This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Austria Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bosnia and Herzegovina High‑importance Anti-Serb riots in Sarajevo is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Hungary Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Balkan / European / World War I This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500 – present) European military history task force World War I task force Serbia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on the detailed analysis I concluded that:

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

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

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

This is what I gather from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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