To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: | B1 <!-- Referencing and citations --> = y/n | B2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = y/n | B3 <!-- Structure --> = y/n | B4 <!-- Grammar and style --> = y/n | B5 <!-- Supporting materials --> = y/n
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
In ""Raemaekers Cartoons" (1916), the Dutch cartoonist has a selection of his war cartoons with comments added by contemporary writers. The 'Ferdinand the Chameleon' cartoon has an essay by G.K. Chesterton attached. While attacking Ferdinand for changing his religion all the time, as the political winds blow, Chesterton says "he is in great part a Jew, and an advanced type of that mauvais juif who is the principle obstacle to all the attempts of the more rational and honest Jews to erect a rational status for their people."
Where does this idea come from? If true there should be some mention in the article; if false, it would be worth noting whether the idea was widespread at the time. Also, the article does not have much about the religious shifts mentioned; some more research would be useful. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The claim that he is bisexual is given a lot of weight in the Personal life section. As it's sourced to a book called "Foxy Ferdinand", I'm a little suspicious, and I think it falls foul of WP:UNDUE whatever. Thoughts?
Is there any proof of the claim? Without video and/or photographic proof, the claim should be taken out. Mwahcysl (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It's perfectly well-referenced, and an anonymous Wikipedian's discomfort with the book's title has no relevance. Please at least have the intellectual honesty to look at a source before passing judgement on it! - Nunh-huh 12:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
But, the question is whether or not there is any proof. Without ironclad proof, it doesn't matter what one source claims. That source may be tainted. Mwahcysl (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
But, the only way to judge a source is to actually look at it, which you haven't. You could also look at other sources and see if they conflict. But as it is, without looking at the source, and without any conflicting information from any other source, you seem to have no basis whatsoever for your doubts. - Nunh-huh 13:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think I was the person who initially added the information about Ferdinand's bisexuality. The book, IIRC, was called "Foxy Ferdinand" as that was Ferdinand's nickname in royal circles around Europe (it's been some years since I read it so the memory is rusty). However, claims of his bisexuality are also made in other books about him I have read. If people are concerned about the title "Foxy Ferdinand", we can use one of the other sources listed as the reference. --Roisterer (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Foxy Ferdinand certainly qualifies as a WP:RS. Even so, since a bisexual king apparently leaves some people incredulous, adding additional references couldn't be a bad thing. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Per WP policy, I have converted ibid referencing to short referencing. There is one reference to the securing of access to the Aegean Sea (in the Balkan Wars section) that was ambiguous (was the ibid refering to the previous reference in the text (Louda, 1981, p 297) or the previous reference in the reference list (Aronson, 1986, p 87)?) I have made an assumption that it was referring to the previous reference in the text, but have left an editors note as it should be double checked against the original texts. I don't have access to these and was thus unable to do the check myself. Once the check has been done, the editor's note can be removed. Cheers AusTerrapin (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Ferdinando I of Bulgaria.jpg Nominated for Deletion
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
The final sentances - "His final wish was to be buried in Bulgaria, and for this reason his coffin was temporarily placed in the crypt of St. Augustin's Roman Catholic Church in Coburg, next to his mother's and father's coffins. It could still be found there today.", are very ambiguous. Does it mean that his body is in Bulgaria, but the coffin is in Coburg? Or does it mean that we have to hunt for the coffin, so that we find it? Does the 'could' mean that maybe it could be found somewhere else, but no one knows? I would edit this myself, but I don't know - Is he still in Coburg? Yes or no? Does anyone know? If he is still there I think it would be better to say that the coffin was placed in the crypt awaiting repatriation to Bulgaria, but is still there. Kiltpin (talk) 09:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)