Talk:Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo

GA?

@Antidiskriminator: Thinking of a GA nom? 23 editor (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't plan to dedicate too much time to work on this article in future so I am not going to nominate it for GA. If you are interested in its subject feel free to work on it or nominate it for GA. Thanks for CE. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Title

While the article stresses the word "pogrom" over the word "demonstrations" with a ratio of 3:1, I note that sources [1][2] more often refer to the incident as "demonstrations" rather than "pogrom" which is defined as a "an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group". [3] This is misleading to say the least given that two individuals were killed and a bit bewildering when you consider that the same amount of people were killed on the day of the assassination. The demonstrations were also not unique to Sarajevo as "anti-Serbian demonstrations took place across the empire".[4] In accords with this I propose the article be moved to "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary". --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I am opposed. Per WP:CRITERIA the current title is more recognizable, its what readers are likely to look or search for, its sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Numerous scholarly sources used in this article extensively use the word pogrom. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, the article Pogrom starts with a paragraph that says ... a violent massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews. The term originally entered the English language to describe 19th- and 20th-century attacks on Jews in the Russian Empire (mostly within the Pale of Settlement in present-day Ukraine); similar attacks against Jews at other times and places also became retrospectively known as pogroms. The word is now also sometimes used to describe publicly sanctioned purgative attacks against non-Jewish ethnic or religious groups. --biblbroks (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Google book hits outweigh "demonstrations" to "pogrom" at 8:1 and that's limiting it to Sarajevo so what "readers are likely to look or search for" is "demonstrations". The fact that you've personally chosen to include "pogram" three times in the lead, in two of four picture captions, and 29 times in the article is only evidence that "pogrom" is more recognizable to yourself. Note many of the sources that you have chosen to include in this article that do utilize the term "progrom":

• Do so in plural form and speak generally, not specifying or limiting to Sarajevo (Bennett, Johnson)
• Are actually historical secondary sources being quoted by contemporary ones (Sarajevo/Vienna/Russian newspaper)
• Are obscure cherrypicked publications like the "Reports Service: Southeast Europe" or are from the "Tourist Association"

What term is employed more to describe the event and what the scale of the event was is evident in the search results and reliable sources. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

At least Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo is more neutral than "Sarajevo Frenzy of Hate". Andrić sure did have a certain flare, didn't he? Just my 2 cents. 23 editor (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It's better, but certain connotations and limitations with the present title still remain. His imprisonment by them might have understandably rubbed him the wrong way. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

His membership of Young Bosnia, too. 23 editor (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That too. :P Though I think it got "real" for him after imprisonment. Also you'd figure if the article would quote Andric's term and give it a seat in the lead that there would be a bit about the man saying it in the article. Anyway back to the topic of article title, previous titles aside, what do you think of the one I've suggested? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Serb violence in Sarajevo (1914), perhaps? 23 editor (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think "riots" would be the middle ground here. It's used more than "pogrom" though less than "demonstrations". Violence is vague and rarely used in descriptive titles. Also the title doesn't address the fact the demonstrations were held throughout the empire not just Sarajevo nor just Bosnia. How's "Anti-Serb riots in Austria-Hungary"? --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The scope of this article is what happened Sarajevo. That is notable topic described in numerous sources. Just like i.e. Bijeljina massacre. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The demonstrations are notable whereas the fact you chose to isolate it to just Sarajevo is pure POV pushing. It's in defiance of the fact that "anti-Serbian demonstrations took place across the empire" simultaneously, something pointed out in numerous sources you've cited. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia is also notable and simultaneous but you isolated Bijeljina massacre. Violent demonstrations against Serbs that in Sarajevo assumed the characteristics of a pogrom are notable. WP:POVPUSH says: "Calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, and even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no other word to describe it. I've had a thorough look at the article besides just the title. There would've been an immense amount of browbeating from you had I and/or other editors indulged in the amount of "omissions" and editorializations as you have in this article. In terms of neutrality, from the title to its core, the article is a ridiculous hack job that references Serb nationalists, ignores important context, cherrypicks ideal snippets, and rants on with personally preferred terms.

Why are you discussing other articles? Why grab the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy one minute and flaunt it when it fits you and discard it the next? Are you implying that all the massacres and ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian War occurred in a very short time span just as the riots did? Are you seriously comparing two day riots to a three and a half year war? While we're bringing up other stuff, be my guest and cut down 2004 unrest in Kosovo to individual cities and be sure to name them each pogroms too for good measure. What a charade this is. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Notability: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." Per WP:NOPAGE: "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page." --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes... but not always and not in case of Sarajevo events. Complete context is not lost here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

23 editor, can I get your opinion on "Anti-Serb riots in Austria-Hungary"? It's a title that shows there was violence better than the term "demonstrations" does (though it's less popular than "demonstrations") and accurately shows the geographic extent. Clearly there is no need to isolate a two day event, which occurred simultaneously across the entire empire, to just one city and limit the possible context and balance. Nor is there a need to settle on the most inflammatory term to describe the event and ignore its connotations and degree of use. It is impossible to reason with Anti and his selective reading and enforcement of policies. My previous interactions with him have been just as unproductive. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources extensively discuss this event as topic separated from demonstrations against Serbs which took part in BiH and Croatia where Anti-Serb actions continued for years not only two days. Your comment about me and my conduct is unproductive and shows lack of arguments for your position. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As do they with Zagreb, but I see no reason to divide up the riots by city or province since they are short simultaneously connected events occurring throughout the empire. Much like *gasp* you guessed it: the 2004 unrest in Kosovo article. Lack of arguments? That's rich. What has yours effectively been reduced to? One cherrypicked sentence of one policy. I've given a multitude of reasons why the term "pogrom" is not the most optimal and why the present geographical limitation is inappropriate. You certainly don't expect users to blindly ignore your conduct do you? I and other editors have dealt with it before on Chetnik biography articles and we both know how that ended. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have objection to my conduct, please use appropriate noticeboard, not articles' talkpage. Regarding renaming, start WP:RM procedure if you insist on your position. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Serb riots in Austria-Hungary" is a good idea, but such an article would require a great deal of expansion about events that occurred elsewhere in the empire. Simply renaming this article and letting it sit the way it is won't work. 23 editor (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. Though it's already apparent that the article is out of the bounds of Sarajevo as half the reaction section is from a general sense and none of the aftermath section says what actually occurred "in Sarajevo" afterwards. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 21:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. Every single report emphasizes Sarajevo. Since your idea to rename this article is contested, if you still want to rename it feel free to request by WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No need. I could have been bold and moved it from the start as one can't speak of a formal RM for "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo" either, but I figured the right and proper thing to do was to hear your opinion and that of other interested editors on the matter first. Now there is no need to pretend the above discussion did not occur and have us simply reiterate our prior arguments. There's a reason you bring up WP:RM when a resemblance of consensus has come about as this is purely a desperate attempt at stonewalling to have your preferred article name. Also as you may not know, but the policy says in such cases "it is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: one option is to start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." Things are in line. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

If you would be bold and renamed this article I would revert you and you will know that I contested your move. Now, after this discussion it is obvious that your proposal is contested so WP:RM should be followed. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I don't plan to get dragged in to any impending drama on what the article should be called, etc. Antidiskriminator and PRODUCER I wish you all the best in resolving this issue. Thanks for your contributions to the article and happy holidays. 23 editor (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No need for drama. There is WP:RM which should be used in case of contested move proposals. Thanks for nice wishes.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No drama just business as usual in the Balkans of Wikipedia. I'll be expanding the article in the following days. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 00:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Implying that there is anything particularly bad in Balkans is not productive. Your move is contested. Please follow WP:RM.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion does not support your move PRODUCER. Three other editors participated in this discussion and only one directly supported your move proposals. One out of three or two (including you) out of four is hardly a valid consensus. Please follow wikipedia rules and start formal RM for your contested move proposal.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to contest the move made by User:PRODUCER. Among the sources there are several descriptions stating pogrom. Although I think that the title could need some attention. Right now, the article contains some information about pogroms in other cities as well as the Schutzkorps persecution. Maybe it should be "Anti-Serb pogroms of 1914".
On a related note; I have localized a copy of the book "Sarajevski Atentat" by Bogicevic, and sent that library a request for a long-distance loan since it's not in my city. If all goes well, the article's pictures should be updated with high resolution scans in January or February. Anonimski (talk) 16:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I look forward to your contribution after you get this book. Regarding Anti-Serb activities related to this event the situation is quite complex:

• Time span - Anti-Serb activities in Austria-Hungary began long before 1914. At least as soon as Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1908. Also, they did not end in June 1914 but continued before WWI started and throughout the war, especially at the end of 1915 after Austria, Germany and Bulgaria occupied Serbia in WWI. To conclude - its not only 1914 but probably 1908-1918. It is maybe a good idea to divide persecution of Serbs in Austria Hungary into two periods:
  • until WWI
  • during WWI
• Territory of Austria-Hungary - The persecution of Serbs did not happen at the whole territory of Austria-Hungary, but mostly on the territories of Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Other countries - Anti-Serb events were not limited to Austria-Hungary. There were Anti-Serb demonstrations in Germany also, i.e. Munich (Williams, John F (21 March 2005). Corporal Hitler and the Great War 1914-1918: The List Regiment. Routledge. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-203-00476-0. Retrieved 25 December 2013. A few weeks after these assassinations, the first anti-Serb, pro-Austrian demonstration exploded in Munich.), while persecution of Serbs by Bulgarian forces was substantial and certainly notable too
• Pogroms - Not all persecution events were pogroms. Some of them were massacres (thousands of Serbs were murdered), some of them were pogroms (i.e. Sarajevo) while some of them were only demonstrations (like in Munich in Germany).

Using territory and time span criteria it should be possible to identify the following necessary articles which should be sub-articles of Persecution of Serbs article (which should be developed because it is now redirect to sentiment). The structure could be something like:

• Persecution of Serbs
  • Persecution of Serbs in Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
  • Austro-Hungarian Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • World War I persecution of Serbs
  • World War II persecution of Serbs
  • etc.

Whatever choice is made, the first step should probably be developing the main article about Persecution of Serbs which is now a redirect.

This topic is not subject of my particular interest so I am uncertain if I will be able to dedicate necessary time to improve articles about it. Anyway, if you are interested in the topic and want to continue with its expansion feel free to address to me if you think I might help you. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was complicated. Geez. I've observed that there's an iron law of Wikipedia that any discussion related to ethnic groups in the Balkans is going to get complicated, messy, and angry. Call it BDD's law. Actually, don't, because I'd rather not be associated with this madness. Editorializing aside, here's my judgment:

The article is moved to Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo. There were essentially three questions discussed in this lengthy RM: (1) changing "Sarajevo" to "Austria-Hungary"; (2) whether "pogrom" was an appropriate term for this, and; (3) if not, whether "demonstrations" or "riots" is better.

(1) The first question got lost in the furor somewhat, but among those who did address it, there was no consensus for that part of the move. For now, the article focuses on events in Sarajevo. If more content is added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary, this change may become uncontroversial.

(2) Many editors felt that "pogrom" was too strong a term for these events. It's certainly correct that "pogrom" can describe events against ethnic groups besides Jews, however, and that some sources referred to these events as a pogrom. For that reason, there's no need to scrub the word out from the article entirely, though I will naturally be removing some instances of it in connection with the rename.

(3) There was a preference for "riots" over "demonstrations" as a replacement term. As a neutral, I think this is essentially correct. "Demonstration" conjures up images of people marching with placards, not attacking people and vandalizing property based on ethnic divisions. The term is used in sources, however.

It might be appropriate to open a new request later, which I'd recommend to focus on just one aspect of this complicated debate. I would also strongly recommend editors cool down and wait a few months before revisiting the issue. The title we've ended up with may not be perfect, but it's not grossly misleading or anything. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo → Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary – While the article stresses the word "pogrom" over the word "demonstrations" with a ratio of 3:1, I note that sources [5][6] more often (with a ratio of 8:1) refer to the incident as "demonstrations" rather than "pogrom" which is defined as a "an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group". [7] This is misleading to say the least given that two individuals were killed and a bit bewildering when you consider that the same amount of people were killed on the day of the assassination. The demonstrations were also not unique to Sarajevo as "anti-Serbian demonstrations took place across the empire".[8] I see no reason to divide up the riots by city or province since they are short simultaneously connected events occurring throughout the Austro-Hungarian empire. In accords with this I propose the article be moved to "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary". The second suggestion, "Anti-Serb riots in Austria-Hungary", shows there was violence better than the term "demonstrations", but is less popular than "demonstrations" though more than "pogrom". View the prior informal move section for more information. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed. Per WP:AT the current title "indicates what the article is about", which is Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo. Also, per WP:CRITERIA, in context of the subject of the article, the current title is more recognizable, it is what readers are likely to look or search for, its sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Numerous scholarly sources used in this article extensively use the word pogrom. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Several editors presented GBS hit results to assert what is more common title. The search they presented do not show what title is more common. Both the existing and proposed title are descriptive titles which have zero GBS hits. The sources which extensively discuss the event are used as sources in this article and most of them use word pogrom to describe it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support "riots". "Pogrom" is a very uncommon and unrecognizable word in English. I oppose "pogrom" and am neutral on Sarajevo v Austria-Hungary. Red Slash 23:42, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • And to clarify: I very strongly oppose the proposed move, as proposed. Red Slash 10:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed, as I've explained in the previous debate. I don't really understand this nomination for a move. The fact that we have sources describing it both as "demonstrations" and "pogroms" suggests that we should use the latter, otherwise it would look like a case of blatant whitewashing and revisionism. The title "Anti-Serb demonstrations" doesn't make sense, what is an "Anti-[ethnicity] demonstration" anyway? If anything (as I also have said earlier), the title should be in plural, as in "Anti-Serb pogroms of 1914".
  Overall, I think your statement that "two individuals were killed" is very misleading, why are you reducing it in that way in this nomination? If we only focus on the Sarajevo event, there are two casualties and 1000+ damaged buildings due to ethnically motivated vandalism. Then there are the pogroms in other cities where the exact statistics are unknown to us so far. And further, 700-2200 deaths related to persecution by imprisonment (as described in section Aftermath). Tell me, why are you trying to push a description that doesn't use the word "pogrom", when statistics like these have been presented? Don't forget that the word "demonstration" creates an ambiguity about whether it was violent or not; in these incidents violence was encouraged by Austro-Hungarian authorities. Anonimski (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed. (on both accounts)

Demonstration is defined as:

"an event in which people gather together in order to show that they support or oppose something or someone".

"a public display of group opinion as by a rally or march"

"a public meeting or march protesting against something or expressing views on a political issue"

That would be a reductionist, and thereby inaccurate, summary of the events described in the article.

As per the second suggestion of replacing Sarajevo with Austria-Hungary as the location of these events, it is quite ridiculous. I mean, we could also go for Planet Earth as the location.Zvonko (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support "riots" - Pogrom is still largely used for historic instances of mass persecutions and violence against Jews in English. It seems inappropriate to use it here as most sources do not use this particular term (from what I can tell the use of the word comes from a quote by Serb historian Dimitrije Đorđević), and the choice of it also seems too strong for what actually had happened (a total of 2 people killed?). "Demonstrations" is equivalent to "protests" and doesn't mean much, and what happened in Sarajevo could be best described as "rioting" (after all, some 58 non-Serb perpetrators were arrested by (non-Serb) authorities whereas pogroms rarely landed anyone in jail - the fact that perpetrators go unpunished is one of the defining traits of the term "pogrom"). As for changing the scope to Bosnia and Herzegovina or the whole of Austria-Hungary - it would depend on the availability of sources covering these riots outside Sarajevo. And at the moment they seem to be rather scarce. Timbouctou (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: There are two types of usage when it comes to the word "pogrom" in contemporary English:
  1. Persecution where Jews are targeted by the society.
  2. Persecution where a specific group is targeted by the society, regardless if they're Jewish or not.
  
  Right now, we have a de facto usage of the second option on Wikipedia (with emphasis on the anti-Jewish persecution, since it has been more widespread and some authors adhere to the first option). Examples:
  
• 1966 anti-Igbo pogrom
• Sumgait pogrom
• Kirovabad pogrom
• Baku pogrom

If we re-write the description of this event, then the consequence is that these articles have to be re-written, and that Pogrom#Pogroms_against_non-Jews is removed, so that our definition consistent and that we preserve NPOV. Is this kind of change really debated, and has it achieved widespread support?
Also, you haven't read the article further than the infobox. Right now, the infobox has data on the damage in Sarajevo (2 dead, unknown number injured, 1000+ buildings damaged), but the article itself contains information about further persecution after that (establishment of Schutzkorps in particular, which wasn't hindered by A-H.). And look at the source list again, it is described as a pogrom by both historical reports and contemporary sources from multiple parts of the world. Why are you bringing incorrect information to this discussion, mentioning Dimitrije Đorđević as if he was alone in this way of describing the event?

Anyway, if there is a desire to change the Wikipedia usage of "pogrom" to the first option, then it needs to be discussed with a larger part of the userbase, especially those that worked with the anti-Armenian pogroms. This talk page isn't really the place for such a major change. Anonimski (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, using your definition, every single instance of any ethnic-related violence at any time at any place which resulted in any number of victims and/or arrests could be described as a "pogrom" - depending solely on whether a particular group is targeted by a "society" (whatever that meant) or some elements of it (and making that distinction is obviously a clear POV issue). As for further persecutions - this article does not deal with them, it deals with specific events in a specific city within a specific two-day period. It says so in the lede. In any case, we have to rely on WP:COMMONNAME and in my opinion PRODUCER is right in that the events are more often described as "demonstrations" in reliable sources. Timbouctou (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Descriptions of the Sarajevo persecution as a pogrom are well-attested in the sources. You and User:Producer have jointly went into this nomination with selectively reduced statements about the damage to life and property that are described in the article, as well as the sources. That's the main reason I'm having doubts about the intent here. About the title - there is an issue with it, and it's that it shouldn't only be about Sarajevo, due to the article content (hence the suggestion Anti-Serb pogroms of 1914). This was a set of events where both politicians and commoners participated in propaganda and violence against an ethnic minority, and we have so far used the word "pogrom" for that type of event. To have one single ethnicity as an exception is reductionist and damages the NPOV of Wikipedia. Anonimski (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, this is solely about WP:COMMONNAME. Since a simple Google Books search yields about 8:1 ratio of hits in favour of the term "demonstrations" I get the feeling the ones using "pogrom" have been cherry picked and inserted here in order to reflect the article editor's own opinions. WP:COMMONNAME btw is and always has been applied to all articles dealing with persecutions of ethnic groups, including the four articles about such events you listed above. And spare me the conspiracy theories, I have not "jointly" went into anything, and everything I said about the event itself is in the article's lede and infobox - both of which, by definition, contain key facts about article's subject. If you feel they are "selectively reduced" - that's because they are supposed to be. Timbouctou (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained that one of the ways of using the word pogrom is to specifically refer to Jewish victims only. It's not surprising that the ratio is like you described. When we have multiple descriptions of the events as a pogrom, written by people from several countries and epochs, and the details correspond quite well to the description of a pogrom, then we should use that word, if we have de facto usage of the ethnically neutral definition on Wikipedia in general. Elevating a linguistic statistical bias in this suggested way is very un-encyclopedic, and I'd say that that is cherry-picking.
Further, I don't think that there has been a conspiracy between you and the nominator, but I think that your approaches contain a very strange attitude toward the subject. A more constructive way of improving the description of these events would either be to have a broader title that encompasses the info in the Aftermath section as well, or suggest an article split. Anonimski (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support move away from pogrom, simply because the strongest word that the most recent cited source, Mitrović (2007), uses to describe the entirety of the events - is "riots". It does use the word pogrom for one night in Sarajevo, so that indicates that part of the content could be split off into a separate article? That source appears to be reasonably reliable. On the other hand, Dedijer and Ekmečić are hardly reliable sources on this kind of a topic from the get-go. More specifically, whoever used Ekmečić as a reference a) at all b) in the intro c) to support a Serbian nationalist talking point -- needs to be slapped with a large trout, because it's a glaring WP:ARBMAC violation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Mitrovic... use...word pogrom for one night in Sarajevo" - That is incorrect. Here is what Mitrovic really says about 29th June: "Demonstrations ... started at around 8 a.m. and quickly developed into pogrom" (p.18) You refuted your position because you actually explained that the entirety of the events is more accurately described as pogrom than demonstrations.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're just plain not making any sense. The same source clearly states that one Serb-owned hotel was demolished on June 28. If this is in scope of the "Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo", because the scope is presumably both of those days, then... do I have to go on? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Go on if you want. I don't mind it because your arguments and source (Mitrovic) actually explain that the entirety of the events is more accurately described as pogrom than demonstrations. The event described in this article lasted for several hours on 28 June evening and the whole day of 29 June. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the definition, why should the source from 2007 override the earlier descriptions? Anonimski (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Presumably because it's the most relevant? Surely we should aim to cite more recent works that are of higher quality than earlier works? On the other hand, by now I already saw numerous sourcing errors in the article - all assumptions should probably be avoided. It would be best if someone who doesn't suck at sourcing would provide a decent overview of what reliable sources say about the topic. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW, Google Books searches give me:

• 1914 assassination pogroms: About 2,540 results
• 1914 assassination riots: About 9,020 results
• 1914 bosnia pogroms: About 1,120 results
• 1914 bosnia riots: About 2,820 results

Etc. I can't really find a combination where the current phrasing is more common. It sounds like cherry-picking, sadly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, there are two ways of using the word pogrom. Some only use it when it's about Jewish people, others use it regardless of ethnicity. This statistical analysis has one flaw, and it's that it doesn't take that into account. Wikipedia currently uses the definition which encompasses multiple ethnicities (I wrote some example links earlier that related to persecution of Armenians). If this article is re-defined in the suggested way, it would practically mean "use the word for persecution regardless of ethnicity, except when the victims are Serbs". Or would you not see it as problematic? Also, regarding the statement about the most recent source: If the next publication about Azeri attacks on civilian Armenians happen to use a different terminology, does it mean that all the mentions of pogrom should instantly be deleted? Would this really be the right thing to do? Anonimski (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What Joy is saying is that the most recent scholarship available is most likely to arrive at what would be the best description for this (or any other) historic event. Regardless, WP:COMMONNAME still applies and, judging by Google Books searches, this is simply not it. Timbouctou (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Both the existing and proposed title have zero GBS hits. They are both descriptive titles. The current title better corresponds with WP:CRITERIA and WP:AT. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems unfortunately that the disagreement will remain. It would be good to try finding some people from the outside, to analyze this issue from a third perspective (I don't live in the Balkans, but I can't really categorize myself as being without any relation to the region). I still stand with my opinion that we can't elevate a statistical bias of linguistic origin as something else, and that we need to relate the issue with other descriptions of pogroms to avoid introducing ethnically based inconsequence. Anonimski (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

In regards to the "cherry-picking" argument by PRODUCER and Timbouctou.

rioting 391 results [9]

horror 559 results [10]

terror 1,040 results [11]

violence 987 results [12]

demonstration 715 results [13]

attacks 1,310 results [14]

Not sure why you keep bringing up Google Books hits in this case. Not only are they not gospel when it comes to Wikipedia naming conventions, but in this specific instance they're explicitly deriding your joint "cherry-picking" argument as well as PRODUCER's motion to change pogrom to demonstrations.Zvonko (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, 1914 sarajevo demonstrations yields 3,340 hits, while 1914 sarajevo riots gives 2,070 hits. 1914 Sarajevo pogrom gets about 676 hits, which makes it at least five times less common than "demonstrations" and three times less common than "riots". Timbouctou (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary" - 0 hits
• " Anti-Serb pogrom in Sarajevo" - 0 hits.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Here are corrected stats (you actually have to flip through to the last page of results to get the actual numbers):
• 1914 sarajevo demonstrations yields 3,280 hits, while 1914 sarajevo riots gives 1,970 hits. 1914 Sarajevo pogrom gets 304 hits. This makes the "pogrom" wording choice at least eleven times less common than "demonstrations" and about six times less common than "riots". Also, Antidiskriminator, are you arguing we should drop the "Anti-Serb" prefix altogether? Were there any other demonstrations/pogroms in Sarajevo in 1914? Timbouctou (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Why are we even continuing with this intensive talk about word usage numbers? The statistics are shifted linguistically due to parallel definitions. The focus should be to relate this to how the norm should be on Wikipedia. Does the word "pogrom" apply to all ethnicities when it comes to how Wikipedia is written? We need to have this question clear for everyone (and not just here in this Balkan debate). Anonimski (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We're continuing it because comparing Google Books hits for "demonstrations" and "pogrom" is the only leg Timbouctou feels he has to stand on while conveniently omitting that for example 1914 sarajevo violence yields 7,700 hits, 1914 sarajevo horror gets 2,840, 1914 sarajevo attacks has almost 15,000, and so on and so forth with just about every other irrelevant term that can be spun. So, instead of an actual discussion we're having a BS completely irrelevant GoogleBooks hits-measuring contest.Zvonko (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

(Continued below.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Anonimski: The statistics are what they are because they show what the article topic is referred to most commonly in reliable sources per WP:COMMONNAME. We can debate all you want but the fact is that "pogrom" is not how the majority of sources describe what happened in Sarajevo in 1914. Btw there is a list of events named pogrom on Wikipedia you can consult. Just bear in mind that they are not called that way because of the events these articles describe but because that's what most other people chose to call them (again, per WP:COMMONNAME). So I fail to see how the existence of articles like Mława pogrom or 1989 Bangladesh pogroms is helping your case. Also, per Antidiskriminator's observation and per WP:CRITERIA there's no need for the "Anti-Serb" prefix. There were no other demonstrations/horrors/attacks/pogroms/riots in Sarajevo in June 1914. Timbouctou (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

We can debate all you want but the fact is that "pogrom" is not how the majority of sources describe what happened in Sarajevo in 1914

Neither is "demonstrations", but that doesn't seem to be stopping you.Zvonko (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Then what is, Zvonko? Please enlighten us. Timbouctou (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"per Antidiskriminator's observation and per WP:CRITERIA there's no need for the "Anti-Serb" prefix" This is blatant and disruptive misinterpretation. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You yourself invoked WP:CRITERIA which states that "the title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Most pogroms/riots on Wikipedia do not contain such prefixes in article titles (see the already mentioned List of events named pogrom) and we have no articles on any other Sarajevo pogrom/riot which would require this particular one to be distinguished by a prefix. Timbouctou (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Then what is, Zvonko? Please enlighten us.

I've listed several above that have WAY more than "demonstrations" just to show what puerile BS this Google Books hits measuring contest is.... Zvonko (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

So you are happy with keeping the phrasing which you admit has the fewest number of hits measured by any search string? Because all your argument has showed is that pretty much any alternative is better suited than what we have now. Timbouctou (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I listed those terms with their number of hits in order to show that some terms that are clearly inapplicable here in terms of article nomenclature (terror, horror, brutality, cruelty, killings) have either just as many or way more hits than the terms you suggested. Number of Google Books hits is not gospel, yet you try to present it such to the exclusion of everything else including common sense since you know you don't have a leg to stand on in an actual terminology discussion and the dissection of the dictionary meaning of each term. Anonimski tried to engage you in that discussion, but you ran away from it and chose to hide behind the number of hits. And I suspect you'll continue doing the same.Zvonko (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Zvonko, are you even looking at what is the context of any of the hits of these searches you are making? Or are you just recklessly popping whatever emotive term comes to mind and ignoring what's in the actual evidence? The proposal "Anti-Serb(ian) demonstrations" is used verbatim in numerous sources [15][16] as is "Anti-Serb(ian) riots" [17][18] whereas the same can't be said of "Anti-Serb(ian) pogroms" [19][20] let alone any of the nonsense you've come up. The sources far more commonly describe the events as "demonstrations" or "riots" instead of pogrom just like at 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Simple really. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 06:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to avoid supporting or opposing this move since it looks too complicated. One thing I wanna say is that a pogrom does not have to be anti-Jewish. I see that Anonimski has already given examples of non-Jewish pogroms, including the three pogroms of Armenians in Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1990. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• OPPOSED -Since when was hunting down people of certain ethnic group, faith and mother tounge (in this case SERBIAN people) by organised plundering, looting, burning down their houses, shops and churches, harrasing and arresting them and even killing more than 2,000 of them; a meer demonstration!!!???? We could fairly call this a "Sarajevo christal night" by another name. Pogrom in another case is the only fair expression... More like an Anti-Serb pogrom in whole BiH area and use it also under sections as "persecution of Serbs" and "causes of WW1" or similar. (Правичност (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC))

• Support "Anti-Serb riots and/or demonstrations in Austria-Hungary" as per 23 editor and PRODUCER, these events occurred simultaneously throughout the empire as part of imperial policies not specific to Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Sarajevo for that matter. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 05:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't throughout the empire, it was isolated to the empire's Balkan territory. We have a report of a calm situation in Vienna, for example. However, I agree that Sarajevo as a location is an issue since we discuss a wider region in the article. An alternative would be to drop the location and refer to the year (1914) instead. Anonimski (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Most sources mention Sarajevo in unison with Zagreb or Vienna or some other cities, say it occurred in the provinces of Bosnia and Croatia, or explicitly state "anti-Serbian demonstrations in many places throughout the Monarchy, especially in the South Slav provinces", "violent anti-Serbian demonstrations took place across the empire" and "Anti-Serbian demonstrations occurred over the length and breadth of Austria-Hungary." In Vienna you had about two hundred students demonstrate at the Serbian embassy and included flag burnings. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support the replacement of "pogrom" with "riots" and/or "demonstrations". And for the closing admin, there is a fair bit of piling on of the usual (and some unusual...) suspects here. For User:Equity, we use sources on WP, not what you think it should be called. There is also the related issue which sits behind much of the rhetoric on these events, which is the modern-day Serb propaganda attempt to link the terrible deeds that were inflicted on them during WWII to the terrible deeds that were inflicted on the Jews in the same period, in order to create some kind of Serb-Jewish brotherhood of equal victims. This propaganda has been supported by attempts to deny the involvement of Serbs in the killing of the Jews in majority Serb areas of eastern Yugoslavia during WWII. BTW, it's not a !vote, the arguments need to be strongly-based in policy, and "pogrom" just doesn't cut it in terms of use in reliable third-party sources in English, which is what we use to decide these things. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  Reply to Peacemaker: If the issue I mentioned earlier with parallel norms of the usage of "pogrom" is dismissed, then "riots" would be a better description. The word "demonstrations" doesn't make sense since this was something done by several levels of the society. "Demonstration" is ambiguous when it comes to the intent of violence against the target, and misleads the reader. Why is this even an option? And honestly I think it's a bit manipulative to make this into some conspiracy. The riots (if we call them that way) have had the characteristics of pogroms, and have been described in that way by people both in and outside the region (although not >50%).
  

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_WWI_propaganda_card_against_Serbs_-_003.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_WWI_propaganda_card_against_Serbs_-_004.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_WWI_propaganda_card_against_Serbs_-_005.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_WWI_propaganda_card_against_Serbs_-_006.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Devastated_and_robbed_shops_owned_by_Serbs_in_Sarajevo_1914.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hromadná_poprava_Srbů.jpg

There are several images in the repository that show examples of violence, as well as the caricatures and propaganda that are associated with anti-ethnic pogroms/riots. Your talk about "the usual and some unusual suspects" could be applied to the other side as well, FYI. Also the fact that the formulation using "demonstrations" has been advocated makes it sound rather suspicious and reductionist. Anonimski (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should all pick sides and name the usual suspects. See, this is exactly what is wrong with this kind of an argument - people keep coming back with --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support "riots" or demonstrations (2nd choice). To refine the Google book search conducted by esteemed colleagues above, the actual meaningful results are not in the range of hundreds, but of ones, but are still telling:
  • Pogrom [21]:
    • Kipp, "Central European Security Concerns: Bridge, Buffer, Or Barrier?";
    • Mitrović "Serbia's Great War, 1914-1918 - Page 18";
    • Savary "Sarajevo 1914: vie et mort de Gavrilo Princip - Page 158" (in French)
  • Riots [22]:
    • Donia, "Sarajevo: A Biography - Page xv"
    • Burg, "Almanac of World War I - Page 10"
    • Pavlović, "Balkan Anschluss: The Annexation of Montenegro and the ... - Page 65"
    • Danver, "Popular Controversies in World History: Investigating ... - Page 68"
    • Mitrović "Serbia's Great War, 1914-1918 - Page 18"
    • Zacher, "The Scripps Newspapers Go to War, 1914-18 - Page 36"
    • Carlisle "World War I - Page 12"
  • Demonstrations [23]
    • Donia, "Sarajevo: A Biography - Page 370"
    • Mitrović "Serbia's Great War, 1914-1918 - Page 18";
    • Treadway, "The Falcon and the Eagle: Montenegro and Austria-Hungary,"
    • Pavlović, "Balkan Anschluss: The Annexation of Montenegro and the ... - Page 65"
    • Wawro, "Warfare and Society in Europe, 1792- 1914 - Page 213"
    • Bideleux, "A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change - Page 302"
    • Bobić, "War and Faith: The Catholic Church in Slovenia, 1914-1918 - Page 15"
  • As can be seen, some authors, particularly Mitrović, use all three terms interchangeably. But, when we take a closer look [24], he titles the whole chapter "demonstrations", and uses that word for most instances after that. No such user (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this sober analysis. While we're at it, did the preponderance of these sources significantly use the phrase "anti-Serb" while describing the events? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Could anti-Serb pogrom/riots/demonstrations in Sarajevo be redirected to a section covering such events within a future article about the empire-wide anti-Serb violence in the event of this move being successful? 23 editor (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I would support the change of location. Anonimski (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

One idea, by the way, is to refer to the year, since we don't have an isolated location. How about this: Anti-Serb riots and pogroms of 1914, would this settle the discontent on both sides of this dispute? Anonimski (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I categorically reject the idea that some semantic argument can be used to insert "pogrom" into this title. It is not used by a clear majority of reliable third party sources. "Demonstrations" is the term that should be used based on the properly determined Google Books results. I believe "Anti-Serb demonstrations of 1914" would be the best title to cover what the RS call it, as well as the temporal and the geographical scope (clearly wider than Sarajevo). The specific Sarajevo events could be included in its own section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the word "demonstration" associated with the intent to kill and/or destroy property? Referring to this violence as a Demonstration_(protest) is misleading because it introduces ambiguity. Also, if we take recently written list as an example, some of the authors who mentioned demonstrations also mentioned the other descriptions (riot, pogrom). Anonimski (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I categorically reject the idea of replacing one term ("pogrom") that isn't used by a clear majority of reliable third party sources with another term ("demonstrations") that isn't used by a clear majority of reliable third party sources.Zvonko (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd support "1914 anti-Serb demonstrations" or "1914 anti-Serb riots" though I think a chronological order of events in the article would be the way to go. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 08:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I repeat my self - Since when was hunting down people of certain ethnic group (Serbian people) by organised plundering, looting, burning down their houses, shops and churches, harrasing and arresting them and even killing more than 2,000 of them; a meer demonstration!!!???? We could fairly call this a "Sarajevo christal night" by another name. Pogrom in another case is the only fair expression... More like an Anti-Serb pogrom in whole BiH area and use it also under sections as "persecution of Serbs" and "causes of WW1" or similar. (Правичност (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC))

What you think is "fair" or "not fair" is immaterial. The term most commonly used by third party reliable sources to refer to these events is "demonstrations". That is the measuring stick we use on Wikipedia, not the subjective opinions of editors, particularly those who might have a particular axe to grind. All the very best. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Peacemaker: What's more noteworthy, the ones that shout bigoted slogans, or those that actively smash property and/or other people? Also, I have mentioned that some authors use several definitions in the same text. Anyway, I can somewhat understand the people that want to put "riots" in the title, but Demonstration (protest) is not the way to go. It's taken out of its contexts in a very bad way. Anonimski (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The thing that is noteworthy is the thing that the reliable sources say it is. The level of emotion you seem to be putting into this argument makes it fairly clear that the article's present talking-point title has been very effective. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Joy, have you looked at WP:AT? In the lead part, we have: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. As of today, our (Wikpedia) definition of a Demonstration_(protest) simply doesn't fit to the content in the article we're debating. If some authors associate "demonstation" with something violent by default (as can be expected when dealing with some parts of the world and when talking about violent times) - then that observer bias is not something that should be copied blindly into Wikipedia, because it violates the established definitions.
And that remark where you said The level of emotion you seem to be putting into this... is disruptive, and definitely not proper argumentation conduct. Throwing around assumptions about people adds nothing constructive to the debate. Anonimski (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See, this is what's wrong with this kind of a discussion - we're talking completely past each other. So you still don't like the "demonstrations" suggestion - but have you read WP:POVTITLE? Which is part of WP:AT that you just pointed me to?! But regardless of that particular issue, even if you don't like some particular suggestion, the point of a title discussion isn't about battling individual suggestions, it's about coming to a consensus based on the applicable policies. If you concentrate on ranting against one particular issue, that's only helpful in obstructing the consensus-building process. That is disruptive. Me calling you out on it is not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I referred to the beginning of WP:AT. The issue I'm having with this is also related to WP:POVTITLE. We don't have a commonly established name to work with. Only three ways of describing the event(s). The source authors didn't write their works with the Wikipedia article Demonstration (protest) in mind, and elevating their word usage in this way would damage neutrality, since the content in this article about pogroms/riots/demonstrations doesn't fit to Demonstration (protest). I have understanding for those that think "riots" is the right choice. It would be the average or median of the descriptions in the list (even if I don't agree 100% on "riots" when it comes to describing the article content). However, "demonstrations" is taken out of its context.
Regarding the "ranting" you remarked about - I don't have any intention of "obstructing the consensus-building". As I've said, I have some understanding for those that suggest "riots". When it comes to the argumentation about "demonstrations", I find it necessary to argue against what I percieve is an abusive way of structuring and using word counts. Anonimski (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

If the 'demonstrations' name is the most common in sources, and it appears so that it is because nobody has disputed No such user's analysis to date, then we do have a commonly established name to work with. It really doesn't matter why source authors used some particular word - if it does, then there will be other sources that will discuss that topic, that we can in turn reference in an etymology section. The issue of context is legitimate - is the most coherent topic at hand everything that went on in Bosnia and Croatia at the time, or is it the most egregious of the incidents, the one in Sarajevo? If both topics are coherent and relevant in their own right, should we try to present them both in one article, or should we split them into separate ones? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The main issue with the analysis that it only uses Google Books. But let's have a more numerical look on what he wrote:

• Authors using "Demonstrations" exclusively: 4
• Authors using "Riots" exclusively: 4
• Authors using "Pogroms" exclusively: 2
• "Pogroms, riots, and demonstrations" in the same publication: 1
• "Riots and demonstrations" in the same publication: 2
• Further, there are examples of using "pogrom" in the sources outside Google Books, in the article's References section.

There is definitely no "established name" here, and it never has been so. We have to look at the article content, and relate it to the way Wikipedia defines a Demonstration (protest), a Riot, or a Pogrom. My argumentation is that "pogrom" is the correct description. Another way of solving this is to put those three descriptions on an 1-3 severity scale. "Riots" would then be the average and the median, and even if I don't agree 100%, then it would be an acceptable solution (since it doesn't introduce unwanted ambiguity). My opinion on "Demonstrations" is as before; that it's grossly taken out of context and should not be elevated in this way to misrepresent article content.
Anyway, I think we could have it all in the same article (without centering it around Sarajevo), at least with the information we have gathered so far. My stance is that the title should be Anti-Serb pogroms of 1914 or even Anti-Serb riots of 1914 if we don't want to base it on the most notable aspect of the events. Using ...in Austria-Hungary makes the location too wide, ...in Sarajevo makes it too narrow, and therefore it's easier to specify it using the year. Anonimski (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no. That would be OR, or at the very least WP:CIRCULAR. I could agree to "Anti-Serb demonstrations and riots of 1914", which clearly trumps "pogroms" by a factor of 4 to 1 even by your calculations based on exclusivity (however that is relevant). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is this particular issue mentioned, of which the comment about some point of a title discussion is regardless of? If I were to judge by the sentences preceding the sentence in which the phrasing "that particular issue" was used in the comment above mine, I'd gather that it had to do something with the Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles, a section on the page titles. But if this is the case, then I guess that the previous comment, the one directly above mine at the moment, had to do something with an idea that there might be some bias in the current title of this article. Please do correct me if someone had interpreted this differently.

— biblbroks — continues after insertion below

Allow me to dispute the premise to your TL;DR rant early - my reference to WP:POVTITLE is in the fact that even if we all think that calling a pogrom a demonstration is biased, the said name will still be the most appropriate one if it's the most commonly used name in the sources. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, if such an idea is present, I must admit that this is somewhat unusual. Why - because I am not sure, but I cannot recall that anyone raised any objections regarding the neutrality in the current article title. Maybe my memory serves me badly, though. Even while quickly skimming through this discussion I am not able to find not one notice of some of these POV issues with the title or similar. If I missed any, I apologize for not paying attention carefully. However, there was one recent comment by an anonymous user which was presumably sent in order to portray some imagined and/or real problem(s( with the neutrality of this article as a whole, if I am not mistaken. But it seems that this comment doesn't have to do as much with the article title since it doesn't address that "problem" comprehensively. At least not comprehensively enough. And that especially when one considers an answer to the aforesaid comment by an anonymous user, an answer which as far as I can tell was made by the same user which I assume tried to convey some idea of that "WP:POVTITLE particular issue". In that answer there appears to be a warning that the comment in question should not just be shunned away but even deleted. Deleted if some requirements are not met. And of course, these requirements look reasonable since they are here to maintain mutual understanding, but what is peculiar is that the above-mentioned, threatened to be deleted, comment presumably violates some "decorum". This is peculiar to me since it might pose some interesting questions about the whole bias/neutrality/propaganda question/problem/issue: who said what, to whom that meant what, what is to be done, why are we all here... and so on. Nah, is it possible that I got this all wrong, and that there may be something bout the title of Anti-Serb_pogrom_in_Sarajevo article apart from the recurring themes like "what reliable sources say about the topic", google hits, semantic analysis, etc. --biblbroks (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The term most commonly used by third party reliable sources to refer to these events is "demonstrations".

Though you toned down your bravado and lowered the rhetoric bar by replacing the phrase "term used by a clear majority of reliable third party sources" with "term most commonly used by third party reliable sources" the quoted statement is not factually correct. You're peddling a falsehood while vaguely accusing others having an axe to grind. Projecting much? Zvonko (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Zvonko. There is no bravado here, chief. I've tried to quote the policies off the top of my head, if my wording has changed it is because I am not perfect. Policies are the standards we use on WP. How is the statement false? And I'm not vaguely accusing anyone of anything. There are people here with an axe to grind, you can tell by the repetition and shouting/????/..../use of emotive words like bigoted. If you aren't one of them, then you should be able to tell who they are. If not, you need to get some more time up editing Balkans articles. My point stands. The Google Books hits (properly executed) clearly show "demonstrations" is the term most commonly used to describe these events. That is what why we should use the term. Anonimski, you might be able to "understand" something other people think, but that doesn't make it in accordance with policy. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Incorrect. The presented search results for demonstrations (link) in most cases do not refer to the topic of this article or events are not described only as demonstrations, but also attacks, riots, pogrom.... They present information about: "pro-Austrian demonstration exploded in Munich", "Street demonstrations [in Austria-Hungary, not in Sarajevo, while].... counter-demonstrations washed trough Serbia and Montenegro", "using the state visit as a demonstration to the local population", "Socialist Meetings/Demonstrations against the Italian-Turkish War Table", "demonstrations and attacks", ...
• Events in Sarajevo began as demonstrations. Soon they became pogrom, as described by sources that extensively describe this event (which are used in the article).
• This is not the first time you violate Wikipedia:Civility policy and indulge in name-calling of your opponents in discussions. Please be so kind not to repeat such behavior in future.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

You consider us "opponents"? Well that's revealing. Anyway try bothering putting the same scrutiny for "pogrom" searches and then report back. The proposal "Anti-Serb(ian) demonstrations" is used verbatim in numerous sources [25][26] as is "Anti-Serb(ian) riots" [27][28] whereas the same can't be said of "Anti-Serb(ian) pogroms" [29][30] let alone any of Zvonko's nonsense. The sources far more commonly describe the events as "demonstrations" or "riots" instead of pogrom just like at 1984 anti-Sikh riots. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I don't it's OK to refer to his usage of the word "opponents" in that way (link to "battleground"). When two people debate and oppose each others' opinion, they can be called opponents in the discussion, without any hostile meaning. Anonimski (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support Move to riots or demonstrations; the described events are clearly not pogroms in the widely accepted meaning. 194.150.177.10 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support. It's not a pogrom. Antidiskriminator, why did you write an article with this title when you knew it wasn't a pogrom? bobrayner (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet another Balkan scandal mongerer that wants to provoke others. I don't think User:Antidiskriminator did anything wrong here. He definitely had support in his sources when he wrote the word "pogrom" in the title (and those that want to select "riots" also have acceptable arguments). "Demonstrations" is taken out of its context and does nothing to describe what the article is about. Anonimski (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you think Antidiskriminator did anything wrong here? Surely, writing an article about a pogrom, when there wasn't actually a pogrom, is tendentious editing? Can you explain why you feel that is acceptable? bobrayner (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, he found numerous sources which described it in that way, and they were spread out through out the 20th century: from 1914 itself (news reports), to modern times (historical analysis). Also, look at the article Pogrom and compare the description to the contents we have here (and look at how we define Demonstration (protest) here on Wikipedia). But I'm not going to participate in another mega-discussion. If you look at the comment history, we have already had argumentations about the three options (pogroms/riots/demonstrations). I don't know if it can be said that a consensus has been reached, but we managed to find at least some common ground in the description "riots". That's it, for now.. Anonimski (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe a rough consensus has coalesced around "demonstrations and riots". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If we put aside our previous dispute on "demonstrations": are we still in agreement on using the title ending "[...] of 1914", so we can avoid the issues on how to pin-point the geographical locations? Anonimski (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That I definitely agree with, they occurred in a number of places, and "1914 anti-Serb demonstrations and riots" would be the most succinct title. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be even more succinct if we didn't have to use the loaded term "anti-Serb". Because we have identified numerous faults with Ad's edits here, and in the anti-Serb sentiment article earlier, where he tended to prefer to use the other loaded term "Serbophobia" where no such thing was used in the sources, I've asked User:No such user above to verify whether it's actually commonly used in the sources for this. Besides, there's numerous similar acts of violence that aren't named with this kind of terminology, heck, even most of the pogrom examples listed above don't use it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it describes the topic without being loaded. This article covers not only the events in Sarajevo, but also the escalation of ethnic violence against the Serb population that occured just before WWI. However, I would be open to using the title "1914 persecutions of Serbs", although it'd introduce a fourth word into the debate. Anyway, regarding the other article, I agree that Anti-Serb sentiment is generally a more appropriate term than "Serbophobia". Anonimski (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This pogrom/riots/demonstations were clerly anti-Serb. I can´see what drove Joy to want to eliminate the "anti-Serb" term from the title. FkpCascais (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The title should include "anti-Serb", and I fail to see how it is "loaded" (or even non-neutral), Joy. It is integral to the scope of the article, and is how they are described in reliable sources. I haven't noticed "persecutions" being used in this context, Anonimski, so can we just set that aside and go with "demonstrations and riots"? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The previous suggestion was more of a speculation on an alternative way to write "Anti-Serb [...]", it's not something that I'm arguing for. Anyway, I still think that "demonstrations" is problematic. There are authors that have used it, but the context has been a violent time period in a politically unstable region. The more general definition (which we have here on Wikipedia) is ambiguous on the violence aspect, and that's the reason why I believe it's not a good choice for this article. Anonimski (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI the terms "Anti-Serb", "Anti-Serbian" and "Serbophobic" are by no means interchangeable. You seem very bent on semantics so someone should point that out to you. As for "demonstrations" - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and how we define the word is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the majority of reliable sources defined it. And the majority did not opt for calling it "pogrom". You are either unable or unwilling to understand the relevant WP policies here. And for the "Anti-Serb" prefix - there is no need for it really - for one thing, there were no other protests/riots/whatever in Sarajevo in 1914 so "1914 Sarajevo riots" should suffice - plus it introduces a loaded term in article title since every anti-X event can also be described as pro-Y (in this case, some contemporary reports described it as pro-Austrian). The large majority of articles on pogroms, massacres, demonstrations and riots we already on Wikipedia do not contain such prefixes in their titles for exactly those reasons. Timbouctou (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am wary about POV-pushing potential of "anti-Serb" label, but in this case it clearly appropriate and used by the reliable sources. Mitrović, whom I mentioned several times above, uses the term "anti-Serb demonstrations" on the very first mention [books.google.rs/books?id=viqqqQ2KT7kC&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false]. There is no need to water down their character. Since the title is already a descriptive phrase, removing the "anti-Serb" adjective would violate WP:PRECISION. No such user (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

agree with Nsu, as per my cmt above. "Anti-Serb" needs to be in there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, this shouldn't be a matter of agreement as such - if he read the sources right, then we can't disagree on the use of that term. The term "anti-Serb" is loaded because it is potentially overly broad and misleading - don't you remember how we've had a gross WP:SYNTH problem at the anti-Serb sentiment article because people liked to characterize all sorts of arbitrary items under the same label? I could fathom this having been another such case, which is why I asked for verification. I'm glad this is now rendered moot. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should probably revert your removal (diff) of "Anti-Serb" at 1991 anti-Serb riot in Zadar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you should stop harassing User:Joy. You are free to start a move discussion at the relevant talk page. Timbouctou (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Continued below.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This event was an anti-Serb pogrom, as in 1 event, the demonstrations, rioting and "pogrom" (as in persecution) against the Serbian people in Sarajevo. Read the article and see references. No move [according to criterias].--Zoupan 02:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support "riots" per the evidence on usage above. "Pogrom" also gives the impression of mass killing, when only two Serbs were actually killed. Neljack (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Recap attempt. It's going to be hard to close this as a move request, because several options are involved. We need consensus about scope - do we want a clear Austria-Hungary-wide article (which would allow us to rid this article of excess non-Sarajevo content)? If so, then it's simplest that someone simply moves portions of this article over there right now. At that point, we can have one or two straightforward move requests about title terminology. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not going to be hard to close this move request at all because no apparent consensus for move has been reached.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a fairly clear consensus that "pogrom" is not the consensus in the sources, and should therefore go. The lack of any sort of meaningful dispute over No such user's findings on that matter speaks volumes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No such consensus exists here. I politely ask you to stop with your attempts to influence the decision of the closing administrator. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely consensus to move this away from "pogrom". The issue now is whether to replace it with "riots" or "demonstrations", and also with defining its scope (Sarajevo or Austria-Hungary?). Timbouctou (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No such consensus exists here. Consensus is based on arguments and no arguments that pogrom is wrong term are presented. On the contrary. The sources which describe the event in more details are used in this article and all describe it as pogrom. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well at least 7-8 other editors expressed disagreement with your view, and some of them presented pretty strong arguments for "riots/demonstrations" to be used here. You repeating ad infinitum that there is no consensus here will hardly change that fact. Consensus does not necessarily imply unanimity. Timbouctou (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No consensus is reached here. At least 7 other editors are opposed to renaming of the article, plus several other editors who commented about usage of pogrom term here on this talkpage and/or at DYK nomination page and did not find anything wrong with it. That is why you try to influence decision of the closing administrator. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Which seven? The DYK nomination is quite irrelevant here. Timbouctou (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• The DYK nomination review is, of course, not irrelevant. The same goes for comments of several editors about the term pogrom.
• Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. I presented such arguments in my oppose comment. What wikipedia policy is presented to support this renaming proposal position? The number of !votes (7-8support:7opposed [I counted seven directly opposed editors]) does not mean much. Policy based arguments do.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK checkers are not interested in the issue debated here and the fact you think they are is quite concerning. You have been around long enough to know better. But feel free to invite them to this discussion so we can let their voices be heard. Another thing that is concerning is that you are trying to misinform the closing admin. I counted a total of four editors (Anonimski, Zoupan, Zvonko and yourself) who opposed this move so far, none of whom offered anything in terms of policy-based arguments. This title is a result of cherry-picked sources. Timbouctou (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Quality of your arguments is already renowned, Antidiskriminator: as here, they range from "this article is not neutral" to "there is no consensus", to "this is (not) supported by policy", without a shred of evidence to back them up. Just a lot of hand-waving. No such user (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The checkers are definitively interested in article quality, source base, and possible issues. Further, we finally got at least some input from people with no relation to the region. Anyway, I think this whole thing has been such a circus... Anonimski (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to invite our esteemed colleagues from the DYK department to come over and share their enlightening input with us. I would love to hear them explain their thought process and see them share valuable insight into the thoroughness that goes into approving DYK hooks. Timbouctou (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• While we're at it, it seems the issue of whether to use the term "Anti-Serb" deserves a wee bit more discussion after all. I noticed Zvonko cited several searches using different terminology that yield a lot of Google Books hits. I tried using quotes in the same searches to see if the actual phrases are used, and found the results enlightening:

• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb pogrom -wikipedia -> about 55 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb pogrom" -wikipedia -> 2 results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb violence -wikipedia -> about 348 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb violence" -wikipedia -> 2 results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb horror -wikipedia -> 5 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb horror" -wikipedia -> no results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb terror -wikipedia -> about 544 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb terror" -wikipedia -> no results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb attacks -wikipedia -> about 924 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb attacks" -wikipedia -> no results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb demonstrations -wikipedia -> about 416 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb demonstrations" -wikipedia -> 29 results
• 1914 Sarajevo anti-Serb riots -wikipedia -> about 169 results
• 1914 Sarajevo "anti-Serb riots" -wikipedia -> 69 results

No matter how skeptical I was about the loaded term, its existence in the book sources as a phrase appears to clearly justify its use. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a pogrom. Antidiskriminator, why did you write an article with pogrom in the title, when you knew it wasn't a pogrom? bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Voting bloc

The editor who proposed renaming to Anti-Serb demonstrations in Austria-Hungary expressed their concern that RM discussion would attract "editors belonging to a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc"... into the discussion and loyally vote their title regardless of what evidence or arguments are at hand." (link to the discussion in question).

After one month from the initiation of RM, it is probably time to close it. Before this discussion is closed I think it would be good to investigate if "voting bloc" concern was justified.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a useful tool which could help to determine existence of voting bloc in this case. It is Editor Interaction Analyzer. I performed an analysis of both Support and Oppose !votes. Here are results of the analysis:

• Editor interaction analysis for Support !votes link
• Editor interaction analysis for Oppose !votes link

Conclusion:

• The following editors had frequent interaction:
  1. On oppose side Antidiskriminator and Zoupan, maximum time range - 7 days
  2. On support side PRODUCER, Peacemaker67, Bobrayner, Joy and Timbouctou - maximum time range - 13 hours.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I will prepare appropriate reports in reply to concerns about "voting bloc".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is just another article…

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
…to “justify” the Srebrenica Massacre (8000 Bosnian Muslims killed) in 1995. (I am not saying that these 1914 Sarajevo riots (3 Serbs killed) didn’t happen; I’m only saying that the way the article was written is a way to disseminate pro-Serb "eternal victim of injustice and incomprehension of others" propaganda here in Wikipedia)--201.81.177.6 (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Do you mean that the war in the 90's is a reason to delete/neglect information about historical events in the 1910's? And have you read the article? There were many more killed in the aftermath (Anti-Serb_pogrom_in_Sarajevo#Aftermath). Nobody here is questioning the facts about crimes against Muslims, yet you're coming here and making this into some political thing. Anonimski (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC) You'll have to elaborate on the way the article was written in order for this comment not to be removed as it is otherwise a clear violation of decorum. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Aftermath Issues

Reading through the aftermath section (discussing Serbs interned/died in camps, and expelled from Bosnia-Herzegovina). The figures and even the language ("an ominous sign of future events") is basically lifted verbatim from the Velikonja book cited. That last line especially should be rephrased as a quote ("as Velikonja describes, 'an ominous sign of future events' ").

It's also worth noting that those casualties/expellees figures cited from the Velikonja book are about casualties in Bosnia *during the First World War*, not during the August 1914 violence. The article should be more clear on this point. If no objections I can make these edits.Konchevnik81 (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. I segmented the aftermath and linked to the Schutzkorps article which mentions that it happened in the beginning of the First World War. Maybe we should also include it in this article as well, in some way. Anonimski (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

31 June

In the "29 June 1914" section, the date "31 June 1914" is mentioned. 31 June does not exist. Just letting you guys know. --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. The source mentioned 29 June 1914, so I removed the erroneous date completely. Anonimski (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to the article

Editor whose proposal to rename this article from Sarajevo to Austria-Hungary performed major changes of the article that significantly changed not only the structure of the article, but its scope too. (diffs)

Wikipedia:Editing policy says: "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion, to prevent edit warring and disillusioning either other editors or yourself (if your hard work is rejected by others). One person's improvement is another's desecration, and nobody likes to see their work "destroyed" without prior notice. If you choose to be very bold, take extra care to justify your changes in detail on the article talk page. This will make it less likely that editors will end up reverting the article back and forth between their preferred versions. To facilitate discussion of a substantial change without filling up the talk page, you can create the new draft in your own userspace (e.g. User:Example/Lipsum) and link to it on the article discussion page."

If any editor intend to propose major changes to the article, I advise them to follow the above wikipedia policy. Also, closing administrator proposed to wait a few months before revisiting the issue.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The admin spoke of the possibility of "more content" being "added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary" which I have done. You want to keep something that is so obvious appear controversial. I am getting tired of your attempts to own this article. First an informal discussion wasn't enough, then a formal RM discussion wasn't enough, and now you want to report various users because of the unfavorable outcome of the move. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 07:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret my position. There is one important word in his comment - "if". He wrote "If more content is added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary". The change of the scope of the article and addition of content related to other events is result of consensus. You failed to gain consensus for this at RM. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"If"? It was just added. Scope is defined by reliable sources not by whatever the user who created the article happens to arbitrarily decide. One apparently can't add non-Sarajevo rioting so they can't expand the scope and one can't expand the scope because there's little non-Sarajevo material present. It's utterly absurd. In future discussions please do not lecture me on reading comprehension nor on what consensus is. Your previous assessment of it was proven very wrong. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There is more than enough information and pictures related to the June 28-29 events in Sarajevo to make this article stand on its own.

However, don't misinterpret this as opposition - I'm not against the idea of a summarizing article, but it should be a new one. If anyone takes their time to create it and wants to do some work, we can have a shorter description of the Sarajevo events, add more info about what happened in the smaller cities (if we manage to find any), and have other minor sections about Potiorek's opinions, how the "Pure Party of Rights" came to be, Schutzkorps, among other things, with links to the main articles where it's necessary. - Anonimski (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A single broad and definitive article is best as far too much information would overlap and context is essential to getting the full story. The number of scanned pictures that happen to exist of an incident are irrelevant. Chopping it up into separate articles per city (Sarajevo, Zagreb, etc.) as though they were isolated and not intertwined is ludicrous, redundant, and, as has been shown from the article's get-go, serves to present a certain POV. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 05:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I never suggested separate articles for each city, my idea was that if a summarizing article were to be made on the 1910s persecutions, it should be in its own article (one article). We have much more detailed information (the pictures are only a minor part of this) on the Sarajevo events than from anywhere else, since the incidents occured shortly after another very notable historical event there (assassination of Franz Ferdinand), as explained in the lead and the infobox. And I don't see any other problems with the current article, it has developed into a rather well-written incident description. - Anonimski (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the riots of 28-30 June 1914 not the imprisonments and expulsions that came after. In the previous RM I suggested naming it to simply "1914 anit-Serb riots" and you supported a title along similar lines albeit with "pogroms" in it. Sadly the RM got caught up focusing mostly on the riots/demonstrations/pogroms aspect and then later on AD's "no consensus" claims and ended with some "voting bloc" mini report.

Again a single broad and definitive article is best as far too much information would overlap and context is essential to getting the full story. I reiterate that most sources mention Sarajevo in unison with Zagreb or Vienna or some other cities, say it occurred in the provinces of Bosnia and Croatia, or explicitly state "anti-Serbian demonstrations in many places throughout the Monarchy, especially in the South Slav provinces", "violent anti-Serbian demonstrations took place across the empire" and "Anti-Serbian demonstrations occurred over the length and breadth of Austria-Hungary." The closing admin said if "more content is added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary, this change [from "Sarajevo" to "Austria-Hungary"] may become uncontroversial." I had added more information about events elsewhere and put them in their proper context which is alongside Sarajevo as they occurred simultaneously not in the "aftermath". These additions and facts simply do not rest well with some people who wish to make the change appear controversial and keep their personal skewed portrayal of events.

The article's far from "well-written" given it seeks to display AH actions without presenting them in proper context, places collective guilt on the "Bosniak and Croat population" (when Mitrovic, the most definitive source, actually pins blame on fringe far-right forces), wishes to stick the Schutzkorps with the full bill of all of the AH's persecution, and sprinkles unreliable sources such as "Reports Service: Southeast Europe", "Tourist Association", and Ekmečić for good measure. It's a POV hackjob, but that's another matter that should be addressed after. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The events have been described by other authors too, so I disagree with the point you're arguing for. Further, the article has undergone improvements while the move-nomination was being discussed, and more photographic material has been found, for example. If anything is a POV "hackjob", then it's the way your arguments have been presented (for example, note that Ekmecic's statement (which is only used once, with a mention that it's him, by the way) is from 1973, when he didn't have any connections to nationalism). I suggest that we take the advice we got from the closing admin, so that we "cool down" and stop going on about the same things ad infinitum. I wasn't in 100% agreement with the move either, but the argumentation that was presented with the decision was quite reasonable. It would be ridiculous if we were to continue with all this as if the closing admin never reviewed this discussion at all. Anonimski (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The admin said the geographic extent aspect "got lost in the furor" so this claim of ad infinitum is nonsense. He also said that "more content" could be "added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary" which is what I did, but apparently I'm the one pretending the "closing admin never reviewed this discussion at all". You failed to address the scope arguments and simply replied with an "I disagree", but thank you for addressing Ekmecic while avoiding the other two points and other sources. Far easier to brush them off and gloat about the number of photographs than to actually confront the reality of the situation. I'll open a new formal RM request focusing on the geographic extent aspect as the admin suggested sometime after the dust settles. For productivity sake in the future discussion I suggest you cease from such things as referring to another user as a "Balkan scandal mongerer", thinking DYK nominations are relevant, and believing discussions with actual arguments are a "circus". Doing that would be ridiculous. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in some sort of explanation about the three things you mentioned:

• "Balkan scandal mongerer" - A response to a user who formulated a loaded question containing a projected statement.
• DYK nomination - A chance to attract neutral people from the outside.
• "circus" - Something much like this whole talk page.

- Anonimski (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what admin really stated: "The first question got lost in the furor somewhat, but among those who did address it, there was no consensus for that part of the move. For now, the article focuses on events in Sarajevo. If more content is added about events elsewhere in Austria-Hungary, this change may become uncontroversial." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Report on "voting bloc" allegation

I performed detailed analysis of the allegation about the existence of "a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc"" presented at administrators noticeboard by PRODUCER (link to the discussion at Administrator's noticeboard) as justification for reluctance to follow formal renaming procedure (WP:RM). It implied that editors who would be opposed to renaming proposal belong to "a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc"".

Based on the detailed analysis I concluded that:

1. I found no evidence to prove allegation of existence of "a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc"".
2. blaming other editors in advance might have discouraged some editors to !vote as opposed to the proposal to avoid being classified into "a particular ethnic/national "voting bloc""
3. there was much more editors' interaction between support !votes than among editors who !voted oppose, particularly in articles related to this topic

"Voting bloc" allegations can not justify exception from wikipedia rules which should be respected, especially when they request following formal procedures for merging, renaming or deletion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion vs Ethnicity vs Geography

To a reader (me) who is not otherwise familiar with these events, one particular point stands out in terms of the article itself: the juxtaposition of religion with ethnicity/geography in an uneven manner.

This is what I gather from the article:

• The Serbs were primarily Christian Orthodox
• The Croats were primarily Catholic Christians
• The Bosnians were primarily Muslim

If this is truly so, I would expect to see sentences that reference two or more of these groupings to use either the ethnicity (Serb/Croat/Bosnian) or religion (Orthodox/Catholic/Muslim). But there are repeated instances of mixtures which are biased in one particular way - "Muslim" is used in place of "Bosnian" even when other groupings are mentioned using their ethnicity.

Is this intentional? Does this usage mean something else (ie. not a reference to "Bosnian")?

If my understanding of the groupings is true, I would expect to see phrases like "the Croats and the Bosnians" or "the Catholics and the Muslims" - depending on whether these riots were primarily motivated by geopolitics/ethnopolitics or by religion.

Gotthide (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I support your idea, it makes sense. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 22:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

photo of A-H soldiers hanging Serbs

The caption in Commons doesn't state why these executions took place. Were these suspected terrorists or rioters? I don't think the military was randomly grabbing people off the streets and hanging them - some background in the article would be most helpful for what is going on in the photo. 50.111.20.68 (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)