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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
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
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
OK, this article should by rights have been created over at Conquest of Adrianople by the Turks in the first place, but since it is better-developed (although it relies solely on the Turkish viewpoint and almost ignores the whole controversy on who and when did what) and better-named I suggest we merge the histories of both articles here. Constantine ✍ 15:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. In merging the biggest problem is the history-loss of one of the articles. That’s why I am rather hesitant. I am not sure how we can merge the histories. I also want to add the following.
I didn't know the existence of the other (long-name) article when I created this article.
In the rationale It is hinted that the story reflects Turkish POV. The concept of the article is rather limited, no philosophical, religious or nationalistic discussion. How can it reflect a POV ? There may be an uncertainity only on the exact date of capture and nothing more.
This is WP. Everybody can edit. If there are too few sources, everybody (including the proposer) can add the missing sources. (By the way, I noticed that although the proposer has made a substantial change in the lede he hasn’t sourced his edits.)
I don’t think 1361 is controversial. This date is given as 1361 in non Turkish sources also. (For example in Agoston and Masters, p. 196 which the proposer has suggested) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just to be clear and address some apparent misunderstandings, there was an AfD on this issue with the article I've proposed to be merged here, which resulted from a discussion at my talk page. It seems pretty clear that the date of the city's conquest is under heavy dispute, and that 1361 represents not the Turkish POV, but the Turkish narrative version of events, whereas Byzantine and other sources paint a totally different picture.Constantine ✍ 02:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
