Talk:The New Europe/Volume 9/Albania and Greece

Edit history on en.Wikipedia
* (cur) (last) 22:35, 19 July 2005 Stevertigo * (cur) (last) 19:04, 13 May 2005 SimonP (no longer on VfD, should be moved to wikibooks) * (cur) (last) 04:04, 23 April 2005 GoHawks4 * (cur) (last) 04:03, 23 April 2005 GoHawks4 * (cur) (last) 20:42, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:41, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:40, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:38, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:37, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:35, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia * (cur) (last) 20:35, 4 April 2005 Navisliburnia

VfD on en.Wikipedia
 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - should be transwikied - SimonP 19:04, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Albania and Greece
Tagged a week back by a newbie, but no subpage was ever created or listed. Looks like blatant original research or copyvio, and a horrible name anyway. --Dmcdevit 00:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Or possibly transwiki to Wikisource if it can be verifiably dated back to the early 20th century, before Albania's independence from the Ottoman Empire, which is how it reads. --Angr/comhrá 02:27, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikisource. Don't know the provenance of the article, but accoriding to Google, Ronald M. Burrows was wrting books in 1908, so this is probably our of copyright.  RickK 05:15, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not original research as such but it is a POV opinion piece before the Balkan Wars. Not inherently encyclopaedic. Megan1967


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Edit history on en.Wikibooks
* (cur) (last) 05:08, 26 January 2006 Robert Horning (Providing direct link for Ronald Burrows) * (cur) (last) 17:07, 23 January 2006 Robert Horning (Making into a VfD) * (cur) (last) 02:04, 21 October 2005 Derbeth m (correct revert, + ) * (cur) (last) 02:01, 21 October 2005 Derbeth m (Reverted edit of 70.240.180.62, changed back to last version by 62.103.227.8) * (cur) (last) 22:32, 20 October 2005 70.240.180.62 * (cur) (last) 22:14, 18 August 2005 62.103.227.8 * (cur) (last) 15:38, 19 July 2005 SV

Albania and Greece
I've been bored lately, and decided to open the manhole on the orphaned module supply that is seemingly inexaustable for trouble. This particular module was previously on Wikipedia where there is now a redirect to Wikibooks but otherwise no link here at Wikibooks from a mis-worked transwiki. I found out it was a transwiki due to a Google search on a suspected copyright violation, not because of any comments about the article.

The Wikipedia VfD can be found here and IMHO this clearly also violates WB:WIN in several ways. I also suspect it is a copyright violation, but because of the fact this was earlier a Wikipedia article, Google shows a bunch of hits from Wikipedia mirrors and I am having a hard time trying to find where the text of this module originally came from. Any hints for some suggestions as to if this is a copyright violation would be appreciated. I think it needs to simply be deleted, but I'm leaving this open to a community concensus. --Rob Horning 00:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - A very personal account. Doesn't seem to really fit here, especially due to the point of view in which it's written. Someone's copy and paste that probably exists deep on a news site somewhere. -Matt 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If it was published before 1923, then it is likely to be public domain in the United States, and one might be able to transwiki it to Wikisource. --Kernigh 07:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on context within the document, although I can't directly find a date, I would guess that this was written shortly after World War I or just after 1920. That is pushing the copyright boundary, but it is likely to be legal to keep, at least on Wikisource.  A transwiki seems to me to be a fairly good idea, but I don't want to give grief to Wikisource to have to go through a thrid VfD to finally kill this once and for all.  --Rob Horning 13:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are truely the dumping grounds for Wikibooks trash, aren't we.  I don't see that even Wikisource would want this (nearly?) 100 year old class lecture.  I don't see either current relevance, literary interest, or historical interest.  --JMRyan 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep! This is a wonderful, if boring and pedantic, article that captures the tone of the dialogues that occurred in the early part of the twentieth century concerning nation formation from the remains of the Ottoman Empire!  Perhaps some here are not interested in this work, but others are! It isn't often that we find a (nearly?) 100 year old class lecture that illustrates so nicely the intellectual tone of its era.
 * Exactly, it's an "artical", and not a book. wikibooks is not a dumping a ground for rubbish that doesn't fit on other projects. If we can't transwiki this one to wikipedia, then it should be deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That it is a 100 year old lecture should also make it something for Wikisource, not Wikibooks. Wikisource preserves historical documents, Wikibooks creates new book-length documents, and Wikipedia deals with most of the shorter treatments of a general topical nature.  BTW, I want to thank that anonymous contributor for providing a link to the article's author, which documents that the article is indeed in the public domain due to the life+75 year clause and that it was likely to have been published prior to 1920.--Rob Horning 12:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

this is a pathetic article. Given when it was created this is what it is basically what the powers like britain and italy who had an interest there were saying: "We, too, believe in the creation of an independent Albania"

when no push from the albanians existed in any form; hence why the italians and british thought they could be "the guarantor powers"

"it may be necessary that for some considerable time help and guidance should be given from outside."

"Neither Yugoslavia nor Greece would be the best trustee for the young Albania." (But as we all know... France, Austria, Italy were LOL)

"We have even heard of eminent Athenian anthropologists who have been reluctant to compare ancient with modern sculls because of the differences of type they might disclose!"

Now this I trully enjoy.. Unfortunately we don't have a date on this article, but the change in mentality obviously didn't take that long since we allegedly were 'relluctant' to preform any kind of comparison, but Carleton Coon in 1939, Lawrence Angel in 1944 and Earnest Hooton, weren't.. and they' re conclusions would make dear ol' Ronald turn in his grave...

Should we start allowing any peice of politicised propaganda on wikipedia? this article should not be viewed as historical but as political. Even today it gives many opinions and implications which are highly political

This is NOT the kind of thing which belongs on wikipedia. Possibly have a link to an original source down the page but to have this article; especially under the ambigious title "Albania and Greece" is an absolute disgrace


 * It's a pity we have no exact reference to the issue of The New Europe in which this appeared. It was almost certainly 1918 or 1919: see D. Kitsikis, Propagande et pressions en politique internationale (Paris, 1963) p. 194. The author, Ronald Burrows, was a founder of the Anglo-Hellenic League and usually wrote to support the Greek viewpoint. -- Andrew Dalby 83.203.109.103 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)