Talk:Protocol of Corfu

Untitled
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.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.

The absolute majority of the source comfirm Boechk. For example: Kristo Frasheri [] who is Albanian and Stickney [].

Suppose Pearson wanted to say that it was never implemented.Alexikoua (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

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. --SulmuesLet's talk 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This one []? There is also this []Alexikoua (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)