Talk:Alexander I of Yugoslavia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
	This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

[edit] Translated name

I can't find much of a rationale in Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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). Google:"Alexander of Yugoslavia" returns twice as many hits than Google:"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 [shallot] 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 [shallot]

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 [shallot] 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 [shallot] 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 Karađorđević 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 [shallot] 13:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It also seems odd that the Alexander of the Obrenović dynasty isn't counted in. In general the Obrenović kings have inconsistent article titles... --Joy [shallot] 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 [shallot] 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 [shallot] 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))

[edit] 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)