Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleAssassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
June 10, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 30, 2010Good article nomineeListed
March 29, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 23, 2004.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the assassination in Sarajevo of Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria led to World War I? (Okay, you probably did know that one.)
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 28, 2011, June 28, 2013, June 28, 2014, and June 28, 2016.
Current status: Good article

A draft, Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović, has been submitted for review. There previously was an article on this assassin, but it was cut down to a redirect. There does not appear to have been discussion of whether to cut it down to a redirect. Should the draft be accepted as an article on this assassin? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Nedeljko Čabrinović passes WP:SNG but that draft needs some work to become readable, it is poorly written, full of WP:REFBOMB from WP:QUESTIONABLE sources such as KidsKonnect, biography.yourdictionary.com, firstworldwar.com, thevintagenews.com, ducksters.com, findagrave.com, history.com, thehistorycat.com and a couple of blogs... IMO it should be rewritten with Wikipedia:Reliable sources there isn't a lack of exhaustive books on the subject written by historians and academics, most of them are referenced right here and in Gavrilo Princip. Aeengath (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging @Czar and @Onel5969 from previous redirecting, and draft creator @Tails Wx. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't accept that draft, personally. The subject of most of its sources is the assassination, not Čabrinović as an independently notable individual. czar 05:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would, despite some reservations with sourcing (WP:NOTPERFECT). Čabrinović's role in the movement and the assassination was very important, and all his comrades have separate articles at the moment. They all also have rather extensive coverage in historiographic literature. I'm unhappy how Nedeljko Čabrinović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ended up boldly redirected, without discussion, and a copy in the draftspace now means that we need an admin to merge histories. And since WP:PERP has been thrown in, it says that the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies ... The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure. It's hard to find a more consequential assassination in the modern history than this one. Čabrinović's article existed since 2004, and has 23 interwikis. No such user (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a consensus to cut the article down to a redirect, and in the absence of a consensus to keep it redirected, I will accept the draft, and it can be improved in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, yes there was: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1162#Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović czar 00:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Czar - First, that discussion either was not available to a reviewer, or was only available via an unobvious link. (I thought that I read the applicable discussion. Either there wasn't a link to the Teahouse archive, or I missed it.) A reviewer cannot be expected to search archives for a title. Second, I do not read that discussion as being a consensus to keep it redirected anyway. Third, I thought that there was a >50% chance that it would survive AFD; an AFD will establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merger discussions don't go to AfD and "consensus" isn't only through discussion, it's also through editing. Now that history is buried so it's even harder to see. This article's scope is a complete overlap with Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as sourced. czar 03:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that there is not very much to say about Čabrinović; he was young, he participated in the plot, he was tried and died young in prison. But that much we can say in a dedicated article, and it would be consistent with how we treat all other participants. It makes a strange experience for a reader who researches the assassins to get redirected to the main assassination article only for Čabrinović, as if we're hiding something. And I say that as a convinced m:Mergist.
Robert McClenon, your series of article moves was unfortunate, since the old history is now hidden at Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović. Does anyone mind if I swap that with Nedeljko Cabrinovic, which has no significant history, so at least everything ends up in mainspace? I'm not sure if the page qualifies for WP:HISTMERGE. No such user (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:No such user - Do you have a different suggestion for how I could have accepted the draft and moved the articles? I can think of several possible series of article moves that would have been worse. Can you describe a better sequence of moves? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the histories so they're now in the same timeline.
If the issue is consistency with how the other assassins' articles are treated, that's a matter of addressing those other articles if we're in agreement that there is no specific case for Čabrinović's independent notability from the assassination article. czar 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just consistency. The assassination being a milestone historical event, there is a lot of historiographic coverage about the participants; we should not base our decisions just on what is currently in the articles, but on coverage which exists. I've found significant coverage in at least three historical books about him [1] (Kreševljaković; Trišić; and particularly Dedijer, that I can lay my hands on and expand/fix the article). But I'm not in agreement with your apparent m:immediatism; if there's a half-decent biographical article (that's been around since 2006 and has 20+ interwikis) about an obscure but apparently real-world notable person, tag it if you must, AfD it if you feel like, but just boldly redirecting it amounts to deletion. No such user (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bold redirects are a preferred alternative to deletion. Looking forward to your expansions of the article. czar 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fwiw, I think the policy/precedent case for a merge/redirect is strong from the arguments already given (again, there really isn't much more here, aside from the tuberculosis bit, in this article or the older version), but personally I nevertheless think it's a good article to have, for the sake of readers if not editors. From the perspective of, say, a highschool student looking for biographical info on Čabrinović, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by its nature is overwhelmingly large and unhelpfully presented. There's no heading about him, and biographical details on him are scattered throughout the article. I think it can be very helpful to have a separate article for individual participants in this kind of case, provided care is taken to keep it short and accurate and direct readers to the assassination article where possible. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Nedeljko Čabrinović article has been cleaned up and updated with biographical content from WP:RS, hopefully this will be enough to keep it. Aeengath (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023[edit]

Change ‘lead” to ‘led’ in second line 2001:8003:1DCF:FF00:5AF:7DF:91DA:FB01 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. Aeengath (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023[edit]

CatoBarthas (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The driver applied the brakes, and when he attempted to put the car into reverse gear he accidentally stalled the engine close to where Princip was standing.[95]"

I suggest that this line is changed to "The driver applied the break, disengaged the engine and prepared to have the car pushed back onto the Appel Quay close to where Princip was standing" or something of that nature.

I suggest this beacause the 1911 Gräf und Stift 28/32 PS has no reverse gear, and thus would have been impossible for the driver to accidentally stall the engine changing gear into it. This is explained on page 374 of The Sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914 by Christopher Clark ISBN 978-0-141-02782-1. I also suggest that citation [95] is changed to cite this book which explains this point. This book is already a cited reference. Many thanks. CatoBarthas (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: there appears to be some dispute in sources about whether the car had a reverse gear. This New York Times article quoted an expert at the museum where the car is stored, who said the car does have a reverse gear, but "takes a while to shift the gear because of the technical standards of this time." Then this article in The Telegraph by author Tim Butcher says, We have been told that: Princip jumped on the running board of the Archduke’s limousine to take his shot, the Archduke’s wife was pregnant when she died, the shooting happened on the anniversary of their marriage, the car did not have a reverse gear, the Archduke caught the grenade thrown earlier and tossed it away safely, and Princip stopped to eat a last sandwich at the café on the corner before emerging to take his shot. It’s all myth. (my emphasis) Butcher is the author of The Trigger: Hunting the Assassin Who Brought the World to War, and the above quote seems to be a verbatim copy of a passage of the same book--which is, incidentally, cited three times in this article.
TL;DR: we may be in a "sources disagree on x" scenario, but based on the strength of the expert at the museum who has physical access to the actual car, I think I'll leave the article text as-is. Xan747 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, thanks for correcting this. I had not seen that article about the car at the museum. The book that I mentioned does not reference its claim about the absence of a reverse gear, so I'm not sure where this myth could have originated. CatoBarthas (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]