Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Archive 13

We should probably list more non-Western visual artists (though he was based in Istanbul), but his influence seems mostly regional.

Support

1. As nominator. Tabu Makiadi (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Iostn (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, I know this is technically already passing, but after some thought, we should probably keep this guy. Non-Western artists are under 1/22 of the entire section, and he's the only contemporary we list in the miniature tradition (at least 500 years old, spanning from SE Europe to India). Along with Hossein Behzad  5 (and maybe indirectly Abanindranath Tagore  5), he's only 1 of 2 or 3 we list since the 17th century. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Per Zar2gar1-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
3. Changing to oppose Makkool (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

I don't know much about aviation, so I stumbled upon this page and am not sure whether this guy belongs. I will nominate him.

Support

1. as nom-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support to Miscellaneous -> Explorers (that's where we list Amelia Earhart  4). Simple brainstorming seems reason enough with Miscellaneous still under quota. We can always revisit when it comes time to trim the section. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Looking through the category Category:American aviation pioneers, I see a lot of people. I Don't think he is particuarlly noteworthy compared to everyone on that list. Take it up a level to Category:Aviation pioneers and I think he becomes a bit lost in the croud rather then standing out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
2. Two interwikis, article created in 2020 twelve years after his death --> not VA5. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discussion

James Bevel was the co-equal with Martin Luther King Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement, he was the movement's main strategist and architect, both as a student leader from 1960 to 1962 and then as the Director of Direct Action and Nonviolent Education of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) from 1963 to 1968. Bevel strategized and then directed the main movement events of the era, including the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade, the Selma Voting Rights Movement (and its Selma to Montgomery march), and the Chicago Open Housing Movement. Looking at the entries, Bevel could replace any number of the listed activists if one must be replaced to include him. His accomplishments and movement contributions place him, in my opinion, in the top level of people who shaped American and world history, along with Dr. King, Jefferson, Madison, etc.

Support

1. As nom. I think he was already listed as a vital article but seems to have been removed at some point. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Weak support at level 5, probably oppose at level 4. I agree with the arguments below, especially on how "American" our list is, but we list several thousand people (many of them American) who I consider less impactful/vital then this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. He is barely mentioned in the actual Civil rights movement  4 article, and isn't part of the Big Six. Also, he only has seven interwikis, which suggests he has not left a significant enough actual global impact. He is not one of the 50,000 most important subjects of all time, or one of the 10,000 most important people to ever live. Furthermore, we list plenty of American activists already, including most significant other ones from the civil rights movement. In-fact, we should list less American figures. Not more. No way he qualifies for Level 4, let alone 5. As a side note, I managed to find the discussion where he was removed previously, and I pretty much agree with everything that was said in the removal. λ NegativeMP1 03:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Per NegativeMP1 and per previous discussion. In particular, I dispute the claim that he was co-equal to MLK. I have a history degree _pbp 09:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
3. Oppose, sorry, I don't see it, agree with others' opposing comments.  Carlwev  17:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
4. I commend your dedication to chronicling Bevel's life. But the vital articles project is driven on consensus and data as best as we can collect it, and the numbers, the votes, and even Bevel's own biography don't seem to achieve the baseline level of vitality we require of activists. What I would recommend is perhaps proposing a swap and arguing that a listed article is less vital to the project than Bevel, as opposed to a straight add. Aurangzebra (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Discuss

To the comments of NegativeMP1, you just don't know Bevel's work. He and King were the top-tier of the Civil Rights Movement. As to one specific where you misunderstand topic criteria, the Big Six were the six individuals who chaired the organizations who organized one event, the March on Washington. Bevel did not chair SCLC, that was Dr. King's job. Bevel's actions in the Birmingham campaign and Birmingham Children's Crusade actually were what made SCLC call the March on Washington. I was not aware of the 2024 discusion you linked to, and would have refuted them. Yes, people haven't heard of James Bevel as a household name, he is the most "hidden" major figure in American history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"You just don't know Bevel's work." What work? If anything, his "work" amounts to nothing more than American history trivia. Again, allow me to reiterate: MLK Jr. has 175 "interwikis", which is a very major factor that allows users active here to roughly estimate how relevant a subject is on a global level. Bevel has 7. Pageviews are another aspect many people look at: in the past month, MLK Jr. has had 717,000~ page views. Bevel has had barely 7,000. And you're arguing that both of them are on the same level of impact and importance to all of human history. A subject being a niche figure (which you admit to) in American history is not enough to be listed on a project meant to represent the whole world. Bevel is not important enough to be one of the 10,000 most influential people to have ever lived. And at V4, which you say you want him to be at, that would imply he is one of the 1,000 or so most important people of all time. λ NegativeMP1 04:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Bevel has not been focused on by major media as they focused on Dr. King. That doesn't mean that his contributions to American and world history are any less than Dr. King's. They were co-equals in the Civil Rights Movement. Bevel became the main strategist of the 1960-1962 student movement which was overtaking SCLC and the other organizations in accomplishments to complete their goal of removing legalizing segregation in the United States. In 1962 King called Bevel to meet him, and together they teamed up, with no restrictions on either's actions, for Bevel to move from strategizing and organizing within the student movement to run SCLC's nonviolent direct action activities. From then on King and Bevel went on to complete the task that they both agreed to work towards, resulting in the 1963, 1965, and 1968 Civil Rights Acts. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, just maybe, could it be that the reason textbooks and articles don't cover him is that he's not as important as you make him out to be? You seem to be relatively alone in thinking he is a co-equal to King. _pbp 13:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. To get into the reasons would be both original research and semi-guesswork, but, no. The sublime neglect of James Bevel in the media - his character wasn't even presented in a television or feature film until the 2014 film Selma - would be like asking why we are just now hearing about Thomas Jefferson, and is worthy itself of academic and cultural study. As for being alone in that opinion, although Thomas Ricks and David Garrow have hinted around and come close, that's why I haven't added it to the Civil Rights Movement article (but wouldn't remove it and would argue for its use there if someone else links the references). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Purplebackpack89, noticed it was you who initiated the discussion to remove Bevel from this list. May I ask why you did that, your initial reasoning? At the time did you realize that Bevel initiated, organized, directed, and taught nonviolence to the participants of SCLC's and the CRM's most successful and historically significant 1960s actions (the 1963 Birmingham Children's Crusade, the 1965 Selma Voting Rights Movement and its Selma to Montgomery march, the 1966 Chicago Open Housing Movement, in addition to his major work and accomplishments in the Nashville Student Movement, the Mississippi movement, and the anti-Vietnam war movement)? That you have a history degree should assist you in researching these and other facts about Bevel, then hopefully you may reconsider your opposition. As for the list, I see it includes Coretta Scott King. A wonderful woman, but far from the most important woman involved in the CRM (that would be Bevel's wife Diane Nash, followed by Ella Baker and Dorothy Cotton, and for early individual events, the duo of Claudette Colvin and the already included Rosa Parks). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  You can read the entire discussion right here. As I said there, I don't think he's one of the most important leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, certainly not an equal to MLK Jr. As Negative mentioned, he's not mentioned much in the Civil Rights Movement's Wikipedia article, nor the chapters devoted to civil rights in most textbooks. _pbp 13:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I don't think he's one of the most important leaders of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s". Seriously Purplebackpack89? Then who do you think initiated, directed, and organized the main Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s? As for the prior discussion, I don't see a discussion, just a few words. Maybe people trusted you as the nominator, I don't edit or follow the topics here. But thinking that Bevel wasn't a major figure in the CRM ignores historical fact. As for being equal to Dr. King in the movement, that goes to their roles. Dr. King was the public face of the movement, James Bevel was its strategist, director, and organizer. After his major successes in the student movement (major work in the Nashville sit-in, co-organized the continuation of the Freedom Rides, initiated and directed his Nashville Open Theater Movement, co-initiated and directed most of the Mississippi movement, etc.) and in Birmingham (his Birmingham Children's Crusade) he became SCLC's Director of Direct Action, and moved its successes from place to place (Selma, Chicago, then he and King joined the anti-Vietnam war movement). This is just starting to be a real discussion, if you'd like to continue, unlike the couple of sentences and incorrect good faith reasonings that you link to that removed Bevel from a level-5 designation. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC) edited and re-pinged from an earlier post

  Who do I think directed the Civil Rights Movement? Martin Luther King Jr.  4, A. Philip Randolph  5, Bayard Rustin  5, the third of which survived removal because the Rustin movie came out around the time of the nomination. Randolph in particular I consider more significant than Bevel; he was leading the March on Washington Movement when Bevel was about six years old, and I credit the integration of war industries and the Armed Forces primarily to him. _pbp 13:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Randolph is a towering figure in movement history, and should have his own statue somewhere in a prominent location. Bevel and King agreed on the movement's activities after Bevel joined SCLC, although both had independent freedom of action within it even after Bevel's SCLC partnership. A quote that sums up much of their working relationship comes when Bevel tried to talk King out of going to Memphis in 1968: King is quoted in Taylor Branch's 2006 At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965–1968 (2006) "You don't like to work on anything that isn't your own idea," King said, "Bevel, I think you owe me one." Randolph wanted to do the March on Washington, but its actual timeline placement came after Bevel was all set to march the children of Birmingham down the highway to Washington to talk to John Kennedy about ending legalized segregation, and that was the straw that gave the U.S. the outline and promise of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and for King and SCLC to join others calling for doing Randolph's long-anticipated D.C. event. Thanks for asking, I haven't done many of these discussions, although some, on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Aurangzebra, I'd ask you to consider striking much of your comment. I have never cited an unpublished work, have never been blocked for a COI, and as a subject matter expert on Bevel's 1960s history, there is no conflict of interest (a major difference on Wikipedia). I wouldn't have come to this page if I didn't know about Bevel's work and its importance to American history, the Civil Rights Movement, and his place as a nonviolent activist (equal to Gandhi, King, and I'd add Alice Paul). But I do know, and was quite surprised when finding out in 1983, for at the time I too had never heard of him. The reason I opened this discussion is that the article was at level 5, then removed by an editor who nommed the topic probably because they had not heard of James Bevel, followed by support for that nomination by editors who'd never heard of him. Fame is not a criteria of this list as far as I know. The public presence of Dr. King overshadows James Bevel's work - which is understandable and actually designed. King needed Bevel to initiate, direct, and organize the nonviolent direct actions of the movement that he was the public face of, and Bevel needed King as the public spokesperson of those events in order to achieve their agreed-upon goals. In any case, I think a striking of much of your comment is in order and, because of that misunderstanding, please consider doing a study of Bevel and his relationship to the Civil Rights Movement and maybe reconsider your oppose reasoning. As for substituting a name or six, pick any of them except for Dr. King and you'll be correct. But there is no need to strike any of them and I'd actually add Diane Nash, as the 1954-1968 Civil Rights Movement was important enough as a seismic societal shift to enable many individuals to be represented on such a listing. Thanks for bringing up your concerns, although please make sure they are accurate. (posted earlier but re-signed to edit and re-ping, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Carlwev, I'd ask that you please do a deeper dive into Bevel's history than a quick look at the discussion. Apparently adding and subtracting topics here require 60%, so you tipping the scales should at least, I would hope that you'd agree, come from a place of knowledge, study, and clarity about a subject. Maybe start with the Garrow quote linked just below. If you are uninterested in doing so, please reconsider commenting here? Those seem the fairest things to do, either way. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
• Another major quote. First, be aware that David Garrow is one of the two or three major Civil Rights Movement historians. Then read this 2015 statement by Garrow. In his statement he does not even mention Bevel's Birmingham Children's Crusade, which turned the Birmingham campaign from a running-out-of-gas protest into an iconic event in American and world history and in the history of activism (the topic of this discussion). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Do you mind not WP:BLUDGEONING both here and on other peoples talk pages? As I've already said on the latter page, my opinion on this matter is final, and I am almost certain the other editors who have voted oppose so far are in the same boat as I am. Thanks. λ NegativeMP1 17:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  NegativeMP1, this is a discussion, and to have a full discussion of such an important issue means adding information and continuing to refute opposing editors reasoning. Your opinion being final seems very premature to me and contrary to the presented facts. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  This goes back to something I said on my talk page: you are unwilling to take an oppose vote as a final answer, and you think that anybody who opposes lacks knowledge. I'm still very concerned that Bevel doesn't get much play in textbooks or even other Wikipedia articles (and a great deal of the play he DOES get was added by you yourself). And your comments haven't allayed my concerns.

  Furthermore, Randy, while you are the most knowledgeable about Bevel, you are the LEAST IMPARTIAL and MOST INVESTED.

  Finally, in regard to Garrow, I a) would not necessarily say that there are only three major Civil Rights historians, and b) didn't have to read his Wikipedia bio very far to find that one of the things he's most noted for is trying to discredit MLK Jr., something in part he did by crediting the movement to Bevel and not MLK. Garrow may be useful in certain ways, but the ONE area in which he seems to be the MOST problematic is weighing vitality of the various civil rights leaders. _pbp 04:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

  Had to read David Garrow's page to see what you meant, Bevel is not mentioned on it. Garrow's controversy seems to have occurred in the late 2010's, actually years after we last made contact (although he did suggest that Thomas Ricks use myself and my work as a Bevel source, which we worked on during his 2022 book). Garrow printed one of my 1983 papers in his 1989 series on the Civil Rights Movement, and allowed me to update it with an addendum, and then wrote that nice statement about Bevel in 2015. His expertise on the movement was unquestioned before he commented on the FBI report, which happened fairly recently.

Yes, I'm impartial as to Bevel's fitting the criteria as a level 5 activist who directly changed the course of world events. He did so. Am not as emotionally invested as it may look, just making a case for inclusion and will move on once this process ends (lots of Wikipedia discussions to choose from). No, Bevel is not in many textbooks (is he in any?) or even many older books which list prominent African-Americans. There are many ways to fall-through-the-cracks in coverage of American history, and one is to not self-promote. There are others, and he managed to go those routes too. A fascinating career from many angles (am still a bit amazed that his story is not better known, he could hide in plain sight like that exceptionally well). It takes more than a casual glance to appreciate the scope of Bevel's work and accomplishments, which is what I meant by "taking the time" above, but once you get it, and connect the dots of the events that Bevel initiated, directed, and led, his achievements become obvious. But it takes a bit of laying aside the general view that Dr. King did all the things he did plus has gotten credit, either consciously or unconsciously, for all of the things Bevel did. It was truly a top-tier partnership and collab, neither could have achieved what they did without the other but together they shaped, moved, and represented the Civil Rights Movement to its sought-for success: the end of legalized segregation in the United States. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging editors who voted to remove James Bevel from the level 5 activists list in the January 2024, as to offer them a reasoned discussion for keeping the listing (which did not occur at that time). I hope you take the time to read much of this discussion and consider joining in with questions if need be. Thanks Grnrchst, TonyTheTiger, lostn, Piotrus. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping, but I won't be getting involved in this discussion. I stopped regularly participating in the VA project in part because badgering was so endemic to the project culture, and that is the vibe I'm getting from this discussion as well. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but a loss to the topic. I may have crossed over into badgering while just intending to adequately discuss the nomination, my fault because I'm so sure that Bevel meets the main criteria: did his activism change the course of the world? He sometimes changed it from one day to the next. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't have strong opinion here, but thanks for the ping. If the nom would suggest who to replace him with, I would consider this, but right now I find the claim that he is comparable to King rather far-fetched. 7 interwikis means he has at least a bit of significance outside USA, so there's that. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Piotrus. The listing is about activists who changed the course of humanity, and the comparison to Dr. King was to accent Bevel's role in the Civil Rights Movement as being equal to King's if you count the people who actually strategized, organized, and ran the thing. Bevel and King worked in concert from 1962 onwards, after Bevel was asked by King to join SCLC. Leaving aside his pivotal roles in the student movement (which was why he was asked to take on the nonviolent direct action leadership positions of SCLC), Bevel initiated, directed, and organized the major activist SCLC events of the Civil Rights Movement (Birmingham Children's Crusade, the 1965 Selma movement, the Selma to Montgomery march, the Open Housing movement), actions which led directly to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, the 1965 Voting Rights Bill, and the 1968 Fair Housing bill. You don't get more profound activist achievements than those. I will not pick out a name to be removed, although nobody on the level 5 activist list except for Dr. King came even close to being responsible for evolving the goals of the Civil Rights Movement, initiating and directing its defining events, and achieving its successes, than James Bevel. Not my Wikipedia style to advocate adding a name to a list if it means having to nominate someone for removal. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

To the regulars, please assist with asking Aurangzebra to strike their misinformation in their 'oppose' comment. I've asked them to do so maybe five or six times, with no response. NegativeMP1, Purplebackpack89, Carlwev, GeogSage, TonyTheTiger, and Piotrus, you seem to be regulars here, and should be able to assist in at least asking. Is there a precedent for this type of wrongful wording? "You seem to have had several conflict of interest warnings and blocks and have been accused multiple times of using your own unpublished work on Bevel's article" is incorrect in that I've had no blocks for COI (and am actually a subject matter expert on the topic, seemingly disregarded in this type of voting) and have never used unpublished work on Bevel's article. Repeating another editor's mistakes to justify an 'oppose' comment, and then leaving those mistakes in public view as fact, seems a core of 'casting aspersions'. It is a response to the nomination which seems amateur hour. Even editors schooled in history should not be so needlessly uninformed of historical facts when making such a decision. Leaving aspersions after being asked to remove them, and trying to disparage another editor's off-site work with falsehoods, should not exist or be accepted on Wikipedia. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I will not be deleting my comments. You have been called out on numerous threads (best example here [1]) and you refuse to accept the consensus verdict that you have COI and you have used inappropriate sources written by yourself. This has already been litigated. I usually avoid targeting an editor based on the contents of previous edit history but this is directly connected to why you keep badgering other editors on this proposal who have now made a decision on this person twice so I felt compelled to bring this up. Aurangzebra (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

"This person" was at the center of what has been called the 'Second American Revolution'. No, my status as a subject matter expert is clear, which you would realize had you read the entire archive (already been litigated, in my favor. If you dug deeper you'd find that the editor who was most vocal that I was a COI did so because she did not like Bevel's total life story, or that he was not famous, and objected to my adding his name to a logical location). Have never used an inappropriate source, my own or otherwise, and have no COI (I've been very careful in editing Bevel's 1960s actions and events, where my recognized expertise exists). Aurangzebra, you say in your "oppose" comment that I have been blocked for a COI, which is incorrect, and by not striking that portion you are, to put it mildly, doubling down on a lie (in Wikipedia speak that would be somewhere way on one end of the "casting aspersions" spectrum), which I would again ask you to strike. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

As a gesture of goodwill, I will strike out that part of my oppose. I still don't think Bevel is quite VA5 but I will remove that part of my comment since I don't want to do a deep dive into the outcome of that conversation. Aurangzebra (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Another note to fill in historical details not mentioned above. James Bevel, who became the strategist and architect of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, organized and ran the 1961 Nashville Open Theater Movement which ended in allowing African-Americans to sit anywhere in the theater and not confined to the balcony. The formative meetings of SNCC chose opening theaters as a nationwide goal, and activists throughout the United States were supposed to organize these events in their own city. But only Bevel did so, and worked up a successful nonviolent movement in Nashville where "protesters" stood in line at the film theater's ticket booth, asked for a ticket, were denied, said "Thank you", and went to the end of the line to nonviolently que up again and ask a further time. They were eventually attacked by local citizens, and the movement fulfilled its goal.

As this request will likely be closed soon, I'd point out that besides the two 'supports', there are four 'opposes'. One is based on an impossibility - that Bevel, who was not SCLC's chairman, somehow should have been defined and listed as chairman to become a member of the Big Six. One is based on nothing. Another (or arguably all four) on not understanding Bevel's role in the movement and history and that yes, it fits the activist criteria here. One mentions that they think that Bevel was not equal to King in the movement, which actually has nothing to do with if he meets the criteria. One literally makes up a fact, that I have been blocked for COI at some point, a claim with no basis and still appearing after repeated requests to strike. All four create the false impression that James Bevel does not "rise" to the standard of a level-5 activist, arguably bordering-on-the-absurd in the face of the presented and unrefuted evidence and based on the above demonstratively incorrect assertions. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

African film scholar who "contributed significantly to the study of black film".

Support

1. As nom. Makkool (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
2. Art / culture theorists are under Social Scientists, which still needs to be topped up. No need to overthink it. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Current bio does not get me to say vital.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
2. Doesn't say "vital" to me either _pbp 00:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral

Discuss

The Miscellaneous category is still under the limit. I propose Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg to a subcategory Victims. Wife of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, shot during the Sarajevo assassination along with the Archduke. (47 iw)

Support

1. --109.81.95.217 (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

1. There is others of victims with more or the same amount of language links that are not listed such as:
   • Edward V (64) - recently removed (though Princes in the Tower is listed)
   • Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia (60)
   • Zoran Đinđić (55)
   • George Floyd (50)
   • Alexei Nikolaevich, Tsarevich of Russia (47)
   • Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia (47)
   • Paweł Adamowicz (47)

   Some other people I found with less language links who could potentially be listed include:

   • James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray - first head of government to be assassinated with a firearm
   • Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet - senior British army officer
   • Alexander I of Serbia - King of Serbia
   • Pierre Laporte - Canadian politician killed during the October Crisis
   • Carlos Prats - Chilean army officer
   • Hanns Martin Schleyer - German business magnate

   -- Sahaib (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

2. Weak oppose, the representation of victims angle is interesting. I'm not sure about listing her (or even Franz Ferdiand to be honest) especially since we already list the much deeper, historical Causes of World War I article. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss