Talk:Draga Mašin

assassin

Queen Draga was killed in Belgrad Revolution.The assassin of Queen and the Kİng was made in the palace.And their bodies thrown away from the window of the palace to the garden which was situated on Saint Mİchelle Street.

What is the name of the place in Ibiza where Draga met her husband, King Alexander Obrenovic? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 77.105.50.112 (talk) 19:04, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

She wasnt ALS KNOWN AS Queen Draga, she WAS QUEEN Draga!

--Boris Godunov (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--Archchinook (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Her "Successor"

On the "Title next held by Maria of Romania as Queen Consort of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" She was never Queen of Yugoslavia, she was the Queen of Romania, it was confused with her daughter "Maria of Romania" Who has the same name of Maria. When she married Alexander I of Yugoslavia, she became the Queen Consort and then had the personal title of "Queen Maria of Yugoslavia" And so i changed the links. Archchinook (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Family name

If her father was Pantelija Milićević Lunjevica, in that times, that means that she was Draginja-Draga Pantelić Lunjevica by her father. From 19. century Serbs have only one last name.--109.245.140.140 (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth

There is an inconsistency in the article, because her birth date corresponds to julian calendar used in Serbia at that time, would be september 23 in gregorian calendar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.109.48.24 (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Draga Mašin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The article ends with a dangling one-liner describing Draga Mašin as a "hooker". This caps a stub in which the subject is described as a "consort", and said to be "also known as Queen Draga". While "consort" is technically correct, as it is a among other things means a spouse of a monarch, it is also used to describe an unmarried or inferior sort of rank of companion. This, together with the description of her title, Queen Draga, as an "also known", works towards a notion either that Mašin's union with the King was not a proper marriage, or that she personally did not deserve the title without some sort of disparaging but unnamed qualification. By themselves, those two items might perhaps not be entirely enough to attract critical review, but the flourish at the end "she was a hooker" reveals the article's overall tendentiousness. Taken as a whole, the stub deliberately departs from objective historical review to invite readers to an unsubstantiated and irrelevant slur against Draga Mašin. To look at it another way, the description of Mašin as a "hooker" is entirely unsupported by any reference, and the use of that word, rather than the more impersonal "prostitute" reveals either an imperfect command of English, or a deliberate slur that does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines. It is certainly a historical fact that the King's marriage to Mašin generated much controversy at the time, and that much of that controversy rested on a view (as unsubstantiated then as it would be now) that Queen Draga was not fit to be Queen. That view itself rested at least in part on the idea that Queen Draga was supposedly of low morals. That view was - as far as anyone knows - unsubstantiated then. Neither did her detractors care that it was unsubstantiated, the point was to slander. Now, slander is by definition ignorant of the facts, and so does not belong in any earnest record. As the article itself records, Queen Draga was savagely butchered. It is disturbing that such butchery be here indirectly lent the sort of justification which even today helps promote the violent death of women in some parts of the world - that she was a hooker. As a result, the article currently reads as though the writer were not only a partison of last century's slander, but himself still stuck in 1900 and transfixed by the notion we hope is by this year receding; that if woman has sex with more than one man in her lifetime, then she is a hooker. Wikipedia as written by adolescents. By contrast, the page on her husband, King Alexander I, is soberly historical and chronicles the controversy without disparaging reference to Queen Draga.

Last edited at 08:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 13:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Although I believe that a term other than the one which reportedly was used in a previous version of this article could have been used as the last word in the second last paragraph, as the author had already done in their second paragraph, and although I would think that misogyny might be an attempt at an explanation beyond the assumed adolescence, while personally preferring the term intimacy, where the sexual organs surely can be involved but where additional areas and mutual expressions of meaningful affection have a place too, the remainder of the aspects raised here, however, which caught my attention as well and which seems to be present still in this article ("consort", in its first sentence), seem very much important and I would like to thank the author, as well as the person who thought about preserving it, and express in advance my objection to its removal. lmaxmai 23 October 2020

Born 1866?

https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%94%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0_%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%9B -- 94.135.195.186 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Early life / Publications

"She even published some interesting stories for foreign journals."
I would like to stress that no disrespect whatsoever is intended, however, "interesting stories" likely should raise questions of neutrality. At the same time, while this is not meant in an elitist way at all, the "some" as well as the "foreign journals" seem to present the opportunity to elaborate on what may have been an interest to respectively a passion of hers. lmaxmai 24 October 2020