Talk:Protocol of Corfu
|Protocol of Corfu has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on May 17, 2012 and May 17, 2014.|
The way this is stated, "The Albanian Government signed on May 17" and then "The Albanian Government ratified on June 1", makes me think that the writer of this article has no good sources to back up any claims that the Government of Albania ever granted any autonomy to these "Epirotes" from Crete . sulmues --Sulmues 20:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You don't believe that albanianhistory.net is what we call wp:rs here right? This part is cited. If you don't understand German you are free to ask me, it's in page 116 -first and second paragraph-.
So, we have here a treaty signed in Corfu by a Commission (May 17). Every treaty needs then to be ratified by the involved Governments (here Albania: June 23). See also Treaty_ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for kindly offering to translate and for bringing the page. I am very familiar with German and your source indeed says that. However Katrin Boeckh, the author, this time has missed the target completely. Furthermore your Boeckh source is 1995 and in German. I will provide you another source: Owen Pearson “Albania and King Zog: independence, republic and monarchy 1908-1939” page 64 () that is 2004 and in English thereby superior and more reliable per wp:rs and claims the opposite, which is exactly what I suspected: No Albanian government has EVER signed on that protocol. Neither has the Greek party for that matter.
- I will quote from his book:
- The Great Powers insisted however that autonomous Epirus should be part of the Kingdom of Albania. The Epirots nominally recognized King William as their legal sovereign and sent deputies to the Albanian Parliament, but the concessions which the Albanian government was persuaded to make granted them a completely autonomous existence. Yet the Protocol of Corfu, the product of great crisis and confusion, was not ratified by any of the parties concerned. Sir Harry Lamb, the British Ambassador of the Commission of Control, described the agreement as based on nothing real and felt that its ultimate destination was certain to be the scrap-heap.
- As a result, I would kindly ask you if you agree that I make the appropriate change in this article (and the articles related to it) to show that the Protocol of Corfu has never been ratified by any for of any government thereby it has never existed. Per definition of “treaty” in the reference that you brought above, “the treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified”. As this treaty has never been ratified per source, this article should reflect it properly. Best! sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 13:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
If you read the preface this work is the definition of [tertiary source]. Not to mention that Pearson was Zog's best friend.
This one []?
- Touche', I didn't know: good job, you taught me a couple of things. However we have to state that the Albanian Government did that because they were under duresse, i.e. they wanted to protect the Albanian population from the Greek attacks. That's how Frasheri states it at least, and it would make sense because Greece was then a much bigger country and their attacks and village burning had raised lots of concerns in the weak Albanian government of that time. sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 12:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I forgot to say that Kristo Frasheri isn't npov. On the contrary, if someone reads, for example a Greek historian of that time, like Nicholas Cassavetis [] will realize that the village burning was done by the Albanians. My point here is that pov stuff from both sides has no place here and neutral material is much more suitable as per wp:rs.Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
[This] link works fine to me. What's quite weird is that [this] although it seems to be the same it leads to nowhere. If there is still some kind of problem with the specific pdf file, the document is also available in googlebooks (I can give this link too)Alexikoua (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I've repaired a specific link [] (this uni should perform a major renovation in its site). I believe everything's ok now. Quite weird, it seems that the old url had a "/" more, suppose this was the reason that it lead to something irrelevant. Anyway, now it's 100% fixed20:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I still can't download that pdf. --Let's talk 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Protocol of Corfu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I feel I don't quite know enough about the subject to judge coverage on this one. What I can say is that the coverage is adequate if the Protocol is a relatively minor part of Greek/Albanian history. Is the Protocol only that? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll check the relevant bibliography if some additional interesting details can be added, but in general the Protocol played a decisive role in G/A relations acoording to the treatment of the Greek community in Albania. An expantion of the 'Legacy' section may be a good option to prove that.Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Coverage is much better. Some references need more details, if possible (#12, #22). I'm also struggling to understand the sentence As a consequence, Greek education was limited and for a time virtually eliminated (1934-1935).) (That ought to be a dash, not a hyphen, in any case.) One source says "Thus, all Greek schools were closed" which would seem to support your statement, but the other says "The Albanian Government, however, waived its insistence on the use of Albanian as the medium of instruction in Greek schools...". The two seem very different. How can those two things both be correct, and, if they require a certain nuance, might this be well placed in the article? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- How does the The Albanian Government, however, waived its insistence on the use of Albanian as the medium of instruction in Greek schools here fit into that? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm away for a week from tomorrow, but do work on making the prose clear:
- initially unable to achieve an agreement "initially"? was this only ended by the Protocol? Did they eventually achieve another solution?
- Zografos proposed three main solutions "proposed"? To whom? In what forum?
- Soon however, to avoid direct confrontation this, with the above point, it's a bit unclear what the process was. Were Albania and Greece talking directly before the Commission? If not, what is this "International Commission discussions" an alternative to?
- proceed to negotiations and reach an agreement do you mean "join negotiations"? They can't have "asked" him to reach an agreement; they might have hoped, but at this stage it doesn't sound like they have a particular solution in mind. They just want him to think about it.
- extension of the area in which the Greek population will enjoy certain educational rights in the regions around Vlorë and Durrës – where does this region come from? also the grammar's off, you mean "would" rather than "will". What sort of rights? Are they linked to the teaching in Greek, etc. mentioned in the next section?
- Christian Orthodox – do you mean Orthodox Christian? Perhaps more specifically Greek Orthodox?
- Additional demands - additional to what? Merely peace?
- three first classes what does this mean? what is a "first" or "second" class?
- the Ottoman-era privileges were renewed we haven't had these mentioned before. Either run them in with another sentence here or as part of the background.
- Great Power You mean "Great Powers", I think.
- the area Northern Epirus?
- provisional government which provisional government? I'm assuming a Northern Epirote one within Albania, maybe the Panepirotic Assembly of Delvino, but you haven't said.
- finally ignored - "finally" doesn't sound right; you might say "finally put in place" in another context but "finally ignored" is odd. "Discarded" or "not followed" perhaps.
- Tendencies - tendencies? that would mean that particular people had a "tendency". Perhaps you mean "Efforts" or something similar, although it would still be clearer to say among whom. Where these among Northern Epirote natives? At the League of Nations? In Greece?
- often grounded on different positions. sounds interesting. Is there something mroe we could add? What is their argument, exactly? Is it that it didn't happen. or has been resigned to the past, or said something else?
- I made a change to clarify something that was said in the lead, but not in the article's body: that the Protocol of Corfu was defunct legally (at least internationally) with the entrance of Albania in the League of Nations in 1921. Hope no problems with that. Bolerodancer (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the prose again too thorough (looks much better), but some references need tidying:
- Ref #12 could do with the year added (and anything else relevant, but nothing springs to mind).
- Ref #13 belongs on the file description page.
- Ref #17 you mean "p." although this still leaves some in the the "x: y" format and some "p."
- Ref #19 needs a lot more information, which might be helped by more standard formatting.
- Ref #27 and #29 are the same.
- Ref #30 needs more information. (And should be in title case.)
- Not sure I follow, the authors, publisher, year, title, page number and ISBN are all included. What's missing? Athenean (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ref #35 you mean "p."; also 34 and 35 are the same work but referenced completely differently, I think (I don't know whether I've suggested a template. You don't have to use them, but some semblance of consistency is necessary to ensure understandability). Page references should use (en)dashes, not hyphens.
- Some google books links still include "&dq" sections which mean I get the search terms you used to find them.
- Colons don't have spaces before them these days and they should be removed; similarly, even if the original work incorrectly used a hyphen for date ranges in the title work these should be correct to dashes.
- I'm passing the article: there are still small inconsistencies in the referencing (compare 18 and 27, for example) but these are minor and don't really impede the reader. I believe the other things have been sorted satisfactorily, although they are GA standard they are close to the boundary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)