Talk:Alexander I of Yugoslavia/Archive 1

Translated name
I can't find much of a rationale in Naming conventions (names and titles) for the translation of this king's name throughout the article. I see a pattern in naming foreign monarchs with translated names, especially in the middle ages, and in the page titles so that it's obvious in English. However, the name is properly spelled "Aleksandar" in Serbian and it should at least be used within the article if not in the title. --Shallot 16:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The rationale for renaming monarchs is the same rationale that is used for renaming popes. Therefore IMHO this rule should be applied and Alexander should stay Alexander. --Romanm 16:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no rationale for translating names (im not just referring to kings but to everyone else from actors to athletes like Aleksandr Ovechkin.) from their original spelling yet in the english speaking world its considered fine. There are no X's used in cyrillic languages and when translated into latin, it is replaced with the phonetic 'ks'. Even worse, it sounds wrong. The english sounding 'der' is not the same as the 'dar' in serbian. Do you see anywhere John F. Kennedy referred in french as Jean F. Kennedy or Jovan F. Kennedy or Giovanni F. Kennedy in other languages? No. All those names are the same name but are not interchangeable. Cristiano Ronaldo is never referred to as Christian Ronaldo but Aleksandar, Aleksandr are translatable? And then you have the ukranian spelling of Oleksandr which Wikipedia DOES NOT translate to Olexander but keeps the 'ks' spelling. thanks, Marko M. (thats Marko, not Marco, not Mark or Marc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.153.177 (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Balkan Wars and slapping a girl in Skopje
Dear McMixy,

Sorry you were unhappy with the pavelicpapers reference. I was not aware of its holocaust-denying nature. I was looking for an English reference, and that's why I provided the one above.

I now provide a reference that I am certain is reliable - http://www.dlib.mk:8080/jspui/handle/68275/120. It is an Almanac of Macedonia, and is available at the University of Skopje "Saint Kliment Ohridski" library and site. To verify, download the PDF. It is in Old Bulgarian. Unfortunately the book is not organized in a manner that is easy to be searched, and that's why I provided exact chapter and page reference - chapter IX, page 50. The book also has handwritten pages in the top corner. The piece you need is on the bottom of page 828.

беше срещната на улицата от престолонаследника Александър и попитана шча си ти... Принцът и ударил плесница

roughly translates to (using Google Translate)

"was encountered in the streets of Crown Prince Alexander and ask what you ... Prince slaps her"

Please consider discussing here before further undoing. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WModeratrix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello!

I did see your source, and it is really written as you said. However, in those days, Bulgaria stil didnt come to terms with the fact it lost Vardar Macedonia in Second Balkan War. That is why Bulgarians were engaged in numerous para-military and propaganda actions against newly found Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Finally, it was Bulgarian terrorist that assassinated King Alexander in Marseilles in 1934. I just dont feel comfortable with Bulgarian sources of that time, there should be another, more credible confirmation. It is also quite out of Alexander s character, everything we know about him points that he was always very calm and calculated person, not inclined to make any incidents, let alone to slap around little girls. Also, even if that is all true, it seems like a minor incident, not something that should be a part of this article.

I wont try to undo any more, but please, re-think everything.

Best regards!McMixy (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WModeratrix (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, McMixy!

Thanks for being reasonable. You are right about everything you say. I can assure you the source is reliable: it even contains a picture of the girl who was slapped. If it wasn't reliable, I don't think it would have found a place in the Macedonian National Library, knowing the state of the bilateral relationships between Macedonia and Bulgaria nowadays.

I don't know much about the character of King Alexander, but what you are saying is likely correct. If you read the Bulgarian version of the article, you will see a claim that the Prince soon felt ashamed by the incident and tried to keep in touch and periodically check on the girl. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a reference for that, so that's why I didn't include it in the article.

The Bulgarian literature is full of references on the incident. Even the most influential Bulgarian poet of the times commemorated it in a poem. I think an almanac is the most reliable source. The writer Cyril Parlichev also has a book where this is mentioned. Rest is interviews with Ivan Mihailov or quotes of him.

Even though this seems a minor incident, I think it deserves to be mentioned. But I would agree to move it to another page where it could be more appropriate - like Balkan Wars or something similar. (Hopefully it won't start an edit war there.) Let me know what you think and if you have any suggestions.

Hello!

Your assumption is correct, if you move it in the Balkan Wars, it will certainly start another edit war, but it should be moved somewhere else, although right now, I dont have idea where. I will try to find some Serbian sources on the incident to see what comes up and get back to you.

McMixy (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. In the meantime, I'm going to add to the statement that it is "according to Bulgarian sources".

I also found a reference by Mercia MacDermott, http://macedonia.kroraina.com/en/mm/mm_23.htm, p. 451. She quotes Parlichev. True, she is still somewhat related to Bulgaria, as she spent 30 years of her life teaching and researching there, but I think this adds to the credibility of the source.

Regards! WModeratrix (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

"According to Bulgarian sources..." is fine, a Solomon's solution. I did try to find any non-Bulgarian source on this event, but failed, there is no mention on that whasoever, in Serbian or in English, apart from some Bulgarian sources translated in English. However, that doesn't mean it didn't actually happen, but it does raise some doubt.

Also, and this is just a suggestion, you could consider moving that part of text in the article Macedonian nationalism in "Late 19th and early 20th century" section, mostly because it elaborates, to my opinion in quite objective way, the confusion that existed at that time among local Slavic population about their national identity. I do accept your opinion that, although this may seem as a minor incident, (if true) it is significant in the context of how Macedonians wandered on the journey to their contemporary self-awareness.

On that topic, there is a small footnote in Oswald Spengler's "The Decline of the West", which summarizes the entire problem: "In Macedonia, in the nineteenth century, Serbs, Bulgars, and Greeks all founded school for the anti-Turkish population. If it happens that a village has been taught Serb, even the next generation consists of fanatical Serbs. The present strength of the "nations" is thus merely a consequence of previous school-policy." You can find it at https://archive.org/stream/Decline-Of-The-West-Oswald-Spengler/Decline_Of_The_West_djvu.txt

Regards!McMixy (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, Macedonian nationalism is a decent place to move this to, but I'll need to prepare some context first. I think I'll also prepare First Balkan War with some context, and wait for about a week to see where that context will be better accepted. Then I'll move the statement about the incident there.

I'll post here when I'm done editing those 2 topics - probably in a day or so.

Regards! WModeratrix (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I added 2 small sections to Macedonian nationalism and First Balkan War. Take a look and feel free to delete, add, edit or discuss as you see appropriate.

It is definitely not my intention to write only negative things about Serbia, so feel free to add your quote of Oswald Spengler to the Macedonian nationalism article. I leave it to you as you are the better expert on the subject. Thanks! WModeratrix (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, read the article itself. Above in it is described this event, but in details, and a lot of secondary sources in English are provided, confirming it. More, in the cited reference that was just deleted, concerning Ivan Vazov's poem, under line is explained that this poem is related to the case with this girl and Alexander's involvement in it. I have provide additional academic source in Bulgarian explaining this issue and Vazov's poem is also mentioned. Link provided for verification: Църнушанов, Коста. Македонизмът и съпротивата на Македония срещу него, Университетско издание Св. Климент Охридски, София, 1992:
 * In Bulgarian: Още със стъпването си в села и градове сръбските офицери и войници поставяха натрапчиво на всеки срещнат местен жител един и същ въпрос: "Ща си ти?" И при всеки отговор – "Българин!" кипваха от злоба: "Лажеш! Ти си прави сърбин! Бугарска пропаганда те е побугарила!" Това явление бе толкова повсеместно, че пак Вазов с вълнуващи думи го сочи като есенция на сръбското нахалство в прочутото си стихотворение "Па ща си ти?" Начело на тая хайка застава... Кой мислите? – Самият престолонаследник Александър Караджорджевич. Вестта на това небивало изстъпление се разпространява светкавично из цяла Македоиия и намира отзив и в българския печат... Иван Вазов дори написа стихотворение по този повод, след като видял някаква снимка на принц Александър на кон и под нея надпис: "Српски Бонапарт".
 * In English: Ever since they stepped into the villages and towns, Serbian officers and soldiers have been persistently asking each and every local resident the same question: "What are you?" And with every answer - "Bulgarian!" they were boiling with malice: "You're lying! You're a Serb! Bulgarian propaganda has infected you!" This phenomenon was so ubiquitous that again Vazov, with exciting words, referred to it as the essence of Serbian impudence in his famous poem "What are you?" At the head of this hauls stands ... Who do you think? - The Crown Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic himself...The news of this unprecedented performance was spreading all over Macedonia and is also reflected in the Bulgarian press... Ivan Vazov even wrote a poem on this occasion after seeing some picture of Prince Alexander on horseback and under it an inscription: "Serbian Bonapart". . Jingiby (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The ordinal
It's also a bit peculiar that this Alexander is marked with "I" (the first) when the naming convention page says that this should be omitted when the person is the only one to bear the name (the previous Aleksandar wasn't of Yugoslavia, and the later Aleksandar wasn't a king). "Alexander of Yugoslavia" returns twice as many hits than "Alexander I of Yugoslavia" even despite the wikipedia-induced pollution of the latter. --Shallot 16:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I went on and fixed this. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to note, he is always called Alexander I, and his grandson, although not king, is known as Alexander II. This is a clear instance where the rule that we never use "I", even when it is the most common way of referring to someone, is wrong. It is just as wrong not to use "Alexander I" as it is to use "Victoria I" for Queen Victoria. I'd add that there are about 1200 hits for "Alexander I of Yugoslavia" and 1600 hits for "Alexander of Yugoslavia", but that many of the hits for the latter are references to the present crown prince, not to his grandfather. john k 21:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't see why the second Alexander deserves the number when they're not a king (nor will they ever be, or any of their progenies either, most likely), but hey. I'm probably biased by the fact that we, in the native language, always say "za kralja Aleksandra" and never tack on "prvog", as there is one single "kralj Aleksandar"... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;

I've always seen "Alexander I" in English...Also, even if Crown Prince Alexander doesn't deserve a "II" (and the article certainly shouldn't be called that), to have this article at "Alexander of Yugoslavia" is confusing. john k 18:17, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that is the primary meaning regardless of a naming convention used... we can add a small disambiguation note like the one at Alexander of Serbia if someone is actually confused by it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   21:06, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia naming convention is fairly confusing, I think, for monarchs who are the only one of their name. When there is a currently living figure known as "Alexander of Yugoslavia", and the figure who by official wikipedia naming conventions should have that article title is more normally called "Alexander I of Yugoslavia", I don't see why we shouldn't just use the ordinal. john k 22:01, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * But the living one is fairly insignificant, unlike his grandfather. I'd even venture to say that the former is non-notable in comparison. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   23:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, he's probably not as important as his grandfather, but he's notable enough to get news stories written about him (for instance this BBC story from 2000), and he, unlike is grandfather, is currently alive, meaning that people reading about Serbia today are more or less likely to come upon him. john k 23:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just about anyone gets into the newspapers these days... sorry to sound so cynical. I'd also point out that the last Alexander is actually the third Aleksandar Kara&#273;or&#273;evi&#263; and if given a number as the king of Serbia (ignoring Yugoslavia), then he might actually be "Alexander III of Serbia". (I don't know offhand whether the Alexander who created Yugoslavia in 1929 had a title of "King of Serbia" or "King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" between 1921 and 1929.) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It also seems odd that the Alexander of the Obrenovi&#263; dynasty isn't counted in. In general the Obrenovi&#263; kings have inconsistent article titles... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   13:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Obrenovic Alexander was King of Serbia, the first Karageorgevic was Prince of Serbia. This one was the first to be King of Yugoslavia (or, initially, King of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes - he was never King of Serbia that I am aware). The Karageorgevics also didn't really recognize the Obrenovics as rightful Kings, anyway, so they weren't included. I think the numbering of Serbian/Yugoslav monarchs is just generally pretty f'd up. john k 18:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm coming to this debate a little late in the day but this doesn't fit the naming convention at all. It seems to me the ordinal quite clearly violates the convention.  Further there is nothing there that I could see that insists that it should be Alexander.  If we have Juan-Carlos then it should be Aleksandar of Yugoslavia.  Dejvid 10:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm...the convention has changed, actually. Now we use an ordinal of the monarch themself used an ordinal. Which makes more sense anyway. I proposed this some weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) and nobody objected. So it's been introduced. We have Juan Carlos I of Spain now, and Franz Joseph I of Austria, and we should certainly have Alexander I of Yugoslavia. john k 15:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John, can you provide references for the statements that the ordinal is always used in English, and that he used it himself? I can't seem to muster up a single Google search that would indicate either. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   11:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd second what Joy has said. I am very sceptical that he ever called himself Alexander the 1st and if he himself didn't then the ordinal is POV because it implies that the pretender "Alexander II" was the real king of Yugoslavia. The Karađorđević's haven't even managed to engineer a restoration in Serbia. Dejvid 13:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Calling him Alexander I doesn't imply that the pretender is king, any more than calling Juan Carlos "Juan Carlos I" implies that there has been a Juan Carlos II. Most other encyclopedias calls him Alexander I - encarta, Britannica (although Columbia does not.)  Also calling him Alexander I is rulers.org, which is normally reliable for such things. The Encyclopedia of World History also refers to him as Alexander I. john k 19:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By contrast, it is hard to find any sources that refer to Queen Victoria as "Victoria I". john k 19:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But did he use the ordinal himself? I have several historical books in both English and Serbo-Croat and they either call him Aleksandar Karađorđević or King Alexander without the ordinal. Pribichevich's book is called "La dictature du roi Alexandre" which was published while Aleksandar was still alive. That some encyclopedias think differently says more about their naming convention than Yugoslavia. Dejvid 20:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I have no idea where I would have to do to prove anything to you. The New York Times obituary for Alexander refers to him as "Alexander I," as well. (The obituary for Peter I also calls him "Peter I". john k 22:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me add that various sources not using the ordinal does not prove that the ordinal was not in official use - obviously, when there is only one king of a given name, there is no particular reason for writers of historical or biographical books on him to use it. I'll also add that these encyclopedias clearly do not have naming conventions which force them to use an ordinal when one was not in use. Their articles on Victoria do not call her "Victoria I." Especially in the youthful monarchies of the Balkans, it was common enough to take the ordinal "I," so as to give an intimation that there will be more monarchs to come. john k 22:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm the NY Times obitory which would go back to 1934 does cut ice with me tho I am still somewhat doubtful. You are right, listing books is not proof of an official tittle but it is and indication of what people will be searching for. Dejvid 00:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So long as Alexander of Yugoslavia provides disambiguation (many people entering that will be looking for the crown prince, I think), I don't think there's too much problem with what somebody will be searching for. john k 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I made it semi-disambig instead of full disambig. That should be fair enough. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   00:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we really need the depiction of his regicide, it is crass and in very poor taste. (Couter-revolutionary 21:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 04:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

„By the time he [Chernozemski] was removed from the scene, he was already dead.“
This is not accurate according to the article Vlado Chernozemski. --Paramecium (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander I of Yugoslavia. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150612172106/http://www.dlib.mk:8080/jspui/handle/68275/120 to http://www.dlib.mk:8080/jspui/handle/68275/120

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Ivan Vazov
Why did you just revert me without answering to my concerns?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  16:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, here's what you said: 'Vazov died before Alexander became king. And, by the way, the poem does not mention Alexander at all.' All the answers are in the link I added as a reference: https://www.slovo.bg/old/vazov/macedoni/pashtasi.htm The event in the poem is during tne Balkan War (1912) and Alexander (despite not being a king himself yet) definitely existed as a person (and some kind of war commander in the Yugoslav army of his father) and WAS there at the time. If you open my link you'll see the * sign exactly after the title and the explanation is written as a footnote under the poem:

"Па шта си ти?". На български означава "Какъв си ти?". Вазов написва това стихотворение след като сръбският престолонаследник Александър І удря плесница на едно момиченце в Македония, което на наглия му въпрос отговаря, че е българче.

"Па шта си ти?". On Bulgarian it means "Какъв/каква си ти?" ('What are you' on English). Vazov writes this poem after the serbian heir to the throne Alexander I hits a slap to a girl in Macedonia who answered 'Bulgarian' to his inpudent question.

Sorry for my belated answer. I hope it clears all your worries now.

Assassination in Marseilles
Assassination in Marseilles is now a redirect to this article. On many Wikipedias that is a separate article. How about to form a distinct article on this Wiki, through transferring most of the info from the section Assassination to the separate article with such name. This section is already too long. Jingiby (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to form a distinct article through transferring most of the info from the section Assassination to the separate article with such name. Jingiby (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is fine as it is.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  20:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead. I see no argument against splitting.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Really, it's my fault. I just didn't understand Sadko well. Sorry. Jingiby (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Do not split, as per WP:SPLIT, with 39 kB of prose, it falls below the minimum to qualify as per WP:SIZESPLIT, which says that articles below 40 kB don't qualify for splitting based on length alone. WP:CONSPLIT might apply, but I think that this info is better kept in a single article. Onel 5969  TT me 21:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree for Onel, for now.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:57, 29 December 2019 (UTC)