Talk:Draga Mašin

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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.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