Talk:Gavrilo Princip/Archive 1

Archive 1

Route

Regarding the "freakish set of coincidences", didn't the archduke's car actually take a wrong turn while attempting to escape the assassination that brought it in the path of Princip or something of the sort. Dori 20:50, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

No. The car was on a return trip, as the Archduke wanted to visit the victims of the first botched assassination.

DizietSma 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a movie from 1990 "Gavre Princip". It is a austrian-german production with international cast and staff.

Rabauz 23:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My Western Civilization textbook 5th ed. (Jackson J. Spielvogel) lists the name as being spelt with two L's - Gavrillo Princip.

Gavrilo is correct in Serbian. I think it is written the same way in English.

naufana 12:29, Mar 23. 2005

The car did in fact take a wrong turn. They were on the return trip but had decided to follow the route along the quay rather on the way back rather than the original route through the side streets. The driver of Franz's car did not, however, get the message and so turned onto the side streets. Potiorek (the Governor of Bosnia at the time) alerted the driver of his error, the driver stopped--right in front of Gavrilo.

Mlada Bosna was not Serbian group

Princip was a member of the Serb group Young Bosnia (Mlada Bosna) and the Black Hand which advocated Bosnia's unification with Serbia.

In fact many Croats and some Muslims were members of this organization. Princip was never member of Black Hand, but some members of that group supported him.

• Are you really sure about this? In most textbooks you can read, that he really was a menber of Black Hand. For me it´s great shock to read something different.--jilm 16:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

He was refused as young, physically undeveloped and sick (Tuberculosis).

Re Croats and Muslims: Muhamed Mehmedbašić was ethnic Muslim and member of Young Bosnia. Ivo Andrić was born as ethnic Croat, he was also connected to the organization and arrested during the WWI. The Young Bosnia was just one of similar organizations of youth Slavs in Austria-Hungaria, not isolated from political movements of that time. Young Bosnia advocated use of violence to achieve this goal. That was similar to the Black Hand. However, there were ideological differences between the right-wing Black Hand and members of Young Bosnia, who espoused anarchism.

Austria-Hungary was multiethnic country at the time of national romanticism.

Pricip was a Serb. The group was Serbian in origin. Apis was a serb. The motive for the killing was Serb nationalism. End of. Of course there were other ethnicities in there, but the actual perpetrators belonged to "Mlada Bosna", or "Young Bosnia", which was a freedom fighting/ terrorist group of Bosnian Serbs, campaigning for Bosnian freedom, who probably would have liked to have seen Serbo-Bosnian unity. If you are unclear on the definitions of a "Serb" and a "Serbian" look elsewhere on this site. ALCUS36 15:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing 'Legacy' section

I've removed this section altogether; I thought it was rubbish. Saying that GP caused WWI is unbelievably overstated, the causes are extremely complex, and (at most) the assassination provided the spark for a conflict which was inevitable (and perceived as inevitable at the time).

Most significant man of the 20th century?

This man started WWI, which produced WWII, which resulted in the Cold War and the eventual emergence of the United States as a hyper power with all todays plight. Could you imagine how DRASTICALLY the world would have turned out if he had not assassinated Franz?

"This man started WW1"- that's ridiculous. You should look more into the causes of world war one. One man (especially if he isn't rich and powerful) can't cause something like WW1.

Assuming Rich = important to history is a common mistake; Joan of Arc, Jesus H Christ, almost every scientist which actually built civilizing technology, venture capitalists are generally not rich before getting rich in which case after they become rich they return to being unimportant again, Lincoln wasn't rich, Hitler wasn't rich, gee wiz almost every important man in history wasn't rich, what are you talking about?98.165.15.98 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There were alliances and powerful militaries being formed long before the war, and they sure weren't being formed because of peace purposes. The assassination was just an excuse to start the war. If the assassination didn't occur, something would have happened a week later which would have started the war anyway. Overhere 5:20, 20 October 2006

Exactly. I've often wondered, "what would the world look like today if not for that one shot in Sarajevo!" K. Lastochka 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, we wouldn't be writing here. If not for the rapid development of the USA, then the most used lingua franca in the western world would perhaps have been French or German, which were in very common use in Europe prior to World War I. JIP | Talk 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If Gavrilo didn´t succeed, Austrohungaria would have found another excuse to start the war -Gavrilo´s words... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.149.63 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pistol, not gun

A pistol was used by Princip, not a gun. A gun is a piece of artillery. I have made several gun edits

Wikipedia is not a US Army field manual. A handgun is a gun. --Tysto 02:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Pistol not a rifle

I don't know why this keeps being changed from a rifle to a pistol on the last line, but it was clearly a pistol he used, the rest of this artcle confirms that, so does the article on the FN model pistol he used, as well as every other source on the topic I've seen, a rifle is not a pistol so unless you have some new revolation with sources please leave it as a pistol...Michael Lynn 23:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

As of today the article states that "he suffered from tuberculosis, which was his eventual cause of death in 1918, and was also one of the reasons he killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the first place". In my limited experience, people with tubercolosis don't usually go around killing the heirs to European thrones. Unless somebody can explain this peculiar statement, I'll remove the later part in a few days. Noel S McFerran 21:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He was going to die anyways, so he was ready to do more extreme things. If he didn't have tuburculousis then he wouldn't have been willing to throw his life away (prison or attempted suicide).

He actually contracted tuberculosis in prison, as did several of the other assassins. According to most scholars (See, "Archduke and the Assassin" or "Road to Sarajevo"), the claims that he had tuberculosis beforehand are erroneous.

Sources

I need to find some sources relating to Gavrilo Princip for a very important historical investigation for my Year 12 History Extension major work. It would be most helpful if anyone could provide me with some useful sources (or at least some more academic than the rather limited sources quoted on Princip's page) on Princip's involvement (for want of a better word) in the assassination, as well as any correspondence that may still exist between Princip and Tankosic.

If anyone can help, please attach sources here. Read: "The Guns of August" and "The Proud Tower" both by Barbara W. Tuchman. Martin Keyser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.78.29 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Further edit summary explanations

I backed out the change from sandwich to ham sandwich because it broke linkage, did not add clarity or meaningful detail to the topic at hand and provided no sitation to back up the claim --Michael Lynn 23:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Son of a punany?

I'm guessing vandalism, but I don't know.85.227.226.250 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Member of Black Hand? Serb ethnicity dispute

Gavrilo Princip was NOT a member of the Black Hand. He had links with it, but was not a member, was probably trained by it (at the most). No source or referance. I will change the first sentance, which is probably going to be counted as a major edit, but bear with me..

Bosnians are Serbs. Whoever disputed the fact that he was Serb is wrong. He is a Serb. I think you were trying to say that he isn't Serbian (nationality) which is true. He was Bosnian (nationality) but in ethnicity he was a "Serb", from Bosnia. There is quite a difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ALCUS36 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Painful to read...

"The event, known as the assassination in Sarajevo, either prompted the Austria-Hungarian action against Serbia that led to World War I, or was the pretext for it, depending on your point of view. He is commonly known therefore, rightly or wrongly, as the man who started the First World War."

Do the parentheticals help or benefit in any way?

"The event, known as the assassination in Sarajevo, prompted the Austria-Hungarian action against Serbia that led to World War I. He is commonly known as the man who started the First World War."

Look at it this way, even if the war was going to start a week later due to some other cause, his action WAS the spark that started the conflict. Hemming and hawing (and speculating) can be done later, but the fact of it is not different than Pearl Harbor being the spark that led to the US involvement in World War II. CodeCarpenter 19:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One nobody from a backwater in a peripheral province of a empire on the sidelines of world affairs cannot start a world war. What started it is A-H thinking "aha! this gives us the perfect opportunity to invade Serbia and add it to the empire" (as they'd been trying with intermittent success for centuries).--Methodius 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"One nobody from a backwater in a peripheral province of a empire on the sidelines of world affairs cannot start a world war." You mean like Napolean, Lincoln, Hitler, Washington, Stalin...98.165.15.98 (talk) 21

42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The prose was quite dense, I've edited it to make it a bit more readable (hopefully), while still getting the meaning across.--Methodius 01:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, that does make it easier on the eyes. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment as to who can start a world war. One nobody (Osama bin Laden) from a backwater in a peripheral province of a empire on the sidelines of world affairs (Afghanistan) cannot start a world war (The "War on Terror"). History is full of those single persons (Booth, Oswald, Churchill, Einstein, Pilate, Hitler, Henry VIII) making decisions or taking actions that make a difference in world afrairs. Had Princip not taken action, the previous assassination attempt might have been enough to lead to the war anyway, but his action was still significant. IMO, of course. CodeCarpenter 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Austria didn't want to annex Serbia to the Empire. There is no evidence for that. Austria wanted to punish Serbia, because Austrians belive Serbian government and panslavic nationalism caused the assasination. Austrians bacame furious, because Serbia was a little Balkanian non-industrialized country, therefore Austrian Emperor thought that was a boorish think.--Celebration1981 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip was a Yugoslav

He declared himself as a Yugoslav nationalist aiming for the unity of ALL south slavs. Here is the link: http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip

Gavrilo Princip actually contracted TB after being imprisoned, this fact has been confirmed by a descendant of his brother.

Why are you telling us? If it's that important and it's verifiable, place it in the article with a reference.--203.214.28.34 15:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What a joke, sad joke. Bosnian Muslims and Croats now want to change history by saying how he was "Bosnian" or Yugoslav. "Bosnian" nation has never existed and will never exist!!! Also, he cannot be Yugoslav because Yugoslavia was formed few years after his death. Corfu declaration made by Serb government and Serbian king was created 1916. 2 years after assassination. Annexation crises, attempt to join Serbian forces during Balkan Wars, ... - all facts that he was Serb! Bicca (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Did he ever say that he was for Serbia? What i know is that Serbs claims that he was a Serbian nationalist but did he ever say that he was a Serb. Give me some facts if its true that he said he was a Serb i would appreciate it. Ive heard that he was a Bosnian hero. And do not give me any Serbian facts beacuse most of them are false. And what do you mean that Bosnia has never existed, of course Bosnia existed. Tvrtko Kotromanic, the King who called the people Bosnjanins? Tomasevic of Bosnia? Husein Gradascevic who fought for independence from the Turks so that the Bosnians could have their Country back? Read some balkan history first then comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.18.226 (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Princip's footprints

I visited Sarajevo as a boy in 1972 and was taken to see the site of the shooting. There was a small square of older asphalt preserved in a more modern footpath paving and showing the distinct impression of shoe prints, with a sign that said, so I was told, that these were the footprints of GP made as he hung out on the corner waiting for the Ferdinand to arrive. Being a really hot day his shoes sank slightly into the warmed bitumen.

Apart from the implausibility of the whole thing, its a rather quaint little real or imagined artefact of the most important man [or not] of the 20th century [and on that subject, perhaps his Mother becomes by default most important woman?]. Is it still there? Sarajevo has had far more important things to worry about than old footpaths in recent years [[[User:60.242.50.195|60.242.50.195]] 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)]

Princip's weapon at the Museum of Military History, Vienna

I am returning from a visit to the Museum of Military History, Vienna. Not just one Browning Automatic Pistol is shown along with Franz Ferdinand's uniform there, but three. According to museum staff, these pistols were carried by Black Hand members during the assassination, but do NOT include the one used by Princip. Princip's weapon disappeared by the end of WW II (allegedly stolen) and has not been recovered yet, although its serial number is known. ViennaUK 09:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Instant death?

This article claims that Pincip's bullet killed the Archduke's wife instantly, while the article specifically dedicated to the assassination states that she died fifteen minutes after being shot. Can someone clarify? 212.49.210.37 08:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The assassination article is correct. This article on Princip is not sufficiently referenced.

Werchovsky 17:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Brain damage

82.39.41.54 posted the following today:

"although it is not proven, it is thought that Gavrilo Princip's brother beat him, giving him brain damage. it is thought that at the time he assassinated Franz Ferdinand, he had long been insane."

I removed it, for two reasons: (a) weasel words; (b) I don't know of any other source that mentions anything about this. Ben Kovitz 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

He was Bosnian

Gavrilo Princip was a Bosnian citizen not Serbian, he was mayor of Sarajevo. User:Falcon-Eagle2007. 9:00PM GMT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcon-eagle2007 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

False. Gavrilo Princip was Serbian as confirmed by every reference. Bosnia was only a region within Serbia--not a country. Gavrilo Princip was never a mayor; he was a 19-year-old kid who had dropped out of college at the time of the assassination.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

LoL, False. Bosnia was not a region within Serbia (nor was it ever, I think), Bosnia was annexed by Austro-Hungary and was previously an isolated province of the Ottoman Empire. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

True, Bosnia has allways been seperate from Serbia. Falcon-eagle2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.246.56 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

False. (lol) It was a part of Serbia (for some time at least) in the Medieval ages. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did he ever say that he was for Serbia? What i know is that Serbs claims that he was a Serbian nationalist but did he ever say that he was a Serb. Give me some facts if its true that he said he was a Serb i would appreciate it. And do not give me any Serbian facts beacuse most of them are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.18.226 (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What was his religion?

Can anyone find a reliable source for this mans religion or religious upbringing? I think this may be relevant to this article just for debunking certain conspiracy theory's out there. I've tried to do a little searching myself but can't figure it out. --70.4.158.133 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he was not supposed to be (very) religious, as an anti-imperialist and an idealist. Though I too have failed to get a definitive answer on the Web, maybe that's why... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

He was Eastern Orthodox (Serbian), but really an 100% anarchistic atheist. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that because no true Eastern Orthodox person would do such a thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.2.178 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph seems a little biased to me. It says that Serbia rejected a request to investigate the assasination and also that the Serbian government was behind the assassination!

According to "First World War" by "Martin Gilbert" ISBN 000637665. who has now become "Sir martin Gilbert" because of his written contribution to history.

Austria gave Serbia a 15 point ultimatum and a 48 hour deadline. Serbia agreed to some points and asked for others to be referred to the International Tribunal at the Hague.

Also there was a secret Austrian document that says that the Serbian government were not implicated in the assassination.

I hope to get some feedback as I would like to edit this soon without causing any upset to any regular contributors of this page.

harris 578 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Gavrilo Princip is member of Black Hand you must be kidding when you say that Serbia has not been behind the assassination because leader of Black Hand has been Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff Dragutin Dimitrijevic [1]. I am really interested to hear story in which country is not guilty of crime which is organizated by Chief of the Intelligence Department ?--Rjecina (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that a top historian Martin Gilbert is wrong? I agree that Princip was a member of the Black hand along with Dimitrijevic. That we can prove. But to say Dimitrijevic was acting on the orders of the government is an assumption. The link you just provided me with [2] even says that the government arrested him in 1917 in a crackdown on the black hand. harris 578 (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial issue about a highly controversial person. Perhaps we should simply state the bare facts? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am all for that. If the paragraph could be worded neutrally to say neither the Serbian government were nor were not behind the assassination, by just putting the facts. If someone later comes up with evidence from a good source to prove that the black hand were acting on the orders of the Serbian Government then fair enough. harris 578 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Gilbert's sources, but it seems almost impossible to determine the level of implication of the Serbian government without really full-proof evidence. All we know is that the Black Hand was behind the assassination, and that the Black Hand was generally supported by the Serbian government, but we do not know for certain whether the government actually ordered it. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end it is not important if Serbian government has ordered killings. Only important thing is that Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff has ordered killings. Can somebody seriously claim that for example Soviet Union is innocent for killings ordered by chief of KGB military strategic intelligence (this is 1 of 4 major KGB sectors) ?

If there is problem with statement that Serbian government is behind assassination we can write that Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff has ordered assassination. We do not know if his killing in 1917 is connected with 1914 so there is no reason for writing about that--Rjecina (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we know Princip and his group were working on orders from Dimitrijević? If so, I certainly support your view, Zen. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you write Gavrilo Princip and Apis in google you will have many hits. For example I will use this link because in my thinking it is NPOV because it is showing everybody reasons for start of WWI. There is no question that killing is order by Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff--Rjecina (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be kind of naive to think they worked "freelance", I tend to agree with you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There were members of Hitler's government who tried to assassinate him. By your reckoning you then have a paradox of Hiltler ordering his own assasination. Why is it so unbelievable that Dimitrijević used his position of power to carry out assassinations according to his own ideals. Chief of the Intelligence Department in the Serbian General Staff OK I get it you typed it enough. harris 578 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing, I agree it is possible that Dimitrijević was working independently on this, but considering the target, it is not probable. Is there evidence (Gilbert?) that he undertook this independently from the government? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert says this. Quoted from "First world war by Martin Gilbert" "Princip and two of his accomplices had been trained in Serbia by members of the Black Hand terrorist organisation, a fiercely nationalist organisation which the Serb Government itself was even then trying to suppress. The conspirators had been encouraged in their task by the leader of the Black Hand, Colonel Dimitrievic (also known as Apis), a sworn enemy of Austria. Having been given their wepons in Belgrade, the conspirators had been smuggled back across the Austrian border into Bosnia in May. Their aim was to strike a physical blow at Austrian rule." I realise that this in its self does not prove anything but neither have I seen anything to prove otherwise. harris 578 (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, my point is that, since the guy was the Serbian Chief of Intelligence, we must find proof that he wasn't working on behalf of Serbia, not that he was. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is the July Ultimatum:

1. Any sort of publications that fuse hatred or hostile feelings towards Austria-Hungary must be prevented

2. The Serbian government must break all connections to the National Defense and assist in its abolition as well as any other Serb organization that deals with propaganda against Austria-Hungary

3. To remove from public education any content that incites or could be interpreted to incite propaganda against Austria-Hungary

4. To purge its forces and fire all officers from the military and administration that are considered by Austria-Hungary to be anti-AustroHungarian propagandists, Vienna will supplement the list afterwards

5. To authorize the Austro-Hungarian authorities to freely work on coercion of acts against Austria-Hungary on the territory of Serbia

6. To conduct in cooperation with the Austro-Hungarian Court an investigation of the Sarajevo Assassination and by Austro-Hungarian instruct to process anyone indicted on the soil of Serbia

7. To momentarily arrest two named persons indicted for the assassination by Austro-Hungary's preliminary investigation

8. To by efficient measures prevent illegal transfer of weapons and explosives across the Austro-Hungarian border.

9. To give formal explanations to Austria-Hungary regarding the statements of esteemed Serbian emissaries in Serbia and abroad, whose statements were interpreted by Austria-Hungary as potentially hostile

10. To without delay update Austria-Hungary on fulfillment of these duties

The Serbian government accepted nine of ten, that is it refused to accept six and suggested that it be solved at the International Court of Justice. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(See the Austro-Hungarian critique of the ultimatum for how almost all of the demands were not fully met. The idea that 8 or 9 of the 10 enumerated demands and 3 demands in the preamble were met is a popular misconception.)Werchovsky (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, I am not saying Serbia is responsible for World War I! Far from it! I'm just being objective. Even if the Serbian gov. was behind the assassination, it was the ultimatum that started the War. This is in either case not the issue, the issue is wether or not it can be proven that Dimitrijević was acting on his own. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Was that comment for me? ;) All I did was read that you were talking about the July Ultimatum, so I decided to post it over here in full (and correct that someone said that most were agreed to and several not - all were agreed save for one)... --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was embarrassing... :P ok, thank you Pax. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Pax. That is part of the point I am trying to make. If we all go now and read the lead paragraph on Princip. It is worded in a way to suggest Serbia point blank refused to the ultimatum. It might be misleading to someone doing thier homework on here or something. I think a minor re-word should do it. I never wanted an argument. I just wanted to disscuss it and work towards an edit. harris 578 (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Harris, you're in the Balkans now, nothing's that simple ;) You'll just have to make your position clear now, are you an imperialist or a communist?! *grabs throat* Answer damn you! :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its safer if I pick the same side as you ;) harris 578 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harris though, the precise problem is the word "rejected", as it most definitely is not the case. The Serbian government accepted 9/10 points of the ultimatum, which, according to it legal team, were acceptable under Serbian Law. The government put preservation of peace at the utmost priority. However, at point number 6, a very big technical problem arose. Let me quote Article 146 of Part VIII (Courts) of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Serbia:

“ Courts are independent.

In fulfilling justice they do not stand under any authority, but judge solely upon the Law.

No State authority, neither legislative, nor executive, can fulfill the courts' duty, nor can the courts fulfill legislative or executive power.

Justice is persecuted in the name of the King.

”

In effect, A-H demanded that all courts be subjected to the Vienna regarding the cases related to the Sajarevo Assassination, or better said, anyone whom Austria-Hungary wants to indict on the soil of Serbia. This would be a serious injure of the judicial process, but primarily violate the Constitution. Belgrade also exposed reluctance to change the Constitution just because of the ultimatum. Considering that normal judicial practice was hurt, the Serbian government proposed addressing the International Court of Justice, whether A-H can legally take over (de facto) Serbian courts (note aside: Serbia already authorized A-H to fight against any action on Serbian territory finding endangering, as well as to fire anyone from the army and administration A-H named and remove all bad things about Austria-Hungary from school textbooks), promising to recognize uphold ICJ's decision. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate: but if you reject any point in an ultimatum, you reject it completely. That's why its called an "ultimatum": its non-negotiable. In either case I think we should explain the matter in detail and not leave any room for misinterpretation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did they really reject it? The Serbian government complied, but said that there are technical difficulties in the Law (which was, obviously, more advanced than Austro-Hungarian). Requesting ICJ's intervention and altogether, really makes "rejection" improper wording. BTW, there is no mention of the ultimatum in the lead paragraph, but it says that Serbia refused to conduct an investigation, which is blatantly false. For instance, the lead paragraph does not insinuate, but really does claim that:

a) Serbians assassinated Franz Ferdinand

b) Serbians totally refused and ignored Austro-Hungary's innocent diplomatic pleas for justice, because they are guilty

c) The Serbians started the Great War

In essence, it also must not be forgotten that the Black Hand was also a terrorist organization that riled up unrest in Serbia, and that the parliament adopted a resolution against it in the beginning of 1914 demanding reaction from the authorities, satisfying with an open declaration. It should also not be forgotten that the Black Hand massacred the Serbian royal family in 1903 and led Serbia to the brink of civil war (again). --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Black Hand article says that the Black Hand was founded in 1911, which sounds kind of strange to me... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they were "upgraded" into Unity or Death on 9 May 1911, but the Black Hand was there in 1903 and responsible for the Obrenovics' extermination.

It is also interesting that a German (Rodolphe Archibald Reiss) actually defends the Black Hand at the Sarajevo Assassination, calling it a reactive act against an oppressing dictatorship. Also, let us not forget that it is Young Bosnia which is primarily the organizer of the assassination. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we all offer up some alternative wordings to see what the others think.

Instead of this section "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to request that Serbia investigate the crime on Serbian soil. Serbian rejection of these requests set off a chain of events that led to World War I."

We could have "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to issue a ten point Ultimatum to Serbia. Serbia had reservations with one of the requests and this set off a chain of events that led to World War I."

The reader can then follow the link to the July Ultimatum if they are really interested and make up their own mind. harris 578 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "leading Austria-Hungary and Germany to issue a document know as the July Ultimatum to Serbia which set off a chain of events that led to World War I." harris 578 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Either is fine with me, I just disliked the "rejection of inquiry" fallaciousness. BTW, didn't Germany declare war on Russia and France, didn't it prepare for it since before, signing a secret treaty with the Ottoman Empire to form a Central Power military alliance also with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan and Mexico, and already fully preparing a plan of invading the Netherlands to kick the French out of the war?

Also, the local developments and the assassination itself are in direct connection to the 1908/09 happenings. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the end, we must also also remember that the Government of the Kingdom of Serbia informed Vienna of the assassination through its ambassador before it had occurred. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

!! this I haven't heard before! really? Are there sources on this? I'd be fascinated to learn more about the communiqué. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much, but I do know that Nikola Pasic's intelligence informed him of high possibilities of an assassination attempt of Franz Ferdinand. He immediately wrote to the Serbian ambassador in Vienna to pass a letter to Emperor Franz Joseph. In it, Ferdinand's grand visit to Sarajevo on Saint Vitus' day is highly criticized as provocative of the Serbs, that it does not aid the tensions that were created in 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 previously and that there the successor's security could be greatly jeopardized in Sarajevo, Pasic advising the A-H authorities not to send him to Sarajevo for his own safety.

I could search more details on this, but to the up is correct. I have heard that several hours before the assassination Pasic has issued warrants for arrest of three of those involved in the assassination, although can't confirm this one yet. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This is turning into one hell of a discussion. That's really interesting Pax, can you recommend some good WWI books for me? Anyway what about this lead paragraph thing? Are we changing it? I vote that Pax alter it as he has displayed an extraordinary knowledge of the incident. harris 578 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you are interested in the very intro in the war, I'd recommend John H. Mauer's "The Outbreak of the First World War: Strategic Planning, Crisis Decision". If you're interested in the war in precise, next to Martin Gilbert (whom you already know) I recommend Hew Strachan. --PaxEquilibrium (talk)

Thanks. harris 578 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense

"Unwittingly, he is one of the most influential people in 20th century history, being indirectly responsible for sparking the chain of events that led to both World Wars, the Cold War and many of the troubles in the Middle East that still exist to this day" That is complete nonsense! Princip shot the archduke Ferdinand. Austria-Hungary declared war. That's it. We know what happened then: WW1. But the rest doesn't hold any water. Is Princip responsible for Hitler? Certainly not. Is he responsible for the Cold War? Certainly not. There is not even an indirect responsibility. That's childish. Maybe he is responsible for the Vietnam War? Or Korea? Or Nicaragua? Or Afghanistan? Or the Middle East? Or Iraq? Of course not. It's like saying that Adam and Eve (metaphorically) are responsible for people killing each other. No mankind, no war, right? The way history develops is the result of global happenings and global politics (good or bad), not single events that occured in the past.--80.133.250.12 (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, rm. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!--80.133.250.12 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though Austria-Hungary would have found another excuse to declare war, the point is that he's the one who took the shot, which led to the war, which led to the Treaty of Versailles, and so on. Certainly he is not the direct cause of every single little think, but he still sparked the war that sparked all others. The fact that he was one of many likely causes of the war (or, for that matter, merely the straw that broke the horse's back) is irrelevant. If we say at the end of the first paragraph that his shot sparked the chain of events that led to World War I, then we must be able to say that World War I led to the rest of these things, therefore, he was a cause, to varying degrees of directness. 69.76.154.178 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah and if austria hungary did not declare war, then there would be no ww2 or anything else 24.61.249.175 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with the article

1. The "Black Hand" is just a popular name for "Unification or Death." The article makes it sound as if these are different organizations. 2. That Mehmedbašić failed to act is fact, but he never said he lost his nerve so this is statement regarding loss of nerve is conjecture or politics. 3. It has never been determined why the poison did not work. "Past date" is just an assumption. The man who handed the assassins the poison was secretly an agent of the Prime Minister, and since the Prime Minister was at "daggers drawn" with the military men the assassins might finger, one could imagine other possible reasons for the poison not to work. 4. Mlada Bosna, or Young Bosnia, is poorly characterized as a freedom movement. It was a nationalist or irredentist movement. For the most part, Austria-Hungary had already dismantled the kmet slavery system of the Ottoman Empire by 1914, although land reform had made little progress.Werchovsky (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"The house where Gavrilo Princip lived in Sarajevo was destroyed during the First World War. After the war, it became a museum in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia." How does a destroyed house become a museum? If it was rebuilt, shouldn't the article say so? Altgeld (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on all points, except the characterization of Mlada Bosna. "Nationalist movements" often = "freedom movements" as far as Austria-Hungary is concerned, and this is an extremely "touchy" point. Therefore, I would not "touch" it. Although, I can suggest using "nationalist freedom movement" as a compromise. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Irredentist is the really correct word from it, I only suggested the alternative "nationalist" because these days many people don't know what irredentism is. "Freedom" is just silly. The movement was characterized by advocating the violent separation of various Austro-Hungarian provinces and combining them with Serbia in the same way that Italy had coalesced around Piedmont. Although some hoped that the government of the future Greater Serbia or Yugoslavia would be liberal, this was not a characteristic of the movement. So neither political freedom, nor freedom from slavery was what they were after. You can say "freedom from Austria", but that would just be an independence movement, which they were not. They sought unification with Serbia. Irredentism is not a dirty word.Werchovsky (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As always, the situation in the Balkans is a lot more complex. The country we're talking about is not France or Italy, its the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The multi-national superstate was teeming with movements for independence from Austrian or Hungarian rule. The term "irredentist" is incorrect, as the movement was striving towards the independence of all South Slavic people from Austrian rule. It did not advocate the expansion of Serbia into Bosnia and Croatia, it advocated the union of Croats Slovenes and Serbs into a single state, i.e. the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. (Of course, the local movement concerned itself with Bosnia specifically.)

Anyway, this is a long discussion, I propose we simply call it what it was and let the reader decide on the term. Why don't we use "movement advocating the union of Bosnia with Serbia". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Albertini discusses Mlada Bosna in Origins of the War, Vol II, pg. 22-25 and describes its agitation as irredentist on page 25. ...and Albertini knows his irredentism. You will find many statements by Princip and others referring to Serbia as Piedmont, so they themselves embraced the Italian model. Here, Princip describes the views of the young Bosnian nationalists who were his friends: "The plan was to unite all South Slavs. It was understood that Serbia as the free part of the South Slavs had the moral duty to help with unification, to be to the South Slavs as the Piedmont was to Italy." (Owings, vol. 1, pg 57) Cabrinovic describes Princip and the other assassins as radical nationalists and defines this as: "Unification of all Serbs under one crown. The revival of the old empire of the Tsar Dusan." Cabrinovic went on to describe the crown as "Karadjeordjevices." Cabrinovic himself was willing to accept King Petar's sceptre, but not the continuation of the dynasty. (ibid, pp 21-22) These statements were under oath. Sometimes people who think fondly of Yugoslavia have trouble accepting the Serbian-dominated nature of the Yugoslavia/Greater-Serbia that the assassins of June 28 envisioned.Werchovsky (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Italian historian obviously draws parallels in his work with his own country's history, which is understandable. However, I must once again emphasize the differences between Italy, which basically has only one nationality, and the Balkans, where there are indeed many. This is Wikipedia, and labeling should be avoided as it promotes a particular POV. I do not see why you disagree with an only slightly longer characterization. The fact that the assassins envisaged SHS to be a Serb-dominated union of South Slavs does that change the fact that it would be a union of many (in their view three) nations. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you to use the same collegial tone I have used. "This is Wikipedia, and labeling should be avoided" ("Mlada Bosna" is itself a lousy label*), "Its the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The multi-national superstate...", and "...which is understandable." it seems to me do not promote rational discourse on the subject of whether Princip and his associates were part of an irredentist movement. If I said "It is understandable that you would dismiss a great historian's writings because he is from Italy and you are from Dalmatia." I don't think you would take kindly to it. So, this "It is understandable" phrase can be quite insidious sounding kind but being utterly dismissive.Werchovsky (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

*[Princip was a follower of Gacinovic (perhaps through Ilic, though others would argue directly), Gacinovic was a "Black Hand" Director. So, Princip can be linked in multiple ways (Tankosic, Ciganovic, Gacinovic, Ilic) to the "Black Hand". But "Mlada Bosna" was a post WWI label to collectively refer to a lot of different individuals and organizations. It is a label that implies more than it is.]

"Revival of the old empire of the Tsar Dusan" means rebuilding a vast Serbian empire based on medieval history and ethnic claims. It is the epitomy of irredentism. This was not Albertini speaking, but the bomb thrower Cabrinovic. And we have Princip (and many others for that matter) drawing the parallels to the formation of Italy out of the many seperate states (each with its own history and culture) and foreign ruled lands that comprise Italy today, not Albertini. Many authors besides Albertini discuss Serbian irrendentism amongst the south Slavs as a cause of WW1. A quick internet search will turn up quite a few non-Italian authors using the word irredentism or irredentist in this same context. I would add that Albertini gives a quite objective and balanced account of the Balkan origins of WW1. Many later works heavily draw on his writings. Not everyone refers to the irredentism as Serbian irredentism, Williams (Austria-Hungary and the Origins...) refers to it rather as Slavic irredentism. The terms "Young Bosnia" and "Mlada Bosna" are absent from his index (I would guess because he didn't want to use that ill-defined label).Werchovsky (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If there was a leader of Mlada Bosna, it was "Black Hand" Director Gacinovic. Naturally, he fought in the Balkans wars, as did many of the Young Bosnians who were of age. Princip of course tried to fight in the Balkans Wars, but was rejected as he did not seem physically able. The point I make here is that "freedom" from Austria-Hungary was not the sole objective of these Young Bosnian Serbs, for many, at least, it was the restoration of the Empire of Dusan which meant taking land from several neighboring states, not just Austria-Hungary, in irredentist fashion.Werchovsky (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In my view I was discussing with the utmost civility, I remind you that its not advisable to assume one's tone of voice when its missing from the picture. I also do not take kindly to your insinuations that I am dismissing the man on the basis of his nationality, or in fact, that I am dismissing the person or his work in any way. ").--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone and content of your writing is what I am asking you to make collegial. For example, instead of saying "I remind you..." you might say "I did not intend what I wrote to be condenscending or dismissive." In this vein, for my part, with regard to Albertini, I did not intend to insinuate anything. My intended meaning was that the phrase "it is understandable", as used in this discussion, is insiduous, dismissive, and likely to rankle. Perhaps I should have used another example to make my point.Werchovsky (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not viewing this from any POV, it is simply complete nonsense to wantonly label an early pan-Yugoslav movement as "irredentist". It does not make sense. Britannica refers to Young Bosnia several times as a "revolutionary group", "resistance movement", and "secret society": not an "irredentist organization". [3] The fact that it does have few characteristics in common with Italian irredentism is not enough. These people were certainly not fighting for the liberation of "unredeemed" Serbia ("Serbia Irredenta").--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"...it is simply complete nonsense to wantonly label ... "irredentist". It does not make sense." This seems unfair and overly dramatic. I provided citations from seminal works on this period and region supporting the use of the word irredentist. As I understand it, secondary sources traceable to primary sources are the preferred Wikipedia sources. Britannica being a tertiary source isn't a good choice. Nevertheless, let me address your point. "Young Bosnia" was not a group or a society it was a movement as pointed out by Albertini, Dedijer, and many others. So, what remains from Britannica is "Bosnian Serbs' resistance movement". I am guessing you don't want to use that phrase since you truncated it. I don't like it either. So, let's put Britannnica aside. When you say: "These people were certainly not fighting for the liberation of 'unredeemed' Serbia?" are you saying that Gacinovic and other Young Bosnians did not fight in the Balkans Wars, or that Serbia did not recover pieces of the Dusan Empire during these wars, or what?Werchovsky (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I shall once again attempt to further clarify the key difference. The people of Piedmont were of Italian nationality (though Piedmotese), while the people of Serbia were not of "South Slavic nationality". That's the core difference. The goal of this organization, i.e. the union of all South Slavs, is not a fight for the liberation of unredeemed Serbia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The requirement of a perfect match between Italian irredentism and Serbian or south Slavic irredentism is an unreasonable standard. Irredentism comes in many forms. A Mexican who wants the southwest of the United States to be split off from the U.S. and combined with Mexico based on history and ethnicity is an irredentist. If he approaches his goal legally, there is nothing wrong with his desire or efforts. "Irredentist" is not a derogatory word. Sicily was an independent country for 700 years. It is still recognized as having its own language which includes many North African words. Before the nation of Italy started forming who could say for certain if Sicily was or was not as distinct a nation as Croatia or Slovenia. Now that Yugoslavia has fallen apart, it does look more like Croatia and Slovenia are signifcantly more distinct nations than Sicily or the other medieval Italian states, but looking at it from the time before the nation of Italy formed is another matter.Werchovsky (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Poor sentence

"These two conflicting reputations have remained throughout the world from the very moment the bullets were fired." I don't really know what is added by including this sentence. I think it should be removed or rewritten. Jimjamjak (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Count Ludwig Joseph von Boos-Waldeck Information

Stratfordbaby 0:21, June 29, 2009

According to the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand section, it claims that Count Ludwig Joseph von Boos-Waldeck was injured during the first attempted assassination by Nedeljko Čabrinović however in looking at the entry for Boos-Waldeck it lists his date of death as October 1, 1880 thirty years before the assassination attempt had taken place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratfordbaby (talk • contribs) 06:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav

He was Serb...Yugoslavs were not exist at that time. He didnt now what is Yugoslav, because that term apears 10 years after his death. Yugoslavs are not nationality. --188.2.206.10 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Zrno

No radical Serbian nationalist nonsense please... ever heard of the Illyrian movement? Those men did not consider themselves Croats or Serbs or Slovenes, and we're talking about the 19th century(!) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He was born in serbian familly...he was Serb...Yugoslav may be his political view like yours. That pronounce is serbian cyrillic...not yugoslav cyrillic, because such a thing dont exist. I AM NOT NATIONALIST...JUST A SERB ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.206.10 (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In this article Muhamed Mehmedbašić is Bosniak nationalist and all other members of Mlada Bosna (Serbs in origin) are Yugoslavs or nationality is not named. This is a scandal !!! I speak to those who are not from former Yugoslavia - please stop this vandalism ! --188.2.206.10 (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)Zrno

Ok, guys, please stop with the edit warring on the article. I've changed the nationality to "Serbian" and added an external link. I see that there is some disagreement about what his nationality should be. I think the best thing to do here would be to discuss if we should change it. User:DIREKTOR and User:PRODUCER seem to want it to be different --- are there any references which would support your contention? -- Deville (Talk) 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

He undoubtedly considered himself a Yugoslav (per his own statement, as I recall). Being a Yugoslav is not a "political view", it is a nationality. The Illyrian movement was comprised of people considering themselves Yugoslavs ("Illyrians") as early as the 1850s. However, since Yugoslavia did not exist (just yet), his official nationality was Serbian. Also, his ethnicity is Serbian as well. Therefore I propose we use: "Yugoslav, ethnic Serb".

Btw, he was considered a "Yugoslav hero". Had he lived a few more years he would have doubtless been praised in Yugoslavia for his act ("fighting against imperialist oppression"). In a way, he's teh most important person in the formation of Yugoslavia. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that Princip was working towards a notion of Yugoslavia, and he certainly wanted to see it come to pass. But the state did not exist in his lifetime, and that was a different time: there was certainly more of a notion of Yugoslavian unity when they were under the control of an external empire. Because I think you'd agree that if he were alive today, he would likely think of himself as a Serb first. So I actually think the compromise you put forward, namely "Yugoslav, ethnic Serb", is a reasonable one and possibly the most accurate.

As for the other issue of Cyrillic vs. Serbian Cyrillic, I tend to lean towards the latter. Both are basically correct, but the latter is a different orthographic system, and certainly the latter is the one used in former Yugoslavia. If there was a Yugoslavian Cyrillic then one might have an argument, but Cyrillic is the system used in Russia, Belarus, etc. And this seems to be the standard Wikipedia is using, see, e.g. Emir Kusturica. So my overall proposal:

Denote nationality by "Yugoslav, ethnic Serb" and orthography by Serbian Cyrillic.

Do you agree? Why don't we wait 24 hours for any disagreements to this proposal (I'll put notices on the talk pages of everyone involved) and if there are no disagreements we can go with that?

As for your last sentence, Princip was probably (unwittingly) the most important single person of the 20th century, although I'm sure he didn't intend for it to happen like that...:) But, yes, he was certainly praised after his death; had he lived he probably would have been a national hero. -- Deville (Talk) 16:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK I agree. It should be solution for other similar articles, with the same problem. In the article Meša Selimović - writter who declared himself as a Serb, although with Bosniak origin, Producer removed nationality Yugoslav and added Bosniak http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Me%C5%A1a_Selimovi%C4%87&diff=298817619&oldid=298814043. I think Devill can understand in this example what kind of person Producer is (ANTISERB, NOT YUGOSLAV)--Zrno (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Zrno

lol I suppose this [4] [5] would make Ivan anti-serb also? Hell I was more lenient and made it Bosnian. Why do you insist on stressing ethnicity in the introduction when its later addressed like in the Ivo Andrić article? PRODUCER (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - in the article Ivan Meštrović the nationality is Croat. Ivan Meštrović was the member of Yugoslav Committee, who worked on creation of Yugoslavia and lived at the time of Gavrilo Princip. He is listed as Yugoslav in the article Yugoslav, but in the article Ivan Meštrović he is a Croat. Direktor didnt care for it because he is a Croat himself. They only want Serbs to be Yugoslavs --Zrno (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Zrno - I am 94.189.175.195 and 188.2.206.10

Its a tragedy really... we're all the same people in general terms - Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins... The main problem are the Serbs: there's just too much of you guys! :) If we really were hypothetically to admit we're all the same people, Serbs would culturally swallow-up everyone else by sheer numbers... We'd all be speaking ekavian and writing Cyrillic. Its the main problem, the numbers are disproportionate. I mean, its true: lots of countries incorporate different dialects and subcultures, but the Serbian one would have to be the main and primary one - simply because of the numbers. This is of course completely unacceptable for Croats... The only way would be to create a truly hybrid official language and culture, but again, Serbs wouldn't consider an equal hybrid fair because there's so much more of them... its a complex issue... Now we're split-up into politically utterly insignificant statelets with no say anywhere or any real economic power - just a market of 25,000,000 people for European goods... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG98.165.15.98 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip's cell

I was wondering if a picture of Gavrilo's cell could be put into the article. There's a picture of it in Wikimedia Commons. Bejinhan a.k.a. EvangelineTalk 03:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gavrilo Princip's sandwich

I have removed the following from this article:

Princip had gone into Moritz Schiller's cafe for a sandwich, having apparently given up, when he spotted Franz Ferdinand's car

The idea that Princip was eating a sandwich at the vital moment is spreading rapidly in the UK and US, probably as a result of it being included in a TV documentary on the assassination widely shown in schools. Actually contemporary evidence in the form of Princip's trial transcripts show that the story is false and that no sandwich was involved.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=165946&p=1464944#p1464944

Although this is a trivial point, the story has become extremely widespread on the net (search for Princip + sandwich and you'll see what I mean) and I feel it is a good example of the way in which history can rapidly be perverted by false information in a popular medium. WP should be better than that. Mikedash (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Somebody must've noticed there was some cafe in the street so he/she assumed Princip went there for a bite. Quite silly really. They've got him having a sandwich one minute and a packet of cyanide the next. :P

Generally speaking the whole hubbub about this assassination in the West is quite absurd. The powers were just looking for an excuse and found it in Gavrilo Princip. What you see in US media is the nonsense thesis that this person alone brought about the first global conflict, there are even implications that he holds personal blame for the death of millions (the Somme is usually shown :). His actions must be looked at in their proper context, i.e. that of millions of people under German (and Hungarian) rule and oppression trying to achieve self-governance. This person fired that shot hoping to free his countrymen, and in a way, actually succeeded in doing so.

When talking about the cause of WWI one should look at the real geopolitical and global economic reasons for the war, not some guy in the Balkans. Ah, the dumbing-down of history... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said, but most people in (educated) Europe know that. Its in Anglo-American circles where everything is "dumbed-down". Eg People actually think that the American Civil War was about freeing coloured slaves Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Music section

This section looks like trivia, really unrelated to Princip, akin to spam. In any case the weight is way over-done. So I've removed it. It might be included if there were folks who were spurred by a very popular song to find out who Princip was, but I don't get the feeling that too many people have heard of these songs. Smallbones (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead introduction is inaccurate, Gavrilo Princip was a Yugoslav nationalist, not a Serbian nationalist

Gavrilo Princip was a Yugoslav nationalist, not a Serbian nationalist, there are many sources available to demonstrate this. The group Young Bosnia that he associated with was not a Serb-only group, it included Muslims and Croats.--R-41 (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

His house was a place where serbian nationalists (četnik) met each other during the Second World War. His parents (then still a live) were hosts to this meeting. He is a hero of serbian nationalists. He is not Yugoslav. Dont talk about things that you dont understand. Go to Ireland and study Celts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.222.11.43 (talk)

"I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria." - Gavrilo Princip, during his trial in 1914. Here are sources for his statement: [6], [7], [8]. There is the evidence of Princip calling himself a Yugoslav nationalist. Go to hell and f*ck yourself you ignorant racist bastard!--R-41 (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Apollo program

He is responsible for the Apollo missions according to the domino effect of the history of events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.229.245 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Princip was a Serb

Interesting. Since when "Serb" translates to "Yugoslav"? Most sources, including Encycopedia Britannica say that he was a Bosnian Serb. The mentioning of his ethnicity and ethnicity of his parents is "strangely" avoided. It's not surprising to find another Wikipedian article full of historical revisionists (one of many reasons why Wikipedia is ridiculed). He was a member of the Black hand, "a secret SERBIAN society of the early 20th century that used terrorist methods to promote the liberation of Serbs outside Serbia from Habsburg or Ottoman rule and was instrumental in planning the assassination of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand (1914), precipitating the outbreak of World War I". Do I even need to start listing sources (and waste my time with Wikipedian hisorical revisionists) confirming that the Black Hand was a secret Serbian society, and that Gavrilo Princip was one of them? Even Wikipedia itself (article about Black Hand) says so. This article is a ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.47.221 (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria." - Gavrilo Princip, during his trial in 1914. Here are sources for his statement: [9], [10], [11]. He was associated with the movement Young Bosnia which predominantly consisted of Serbs, but also Bosniaks and Croats.(Source: Dejan Djokić. Yugoslavism: histories of a failed idea, 1918-1992. London, England, UK: C. Hurst & Co. Ltd, 2003. Pp. 24.) Princip was a Serb by ethnicity and a Yugoslav by nation. --R-41 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gavrilo Princip/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It's all pretty factually correct. But he wasn't a member of the Balck Hand. There is no evidence of him ever being in contact with the Black Hand, that was Apis' job. There are just logistical connections as you say. "was a Bosnian Serb member of a secret society organization named Black Hand" So could you please alter this..? He was a Serb, not a Serbian for anyone unclear. Bosnians can be Serbs too. It is an ethnic group. Serbians are the nationality.

Last edited at 13:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources needed for material on the details of the assassination

There are almost no references on the section that covers the details of assassination of Ferdinand, such as what specifically happened in the hours and minutes leading up to the assassination it needs sources.--R-41 (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There was a picture of Princip fullbody in this article

Now the picture is no longer there (here). He looks different from the current picture, in fact, he looks mentally perturbed in a posture showing both arms that makes think he had some kind of implement in the back. In all three pictures the face looks quite diverse! I ve found the same phenomenon in other biographic pages, the pictures change and it is no longer the same person. But this is supposed to be a documental document. If there is doubt about identities and pictures, it should just be noted and make all materials available. If a picture has already been published here, a way to retrieve it should be available. If a picture was retired, it should be noted and explained why. djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.156.113 (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Famous picture of Gavrilo Princip (second from right) being arrested by police is not correct

Picture is showing arrest of Mr. Ferdinand Ber (Austrian monarchy employee in Bosnia and Gavrilo Princip's friend) who was opposing police brutality during Gavrilo Princip arrest. This picture was first time published about ten years after assassination by the Interessantes Blatt, and then it was wrongly copied in thousands of books and new articles.

Link to source in serbian.

http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/naslovna/aktuelno.293.html:389051-Na-cuvenoj-fotografiji-hapsenja-nije-Gavrilo-Princip

Bosnian link in english http://www.visitsarajevo.biz/history/austro-hungarian-empire/the-assassination/gavrilo-princip/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.36.145 (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Princip's Age

I have just listened to two lectures on the origins of WWI - one by Prof. John Merriman of Yale (here) and the other by Prof. Richard Evans of Cambridge (here) - and they both clearly state that Princip was 16 when he carried out the assassination. But this article indicates he was 19. Can someone please explain this discrepancy? The source given for his age in the article is a book published in the '60s. Marsoult (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Bosniaks

At the time, the word bosniaks to refer to muslims from yugoslavia didnt exist. it was invented during the last war. I dont claim it may or not be used now as i think that would lead to one of those endless nationalist conversations totally pointless, but it should be corrected. It is as incorrect as when serbs use turks to refer to slavic muslims or nowadays "bosnjaks".

We cannot use nowadays cathegories for the past, is one of the nationalist (any nationalism) classic mistakes. As hobsbawm says its nore dangerous the anachornism than the lie.

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.111.83.200 (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Cause of WWI

I feel the link to the WWI article in the opening ("This was used as the motive for the First World War") should be replaced with a link to the Causes of WWI article. Any support? 193.202.33.19 (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support.—Pawyilee (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Location of the Pistol used to assassinate the Archduke

I'm not a Wikipedia editor and I don't have time to give sources, but I recall from a recent trip to BiH that I saw the pistol used to assassinate the Archduke, which is now exhibited in a small museum in Sarajevo, right near the Latin Bridge. I might be wrong, but it's worth checking out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.89.45 (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Not Princip's photo

Quoting from this 30 Aug 2013 article from The Telegraph (UK paper): 'Even the most famous photograph of Princip, showing him ‘‘under arrest’’ after the assassination, is problematic. It has been used by historians, newspapers and broadcasters, from AJP Taylor to Wikipedia, and they are all wrong. The man was an innocent bystander called Ferdinand Behr.' www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/inside-first-world-war/part-one/10273752/gavrilo-princip.html
--User:Brenont (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. These books also say that the photograph depicts Ferdinand Behr, though they don't describe him as innocent; apparently, he was "a friend of Princip's who did resemble him." Behr tried to help Princip escape. "While he was being taken to the police, a photographer took his picture. He looked very much like Gavrilo Princip, and his picture later appeared in many newspapers and books, some of them years after the assassination." We have numerous sources claiming that the photograph depicts Princip and these sources do not mention Behr at all, but we also have several that acknowledge the confusion between the two and clearly state that the man on the photograph is Behr. We should probably move the image down to another section and explain it in the caption. Surtsicna (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Historiography

Gavrilo Princip: hero or villain?, The Guardian May 6, 2014 92.20.31.34 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Modern views

Should the article contain modern views of Princip and his act. In Serbia and Republic of Srpska he is celebrated as a hero. The rest of the world has a different view. I think it should be mentioned in the article. Asdisis (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Background on Gavrilo Princep

This article does not list sources. But it does list certain facts which should be included in the short article on Gavrilo Princep which anyone if they wish to can research and verify.

First: the motive of Princep Joining a Serbian terrorist group is not simple. The fact is Princep was not a Bosnian patriot or freedom fighter: he joined the Serbian secret Black Hand. Serbia was secretly trying to annex Bosnia into its grasp. If Serbia had succeeded, Bosnians would have lost their independence and become a Serbian province in a growing Serbian Empire. Princep was gulled by the political rhetoric about Slavic freedom. The fact is Princep's ethnic race was a minority in Bosnia. All the Balkans were multi-ethnic. The only political rationalization which made any sense was a larger multi-ethnic Yugoslavia. However, whatever lip-service was paid to this idea by his handlers was pure political propaganda designed to brainwash the gullible masses.

The real reason why Princep hated the Austrian annexation of Bosnia was a matter of taxation. The Ottoman Empire was so corrupt that it could not even collect its own taxes. In other words, because of pure graft and corruption, before Bosnia was taken over by the Austrians... many Bosnians were paying no tax and getting away with it.

Then the Austrians took over and enforced their harsh taxation. This alone enraged the Bosnians who had been getting away with paying no tax for years. However there was one specific part of the Austrian tax code which made Gavrilo hate the Austrians and that was the fact that every family was taxed on how many children had been BORN to each family regardless whether they survived or not. This destroyed the basic tactic of the poorest families of the masses only surviving by having as many children as possible to insure the parents would be looked after in their old age. Because 6 out of 9 of Princep's family children died in their infancy. This forced the Princep family pay taxes on 9 children every year... 6 of them dead! This forced the family into starvation... because they literally could not afford to feed their 3 children who had survived infancy, and even then they were sick and weak and could not support their parents.

The other political point which is never mentioned is the reason the Black Hand assassinated the archduke was pure jealousy. Serbia had wanted to annex Bosnia but Austria got there first. It was a matter of two greedy states grabbing for the same territory and the loser being a real shit about it, starting to assassinate Austrian officials out of pure spite, hoping to cause a civil war. The fact is that Serbia was the aggressor and in the wrong. Taking a weak, sick dying child with tuberculosis, filling him with lies about Slavic freedom and giving him a gun makes Gavrilo a victim: a puppet and a brainwashed idiot spouting high-sounding phrases. He really did not understand what he was doing. Archduke Ferdinand was the most progressive of all the Austrian ruling elite. If Ferdinand had lived, he would have become Emperor of Austria and he would have done away with the repressive tax codes and measures and given each Austrian province its own autonomous Parliament. Once he had given them their own political freedom; that would have stolen the thunder of all political terrorists. This would have made it impossible for any war or revolution or uprising to happen in the Balkans. This would have stabilized the entire world political order. This would have forced each empire to deal with its own domestic problems. End result: no world war. Just social progressive revolutions happening individually in each area.

The fact is Princep hated the Austrian Empire because they had very good tax collectors: Gavrilo hated the Austrian Empire because they taxed his family to death and forced his family to send him away because they couldn't afford to feed him. All the rest of the political propaganda concerning why he did what he did is secondary.

If anyone can find the Austrian tax codes for the Austrian Empire circa 1900: I am fairly certain that the tax codes for the Austrian provinces are not the same as the tax codes for Austrians. It was this double standard that was a main reason for ethnic minorities being unhappy about being part of the Empire. The same was true of the Roman Empire, and every other Empire.

The above is unsigned. Having read this and the article on Franz Ferdinand (which mentions nothing about potential tax policies were he to become Emperor), I ask what evidence is there the Archduke considered abolishing the tax? Beware of putting a 'closet liberal' spin on the Archduke without substantial evidence.Cloptonson (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparent Orphan Citation

I notice Footnote 2 of the References list, citing a book, and mentioning a dialogue in his trial when he declared himself an atheist, appears to have no passage in the main article linked to it - in fact I cannot find anything referring to atheistic belief on his part. I wonder if his remains were buried/reburied with any religious ritual.Cloptonson (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Statue

Saw something on Extra Credits’s history of WWI that the guy is now having public statues erected in his honor. If so, why and where? — LlywelynII 05:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoxoxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

It goes against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it was discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?, and again the consensus was for "Religion = None".

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion. There is at least one page that does have such a source: Ian McKellen. Because we have a reliable source that establishes that Ian McKellen considers atheism to be a religion, his infobox correctly says "Religion: Atheist". In all other cases, the assertion that atheism is a religion is an unsourced claim.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for represents the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Edited 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alleged statue to Princip in Sarajevo during Bosnian War allegedly shocked Richard Holbrooke

We currently say only that a statue to Princip was put up in East Sarajevo in 2014. Yet my memory tells me that towards the end of the Bosnian war (presumably around 1994 or 1995) I read an opinion piece somewhere (probably the Irish Times, though presumably it was originally published elsewhere) by US chief negotiator Richard Holbrooke in which he said he had been shocked when he learned that Sarajevo had a statue honouring Princip - we currently have no mention of this statue. Is it still there? Was it destroyed, or removed, perhaps to please Holbrooke? Was it a fiction invented by US anti-Serb propaganda (possibly one which has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy?)? Have I just spookily wandered into a parallel universe, perhaps because today is Friday the 13th? Or has my memory being playing tricks on me? Tlhslobus (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Holbrooke repeats the story in this article . He talks about a plaque, not a statue, and his shock that it supposedly read "Gavrilo Princip struck the first blow for Serbian liberty." Of course, it did not say that at all. Nevertheless, he quotes Rebecca West's accurate, 1937 translation as "Here, in this historical place, Gavrilo Princip was the initiator of liberty, on the day of St. Vitus, the 28th of June, 1914." What he fails to mention is that the plaque West was referring to was dedicated in 1930, stolen by the Nazis in 1941 and taken to Berlin at the behest of Adolf Hitler (who was a well known Serb-hater). Since Holbrooke's trip occurred in 1960, he must have been referring to this plaque , which was nearly identical to the one the Nazis had stolen and was put up in 1953. Again, no mention of "Serbian liberty". This piece by David Binder from 1964 explicitly states "there is no statue of Princip in Sarajevo..." The plaque Holbrooke is supposedly referring to was replaced in the 1987 by this one . Again, no mention of Serbia or Serbs. Given that he goes on to use the plaques supposed reference to "Serbian liberty" to allege that Yugoslavia's Serbs were extremists, nationalists and terrorists even before the country's bloody demise, I'd say that yes, this is probably propaganda. Think what you will. 23 editor (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quite exceptionally informative reply, 23 editor. As it makes clear that my memory, though accurate in some respects, was mistaken about Holbrooke alleging there was a statue, and as your NYT link makes clear there was no statue, there is clearly no grounds for amending the article in that respect. And I suspect there is probably no other reason to amend it either, though it's just possible that I may revisit that later when my mind is a bit clearer - I speculated above about a possible self-fulfilling prophecy, and joked about the date being Friday the 13th, and I have just learned this morning (having watched no news yesterday) that over 120 people have been murdered in Paris by terrorists who, at least with regards to their chosen timing for maximum psychological impact, have seemingly decided to turn the normally harmless Friday the 13th superstition into a kind of ghastly self-fulfilling prophecy. So I'm feeling slightly spooked, and thus possibly not in the best frame of mind to be making sensible decisions about editing Wikipedia. But thanks again, and regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Styles of Prince Ip

Mr. Gabriel Principal, Esq. would I think be horrified by (aside from the dissolution of Yugoslavia) the fact that his good name is being "chipped" away at by IPA-ignorant English speakers. What with all the anniversaries, WWI has been revived as a popular topic and I have to say: I've never heard this man's last name pronounced correctly. As much as that is merely my own experience, I feel it may be a widely shared one. So I think that we simply have to add "printzip" in the brackets. "On principle", so to speak.. our job here is to educate. By any means.

Moreover, while I fully acknowledge the adjective pileup... we ought to mention he's a Bosnian Serb in the first sentence. Somehow. Its kind of big deal with regard to his historical role. As is his Yugoslav(ist) nationalism. -- Director (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The ethnicity thing is easy, I think. We should simply work out a better phrasing. One that allows the reader to breathe properly :D

As for the pronunciation, I honestly do not see what the problem is. The pronunciation is already there, and it seems rather clear to me. To have two would be silly, so can we demonstrate that the IPA is wrong? How is printzip superior to prǐntsip? Isn't /ts/ much more common in English than /tz/ anyway? It seems like we are just reinventing the wheel. Surtsicna (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The IPA isn't wrong. Its just that nobody appears to care about and/or know it, so I figured I'd just add "printzip". What could it hurt? That's me downsizing my planned edit down from adding a note "princhip and princkip are NOT correct pronunciations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111". -- Director (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture after torture in Austrian prison was used to humiliate Princip

Here you can find the Prinicp's photo before torture : http://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/1131171-ovako-je-izgledao-gavrilo-princip-kada-je-ubio-franca-ferdinanda-foto — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.39.91.209 (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Princip`s motivations

Weren`t "freedom from Austria and unification of South Slavs" but clasic Serbian fascism and terrorism. He killed franz Ferdinand because he suported federalisation of the monarchy which meant Croats would get their part. Including Bosnia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.248.9 (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Added a sentence to the lead to bring this out more. 20:39, 23 May 2018 78.147.39.247 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

There should be a section about the different views people have on this man and his organization. The article reads like it is glorifying him, but much of the world views him as a terrorist and murderer. It is very biased.184.149.5.3 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this should be addressed. The article looks written by admirers of this figure. It must become more balanced. 78.147.64.250 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Terrorist ?

Just want to say that Adolf Hitler wanted Gavrilo Princip plaque, when he invaded Yugoslavia in 1941. He got it: https://www.vreme.com/g/images/1150950_14-01.jpg

Also that plaque was used in war trophy exhibition in Nazi Germany: http://serbianna.com/blogs/savich/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ZeughausGavriloPrincip.jpg

Also Adolf Hitler thought that Gavrilo Princip is terrorist, so it's "nice" to see that some people share opinion with him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.236.181 (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

And he was. No matter whether his cause was just or not, he used terror to get his way. Hitler was also a terrorist. Chaosdruid (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gavrilo Princip/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• No need to cite the date of birth here, citing it in the body is sufficient.
  • Removed citation in lead Y
• Same with the sentence ending "..known as the July Ultimatum.
  • Removed citation in lead Y
• Personally, I would merge the second and third paragraphs, but that is personal preference really.
  • Done Y
• "..which had cost him his right arm." This would possibly sound more encyclopedic as "..which had already caused the loss of his right arm.
  • Done Y
• His resting place does not need citing in the infobox; as above, the citation in the body is sufficient.
  • Removed citation from infobox Y

Early life

• "..and made the 280 kilometres (170 mi) journey.." This should be "..the 280-kilometre (170 mi) journey.." I think.
  • Done Y

Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

• The article says there are six conspirators lining the route, but then after the second one throws a grenade, it says that "..five other conspirators, including Princip, lost an opportunity to attack.." Surely it was only four that lost the opportunity, as the first had already squandered his?
  • Good catch, fixed Y

Memorials and commemoration

• From "In the 1930s.." This reads like a rather bland list. I would suggest either converting it into an actual table, or blending it together better, certainly merging some of the paragraphs together.
  • I will look into blending/merging the content better. Will try and get that done soon, thanks!

Portrayals on stage, film and television

• This section is entirely unreferenced. If it needs including, it would probably benefit from a conversion to prose, and commentary added, possibly discussing how he was portrayed.
  • I added that section when I was thinking of things to add in order to make the article as thorough as possible. I don't believe any of the portrayals were particularly noteworthy, just simply whenever he was portrayed, and I would be okay with removing the section entirely if that's okay with you.

References

• Is there an ISBN/OCLC number available for Dedijer, Vladimir (1966)?
  • Added ASIN Y
• Donnelley, Paul (2012) doesn't need an access date.
  • Removed Y
• Many of the books listed in the Further reading section could also do with ISBNs.
  • I added ISBNs for those I could find Y

I will place the article on hold pending further comments. Harrias ^talk 12:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review @Harrias:! Much appreciated. I think I covered most of your comments and will look into reworking the Memorials and commemoration section and will let you know when that's complete. Let me know if I missed anything and thank you again! SamCordes^talk 02:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: I updated the Memorials and commemoration section and merged some paragraphs together and decided to remove the Portrayals section. Let me know your thoughts and if there's any other feedback you have. Thanks! SamCordes^talk 04:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Further comments

Thanks for your quick work on this. I have a couple of remaining concerns for Good article status:

• The first revolves around criteria 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I just worry that the assassination detail goes into too much detail about parts of it which don't directly affect Princip. Obviously enough needs to be included to provide context, but (for example) I don't think knowing where the mayor of Sarajevo and the Commissioner of Police are sitting is necessary here. Similarly with some of the additional details provided about the fate of the other conspirators.
• The second is about a couple of things mentioned in the lead, but not thereafter. Basically, the entire second paragraph of the lead does not feature in the article itself. The lead should only summarise the article, so please review the entire lead and make sure everything is included in the body of the article. Harrias ^talk 12:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: I cleaned up the assassination section, removing any extraneous detail, as well as the lead, and added any info mentioned in the lead that was previously missing to the body of the article. Thanks! -- SamCordes^talk 03:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that's look much better. There are four places I'd like to see references added, and then I think we're done: Harrias ^talk 08:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• "After Čabrinović's failed attempt, Princip and the remaining conspirators lost their opportunity to attack because of the heavy crowds and the car's high speed."
• "Princip attempted suicide with a cyanide pill, but it was out-of-date, then tried to shoot himself, but the pistol was wrestled from his hand before he had a chance to fire another shot."
• "Instead, he received the maximum sentence of twenty years in prison."
• "Gavrilo Princip died on 28 April 1918, three years and ten months after the assassination. At the time of his death, weakened by malnutrition and disease, he weighed around 40 kilograms (88 lb; 6 st 4 lb)."

@Harrias: I added references to the four places mentioned above. Thanks, -- SamCordes^talk 07:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Good work on this.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

A well-balanced overview of Princip's life and role in the events that led to the start of the First World War.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   If this article was to be taken further to FA, then a more rounded view of Princip would need to be provided, analysing more sources. There is also a gap just before the assassination that it would be good to fill, but none of that is required for GA status. The article sufficiently covers the major points of Princip's life, without going into more detail than necessary.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article deals very well with the balance between terrorist and hero.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   A nice piece of work on a significant, but undercovered subject in modern history. Good work. Harrias ^talk 09:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you for the review, much appreciated! Best, -- SamCordes^talk 00:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

MichaelVanGulik,

please stop the problematic edits, see the edit log, better discuss here. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

Quote listed twice

At his trial, Princip stated that: "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be freed from Austria."

This exact quote is listed twice in the article. Is this really necessary? JIP | Talk 16:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

the lede is not accurate

[..] who sought an end to Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina

if he sought to end Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina, then why did he kill the man who wanted to do exactly that? And why did he not just say to free Bosnia and Herzegovina if that is what he meant?

Instead, Princip said himself, but in his own words, that he assassinated the Archduke to free the "Yugoslavs". So, then, when did Princip indicate that he meant Bosnia and Herzegovina? Or what source considers Bosnia and Herzegovina to be only Yugoslavs. 2600:1002:B011:C1C:5977:8507:77CD:FC9B (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

RS needed

Anyone has a reliable source mentioning his time in Vranje and the following content? “In Belgrade he met Živojin Rafajlović, one of the founders of the Serbian Chetnik Organization, who sent him (along with 15 other Young Bosnia members) to the Chetnik training centre in Vranje. There, they met with school manager Mihajlo Stevanović-Cupara. He lived in Cupara's house, which is today located on Gavrilo Princip Street in Vranje. Princip practiced shooting, using bombs and the blade, after which training was completed and he returned to Belgrade Aeengath (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)