Talk:Greens (Montenegro)

Montenergin Serb

I don't understand why putting "Montenegrin Serb" on every single Montenegro-related article that predates 1945!; it implies as if they all belonged to a national minority (that's what's "Montenegrin Serb", just like "Croatian Serb" or "Bosnian Serb"). And there's no such case - they were all Serbs before, and did not belong to one of the peoples of Montenegro. Just put "Montenegrin" or "Serb" (the first one, rather).

BTW Methodius is right Bob, some of the Greens were known for their overexcessed, even violent, Serbian ultra-nationalism (Serbian Radicals, the kind that outburst in the 1990s), completely contrary to the Whites. --PaxEquilibrium 13:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well you and I understand all Montenegrins were Serbs back in the day. However, that is a simple fact for me, like 1+1=2. For the casual reader, everything has to made obvious. Yes it does make them sound like a minority in their own land, but the alternative gives a reader unacquainted with the subject matter the impression that they are foreigners in their own land (i.e. not Serbs at all). If we didn't put Montnegrin Serb, many readers (including many modern "Montenegrins" sadly) would think it was interethnic, whereas the conflict was political and intraethnic.--Methodius 14:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, "Montenegrin Serb" is fallacious. --PaxEquilibrium 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I, as a descendant of Montenegrin zelenaši and komite, am pretty well acquainted with the subject. If the Greens were such Serb patriots, why the hell would they oppose the unification then? They started as the supporters of King Nikola, but their movement radicalized up to WWII, when they were fighting for the independence, supported by Italy. Anyway, if even Pax told you "Serb Montenegrins", I think there is no point for prolonging this discussion anymore. Sideshow Bob 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They opposed because Serbia totally diminished Montenegrin glory as the true fighter for national liberation and unification of Serbs.

After settling finally that sadly its younger baby-brother took over all its eternal 500-year fame:

a) They wanted Montenegro to be de facto autonomous within Serbia; "de facto" only for the cause of mentioning existence of an entity "Montenegro" and that HRH Nikola rules (but with no power in effect) as local King and that the royal dynasty prevails (just like Japan at the end of WWII, the preservation of the Monarchy at all costs)

b) They demanded that the Serbian Patriarchal title belongs only to the Montenegrin Metropolinates (yes, those that MOC *claims* it recreated). They demanded that the Metropolitans move to Pec, which, as the medieval Serbian Orthodox Church seat, would be in Montenegro (independent or at least de facto autonomous).

The Greens supported (just like Nikola said) that the "Serbians are not worthy Serbs", and that Belgrade corrupted Pan-Serbian all-assimilating plight will eventually bring down not only a unified Serbian state, but also entire Yugoslavia (and they were right, even up to this day).

In the end, this should not even be strange to anyone, considering that before 1945 practically every single Montenegrin was a Serbian patriot and/or nationalist, and that's not just a stereotype. ;) So any fighting about t'is is worthless... and should end before it begins.

Oh, and that "even"... what is that supposed to mean? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 16:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For example, even Sekula Drljevic was a Serbian nationalist (and if he was...).

Sideshow Bob, why do you consider the fascimiles biased? --PaxEquilibrium 16:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sekula Drljevic Serb nationalist? :) Where did you get that from? Also, where did I say facsimiles are biased, you lost me on that one...

And about even - You and me hardly ever agree on something, and when both of us are claiming the same thing, there is a very good chance for it to be right. :) Sideshow Bob 17:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit that I'm stubborn, but I'll also admit one thing - whenever people claim something, I search the arguments of the "other side", because I feel it's jeopardized and defend it. It might sometimes seem that me and you disagree, but AFAIK it's not (only defending the "other cause", whatever that was). And AFAIK, if you just see through, you will notice that we hardly had any "fights". ;) Except that time when you appeared on wiki, when your actions were not quite nice (but duh, it's beginners' beginning, you'd be surprised that my first edits to wiki more than a year ago would seem very much like trolling, so there's nothing new there; beginners catch on in a few weeks [or months, in my case] and all is well). :) --PaxEquilibrium 17:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and in 1918 he supported the Podgorica Assembly and around 1919 was a strong supporter "all of us Serbs unite, but conditionally, in a nice way". He also made similar arguments, as the Montenegrin Federalist Party was over the years losing its "Serbian character", but not completely. ;) However the last time he mentioned "Serb" is, if I recall, sometime in 1938. Later on after 1941, I remember reading his statements that yes, Montenegrins are Serbs, but only because they were Serbianized, and in 1944 (when he was in Zagreb), he just said Montenegrins were Croats brainwashed by Serbs.

This is the main reason why the Serbian Radicals (Aleksandar Vucic) on one occasion claimed: "The only nationalists in Montenegro are Serbian nationalists as seen always through history; those nationalists that try not to be Serbian nationalists have to search a foreign nationalism, like Croatian, always the one opposing Serbian ideology, as a domestic Montenegrin nationalism is - impossible, as seen in WWII and today with DANU". He actually used this as a "proof" for the fabrication of the Montenegrin nation separate from Serbian. --PaxEquilibrium 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Critika1

As I understood, the Greens were quite volatile Serbian nationalists, in contrast to the civic non-national whites... (today it's vice-versa, the pro-Montenegrins are for severing links with Serbia and pro-Serbs for a united state with Serbia ;0) --PaxEquilibrium 13:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So the fierce Serb nationalists wanted Montenegro to have the key role in the unification of South Slavs, but the civic, non-nationalist group wanted Montenegro to be annexed by Serbia? It might be just me, but I don't see any sense in that claim...(Not to mention that Greens/komite were resurrected in WWII in a struggle to create an independent Montenegro). Sideshow Bob 15:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you understand the ";0)" at the end of my sentence. Basically, it's not logic at all. Then also keep on mind that the greatest Serbian nationalists in Serbia became collaborators for the Nazis, with the somewhat moderate ones joining the Chetniks.

I think the point is that nationalism is never rational. Tomorrow Serbian nationalists might commit genocide with an attempt to exterminate all Belgraders, Croatian nationalist could decide to blow up Zagreb... anyway, I think we've just saw similar examples in WWII... not sure if it's more disgusting or tragic... and no one says leading whites weren't Serbian nationalists too, to an extent. --PaxEquilibrium 20:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grb petrovic njegosa.jpg

Image:Grb petrovic njegosa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am against recent edits and renaming of this article. The previous title version is extensively used in sources on English and renaming should first gain consensus, which is also valid for recent significant changes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"Greens" is also extensively used in sources and actually in English. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tomasevich 2001 uses 'Greens (Zelenasi)' then Greens from then on p. 138), Roberts 1973 uses 'Zelenasi or "Greens"' p. 24, Tomasevich 1975 uses 'Montenegrin separatists or Greens (zelenasi)' p. 209, Milazzo 1975 uses 'Zelenasi (green) movement' p. 43. No consensus between key sources that I can see, although I take your point about English, 'Greens' is not what I would search for if I was looking for an article on the Zelenasi. In English, 'Greens' usually refers to the political movement or a particular colour of vegetable... Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think that PRODUCER should revert himself and follow regular renaming procedure if he still believes the article should be renamed.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Again both terms are in use, but one is actually in English. Under WP:ENGLISH, "Greens" should take preference and in Google book hit tests "Greens" scores about 2,800 results [1] whereas "Zelenasi" gets about 260 results [2]. "Greens", like other colors, can refer to a number things and this is why disambiguation pages exist. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many of the hits for "greens" are refering to the political movement Green politics not to Zelenasi.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many? I only found perhaps one or two hits that were not referring to these Greens in the first five pages. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Look further. After first ten pages almost all hits refer to Green politics. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I guess it boils down to just English usage and common usage. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I Just want to mention that The zelenasi were not serbs or serbian they were montenegrins "against the unification of the kingdom of montenegro and serbia",and "at the least to be an independent "Republic" in the unification". "They were loyal only to King Nikola", and not to Karađorđević. "Krsto Zrnov Popovic had gone to Argentina for a period of time awaiting a return to strengthen the zelenasi in an uprising, which he was betrayed by some of his own people and ambushed and killed. Posteni-Crnogorac (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

References

Separatists vs Federalists

Tomasevich (1975, p.209 and 2001, p. 138), Roberts p. 24 and West all refer to them as separatists. Granted, there were differences within the Greens, and there was a federalist wing and a separatist wing within the grouping, but a unilaterial move to federalists is not appropriate. Discuss here and if we can get a consensus fine, if not, you can RM it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Greens as Serbs who fight against Serbian army and Montenegrin unionists in order to prevent unification with Serbia?

Just a few questions for the editor who constantly tries to introduce the assertion that "all Greens were nationally Serbs" based on one sentence taken from a book by Ivo Banac:

- If this premise is true, why would the Green movement be even founded? If they were all ethnically Serbs, why would they organise an armed uprising against unification with Serbia? Shouldn't they be delighted with this development?

- Why would Greens continue to oppose the Serbian monarchist regime of Karađorđević dynasty throughout the existence of Kingdom of Yugoslavia? Shouldn't they, as Serbs, be content with Serbian king and unification with other Serbs in one unitary country?

- Why would those Serbs fight "for the right, freedom and honour of Montenegro", and against Serbian nationalist forces? Shouldn't they be on the same side then?

- Why was the Montenegrin Federalist Party as a political wing of the Greens in Kingdom of Yugoslavia even founded? Why did it constantly fight Serbian hegemony, and why was its activity banned, along with that of the communists?

- Why did the "White terror" occur against the Greens, their families and supporters after the forced annexation of Montenegro in 1918 in which thousands of civilians were murdered by Serbian army and its collaborators?

- Did you, or i. Banac, know all members of the momement personally, so that you can stake a bold claim that each and every one of them was actually a Serb?

I would appreciate some answers this time rather than childish accusations of vandalism and pushing an obvious POV poorly veiled by a single source taken wildly out of context. Sideshow Bob 12:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Great argument, you must be proud of yourself. Sideshow Bob 06:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The ongoing slow-burn edit-war here is unedifying. Please engage properly in this thread using reliable sources to back up assertions that have been made both here and in edit summaries. If you can't agree, use a dispute resolution method like a RFC. Continuing this edit-war will likely result in a block or two. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, so is anyone else at all going to try to contribute to the aeticle, or do I have to deal with a usual routine of Serbia-based authors who deny the very existence of Montenegrins and make disruptive efforts without making any contribution whatsoever? Any sensible comment would be appreciated as well. I made an effort to start expanding the article, and tried to explain the issue being contested, but keep hitting the wall with users who only know how to click the "undo" button. Sideshow Bob 06:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that they fought for a different arrangement in the new monarchy doesn´t mean they fought against "Serbs". There are plenty of cases of civil wars where one side fights for a more centralised sistem and the other for a less centralised one, not meaning the other side is rejecting its nationality. Montenegrins as nation separated from Serbs is a recent event, and you are projecting a recent form of view to an historic event. FkpCascais (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No one says that Greens fought "against Serbs", nor is anywhere implied the anti-Serb character of the movement. However, the Green/White division is not merely centralist/federalist, as for example in Argentine Civil War, but it was also a division between Montenegrins who considered themselves an integral part of Serb nation (i.e. the "Whites"), and those who felt that as simply Montenegrins nationally, and wanted to enter the future Yugoslav federation on equal footing as Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the "Greens"). Also, there has also been a more extreme fraction within the movement, which was more separatist than federalist in nature.

As for the "recent creation of the Montenegrin nation" (in 1945 I presume), this perpetually repeeated Serbian nationalist thesis is laughable really. Montenegrin nation and nation-state endured for centuries while other Balkan states were either under Austria or Ottomans, so Montenegrin national identity is a bit older and deeply rooted than some people would wish. But let's leave wishes aside and deal with facts. Sideshow Bob 08:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)