Talk:London Conference of 1912–1913

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the London Conference of 1912–1913 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics 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.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albania High‑importance

	London Conference of 1912–1913 is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kosovo High‑importance

	London Conference of 1912–1913 is part of WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.KosovoWikipedia:WikiProject KosovoTemplate:WikiProject KosovoKosovo articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help!

Cross reference/See Also to "Partition_of_Albania"?

Should there be a cross-reference to the "Partition_of_Albania" article? It has maps scuh as those being requested here. It provides relevant context ot this article. Anthonypeterscott (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How the treaty is regarded by parties

It order to understand the consequences of a treaty or of a historical act, it is a practice in encyclopedias to inform the readers how the parties affected by such treaties view them. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is a classical example. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement#Consequences_of_the_agreement (Edvin (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

That may be so, but in that case it has to be properly sourced by reliable sources. Please read WP:HISTRS. Then present your sources here in the talk page and try to create a consensus. Repeatedly inserting your version without consensus is called edit war, please read WP:EDITWAR carefully. --T*U (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edvini: You may not have noticed my last note here. I asked you to read WP:HISTRS and then present your sources here in the talk page for discussion. Instead you have again entered a new version of the same entry that has been challenged, with a source that is far away from meeting the criteria for reliable sources.

Owen Pearson, whom you bring as a source, is not a historian and has no academic or scholarly training. According to the publisher he is a "private scholar", whatever that might be. He is a retired school teacher who is so obscure that I have not been able to find any other biography than the one presented in his three books "Albania in the Twentieth Century". He was born in 1919, but I have not even been able to find out if he is still alive. His best qualification seems to be that he was a personal friend of King Zog's secretary. Please read WP:HISTRS again, and then see if you can find any justification for using this source.

Even if your source had been acceptable, it would still not be proper to use your formula "which is to be regarded as the greatest injustice against the Albanian nation". One reliable source could be enough to support simple historical fact like dates, places, names. But to support an exceptional claim like "the greatest injustice", you would need to show a consensus among scholars. If you should use one single source for such a claim, it would have to be formulated like "historian X has called this the grestest injustice" or "scholar Y maintains that this is the greatest injustice" or similar. I do not think "hobby historian and retired school teacher Z says that..." would quite meet the mark.

To familiar yourself with Wikipedia procedures, you should read WP:BRD. When you have done that, I suggest that you self revert. Then you go digging for better sources and present your suggested addition and the sources here in the talk page. Then you might even get help. Wikipedia is a community project based on co-operation between editors. Edit war is the exact opposite. --T*U (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London Conference of 1912–13. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.albanianhistory.net%2Ftexts20_1%2FAH1913_2.html&date=2011-02-11 to http://www.albanianhistory.net/texts20_1/AH1913_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]