Content deleted Content added
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
Line 112: Hello IP. You posted the following in a discussion on my talkpage after I reverted your edit:<br>{{tq|You invoked the fact that the quotation was too long, but removed my edit as a whole. I will adjust my edit and cut the quote short since it's true that it's too long. I saw there are many attempts from [[Turkophile]]s users to remove my content since it s regarded as offensive. But this is Wikipedia, so truth shall prevail. I suggest enabling an edit protection on the page in the future.}}<br>I did not remove the quotation only because it is too long but because it is a quotation of a primary source. I cited the policy [[WP:PRIMARY]], which states, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources." It goes on to say that secondary sources are preferred in most cases but that primaries can be used with care. The Greek source that you cite is primary and needs evaluation by secondary sources. Do scholars and historians straightforwardly state that Radu was raped? Or do they question this primary account because of other contemporary sources (or archaeology, etc.)? Babinger makes it clear that he was attracted to some young men (already included in the article), but the added detail in the primary source needs to affirmed by secondary sources.<br>I am no expert in Ottoman history, and I do not get the "final word" in this discussion (nor do I want it), so I am definitely open to discussion, but I am reverting to the stable version of the article. Finally, please make any further posts related to the article on this talkpage rather than my personal talkpage so that other regular editors can see it and weigh in.--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 22:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC) :Some common ground perhaps: It occurs to me that it would be helpful to have access to Babinger and Hanak to see exactly what they say on this subject (I used to have the Babinger book but had to return it). Currently, the wording about his "passion" for young noblemen seems euphemistic and could perhaps be worded more clearly. Any new wording should not rely on only a primary source, though, for a contentious claim such as this.--[[User:MattMauler|MattMauler]] ([[User talk:MattMauler|talk]]) 22:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC) ::I have to admit that this rape claims are very little discussed in any secondary sources. At the same time I think the part of [[WP:PRIMARY]] that you quoted refers when someone wants to make a factual statement. I didn't intend to say that the rape story is a fact that was checked. Otherwise my edit would've sounded like "Mehmed is known to have raped...", instead I wrote "Some Greek sources suggest". There is a big difference between these 2. In the 1st case the fact that needs to be checked is the alleged rape, in the 2nd case, the fact that needs to be checked is Greek rumours about Mehmed involvement in a rape. I didn't make an assessment on the primary source, I only wrote about it's existence which is proved by the written text itself. To make a parallel I think my case is like quotes from Bible: you don't need to have secondary sources telling you whether what's written in Bible really happened, but rather only quote it not as a fact, but only with the intent of speaking of its existence.--[[Special:Contributions/213.233.110.242|213.233.110.242]] ([[User talk:213.233.110.242|talk]]) 00:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC) | |||