Talk:Peter I of Serbia/Archive 1

Title
I can't help but notice that this article is titled "Peter I of Yugoslavia", and it starts with "Peter I of Serbia". What was his official title? I doubt both are correct... Sideshow Bob 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He was the king of Serbia after the coup in 1903 to the star of ww1 1914. And the from 1918 to his death he was king of Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.2.225 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He was never King of Yugoslavia, because the name Yugoslavia was introduced in 1929, and he died in 1921. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Serbian speakers
Royal names are generally translated, but I cannot find an English translaton for the name "Milena." Do any Serbophones have an answer?

Soviet Canuckistan 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Previous requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes → Peter I of Yugoslavia — Relist Vegaswikian (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I quote Kingdom of Yugoslavia: "For its first eleven years of existence it was officially called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, but the term Yugoslavia was its colloquial name from the very beginning." As WP:NCROY states we do not have to respect monarch's formal titles e.g. "King of the Hellenes" or "King of the Swedes, Geats and Wends". If we don't call him this, why do we call his grandson Peter II of Yugoslavia? PatGallacher (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

His article also states "He is considered to be the founding father of Yugoslavia (this name, colloquial, but very widely used even in European maps during his day, became official in 1929)." PatGallacher (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A very good idea. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 09:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per Alexander I of Yugoslavia and Peter II of Yugoslavia. Flamarande (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * His two sole successors on the throne reigned when the country was officially named "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", so their titles are a completely different matter and are not to be used as arguments in this discussion. However, if we're not required to "respect the monarch's formal titles" then "Yugoslavia" is without a doubt more sensible than "of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" (per PatGallacher above). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 10:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question Why don't we title this article "Peter I of Serbia"? That's what the Frwench Wikipedia does, and it makes sense, given that he was King of Serbia for almost all of his reign, including during the First World War. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that was not his last title. Serbia ≠ Yugoslavia. The French Wiki article is wrong. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But shouldn't we use what is most prevalent in English? Looking at results from google books and google scholar, "Peter I of Serbia" is found in hundreds of sources, whereas "Peter I of Yugoslavia" is found in two dozen. DrKay (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NCROY states sovereign names are "an exception to the general rule of most common English name". The country of Peter I is the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, i.e. Yugoslavia. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence from Kingdom of Yugoslavia quoted by Pat in his rationale is tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was a separate South Slav state. It was predecessor of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which started in 1929. Petar I Karađorđević died 16 August 1921, which is 8 years before creation of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Kebeta (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You and Wanderer have been suggesting that but I can find you dozens of sources and an entire Wiki article (Creation of Yugoslavia) that directly contradicts it. Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, not 1929. It was merely founded under a different name and was to change it another four times. The exact official name is irrelevant, and that fact is illustrtaed in that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article (and almost every single source available) includes the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as the exact same country (i.e. the "first Yugoslavia", the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stjepan Radić was assassinated by a Montenegrin Serb politician in the parliament on 8 August 1928. Following the political crisis triggered by the shooting, in January 1929, King Aleksandar Karađorđević abolished the constitution, dissolved parliament, and declared a royal dictatorship, changing the country into the first Yugoslavia and oppressing national sentiments. All this happened after Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was already dead. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was going to leave this discussion alone, but DIREKTOR finds a need to drag my name into it. King Peter ruled over the Kingdom of Serbia from 1903 to 1918 and over the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1918 until his death in 1921. Yugoslavia was simply not the name of the state during Peter's rule. I'd propose a renaming to King Peter of Serbia if anything. This was his preferred title, and the one most often used during and after his lifetime.New York Times Obituary, St. Petersburgh Times Obituary--Thewanderer (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bringing in a user with such a hostile attitude to a previously amicable discussion is an obvious error on my part, I agree. A slight error, though. You may feel free to "undrag" yourself at any time, Wanderer. This is not a discussion on notability - sovereign article names are generally exempt from it (a rare but notable exception), and have specific regulations on some aspects such as this. Even if this were a discussion on notability, neither source would be relevant since, even if we assume they represent it, contemporary notability (in 1921!) is hardly the criteria for article titles. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think we can call him Peter I of Yugoslavia, if the Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't come into existence until eight years after his death.  However, I'm not happy with the current title either.  There was no country called Serbs, Croats and Slovenes.  should it not be Peter I of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes?  Skinsmoke (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, IMHO Peter I of Serbia would be the better name. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with "Peter I of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" or "Peter I of Yugoslavia". Frankly it seems silly to use "Peter I of Serbia" since that country did not even exist at the time of his death. "Peter I of Yugoslavia" would be only slightly inaccurate, I admit, but only in that "Yugoslavia" was not the name that same country used at the time of his death, but it seems a much more elegant solution. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My Funk/Wagnall encyclopedia has him titled Peter I of Serbia, which is good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not the country he ruled. Are we going to be factual or are we going to repeat a common mistake here on Wikipedia as well? -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Peter I of Serbs, Croates and Slovens is too long a title. This leaves us with 2 choices (IMHO) Peter I of Serbia or Peter I of Yugoslavia. I prefer the former. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't oppose this move, as the suggested target is better than the current name. However, like others above, I marginally prefer "Peter I of Serbia". He is better known under that name (as he's more famous for being the King of Serbia during WWI who was made King of the new South Slav state dominated by Serbia after the war), is more frequently called that name (compare google books and scholar searches), was never officially King of a country called Yugoslavia, and was King of Serbia for five times longer than he was King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The naming conventions may state that the official name of the state should be used, but in this case that creates an undesirably long title. The naming conventions also state that in cases where a monarch has ruled more than one country, and disambiguation is necessary, the most commonly associated state should be used as the disambiguator. In this case, I believe that the state most often associated with Peter is "Serbia". DrKay (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I quite like DrKay's argument.  Certainly Peter I of Yugoslavia is not appropriate, but I too could go with Peter I of Serbia.  Skinsmoke (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why move it at all, it is a long name, but correct one. Kebeta (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes → — The previous move request showed that some people supported this name. PatGallacher (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose, this monarch abolished Serbia as an independent state, and died the King of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (soon-to-be Kingdom of Yugoslavia). The proposed name is plainly historically inaccurate. The proper name of this article would be Peter I of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. We should not sacrifice historical fact for elegance. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 13:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a close parallel; James VI of Scotland succeeded to a larger kingdom after a long reign (admittedly, unlike Peter, partly under regency) and we list him under James I of England; some people would like to title his article James I of Great Britain, which would be even closer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "James VI of Scotland", "James I of England" and "James I of Great Britain" are all used in reliable sources. "Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" is used in none. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly if the title is kept, we should make it "of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" in accord with idiom. But the right thing to do is Peter I of Yugoslavia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. He is better known as "Peter I of Serbia", is frequently called that name (do google books and scholar searches), and was King of Serbia for five times longer than he was King of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The current title is undesirably long and is not used in any reliable sources, indicating that he is not actually called or known as that. DrKay (talk) 06:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. My Funk & Wagnalls encylopedia has him as Peter I of Serbia. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. God, I love Wikipedia.  Basically, an article is in a perfectly reasonable location (Peter I of Yugoslavia) for a long time with no controversy.  Then some pedant decides that because the formal name of the state everybody called Yugoslavia was actually "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" during Peter's lifetime, he moves it to a ridiculous title without even bringing up the subject on the talk page.  Then, it becomes impossible to move it anywhere else, because everyone opens move requests and nobody can agree which of the two reasonable choices (Peter I of Serbia or Peter I of Yugoslavia) is more appropriate.  So it gets stuck at this idiotic name.  So, to be clear, my preferred location would be Peter I of Yugoslavia.  I am completely aware that this was not his formal title, but it's completely ridiculous to say that there was no such thing as Yugoslavia until 1929.  The Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes were obviously the same state, and during the period when the kingdom was officially known as the latter, it was informally called "Yugoslavia" by most everyone.  It is thus perfectly appropriate to call him Peter I of Yugoslavia.  That being said, Peter I of Serbia is fine too.  By the time he became King of Yugoslavia, he had effectively been stripped of all political power (his son had been regent since 1914).  He actually ruled as well as reigned over Serbia, so it seems reasonable to focus on that title, along with the fact that he was king of Serbia for 15 years and king of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes for only three. john k (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also at that, at the very least, this should be Peter I, King of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, on the model of Louis Philippe I, King of the French. The current title is just horrific. john k (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was a separate South Slav state. It was successor of State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and Kingdom of Serbia, and predecessor of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Kebeta (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, as per DrKay and John Kenney. FkpCascais (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is a "revenge vote" by my "archenemy" Theirrulez for my opposition to his proposed WP:RM on the Faust Vrančić article. What can I say, I'm popular :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Theirrulez vote? "Revenge vote"? You, popular? What are you talking about? FkpCascais (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I was perfectly clear. -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 21:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, (Peter I of Yugoslavia) is the real and historical title.--172.130.76.173 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe user:DIREKTOR want wrote (Tito Emperor of Yugoslavia)::))))lol--172.130.76.173 (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support Someone can explain me what's this should be? A revenge vote?? Anyone's revenge apart, Peter I of Serbia seems to be, of course, more common in English sources and by far more historical accurate. Theirrulez (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Per common name rule and, to be honest, for looks. Peter I of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes is a rather sloppy title. But what's most important is that sources refer to him as Peter I of Serbia. Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter I of Serbia. 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/20091229101222/http://www.royalfamily.org/press/press-det/stogodisnjicaeng.pdf to http://www.royalfamily.org/press/press-det/stogodisnjicaeng.pdf

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) 12:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Honours query
I question that King Peter was awarded the Prussian campaign medal for the Franco-Prussion War when, as his biography shows, he served on the French side and was a war prisoner of the Prussians! Is there citation evidence, sure it was not the French medal which was belatedly issued from 1911?Cloptonson (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not sourced, so I've removed it. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Subtitles
It appears that this article would be benefited with the use of subtitles, particularly the first section. Anyone opposed? Muttnick (talk) 04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)