Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

AJP Taylor's view

AJP Taylor's "War by Timetable" argues that Serbia essentially had no involvement in the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. Taylor's argument is that Princip conceived of the attack himself, recruited three of the assassins including Danilo Ilić, who in turn recruited the other three. More to the point, Taylor claimed that Princip contacted Major Vojislav Tankosić simply because he was the one who had rejected Princip for military service in the First Balkan War, and so Tankosić was the only man Princip knew who might be able to furnish him with weapons. Thus Princip never realized he was in contact with the Black Hand (and Serbian Intelligence). Finally, Taylor claimed that the Serbian government became aware of agents being infiltrated into Bosnia, and investigated, which led to Tankosić revealing the plot to Apis, who had been unaware of it. According to Taylor the Black Hand's leadership ordered the assassination be halted, which Apis passed to Tankosić who passed it to Ilić, who told Princip, who ignored it, not being a member of the Black Hand or Serbian Intelligence.

Taylor constructed an argument that Serbia bore effectively no responsibility for Franz Ferdinand's death (especially since it was juxtaposed with a description of the laxity of Austro-Hungarian security and Serbia's ignored hints about a possible assassination attempt) and that it was essentially the act of an independent student radical with a handful of cronies. I am not arguing that this is correct, not by any means. However, I do believe it's relevant enough to be mentioned (and rebutted directly) within the article, because AJP Taylor's "War by Timetable" is among the most influential histories of the causes of the First World War - Taylor is even cited by this article. Given the number of people who have read "War by Timetable" or at least been exposed to Taylor's argument, I think a direct mention is warranted. 124.168.111.223 (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, AJP Taylor's views should certainly be reflected in the article. Please feel free to put them in. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014

How about adding this to External Links or Further Reading?:

Sophie1932 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Where did Franz Ferdinand die?

The article seems to have him dying in the car 'Both victims remained seated upright, but died while being driven to the Governor's residence...' and then a few words later, alive when he arrived ' Sophie was dead on arrival at the Governor's residence. Franz Ferdinand died 10 minutes later'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

"Alfred, 2nd Prince of Montenuovo, Franz Joseph's Chamberlain, hated Franz Ferdinand and Sophie with a passion and with the emperor's connivance, decided to turn the funeral into a massive and vicious snub."

I don't care if it's sourced, the non-neutral POV just oozes from this sentence. Good job, whoever added it - really academic.

62.245.69.24 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Six cars or five cars? 2nd car or 3rd car?

I've recently been reading up on the literature of the breakout of the First World War and the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. I've noticed one discrepancy I've come across is the number of vehicles in the motorcade. Christopher Clark's recent book Sleepwalkers mentions (p. 367) 6 vehicles, with Ferdinand and his wife in the second vehicle. This article, however, places the archduke in the third vehicle. Yet another recent book, by Sean McMeekin, July 1914, says there were only 5 vehicles with Ferdinand and Sophia riding behind the first vehicle. I feel it would be best to consult Albertini or Remak but I'm surprised there's this much confusion and discrepancies in the sources even today.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

When the motorcade started the city tour, it consisted of seven cars, the Highnesses riding in the third car. The bomb made the fourth car, owned by Alexander Count Boos zu Waldeck, unserviceable. So, when departing from the town hall, there were only six cars.

[1] Peter Mulacz (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never read of the motorcade beginning with 7 cars. I just checked Albertini and he says that there were only 4 (!) cars in the motorcade with the archduke riding in the 2nd car.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


If Albertini writes so he is definitly wrong.
From the start, the first car transported the 'detectives' i.e. the special police, on the 2nd car rode Dr. E. Gerde, chief of the constabulary together with Fehim Eff. Curcic, the mayor, on the 3rd car, owned by Count Harrach, rode (besides its owner) the archduke, the duchess, Feldzeugmeister Potiorek who was the provincial governor, and 'Hofbüchenspanner' Schneiberg, on the 4th car, owned by Alexander, Count Boos-Waldeck, rode (besides its owner) LtCol Merizzi, ADC to Potiorek, Countess Vilma Lanjus, the duchess' lady in waiting, and others, the 5th car was owned by 1st Lt Egger, the general representative of Fiat automobiles in Austria, the 6th car was owned by 2nd Lt Grein with his brother, also a 2nd Lt, on board, and finally there was car n° 7. The latter three vehicles transported the other members of the archduke's entourage, including his ADC Col Dr. Bardolff, his majordomo Maj (ret'd) Baron Rumerskirch, his chamberlain 1st Lt Baron Dr. Morsey, Maj Hüttenbrenner, and his personal physician Dr. Fischer, and some more persons -- altogether enough personnel to need seven vehicles.
Once again: the first assassination attempt by Cabrinovic's bomb rendered the car of Count Boos-Waldeck unservicable, i.e. from this moment the motorcade proceeding towards the town hall consisted of only six cars. There was not only one vehicle less; there were also less persons taking part in the journey to the town hall: the two injured offrs (Merizzi and Boos-Waldeck) were brought to the army hospital by some members of the archduke's entourage who later re-joined the archduke later while the reception at the town hall was proceeding.
If you check the source I quoted (Aichelburg) you'll find all this broken down with many more details including the number plates of the cars.
Peter Mulacz (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Peter. Would you perhaps like to add the above information in the article, to reflect the actual number of vehicles in the motorcade (which is given only as six)? I'll check Remak just out of curiosity to see what he wrote.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Rank of Count Harrach: 1st Lt

Franz Count Harrach was not a regular offr, he was a member of the Imperial and Royal Volunteers' Automobil Corps and as such he held the rank of 1st Lt (the highest rank those car owners who had had no previous mil service could raise to at that time). Members of the Automobil Corps were regularly called up for manouevers along with their drivers and their vehicles. -- It is a very common mistake to confuse the rank of LtCol with 1st Lt as their designations in German language differ in only two characters: Oberstleutnant = LtCol vs. Oberleutnant = 1st Lt. Peter Mulacz (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Point of view

Princip`s ONLY goal was to kill Ferdinand because he supported federalization of the monarchy, which would include unification of Bosnia with Croatia. "Yugoslavia" was always a code word for Greater Serbia. And Bosnia was part of Serbia only in their myths. This "encyclopedia" is pro Serb on many articles including describing WW2 Serbian fascists as honorable guerilla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.255.193 (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


Princip's statement as specified in the Austrian press and by Pfeffer (a Croat - not a Serb) does not mention any opposition to Franz Ferdinand himself or to his plans for a federal republic, his leniency towards Serbs (and Croats) is mentioned in the trial by the Judge and Cabrinovic confirms a knowledge of that leniency. As for Wikipedia being pro-Serb ignoring alleged Serbian fascists in WWII one has to ask what deluded planet the previous commentator comes from considering the fact that the massive cover up of Croat Fascist atrocities in Bosnia during WWII - you do realise that hundreds of thousands of Serbs were exterminated in Ustasa concentration camps in WWII?

recent edit

Re [1]. Need a better source than the History channel. Volunteer Marek  03:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"Secret Treaty of 1892"

Hi there, I noticed that the link of Secret Treaty of 1892 leads to an article of an entirely different name, without any occurrence of the word, "Secret". Considering the parties involved, I suppose this would be considered hm, touchy, but I think the obvious discontinuity ought to be addressed somehow. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Driver Lojka in the Third/Second Car?

The question of why the archduke's driver, Leopold Lojka (so-called) turned right off the Appel Quay - as illustrated in the diagram - is not adequately explained. Since the royal couple and Lojka are described as "once again in the third car" (Town Hall reception para. 3) for the journey from the Town Hall to the hospital, the issue is the circumstances in which he turned right. It was said that he had been misinformed of the changed route - which was to be along the Appel Quay where the first bomb was thrown - and was turning to follow "the original route which would have taken them to the National Museum" (Fatal Shooting section). This firstly makes no sense as he and the other drivers were instructed to head to the hospital to visit the wounded.

Secondly, and far more importantly, did the leading (i.e. first) car also turn right along with the second car? An answer is not given in the article, though it is implied that Lojka ALONE turned right.

1) Given that Lojka alone turned right, the question is: why would he then deviate from the convoy route? - and just at the place where Prinzip was waiting at or in the café! This implies some prearranged setup - especially as Lojka's name has been 'corrected' from an original name published for the driver (i.e. perhaps the driver was some lookalike). For Lojka (the driver of the imperial couple) to break the convoy idiosyncratically - hardly a normal response given the need for the cars to keep together after a bombing attack earlier - clearly implies his complicity.

2) Conversely, if the first car had turned right - and Lojka immediately follow them - then the issue transfers to the driver in the first car who would then have been leading Lojka off the new course along Appel Quay. However this is implied not to be what happened given that "Governor Potiorek, who was sharing the second vehicle with the Imperial couple, called out to the driver (implicity Lojka) to reverse and take the Quay to the hospital." Note however that the imperial couple are now in the second car and not the third car as stated in the previous paragraph.

Hence it is difficult NOT to conclude that Lojka (i.e. the imperial couples' driver) is complicit in the assassination for having not followed the first car. Potiorek's complicity is much less likely as he reasonably & innocently told the driver to stop to regain the agreed new course along Appel Quay when the driver unexpectedly turned right. 124.168.246.164 (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are NOT for forum-like discussions on the topic, but the discussion of RELIABLE SOURCES for the improvement of the articles. Nor is it the place to post the most lamentable Original Research bilge. Please follow the TP rules. 98.67.0.138 (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

These remarks about "bilge" are completely unfair. The fact is Franz Ferdinand was not a popular man in Austria, nor in Hungary, nor in Serbia. Many people wanted to see him gotten rid of; and in fact, a 7-man hit team was assembled in Sarajevo to do just that. It is completely correct historiography to point out inconsistencies in the standard narrative and why they may be wrong. That's the whole point of it all. Missaeagle (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Bilge or not the questions posed by the first correspondent above are mainly resolved by the statement of general Potiorek given at the trial and posted to Emperor Franz Josef on the evening of the assassination - subsequently printed in the third person in the Reichspost. Potiorek is not clear whether they are in the second or third car, he makes no note that they have moved up the order and hence one should assume they are still in third position. He states that he saw the first car turn into FJS and told Lojka to not to take the turn. So it is clear that the forerunning cars all made the turn, so it was not just Lojka who was not advised to the change of plan. Indeed reading Potiorek's statement it is entirely possible that the decision to continue on the Appel Quay was only made by Potiorek once inside the car. In reviewing the lucidity of this statement one has to question two things; a) why given the need to slow the car to a near halt to turn the car into FJS and the time between the cars Potiorek did not manage to stop Lojka making the turn until he had actually done so, b) why they did not continue along FJS once the turn had been made as it led more directly to the garrison hospital than the Appel Quay and surely there was greater safety in remaining in the convoy than stopping, reversing and then continuing along the Appel Quay, where the Bomb had previously been thrown alone - not to mention the issue of the trailing car blocking their ability to back out of FJS. Lojka is said to have complained (this is verified in his obit) that he was faced with conflicting instructions, Potiorek saying reverse and Sophie shouting not to and to simply continue. Read what you may from these facts.

Date of Ferdinand assassination given as 1917 instead of 1914

The date of Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination is listed in the subtitle of this article on my Samsung Galaxy S7 cell phone as "28 June 1917", whereas, in fact, the assassination date was "28 June 1914". On my Windows 10 PC, there isn't a subtitle for this article, and thus this mistake does not occur.

Can someone correct this? (I don't have a high enough permission level to.) Thanks a lot. Bjdpc (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Still the case, but now on the search preview on PC. --94.214.172.138 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria → Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand – Per WP:Concise and WP:COMMONNAME. There is no need for the article title to be this long. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • No, it was not me who said that. And it is true that there were multiple archdukes named Ferdinand, but the assassination victim was not one of them. His name was Franz Ferdinand. Surtsicna (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

°grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddsssssssssssssssfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv≠≥≤±±±±±§§··→→→←←÷÷×−±≥≤≠″ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.150.66.90 (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Serbian Warning

This article is too reliant upon Albertini and really owes it to the public to look properly at the primary facts - something which Albertini never did, being too focused on finding reasons to support his fascist patrons Mussolini, Pavelic and Hitler's aims of convincing the world that Germany and Austria (as determined by the Allied commission on responsibility for the War had determined) were not responsible for the war but Serbia were. The article needs the addition of the facts that a) both the Serbian and the Austrian governments denied that a telegram was sent or a warning was given about any plot, b) both the Serbians and the Austrians did confirm that a loose discussion about risks in Sarajevo by JJ took place with Belinski on the 5th June (not the 21st) and c) that Jovan Jovanovic and Pasic always denied that they ever had any forwarding of the plot. Ljuba Jovanovic was an opposition politician to Pasic. In 1914 he was head of National Defence and the Sokol sports clubs (both of which the Austrian legal investigations during the Banja Luka processes of 1915 and 16 found to be responsible for the assassinations – a connection they failed to pin on Apis and the Black Hand) and this may have driven his story about a government discussion on the subject. He used the article to switch blame for the assassinations from himself and National Defence (whom Ciganovic, Tankosic and Jovanovic (the border officer) - all those named in the Sarajevo Trial as involved in the plot on the Serbian side - were all allegedly members of) onto Pasic in one foul move and then used it to unseat Pasic (in spite two other ministers from the time coming out against LJ and in support of Pasic’s denial). He then went on to try to orchestrate a Coup to become the next Prime Minister which his own party rejected and then later expelled him from the party. Notably he was the only member of the government to ever make such an allegation and when Pasic denied it (with the support of two other ex-minister) none of the others raised a voice to claim Pasic was a liar. LJ was also the minister who ordered the Salonika trials – now proved to be illegitimate – and who supplied the information that killed Apis and his friends – he then published an article claiming that he was against the trial and exonerated himself but had clearly done nothing to stop the process – hence I find his press stories self-interested and less than honest. This is not to say that Pasic was an exemplary politician, I have no interest in whether he was or was not but in this instance I cannot believe LJ because he has too much to gain and absolutely no supporters or means of corroboration for making a convenient lie in his 1924 Slavic Blood article. Many alleged historians tried over the years to create arguments to blame Pasic but all of them have since been proved to be lies, only Magrini's claim about Lescanin stands and that is deeply flawed in too many ways to debate here. The reader should ask themselves whether the Serbian ambassador in Vienna was really going to commit treason by ignoring a direct order and then tell one of his juniors he had done that, let alone expect to get away with it when general protocol dictated that they reported back on the success of all disclosures, and if indeed he did fail to comply with his Prime Minister's direct order, how in heaven name did he not get fired on the spot when the act of treason was discovered? You also need to ask yourself why it was that Magrini and George Stevens (the Telegraph journalist whom Magrini claims was present when Lescanin spoke) both failed to publish the revelation in 1915 and Magrini sat on it until 1929 (by which time both Lescanin and Stevens were dead and unable to refute or confirm the claim. Finally it is completely wrong to suggest that JJ was inconsistent in his account - he was totally consistent in all instances 'no a thousand times no!' Albertini claims that the fact that Magrini claimed he would not be drawn into discussion on the topic meant that all his other denials were a lie (you can believe that logic if you like but I am more careful in whom I believe and whom I don't, having invested considerable time in the primary material not other people's inventions or hearsay (which is all that Magrini's account of Lescanin is), I go with Berchtold, Pasic and Jovan Jovanovic, all of which confirmed the same story and had no reason to agree with eachother. Honestly a newspaper comes up with a story on 30th June, Austria deny it, Serbia deny it, a bunch of people latch onto the story and attempt to verify it disasterously unsuccessfully, eventually Magrini comes up with an account 15 years too late when all witnesses are dead and Albertini (his best mate and a man dedicated to blaming the war on the Serbs) uses that as a basis to refute the timely testimony of the Austrians and the Serbs and latches on to Ljuba Jovanovic's unsupported story as a disgruntled rival politician with Nazi sympathies as his only corroboration. Don't just tell one side of the story - put both and don't claim Jovan M Jovanovic Pizon was inconsistent when he certainly was not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Princip did not shoot from point blank range.

The article states that Princip mounted the running board and shot from Point blank range. However in the trial he is quite clear that he was four or five paces away from the car when he fired the pistol. I appreciate that some clot has published a book in 2013 stating that he was closer but this fact is not disputed in the trial transcript and this article should surely rely on the primary materials rather than ones produced 100 years later after a series of Chinese whispers. Correct please.

Just discovered the Telegraph story of 30 June 1914 which states that Princip was on the Running Board and shot form there, this does pose an issue and an important inconsistency in the testimonies, he plainly cannot have been both a number of paces away and on the running board; so which is true, well there is a hole in the side of the car from the bullet that killed Sophie which must therefore have come from outside the car, not point blank range, what is more had Princip been on the running board and shot from there anyone in the car could have wrestled the gun away from him before he shot. QED the runningboard story must have been wrong on 30th June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Name of the Archduke

Archduke Franz Ferdinand was affectionately called Franzi but never Ferdinand, the main reason for this was that he had a brother called Ferdinand who outlived him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Greg King

Greg King writes that Muhamed Mehmedbašić recruited Danilo Ilić, and confusingly that Apis did not know of a "second plot" by Young Bosnia members to kill the Archduke but then suggested it, when in fact Ilić recruited Mehmedbašić and Apis ordered the assassination. This is from a quick look at one page only. Removing King's monograph The Assassination of the Archduke due to serious inconsistencies. There are other sources with differing accounts as well, which need to be addressed.--Zoupan 11:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I am with you on some of this but I am not sure that you can claim so boldly that Apis ordered the assassination. The only evidence for this is Apis's fourth statement at the Salonika Trial, (a trial thrown out as unreliable 40 years later by the supreme court) after making three previous denials and being tortured he made a statement admitting the crime and claiming that a fellow defendant Malobabic (executed with him) was the one who supplied the weapons was the go between and trained P,C & G, when in fact the trial in all cases claims that this was Ciganovic and Tankosic. Apis's last ditch confession to try to safe himself from the firing squad after torture really is not a good basis for saying that he ordered this assassination. Perhaps he did but personally I doubt it mainly because of the people who executed the action and how badly it was done. Apis was head of the Serbian Secret Service, Serbia were the most successful military nation of the 20th Century, they had just won two major wars and doubled their territory. He had well trained marksmen who spoke the local language, fitted into the culture and needed no training to fire a gun or throw a bomb - there is zero chance he would hand such a job to a bunch of incompetent students even if you believe he thought the assassination was a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.13.63 (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

Requesting to change: "In charge of these Serbian military conspirators was Chief of Serbian Military Intelligence Dragutin Dimitrijević, his right-hand man Major Vojislav Tankosić, and the spy Rade Malobabić."


To: "Dragutin Dimitrijević, Major Vojislav Tankosić, and Rade Malobabić, members of the Serbian military, together orchestrated the conspiracy to assassinate the archduke, and provided weapons and other resources to the Black Hand."

"In charge of these" seems a tad colloquial/vague. "Right-hand man" is an English idiom/a bit too indirect (and doesn't automatically translate to other languages) I also couldn't find a source for this dynamic of their relationship. Additionally, "the spy" is a bit more colloquial than saying something like "intelligence officer", but I think either is unnecessary as it's more clear to indicate the actual point-- that all three men listed were members of the Serbian military (and the specifics of their ranks/positions can be found on their respective pages).

I don't think my phrasing for the new sentence is perfect yet but I thought I'd take a crack at it. Thanks! Catmoons (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done: Per MOS:INTRO. As pointed out by Catmoons, the slightly clunky grammar interposed information not in the body Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Serbia's Warning to AH

I note the reference to Albertini claiming that the Serbian ambassadors to France and Russia issued statements claiming that Serbia had warned AH of the assassination plans. This all seems very far fetched to me and very much like the work of Magrini who was an imaginative man not adverse to making a thing or two up about someone already dead by the time of his invention, with the intention of making money by publishing it. My concern is heightened by the fact that there is utterly no mention of any warning in any of the Serbian diplomatic papers or in the AH papers. Surely had these statements been issued (and again we have no reference to find these alleged unsanctioned statements by just two of Serbia's ambassadors - normally this would be a statement from the government issued by all ambassadors and not just two) there would be correspondence about the statements in the diplomatic papers of the Serbians and even if you believe that they might have destroyed the record, why is there not alarmed communications from the AH ambassadors in France and Russia to Vienna in the AH diplomatic files noting the issuing of these highly incriminating documents so that the AH foreign office could use them for appropriate purpose. Please do not suggest that the AH's destroyed the records also as that is frankly preposterous. If this statement is to remain as it is I feel that there needs to be a note that Albertini is the only commentator to make these observations and that there is no reference to these statements in any of the diplomatic papers and hence their production has to be questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.104.107 (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Note

The end of the fourth paragraph under the 'background' section where citations 14 and 15 are located - says it was 'whose goal was the dissolution of the Austria-Hungary.[14][15]'. The Austria-Hungary what? Either add additional words to make 'the' necessary or remove 'the'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.179.123.26 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The pistol...

The article says:

"the assassin stepped up to the footboard of the car, and shot Franz Ferdinand and Sophie at point‐blank range[89] using a Belgian-made Fabrique Nationale model 1910 .32 caliber pistol."

But... when I read the page of this effective pistol/caliber, i see:

"An FN M1910, serial number 19074, chambered in .380 ACP[2] was the handgun used by Gavrilo Princip to assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, the act that precipitated the First World War.[3] Numerous previous sources erroneously cited the FN Model 1900 in .32 calibre as being the weapon Princip used.[4] This has led to confusion over the calibre of the pistol actually used. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Model_1910

So... there is something to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:534:E590:14D1:8801:3704:482B (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

Edit punctuation in the second paragraph under "Background." There is an open parenthesis that needs a corresponding close parenthesis. KFCfamousbowlz (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: I ended up removing the parenthesis altogether, it seems to read more clearly now. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

...Also, at the end of the section Salonika trial (spring 1917), in the reported words of Apis, there is a final quotation mark missing: Apis remarked to the driver "Now it is clear to me and clear to you too, that I am to be killed today by Serbian rifles solely because I organized the Sarajevo outrage. 31.125.76.2 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The car's license plate

It might be interesting to mention that the license plate of the car in which Franz Ferdinand was shot was: A111118. Yes, that's A as Armistice, 11-11-18. Quite a coincidence, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.44.227.120 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath

The first 1-2 lines mentions the ethnic and national identities of those who participated in the assassination plot. Why is only one person's religion listed? This is obvious Islamophobia. If the religious affiliations of all persons are identified, then that's fair. If one Muslims is made to stick out, while the christianity, agnosticism, atheism, ... or whatever of others is ignored, that is Islamophobia in action. It's a shame that such bigotry is commonplace. 2603:8000:8901:3354:8F6:2AB8:9933:60F (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Objective

"The political objective of the assassination was to free Bosnia and Herzegovina of Austria-Hungarian rule and establish a common South Slav ("Yugoslav") state. The assassination precipitated the July Crisis which led to Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia and the start of World War I." - Where is this stated? The political objective of the assassins was to enable Serb imperialism - that is, expansion of Serbia onto Austrian territory. Yugoslavia was a post-war political compromise, but that does not make it the assassin's goal. It is like saying that Hitler's goal was creation of the Soviet empire and the Iron Curtain. 93.140.249.58 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone deleted parts from this article - about the russian involvement in the assassination

Hi,

Around April 2022 I read some sentences in this article that I can't find now.

Sentences were about: - more details about Apis testimony in court - Apis stated that (sg like this): "the Russian Embassy in Belgrade had prior knowledge of the assassination" and/or "with the knowledge and approval of the Russian Embassy in Belgrade"

As i remember, there were also sources after these sentences.

now why can't i find these parts?

thx in advance, B BalassaMakto (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

technically it’s not entirely accurate about being 108 years ago, it was actually 108 AND 5 and a half months sooooo….. 157.231.131.58 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It is precise enough for an event over a century ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

History

Reasons for the assassination of arch Duke Ferdinand 41.210.146.247 (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(1) Read the article. (2) Don't post homework questions here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Nedeljko Čabrinović

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

@Robert McClenon Nedeljko Čabrinović passes WP:SNG but that draft needs some work to become readable, it is poorly written, full of WP:REFBOMB from WP:QUESTIONABLE sources such as KidsKonnect, biography.yourdictionary.com, firstworldwar.com, thevintagenews.com, ducksters.com, findagrave.com, history.com, thehistorycat.com and a couple of blogs... IMO it should be rewritten with Wikipedia:Reliable sources there isn't a lack of exhaustive books on the subject written by historians and academics, most of them are referenced right here and in Gavrilo Princip. Aeengath (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Tagging @Czar and @Onel5969 from previous redirecting, and draft creator @Tails Wx. -- asilvering (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept that draft, personally. The subject of most of its sources is the assassination, not Čabrinović as an independently notable individual. czar 05:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
However, I would, despite some reservations with sourcing (WP:NOTPERFECT). Čabrinović's role in the movement and the assassination was very important, and all his comrades have separate articles at the moment. They all also have rather extensive coverage in historiographic literature. I'm unhappy how Nedeljko Čabrinović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ended up boldly redirected, without discussion, and a copy in the draftspace now means that we need an admin to merge histories. And since WP:PERP has been thrown in, it says that the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies ... The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure. It's hard to find a more consequential assassination in the modern history than this one. Čabrinović's article existed since 2004, and has 23 interwikis. No such user (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There never was a consensus to cut the article down to a redirect, and in the absence of a consensus to keep it redirected, I will accept the draft, and it can be improved in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, yes there was: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1162#Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović czar 00:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Czar - First, that discussion either was not available to a reviewer, or was only available via an unobvious link. (I thought that I read the applicable discussion. Either there wasn't a link to the Teahouse archive, or I missed it.) A reviewer cannot be expected to search archives for a title. Second, I do not read that discussion as being a consensus to keep it redirected anyway. Third, I thought that there was a >50% chance that it would survive AFD; an AFD will establish consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Merger discussions don't go to AfD and "consensus" isn't only through discussion, it's also through editing. Now that history is buried so it's even harder to see. This article's scope is a complete overlap with Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as sourced. czar 03:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I can agree that there is not very much to say about Čabrinović; he was young, he participated in the plot, he was tried and died young in prison. But that much we can say in a dedicated article, and it would be consistent with how we treat all other participants. It makes a strange experience for a reader who researches the assassins to get redirected to the main assassination article only for Čabrinović, as if we're hiding something. And I say that as a convinced m:Mergist.
Robert McClenon, your series of article moves was unfortunate, since the old history is now hidden at Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović. Does anyone mind if I swap that with Nedeljko Cabrinovic, which has no significant history, so at least everything ends up in mainspace? I'm not sure if the page qualifies for WP:HISTMERGE. No such user (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
User:No such user - Do you have a different suggestion for how I could have accepted the draft and moved the articles? I can think of several possible series of article moves that would have been worse. Can you describe a better sequence of moves? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've restored the histories so they're now in the same timeline.
If the issue is consistency with how the other assassins' articles are treated, that's a matter of addressing those other articles if we're in agreement that there is no specific case for Čabrinović's independent notability from the assassination article. czar 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not just consistency. The assassination being a milestone historical event, there is a lot of historiographic coverage about the participants; we should not base our decisions just on what is currently in the articles, but on coverage which exists. I've found significant coverage in at least three historical books about him [2] (Kreševljaković; Trišić; and particularly Dedijer, that I can lay my hands on and expand/fix the article). But I'm not in agreement with your apparent m:immediatism; if there's a half-decent biographical article (that's been around since 2006 and has 20+ interwikis) about an obscure but apparently real-world notable person, tag it if you must, AfD it if you feel like, but just boldly redirecting it amounts to deletion. No such user (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Bold redirects are a preferred alternative to deletion. Looking forward to your expansions of the article. czar 19:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
fwiw, I think the policy/precedent case for a merge/redirect is strong from the arguments already given (again, there really isn't much more here, aside from the tuberculosis bit, in this article or the older version), but personally I nevertheless think it's a good article to have, for the sake of readers if not editors. From the perspective of, say, a highschool student looking for biographical info on Čabrinović, Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by its nature is overwhelmingly large and unhelpfully presented. There's no heading about him, and biographical details on him are scattered throughout the article. I think it can be very helpful to have a separate article for individual participants in this kind of case, provided care is taken to keep it short and accurate and direct readers to the assassination article where possible. -- asilvering (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The Nedeljko Čabrinović article has been cleaned up and updated with biographical content from WP:RS, hopefully this will be enough to keep it. Aeengath (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

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

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. Aeengath (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ Aichelburg, Wladimir: Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand von Österreich-Este 1863-1914 (3 vols), Verlag Berger & Söhne (2014), ISBN: 978-3850286244.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand/Archive_3&oldid=1231654203"