Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

Article references a person named "Albertini" as if he/she has already been introduced in the article and his/her importance already apparent. It isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.97.104 (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Factual Errors and Other Problems with recent edits by Alfons2

In June 2010 Alfons2 made 97 edits to the article which included the introduction of factual errors, reduced the amount of footnoted material, played down the importance of the higher ups in the conspiracy, reduced the descriptive precision of the text and section headings and so on with the net effect of tilting the article in a way consistent with his stated political views on Austria-Hungary starting World War 1. These edits had to be and were corrected as factual errors in particular are unacceptable, but the other problems are also undesirable. Please discuss the changes you want to make to long standing portions of the article before making them. But first, check the discussion archive. The section titles and much of the contents and language have been debated and ultimately agreed on. This is a serious article. The footnotes to the footnotes have been checked. Since many of the witnesses were killed before making full statements information is imperfect. In this situation making even a small change in the interest of simplification or readability can cause a sentence to move from being a verifiable fact to an unverifiable assertion.

I cannot go into all of the factual errors produced in June but today I see the article says for example:"The three adult defendants at the Sarajevo trial were executed; the top conspirators, being minor at the time of the assassination, were sentenced to prison terms." This is wrong on many levels. There were many adult defendants, not 3. Three got executed, some got prison time, some were acquitted. The top ranked conspirators at the Sarajevo trial were Danilo Ilic, Mihaijlo Jovanović, and Veljko Cubrilovic. They were all executed. No source is listed stating that young men over 18 and under 20 years of age were minors in Austria-Hungary in 1914; in California and many other states and countries they would be majors (but you might be right, in AH they might be minors at that age AH having a liberal judicial system), so this needs clarification. The next sentence: "The other conspirators were arrested and tried on unrelated false charges before a Serbian kangaroo court in French-occupied Salonika in 1916-1917, during which Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević testified that he had organized the conspiracy, assisted by his right hand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Rade Malobabić." has similar factual errors. The confession was actually a side letter given to the chief judge, not admitted into evidence and then sequestered in the Serbian Royal Archives until its capture by the Nazis, so the verb "testified" [during the trial] is misleading. Further, his confession did not mention Tankosic! Please, whoever edits here, read the source material first, then discuss, then with agreement edit.Werchovsky (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the two edits that created the factual errors and fuzzed up the section titles.Werchovsky (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Any third opinion? --Alfons2 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alfons2, please just open up the cited books and read Apis' confession and read the verdicts and read the defendants' statements regarding their age and you will see your modifications to the article created factual errors. If you don't like those sources, then find other credible texts that include Apis' full confession and more or less complete records of the trial and you will find they are in agreement. Regarding section titles, you can see third opinions in the talk archives. The Military History Reviewer and I and I think another person talked our way through the section headings...we compromised and reached consensus. There is no reason to destabilize the article by arbitrarily changing section headings now. Is there a connection betwen Ares33 and Alfons2?Werchovsky (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you. The article is yours. --Alfons2 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Eugene de Schelking

As this is the only page to metion E de S, will mention that in The Times on 16 July 1920 p 8 there is an entry by John Murray Publishers that they are reissuing a Diplomatic Reminiscences by A Nekludoff without the pages about Schelking to which the latter had objected. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As I recall reading, De Schelking's passage regarding Franz Ferdinand being out of the way in advance of his assassination created a storm at the time of publication and he refused to back down leaving Entente appologists to excuse the incident by saying being put "out of the way" might not necessarily mean assassinated. Well, the key sentence was a little complicated and weird mixing the old calendar and new calendar together in the same sentence, and in order to be sure of the meaning you have to read several pages, so he is difficult to quote.Werchovsky (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this from the Nekludoff book? Both he and De Schelking are presently too marginal for WP articles - but the reference is worth mentioning for 'the proverbial someone researching the subjects further' to pursue. Jackiespeel (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is from Fey, but Fey is not on my bookshelf any more and I lost the page citation so I am quoting directly from Schel'king in this article. I think Die Kriegschuldfrage may have an article on it. I have never read Nekludoff.Werchovsky (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Fragments for further use if either get an article - Nekludoff was involved in the 1905 North Sea/Dogger Bank incident discussions, while Schelking wrote 'Suicide of a monarchy'. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a quote from "Recollections of a Russian Diplomat: The Suicide of Monarchies" also in the Bosnian Crisis article. I thought it would make a good ending to the article when I wrote it, but it is a bit of fluff compared to de Schel'king's statement in this article implicating Russia of foreknowledge of FF's assassination.Werchovsky (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Caption edit?

In the article's first picture's caption, it states that The Latin Bridge was the site of the assasination. However, please correct me if I am wrong, this is incorrect because the assassination did not take place at the bridge, however it was the first attempt at an assassination. The real assassination happened elsewhere. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The caption as it stands is correct. The bombing was by the Cumurja Bridge. The fatal shooting was near the Latin Bridge.Werchovsky (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Werchovsky (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Information box is not going to work

The information box added yesterday is wrong that no one was injured. There were 20 wounded. On other points, the information box simplifies things that cannot be simplified. The target is listed as only Franz Ferdinand. Some would argue that when you throw bombs at a man in a motorcade your target is the motorcade because of the inprecise nature of this kind of an attack. Principe said he fired his second bullet at Potiorek. Mehmedbasic originally targeted Potiorek. So, it is something of an oversimplification to just say Franz Ferdinand was "the" target. To try to sum up the belligerants as Bosnian Serbs is a terrible oversimplification. Serbian Military Intelligence, the Serbian Frontiers Service,the Serbian Narodna Odbrana, and the Serbian "Black Hand" were all behind the attack. Belligerants are more than just the tip of the spear. So, this topic is too complex and controversial to use this inaccurate information box. I am deleting it.Werchovsky (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Werchovsky (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All the fields in the infobox do NOT have to be included. The only thing required is the title, location and date; all other information is optional. Will that suffice instead of removing it completely? The infobox is recommended so the article is listed into the microformats systems. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Princip acting on the orders of Walt Whitman?

This says that Princip believed he was acting on the orders of the American poet Walt Whitman. Is this corroborated anywhere? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

sandwiched text

WP:MOSIMAGE says: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.. There are portions of text sandwiched between two images. I propose to follow the rules and avoid that.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Was Sophie pregnant?

The information that Sophie was pregnant can be found on lot of web sites on the internet. Maybe I did not read the text carefully enough, but I did not find this information in the article. If it can be supported with RS it should be added to the text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This topic is very controversial as pro-Serb readers feel it is a sympathy play to include this information ...so naturally it has been debated several times here on the talk page. At one time, this article stated she was pregnant; I wrote it based on an internet article quoting a portion of a book written by (as the on-line article stated at least) Sophie's Doctor. The pregnancy reference was challenged a year or two later. When I then looked for the on-line article it was gone. I can't find the doctors memoirs. No history book I have searched refered to her being pregnant. I gave up. In my opinion, we cannot put it in the article unless we find a credible source that can be traced back to its primary source.Werchovsky (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Helen of Sarajevo

Princip has had a girlfriend Jelena. Jelena on Serbian means Helen.[1][2] [3]--Свифт (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The text recently added relating to Jelena Milisivic spurning Princip is problematic. The magazine article quotes a 97-year-old woman who became friends with Milisic 32 years after the Sarajevo Outrage. If this is the best source we have that Princip had added impetus to attack Franz Ferdinand's motorcade because he was spurned the night before then we should not include it in the article; it would be wrong to turn Princip into John Hinkley Junior on weak evidence. Beyond that, the article does not state directly how this 97-year-old woman knew that Milisivic had spurned Princip. Did Milisic tell her, or did Milisivic tell Mihacevic and Mihacevic tell our 97 year-old, or was it just office-cooler talk? Can the author provide a more credible source? A historic book quoting a diary, a deposition, or taking evidence directly from Milisivic or Princip? The Pity of War link to Amazon did not have any reference to Princip on the page. The Serbian on-line article is just based on the Smithsonian Magazine article as near as I can tell so I am not sure why it is cited.Werchovsky (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Protić=

It is not Stephan Protić, it is Stojan Protić, and it should be added that Serbian Supr. Court in 1953 was under the control of communist regime.

Article is still awful

I mean, wholly apart from it's unreadability and confusion, it still is essentially one big anti-Serb propaganda rant. I complained above, but nothing was done and my comments were vandalized.

In fact it's even worse now, what with the article judging the Serbian reply in a totally inappropriate manner.

There is a common misperception that Serbia accepted most points of the AH Demarche, but it is not the case. Even pro-Entente historians like David Fromkin (who placed the blame for starting the war squarely on Berchtold and AH and Molkte and Germany) recognized this out-dated perception as false. Fromkin wrote: "At the time it was believed that in its reply, Serbia had agreed to almost all of Austria's terms. Historians no longer believe that."

What at first appears to be quibbling complaints by AH, on close examination, had very real shortcomings under international law. Take enumerated point #1 for example. The demand read: "The Royal Serbian Government further undertakes: 1. To suppress any publication which incites to hatred and contempt of the Monarchy and the general tendancy of which is directed against its territorial integrity;" The response read: "The Royal Government further undertake:-- 1.To introduce at the first regular convocation of the Skupstina a provision into the press law..." The effect of the descrepancy between the demand and the Serbian response is to change point #1 from a self-executing international obligation into an obligation that requires enabling legislation to come into force. The consequences should be obvious. The bill might not become law. IF it became law, the law might not be enforced. IF the law was enforced, it might not have the intended consequence of suppressing propaganda aimed at the dismemberment of AH. So what was promised was quite empty compared to what was demanded.Werchovsky (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But my personal favorite is when the article acts like a non-existent skirmish caused Austria to declare war on Serbia. Was that supposed to be funny? 71.65.125.27 (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you log in and then we can discuss specific historical issues such as the significance of the Temes Kubin incident.Werchovsky (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Very real shortcomings under international law"... I was not aware that serving up an ultimatum would fall under "international law". And I'm not going to debate the nonsense that this so-called "skirmish" provoked Austria into declaring war. You also might want to concern yourself with the fact that the article is practically incomprehensible, I had to read it several times to understand (barely) what was being said.

The point is that the entire article's tone is designed to place Serbia in the worst light possible. I gave numerous examples in my points above (which were suddenly deleted for some reason). It also dabbles in unsupported conspiracy theories. Even in cases that the facts are technically accurate, they are conveyed in an extremely biased manner that would not belong in any encyclopedia. 24.29.174.176 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There are "bots" that archive old talk material. What you wrote may have been archived in this way. I do not think anything was deleted. I suggest you check the archive.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand is a complex and controversial topic. Information is not as complete as we would like. This is because so many of the key conspirators were put to death and there was therefore no way to clarify there statements. Also many key documents were suppressed until after the people who could have clarified the meaning of these documents were dead. Beyond that, the Outrage was a clandestine operation. Secret operations are intentionally hard to get information on. The assassination touches on war guilt and therefore the legitimacy of clauses of the Treaty of Versailles and national borders. So, every sentence written on the subject becomes controversial. For these reasons, the article is generally written in college level English (although slightly dumbed down now) and from time to time states things somewhat less dirctly than a nice novel. Stating things less directly is required to keep within what we know with reasonable certainty on a subject that has incomplete information.

International obligations fall under international law. Serbia's response to the Austro-Hungarian Demarche was an international obligation as was Serbia's March declaration. The Court of the Hague's ruling and opinion on the Venezuelian debt crisis provides good insight into how international law functioned at the time. The Austro-Hungarian Demarche is popularly called an ultimatum, but diplomats agreed at the time of its issuance that it was not an ultimatum. The Treaty of the Hague requires an expired or rejected ultimatum or a declaration of war with a causus belli before initiating a land war, and the Austro-Hungarian Demarche did not meet the Hague's requirement for an ultimatum as it did not include the threat of war. Which leads into the next topic, the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war following the Temes-Kubin incident. Before Temes-Kubin, Kaiser Franz-Joseph, FM Berchtold and others in AH expressed the opinion that the Serbian rejection and the rupture of diplomatic relations did not necessarily mean war. The sketchy report of the incident was used to get Kaiser Franz-Joseph to sign the declaration of war and the original declaration he signed cited Temes-Kubin as one of the two causus belli. The declaration of war was transmitted after the incident was clarified and Temes-Kubin was deleted from the declaration. Whether Kaiser FJ would have continued to hesitate and given more time for negotiations is a historical whatif that is hard to answer.

This subject is hard, it takes going through the nitty-gritty to get to the bottom of it.Werchovsky (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)