The article states that "Montenegrin and Serb identities are not exclusive", but this is not true. They are exlusive acording to the constitution of Montenegro, the constitutional charter of Serbia and Montenegro, and half a dozen separate censuses since the mid 20th century - all of which allow only one national identity to be declared. These are the raw and unbiased facts (not speculation). On the other hand, it is true that a number of Serbs and Montenegrins may believe that they have both identities - but there is no modern census nor constitutional basis that can support a statement such as "Montenegrin and Serb identities are not exclusive". Many Montenegrins do not feel to be Serb, and never pronounce themselves as such. You can not force national groups to "be Serb" if they do not feel so and never declare as such.

"However the number of Montenegrins does seem to be in steep decline since the introduction of the category by the Communists on the 1948 census" seems to imply that the Communist regime declared the nationality of citizens in polls. This is not true, as citizens declared their nationaility in polls, individually. In fact, the Communists - for the first time allowed citizens to declare their nationality as Montenegrin - by introducing the category, which is more important. If it stands like the previous user wants it to stand, then we must add a sentence stipulating that the "Serbian ruling dynasties in the pre World War II Yugoslavia banned Montenegrin citizens from declaring their nationality as 'Montenegrin'" This is as true as the Communist quirp, as the Montenegrin option was obviously not allowed before World War II.

The article states that MOC was not re-established in 1993, which is a fallacy. The MOC has been legally registered in Montenegro in line with the valid legal system of the state of Montenegro and in line with the laws in Montenegro - which is clearly apparent from the MOC page on Wikipedia. The MOC Church is called the Montenegrin Orthodox Church in its formal registration in Montenegro, so there is no space for speculation here. The Church was re-established after a separate existence until 1920. 
The article does not claim that MOC is a major branch of Eastern Orthodoxy outside Montenegro. 

The statement "over 74% of Montenegrins are Eastern Orthodox Christians, most of whom belong to the Serb Orthodox Church" is anyway a fallacy, as there is no accurate census that can prove this. One may say truthfully say that "most Montenegrins are Eastern Orthodox Christians, most of whom belong to the Serb Orthodox Church", but a large number of Montenegrins are atheists, agnostics, or otherwise, myself included. Being a Montenegrin does not mean that you are part of the 74% of Eastern Orthodox Christians. Sorry, this is the 21st century.

You can not just delete the fact that MOC followers claim that "all of the existing churches in Montenegro were once part of an autonomous Montenegrin Orthodox Church that was abolished following the union with Serbia in 1918." This is the explanation why shrines are not being built en masse in Montenegro by the MOC, as it claims to inherit the churches currently in the hands of SOC. If we put only one viewpoint in "its following is small to the point of non-existence and it has not been recognised by any other Orthodox Church" it is not balanced. Also, the statement "its following is small to the point of non-existence" needs to be based on fact not fancy. Do you have an official census of followers, or is this based on the fact that you are a believer of the SOC?

The sentence "The validity of the referendum was not confirmed by international observers as the allegedly free and democratic vote, in fact took place during wartime in the former Yugoslavia." is true. So I leave it. Of course, I agree to change "international" into "OSCE, EU and US" - as the referendum may have had international monitoring from Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Byelorussia, and Russia.

- user 20:28, 04 Oct 2005 (UTC).