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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. 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)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Podgorica Assembly/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: ThaesOfereode (talk · contribs) 21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tomobe03: Great article you have here! I have a couple notes to get this to GA, but these should be relatively straightforward fixes (if a little numerous). ThaesOfereode (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@ThaesOfereode Hi. I will not be able to respond before 3 July. I expect to address the issues quickly. hope that is fine 86.33.93.65 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

to sign: Tomobe03 86.33.78.249 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem. I will keep it on hold in the meantime. ThaesOfereode (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Mostly good. See comments at the bottom.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Mostly good. See below.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sfn template is well-applied, but some issues came up. Source spot check found below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig shows no significant issues. Spot check shows the same.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Clearly addresses the topic at hand.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Adds appropriate context where necessary.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Easily passed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Maps and all but one image are in the public domain. Other image has an appropriate license.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'd love to know who's sitting around the table in the "Formal surrender of Montenegro to Austro-Hungarian forces in 1916" image. But I suspect that information is probably not readily available. The images are helpful and well-marked. My only quibble is that you might alternate left and right positioning for a little more variance.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good shape for most stuff. See prose issues below.

There are some prose issues that need to be addressed:

Intro

• The assembly was organized by a committee supported by and coordinating with the government of the Kingdom of Serbia. The committee convened the assembly with the aim of facilitating an unconditional union of Montenegro and Serbia and removing king Nikola I of Montenegro from the throne. The unification preceded the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as a unified state of South Slavs by mere days. → The committee convened the assembly with the aim of facilitating an unconditional union of Montenegro and Serbia and removing King Nikola I of Montenegro from the throne. The assembly was organized by a committee supported by and coordinating with the government of the Kingdom of Serbia. The unification was successful and preceded the establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as a unified state of South Slavs by mere days. – What the committee was for is far more important than who organized it, so that sentence needs to be further up.
• The unification was justified by the need to establish a single Serbian state for all Serbs, including Montenegro whose population as well as its king felt that it belonged to the Serbian nation and largely supported the unification. – This issue occurs throughout the article and was frustrating even for me to follow: Which king? My first reading of this interpreted this as Montenegro's king, not Serbia's. Which confused me as to why the former would ever want to hand over his throne to Serbia. This needs to be crystal clear for an audience unfamiliar with the history and politics of interwar Serbia.
  • The manner in which the Podgorica Assembly was elected and its resolutions on unification and the removal of King Nikola from the throne were criticized as unlawful and illegitimate by the king, his government-in-exile situated in France at the time, and opponents of the unconditional union in the country known as the Greens. The Greens, earning that moniker after the color of paper used to print Podgorica Assembly candidate lists containing pro-independence candidates, supported either full independence of Montenegro or a federation or a confederation with Serbia and other South Slavs where Montenegro would be an equal partner. – Try: Nikola I criticized the Podgorica Assembly's elections and resolutions, arguing both were illegitimate and unlawful while his government was in exile in France. Opponents of the unconditional union, known as the Greens for the color of paper used for pro-independence candidates, supported supported either full independence of Montenegro or a federation or a confederation with Serbia and other South Slavs where Montenegro would be an equal partner.

Montenegrin independence and alliances

• Ruled by King Nikola, – I believe convention here should dictate Nikola I rather than simply "King Nikola". Instances of Nikola alone are fine.
• Montenegro was considered by the king – Which king?
• The king firmly believed that Montenegro and the Kingdom of Serbia should unite, a view shared by a slim majority of the country's population. – Which king? Which country?
• The prevailing sentiment in the country was that Montenegro should lead the unification. – Which country?
• Contemporary writers Simo Matavulj and Marko Car – It is important that these writers be identified by their national origin in this context.
• Following the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and the subsequent July Crisis and Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia → Following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the subsequent July Crisis, and the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia
• Minor quibble, for readability: In 1915, Montenegro sought support from the Russian Empire for its aspirations to expand along the Adriatic Sea and its hinterland between the Mat and Neretva rivers – encompassing Herzegovina, southern Dalmatia, and the city of Shkodër – but these efforts were unsuccessful.

Military defeat

• including the Lovćen Mountain → including Lovćen or including Lovćen Mountain – the here is ungrammatical, but the name of the mountain, if you're going to link it, pipe "Mountain" in as well for clarity's sake.
• Montenegrin forces shielded the Royal Serbian Army – I think in this context, Montenegrin forces were shielding the Royal Serbian Army is a more common phrasing within the context. Feel free to push back on this one, but I think it flows better.

Montenegrin Committee

• In August 1916, Radović drafted a memorandum to the king – Which king? I know this is Nikola, but in a new section like this, it's better to err on the side of clarity when in doubt.
• (whose king, Victor Emmanuel III, was his son-in-law) – I think endashes are better than parentheses here, but again, feel free to push back on this.
• He then emerged as a prominent advocate for unification. – Who?
• Montenegrin Committee for Unification – Might be good to have the original Serbian name here too.

Adriatic Troops

• Jovan Radović should be redlinked, unless this is him here: Jovan Radović
• on October 30–31 → between 30–31 October
• on November 4 → on 4 November
• Milutinović ordered the disbanding of the insurgents on November 12. → Milutinović ordered the disbandment of the insurgents on 12 November. or, better yet, Milutinović ordered the insurgents to disband on 12 November.

Rules

This section needs to be rewritten to be more transparent about modern vs historical discourse. If this is an on-going debate between unionists and independentists within Montenegro, that needs to be made clear. If this is only a historical debate, that needs to be made clear and the sentences need to be in the past tense.

• The latter argue that the rules were unlawful because they were not formulated by any Montenegrin legislative body and because they contradicted existing laws and the Constitution of Montenegro. – Constitution of Montenegro links to the current constitution, which may be confusing to the uninformed reader.
• of the great national assembly – If this is referencing a historical assembly, it needs to be capitalized. If it isn't, "great" needs to be changed or removed.
• borrowed from Article 129 of the 1903 Constitution of Serbia. – Link goes to current Serbian constitution.
• King Nikola loyalists – I think the term royalists might be a more wieldy term.

Voting

• Instead, they advocated for a partnership where Montenegro would maintain equal status, constituting an integral part of the union state rather than merely a province of Serbia. – Were there no significant independentists who advocated for no union with Serbia?
• The election, held on November 19 → The election, held on 19 November
• Notably, voting did not take place in the town of Ulcinj, the nearby village of Vladimir, and the regions of Skadarska Krajina and Mrkojevići. – Is there any reason why in your sources? Also, find a better term than Notably in accordance with MOS:OFCOURSE.

Assembly resolutions

• Firstly → First – ibid for "secondly" and so on.
• envisaged → stipulated – The term "envisaged" means more like "imagined".
• brother of Queen Consort Milena – Clarify. Without having clicked on the link, it seems like this is a Queen Consort of the Karađorđević dynasty.
• led by Serbian Orthodox Bishop Gavrilo Dožić – I think this is worth mentioning.

Unification

• Montenegro's government-in-exile proposals were rejected by Serbia, backed by France. – Did France back Serbia or Montenegro's government-in-exile?
• the entire territory came under Serbian control, renamed the Yugoslav Occupational Forces in Montenegro. – This makes it sound like it was the territory that was renamed. Is that true?

Christmas Uprising

• with the French giving Serbia a free hand – MOS:EUPH, just need to say with the French supporting Serbia here.

Annulment of resolutions

This decision led to accusations against Montenegrin communist leader Milovan Djilas, alleging that he "invented the Montenegrin nation," and resulted in a series of censuses where the majority (though not all) of the population of Montenegro declared themselves as Montenegrins. – This sentence is really confusing for me. Why was Djilas blamed? Why did the decision lead to the census declarations? Why did either lead to an invention of the Montenegrin nation?

I have applied changes needed to address the prose and MOS issues above. Could you please have a look at the changes?--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Changes look good! I made a few minor adjustments, I hope you don't mind. A second read-through revealed a few minor quibbles, so I just went in and snagged them rather than volley them off at you. Any other prose issues that could be found would not derail this from being a GA. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As regards significant independists opposing any union at the time of the assembly, the sources do not seem to offer any, explicitly saying they favoured a conditional union instead. I'd be happy to include mention of such names, but I found none. There may be something I'm missing though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a thorough investigation of the event; if there are no sources indicating a serious independentist movement then attempting to snuff one out would probably fail to give due weight. This is good as is. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

As regards the present vs historical debate, the source speaks of it in past tense, so I adjusted the prose accordingly and added clarification to point out that it concerns a historical discourse. Modern issues are addressed in the "Annulment" section anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This article looks to be in good shape now; I'm promoting it to GA. Thank you for another excellent article on the history of the Balkans. I want to commend your exceptional skill in navigating the principal of neutrality writing on a topic this fraught. I hope to see more of your good work in the future. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Source spot check

• Pavlović 2008, p. 70 describes the Niš Declaration and discusses Serbian unification beliefs
• CT 4 September 1919 accepted AGF.
• Pavlović 2008, p. 154 accepted AGF, though the names of the towns are not given on the page indicated through my limited Google Books view.
• Bojović 1989, p. 291 accepted AGF.
• Pavlović 1999, p. 162 supports the influx of funds from Serbia to unionists
• Fuller 1943, pp. 209–210 supports Montenegrin objections of representation, but – unless I missed it – does not mention any Montenegrin ambassador, Gvozdenović, or Gvozdenović's position as Montenegrin ambassador to the United States. If you do find a source that supports this claim, please add it to Gvozdenović's page since it's needed there too.
• NYT 8 November 1918 unequivocally confirms Nikola's appeal to Wilson

You are correct. Fuller does not support the claim, but Pavlović does and I have added that reference now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good then. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2024 (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.