Talk:Montenegrin Orthodox Church

Archives

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Montenegro Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montenegro, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montenegro on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontenegroWikipedia:WikiProject MontenegroTemplate:WikiProject MontenegroMontenegro articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Eastern O. Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (assessed as High-importance).

History

Hadzija, its history is not closely related to the SOC. --PaxEquilibrium 21:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see I have hit a wall of nationalism. Have it your way, but know that the reality is there whether you choose to face it or not.--Hadžija 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOC uses montenegrin, not serbian language. Nenaad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.46.255.145 (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support section

... is full of POV pushing, unsourced claims, personal opinions... should be rewritten. I don't have the time to do this right now, but I just wanted to give heads up to anyone interested. --RockyMM (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole paragraph is completely unfounded POV and I am removing it.

"It must be noted that the current Montenegrin Orthodox Church is absolutely in character and aims similar to the old Church of Montenegro. While the latter based itself upon successorship to the abolished Serbian Orthodox Church by Ottoman decree in 1766, with its Metropolitans asserting the title "Exarch of the Slav Throne" which they hold up to today, who were also great proponents of the enforced unification of the Serbian and Montenegrin Churches which has unfortunately occurred in 1920 as well as the national occupation and oppression of Montenegrins based on medieval Serbian hegemonistic myths, the MOC presents itself as a church of just Montenegro, is a supporter of the Montenegrin nation and a proponent for a separate Montenegrin language as well as a sovereign and independent Montenegro, trying to gather not only Orthodox Christians, but all of Montenegro's faithful as well. The Church of Montenegro also achieved the legal recognition of autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Also an important thing is that the Montenegrin Church's name was the "Orthodox Church of Montenegro", and in late 1918 its Holy Synod was bribed to adopt the decision of alleged "unification" with Serb-Orthodox Churches in Yugoslavia into a single Serbian Orthodox Church, as well as supporting the "unification" of Montenegro with Serbia."

--A.Molnar (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that section. History section is completly unsourced, and I believe full of propaganda, and really really hard to understand. It is clear to me that it was written by someone with a poor command of English language. Also many following sections are completely without sources and read more like excerpts from yellow press. I would rather blank whole article and leave just verifiable information than having it in this state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockyMM (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Njeguši?

According to the article about Njeguši, there are 17 people in that village. But then there are a dozen settlements of the tribe of the same name, and according to the present page, at least 5 churches? – Kaihsu (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.) Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20061019062102/http://www.mitropolija.cg.yu/aktuelno/saopstenja/e000808.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moc-cpc.org/Istorija/Istorijat_L.htm
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moc-cpc.org/Istorija/Istorijat_L.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041028022854/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/kosovo/notebook/0127/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/kosovo/notebook/0127/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.montenegro.org/religion.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Montenegrin Orthodox Church. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganized and added another infobox to differ the two to reduce seemly an bias in the current version of the page's infobox

When I visit this page last time, the infobox was already good as going for. But, when I seeing this again for a while now, this new version of the page's infobox may lean to not belong here, and possibly written in a more pro-Serbian nationalist point of view, if it's given away on the user's categories under the user's prime page. As given it's meant to be a internationally noncanonical Eastern Orthodox Church, not treated as only just the property of Montenegrin government, given what that user thinking when trying to 'cleaning' this part. And if this one is somehow special, comparing to the noncanonical (and independent) Eastern Orthodox Churches like Abkhazian Orthodox Church and the second Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Kiev Patriarchy. Chad The Goatman (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Not sure why the term "canonically unrecognized" has repeatedly been removed from the article. That is precisely how the CPC is described in a myriad of reliable sources. A few examples:

U.S. State Department (2007), Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Volume 1, Tensions continued between the canonically unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church and the Serbian Orthodox Church...

Kajosevic, Samir (18 December 2020), "Montenegro Alters Contentious Religion Law, Satisfies Serbian Church", Balkan Insight, On Friday, the small and canonically unrecognised Montenegrin Orthodox Church said it was not consulted at all on the amendments...

Mikovic, Nikola (6 September 2021), "Oil Well Hunt in the Shadow of Ethnic Clashes in Montenegro", The Byline Times, Many of the protesters belonged to the canonically unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

Kajosevic, Samir (14 September 2021), "Dispute Flares with Serbian Church over Montenegro Monastery", Balkan Insight, The local council in the town of Cetinje on Tuesday discussed a draft resolution calling on the national authorities to allow the canonically unrecognised Montenegrin Orthodox Church to use the historic Cetinje Monastery...

"Montenegrin government bans transfer of ownership of Cetinje Monastery", N1, 14 September 2021, The city council of Cetinje met on Tuesday to debate an initiative to hand the medieval Cetinje Monastery to the canonically unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church...

Kajosevic, Samir (18 October 2021), "Montenegro Ruling Over Historic Monastery Sparks Nationalist Anger", Balkan Insight, On September 14, the local assembly in Cetinje called on the authorities to allow the canonically unrecognized Montenegrin Orthodox Church to use the historic monastery instead...

It's good to see that the latest removal was reverted. [1] I would encourage any editors who wish to remove the term "canonically unrecognized" to use the talk page and try to form a consensus. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

21 percent

Last month, one user added the claim that 21% of Orthodox Christians in Montenegro are adherents of the CPC. The lead, citing the U.S. State Department, puts this figure at 10%. The source used to back up the 21% figure cites the Twitter comments of a Montenegrin pundit, who claims a survey was conducted in July 2021 that reported these results. [2] In the meantime, this pundit's Twitter comments (rather than the actual survey) have been cited by news outlets. [3] I for one have not been able to find such a survey. If anyone is able to find it, I would encourage them to provide it soon, otherwise this claim is liable to be removed for lack of verifiability. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Amanuensis Balkanicus explanation. Theonewithreason (talk) 1 December 2021 (UTC)