Talk:Corfu Channel incident

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Corfu Channel incident 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

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Albania Low‑importance

	Corfu Channel incident 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: United Nations / Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: Maritime / Balkan / British / European / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

A fact from Corfu Channel incident appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 August 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,593 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Corfu Channel Incident, involving the United Kingdom and Albania, is considered one of the early episodes of the Cold War?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/August.

Wikipedia

Albanian view[edit]

I couldn't see anything in the section that was added on the Albanian view that wasn't already mentioned in the article anywya. If I missed something, I think it would be better to incorporate at the appropriate point in the chronology, rather than have a section itn he middle which talks about the same events with a different spin. David Underdown (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is not a 'He said"-"She said" mystery novel. All the info you redacted was in the article already. No need to recompile it, repackage it and rename it. Good call. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology is fine by me. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thank you very much. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will! Stupidus Maximus (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I entered something about the Albanian view, please see my contribution here.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huge footnote[edit]

Not really sure what the purpose of the huge footnote is... AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It saves the reader from going to the citation, opening the file (often many pages and paragraphs long) and searching for the info through key-words in order to verify the facts as presented in the article or even worse sometimes the reader adds "citation needed" tags in the article when s/he cannot find the information. Here the information is all in one place at the end of the article and everyone can check it in-situ without having to open multiple browsers and check for specific sections in large files. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the first citation from the Australian Journal of Legal History is 33 pages long. Without adding the excerpts from the article one had to read all 33 pages to find out if we transcribed correctly the facts presented in the document. Meanwhile since the document is so long any editor could write anything they want and still cite the document, in the hope that no one will bother to check. By adding the verbatim section in the citation, transparency is greatly enhanced and everyone is on the same page, metaphorically speaking. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other times, an important fact is hiding in an obscure sentence amongst thousands of surrounding words. Good luck to the reader trying to verify it. By adding its exact quote, luck is eliminated as a factor and verifiability (WP:V), one of our core policies, gets a boost. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A better option is to just cite to the specific page containing the material being referenced. In fact, the excessive verbatim quotations used here likely violate the non-free content criteria. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR links in the External links section[edit]

Both links lead to screens saying that indicates "preview or purchase options not available", which I take to mean that they are not available for free. The titles of the articles attached to these link do seem relevant, are there any non-pay links available? IMHO (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly they're just short book reviews of, respectively, a published thesis (which I haven't seen) and Leslie Gardiner's (almost polemical) book. My preference would be to roll the books themselves into a further reading section along the lines of what I put in Corfu Channel case. If you're interested in the books themselves, The Eagle Spreads His Claws can be found via OCLC 1657613, while Legal Problems in the Corfu Channel Incident can be found via OCLC 11481193. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 research by Ana Lalag, Cold War International History Project[edit]

A reading of research by Ana Lalaj of the Woodrow Wilson Institute could throw further light on, and give richer context to this article. I suggest that future contributions include reference to the research of Ana Lalag of The Cold War International History Project (CWIHP). See Working Paper No. 70, Burning Secrets of the Corfu Channel Incident, Sept 2014, Ana Lalag. Simon Baddeley (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Simon Baddeley (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corfu Channel incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 21:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corfu Channel incident. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20091229215333/http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/CorfuChannel.pdf to http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/CorfuChannel.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 04:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation removed[edit]

I have removed as a citation a link to https://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/hms_ocean_1945.htm . I considered it to be not a reliable source but I have been corrected on that. However, either way, I don't see it as a suitable citation as it does not prove anything in the text that surrounds it. Indeed, the only mention of Corfu on the page (which is mostly photographs) is a photograph of the ship which may or may not have been taken in Corfu. I would suggest that if the link belongs anywhere it would be in the External Links section of the article about the ship. --kingboyk (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kingboyk. I agree with your rationale and I don't have any further problem with your edit. As far as including the link at the EL section, I am not sure about that. Perhaps, if it has any value regarding the identification of the ships that took part in the incident, it can be included. Dr. K. 01:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.K. Thank you for considering (and accepting) my rationale and coming over to the talk page to discuss it. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kingboyk for your kind words, your great edit, and for opening this discussion. It was very nice talking to you. Cheers. Dr. K. 03:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian naval ensign[edit]

Hello I have a question. According to the Wikipedia page Albanian Naval Force the naval ensign was different at the time of the incident than the one shown on the infobox. So I wanted to ak if it should be changed or it has another reason for this „mistake“? Grizi fu (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]