D And by the way, the House of Petrovic-Njegos wasn't banned from returning. E.g. the very same sources found on Montenegrina also claim that Nicholas in truth never ever initiated his return, for various reasons. Another important thing is that the Serbian government and the Montenegrin Committee did not explicitly stop him from returning, they just advised him not to return, for his own safety (which was IMHO quite reasonable you'd have to agree - with no guarantees of life given from the two, it would've been dangerous for him and his family - he could've ended up like the Obrenovics in 1903; another reason is that the whole situation was very touchy and could've escalated to god knows what. You should also know that the Petrovic-Njegoss were not barred from returning and that upon crowning King Alexander secured that the Petrovics' property is intact, and succeeds accordingly. You should also remember that Alexander negotiated to privately move Nicholas to Belgrade, but Nicholas' poor health prevented this, among other reasons).
    • And it already is - the White and Green Lists
    • At least ten times I've asked you to explain this to me, and you still didn't. :)
    • I've said it before, and I shall say it again: Italy plainly violated the Allied treaty and went outside of its mandate. Neither Britain, nor Serbia, America or France did that. This has got nothing to do with the events that would later follow.
    • This is not correct. AFAIK it is known that the Montenegrin governments in Exile were constantly disbanded, because Nicholas was simply even running out of men, even his closest supporters.
    • Don't get insulted, but do you even read our discussion? ;) Like I've said numerous times before, it already is in the article.
    • I've never said only, and yes, 3,000 is a terribly gross overestimate. I quoted the highly controversial Montenegrin Association of America website on the number, to show how far even go. Yes, they were all civil wars, and not in only Serbian, but in most sources (but this is off-topic). Also, numbers mean nothing, even a single death of a civilian (e.g. that peasant whose throat has been cut slit in Serbian) is horrible. And most of all, that's another subject. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Afraid? I think you're a little too bit stressed these days. :) Don't get offended, but ease down, man. Also, the edit summary you made isn't civil. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In my thinking difference between us is that I am open minded. Show me sources which say different and I will accept them on other side you are refusing to accept even your sources (books writen in references) which are showing "unification" in bad light. Because of that compromise is not possible and there is no point in this discussion. Like I have been saying this will be solved by RFC. --Rjecina (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you have the right to have your own opinion. No need to point it out. ;) Wikipedia is about the content, and not the users. I have shown you sources, e.g. the one showing that Radomir Vesovic was a collaborator. If that is your wish. I have invited you to cite sentences in detail, so that we could peacefully formulate them over here. I really do not understand why you reject that. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your patronizing and playing with words to downgrade me or other editors. Numbers of editors which has started to understand your way of talking is raising. --Rjecina (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do not understand what you're talking about. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

  • Article is writen so that users "understand" how Montenegro is Serbian land. Background is long like all others put together. I am surprised to see that in article is not writen about Serbs coming in VI century. I am afraid that editor has forgot to write about this ??
  • There is no point to write again and again all misleading and false statements in this article --Rjecina (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • No. Background is background - it shows precisely which events preceded events and why they occurred, in what order and is concise. What is wrong?
    • Because you didn't. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
You can look what is writen before but if it is not clear enough I will write this again :)
Background POV: Background is long like all others parts together
Electoral rules: "The compromise is that it wouldn't be based on neither Montenegrin nor Serbian laws, but completely new and more modern ones" It has been compromise between who ? Committee financed by Serbia and who ??
Election: Italian invasion. How is possible to call military action invasion when goverment is not having problem with that ??
Epilogue: Everything. You know very good 2 english language sources but refusing to add them in article because they are destroying you editorial style how only traitors (paid from Italy)has been against union with Serbia. First source is speach of Montenegro general/primeminister on 6 march 1919 during Paris Peace Conference [1] . Second is about Serbs forces which are killing of Montenegrin by Serbian forces [2] . This sources clearly show how POV and false is your article because they are having important statement. Speach of primeminister clearly say that Montenegro has not been called on peace conference but that Montenegro government (king government) is legitimate and recognized by Allies (march 1919). Second source clearly speak that Montenegro is under Serbian occupation (in september 1919). About other stuff there is no need to speak again.--Rjecina (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's no argument. It should be long, to present the...well, background. :) As you see, it does deal with the subject (especially the last bits) and weren't you the one who demanded it to be written? I remember you mentioned something about unification plans from 1866 and constantly insisted on this - well, now there's nothing left not to insist on. ;)
The decision was that neither Serbian nor Montenegrin laws were applied - neutrality. And above all else, the practice of electing electors who appoint deputies, in a very large effort to pertain a modern democratic process.
Just because we haven't found on it anything (yet), it doesn't mean that it didn't. And if you ask me, it's probably because it might've even secretly approved it. Anyway, it was far too insignificant and a quick event that history didn't really want its notification. What you should do is stop referring to the Government of Montenegrin in Exile as some sort of a supreme legal and legitimate body for Montenegro - remember that it was only a group of people whenever, all the time, imposed by King Nicholas - of course, against Montenegrin laws, but this was because the only one was above all laws (including the very Constitution) was the King. And lastly, Montenegro was a sector under Allied occupation. When one component part tries to expel the other components (the Serbians, British and Americans), bringing forth reinforcements from nearby in the style of a true invasion - it is an invasion attempt. The same would be as if the United Kingdom forces, today, marched onto Baghdad, to take over Iraq, risking a conflict against the United States, and dispatching large additional forces from Cuwait without informing General Command of the occupation. Remember that an ultimatum was sent to Italy by the US, France and UK, which threatened with war against Italy. As per the Great Allied Powers conclusion, all Italian forces had to be evacuated (this was also instilled by general Italian expansion eastwards in Istria and similar locations).
Er, no. No one was against unification, the Greens (some) only objected the manner of its conduction. I've already stated about the latter and would you really want that introduced? How about also adding Serbian generals' wording and propaganda? Gvozdenovic was no Prime Minister then. And I see that all the info is in the article already? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is normal neutral article we will have this sort of link

Main article: History of Montenegro
and few lines about that not 45 lines

Montenegrin population has not voted with Montenegrin laws but with election laws writen by organization created and financed by Serbia !!

This has been Montenegro and Montenegro government recognized by Allied forces has not protested Italian "invasion".--Rjecina (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean.
Understandable. For a completely new assembly, for some sort of a supreme legitimate body of a nation, new election rules were needed. And the organization wasn't created just by Serbia, nor was financed just by it. From that same point of view, the complaints of the dethroned King Nicholas, are present in this very article.
As I have said before, we have yet to find that out. Let me repost my last post regarding that issue:
Just because we haven't found on it anything (yet), it doesn't mean that it didn't. And if you ask me, it's probably because it might've even secretly approved it. Anyway, it was far too insignificant and a quick event that history didn't really want its recording. What you should do is stop referring to the Government of Montenegrin in Exile as some sort of a supreme legal and legitimate body for Montenegro - remember that it was only a group of people whenever, all the time, imposed by King Nicholas - of course, against Montenegrin laws, but this was because the only one who was above all laws (including the very Constitution) was the Monarch. And lastly, Montenegro was a sector under Allied occupation. When one component part tries to expel the other components (the Serbians, British and Americans), bringing forth reinforcements from nearby in the style of a true invasion - it is an invasion attempt. The same would be as if the United Kingdom forces, today, marched onto Baghdad, to take over Iraq, risking a conflict against the United States, and dispatching large additional forces from Kuwait, without informing the General Command of its whereabouts. Remember that an ultimatum was sent to Italy by the US, France and UK, which threatened with war against Italy. As per the Great Allied Powers conclusion, all Italian forces had to be evacuated (this was also instilled by general Italian expansion eastwards in Istria and similar locations), which indeed did occur. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal arguments

For beginning I will write only this:

  • In 1918 legal representative of Montenegro has been King, his goverment and parliament of 1914
  • Parliament has been abolished during occupation but all acts during occupation are not legal
  • All actions of Committe has been against Montenegro laws.
  • Voting for Podgorica Assembly has not been in line with Montenegro election laws.
  • Italia has not attacked Montenegro because King and his goverment have not protested attack.
  • Goverment of Montenegro has been only internationaly accepted goverment until 1920-1921. --Rjecina (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • So in essence, you're putting all arguments just into the hands of one man?
    • And that's why a new one was elected in late 1918, instead of a simple vote-less unification/annexation.
    • Please tell me which acts of the Committee were against which of Montenegro's laws (which weren't valid in Montenegro since 1916, but rather international law).
    • Against its (not quite valid though) laws, yeah; just like it's stated in the article. I don't understand what is the problem with this bit (repeatedly)?
    • ..and yet Italian soldiers fought several Allied & Montenegrin units and demolished a couple of roads & the countryside, as well as attempted to misuse its mandate of an Allied co-protectorate in an attempt to seize control of the state?
    • But Rjecina, if that were true, the Kingdom of Montenegro would've been accepted into the League of Nations (which it wasn't), and not the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
      • We have all the time of the world. Don't rush, but talk. Let's all of us hear you out. --10:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Rjecina is right in most of the points above, and unfortunately the article in it's current state has a very strong pro-unification POV or bias, which needs to be corrected to achieve NPOV which is wikipedia policy. The laws and election laws of the time have to be pointed out and also the possible legality / illegality of the whole of the Podgorica Assembly. Hobartimus (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
        • But Hobartimus, we're just talking about nothing over here. As I have said 20 times, that's already in the article. If you think it's POV, please point it out and say what needs to be corrected in an effort to improve it. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
          • This of course requires more time, discussion and consensus, adhereing to NPOV can be very tricky at times. I don't want to rush into editing the article just yet some additional sources might be needed. Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
            • We have all the time of this world; don't rush - & discuss. :) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 21.03.2008 edits

In my thinking even this version is not neutral, but if we look earlier version this is example of NPOV writings. --Rjecina (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it misses about 60% of the data (already in and the one which I'm preparing to add). ;P --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)