# Talk:Gavrilo Princip

I just want to know where was Gavrilo Princip's body for 21 years before he was buried because he died 28 April 1918 and buried 29 October 1939 41.23.235.9 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

In 1920 his bones were gathered alongside other Serbian nationalists from Austria and returned to Sarajevo; they were buried on 7 July 1920, in a common grave. In 1939 the chapel of the Holy Archangel was built and dedicated to them.[1][2] Aeengath (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding the changes to Gavrilo Princip, I'm new to editing. The thing is, the Historic archive of Belgrade voiced their complaint that the year 1984 is inaccurate, they have a document that claims it's 1895. And it seems it's easier to complain on facebook than to change it proactively. I wanted to help. This is their source of Facebook, I'm not sure how to request an archive document, but they showed a picture: https://www.facebook.com/ArhivBeograda/posts/pfbid0qjE2oBqSUKGc7dYUP2ZgjvuvAyFWLpoh2dmEzSK6JAGSjQjJuF14udWGhFRxPE9wl Lapaclazar (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lapaclazar, To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that contains the same material. Even if that document was made accessible by the Historical Archive of Belgrade (instead of a screenshot on Facebook) it may be contested as primary sources and per WP:RSPRIMARY “All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.” Also the date on Gavrilo Princip's enrolment form at First Belgrade Gymnasium could simply be a mistake, in 1913 he was only a student while a year later his birth date was exhaustively discussed at the trial. See quote below. Aeengath (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Milos Bilbija, a young priest from Princip's own clan, recorded in the Parish Register that Ga­vrilo Princip was born on July 13 1894, and in the Civil Register, which was also kept by the parish, June 13 1894. Twenty years later this aberration of the local priest was the cause of serious legal disputes demanding the expertise of some of the highest civil servants of the Habsburg empire to determine which of the two records was right. On their decision depended the punishment of Gavrilo Princip at his trial as an assassin; if he was under twenty on the day of his crime, he could not be sentenced to death according to Austro-Hungarian law. Aeengath (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC) edited Aeengath (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Tpbradbury, noting your recent edits to this GA-listed article. Per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STABLE, and WP:GACR (especially criteria 1, 4, and 6), major changes to content should be discussed first. A few immediate concerns:

Lead image replaced with speculative colourised version:
The new image is AI-upscaled and explicitly marked as speculative on Commons. MOS:LEADIMAGE advises using natural, appropriate representations. This file introduces speculative visual artefacts (blue eyes, smoothed features) that are not suitable for a lead bio image on a GA article.
Removal of key Austria-Hungary context:
This sentence was removed from the lead: The Serbian government itself did not inspire the assassination but the Austrian Foreign Office and Army used the murders as a reason for a preventive war which led directly to World War I.
This supporting sentence was also removed from the body, despite being sourced to three respected historians (Williamson, Fromkin, Fried): Despite this, the Austro-Hungarian government, perceiving Serbia's nationalist ambitions as a direct threat to the stability of its multi-ethnic empire, seized upon the assassination as a pretext for action against Serbia.
The addition of Christopher Clark’s view is welcome, but not as a substitute. Clark argues no single state deliberately launched a general European war, but he does not dispute that Austria-Hungary acted with intent toward Serbia.
Image sandwiching:
The added "outside court" image now creates a visual sandwich with the courtroom photo. Per MOS:IMAGELOC, this should be avoided. Suggest removing or relocating the new image further down.
I’m keen to collaborate and open to improvements or consensus-based rewriting, but I believe these specific changes should be reverted for now pending broader editorial agreement. Thanks again for your contributions and I look forward to hearing others' thoughts. -Aeengath (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging recent contributors @Favonian; @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz; @PidgeCopetti -Aeengath (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Aeengath. I agree with both points in bullets 1 and 2. Can’t comment on bullet 3 as I’m posting from my phone and the image alignment is different. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Lead image: colour is more natural, than black and white. Sandwiching: you're right that it creates a sandwich, which i don't like. I don't think there's room further down, so remove it if you think the sandwiching is really bad. on austria-hungary's intentions, the sources i've read, and added, don't find any evidence it was looking for a reason to launch a war and seized upon the murders. Tom B (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Tom, I have removed the sandwiching issue, On the remaining points:
Lead image:
This isn’t just a matter of colour preference. The current image is an AI-upscaled, digitally altered file that invents key details like eye colour, skin tone, and smoothed bruises. It is explicitly marked speculative on Commons. Per MOS:LEADIMAGE and WP:IMAGEUSE, lead images must be accurate, appropriate, and not misleading.
The black-and-white image it replaced is not generic, it's one of the most widely reproduced archival images of Princip. As noted in the caption source (Vojinović, 2023): "The third photograph, perhaps the most well-known, is the one in which a battered Princip stands in his cell and looks directly into the lens, taken on 2 July in the Sarajevo investigative prison."
This is a primary historical source, altering it digitally, especially in an article about a divisive political figure, risks misrepresenting fact and cross into WP:NPOV. A speculative version does not meet GA standards for encyclopaedic tone or source integrity.
Noting that another editor @Cesspool135 has reverted to the black-and-white lead image, which aligns with the concerns raised here and current GA guidance. I believe that’s appropriate while discussion is ongoing. Further changes to the lead image should await consensus. -Aeengath (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Austria-Hungary Attribution
@Tom You wrote that the sources you’ve read “don’t find any evidence (Austria-Hungary) was looking for a reason to launch a war and seized upon the murders.” But the sentences you removed from the article:
The Serbian government itself did not inspire the assassination but the Austrian Foreign Office and Army used the murders as a reason for a preventive war which led directly to World War I.
and
Despite this, the Austro-Hungarian government, perceiving Serbia's nationalist ambitions as a direct threat to the stability of its multi-ethnic empire, seized upon the assassination as a pretext for action against Serbia.
were directly supported by multiple high-quality sources:
David Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer (p.154):
What the killings gave Vienna was not a reason, but an excuse, for taking action… They provided the Austrians with grounds for destroying Serbia—a pretext that Europe would accept and believe.
Marvin Fried, Austro-Hungarian War Aims in the Balkans (p.26):
Austria-Hungary went to war with Serbia ostensibly as a punitive action but in fact to reestablish its authority in the Balkans.
Ian Armour, A History of Eastern Europe 1740–1918:
The Serbian government was not behind the Sarajevo plot (…) None of this mattered very much, since the Habsburg government was already determined to do something forceful about Serbia before Sarajevo (…) Sarajevo was a pretext for war, rather than the cause of conflict.
Even Christopher Clark, does not contradict this:
Within a few days of the assassinations of 28 June, a consensus formed among the key Austrian decision-makers that only military action would solve the problem of the monarchy’s relations with Serbia... We must seize the first opportunity for a pulverising blow... (The Sleepwalkers, (p.259))
This interpretation is both mainstream and well-sourced. Replacing it without discussion reduces historiographical balance and contravenes WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. Given the GA status, the nature of the changes (image, sourcing, historiographical framing) and the lack of prior discussion, I recommend restoring the stable version pending consensus. -Aeengath (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
thank you, the Fromkin source is 21 years old i think, even though there's later editions. I've put most of it back in, with small changes, e.g. we said in the article that Serbian military intelligence was involved, but elsewhere that the Serbian state was not involved, Tom B (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
@Tom, you’ve reintroduced contested material, added new content without full citation and significantly changed phrasing all without consensus. Some of this introduces WP:SYNTH and undermines the sourcing clarity expected of a GA article. Per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:GACR (criteria 1 & 4), edits of this scale should be proposed on the Talk page and agreed upon first. Please pause further changes for now and continue discussion here. Thanks. -Aeengath (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
Also @Tom to answer your comment that "the article is contradictory as it it says the serbian state was not involved but it also says its military intelligence was involved, which is part of the state" Individuals in military intelligence (like Apis) were likely involved, but the state, meaning Pašić’s cabinet and the government was not. That’s the distinction made by Clark, Fried and Dedijer. It’s also exactly what Wiesner concluded. -Aeengath (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
I completely agree with the eloquent points made by my colleague Aeengath. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)