Content deleted Content added
Isa Alcala (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 49:
:::Thanks for your response. I was looking through some of the links you provided and found some things that I found interesting. "History as an academic discipline is based on primary sources", " Arthur Marwick says "Primary sources are absolutely fundamental to history."" and "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". If we look at the pages you provided us I think it shows that primary sources are not banned. If they are interpretations we must consult secondary sources. However, what was posted was not an interpretation. Retransmitting what these historians said without adulterating their text is not wrong. Since interpretations were not made we need not consult secondary sources. Also I would like to say that Baibars did not write these books, but historians did.[[User:Isa Alcala|Isa Alcala]] ([[User talk:Isa Alcala|talk]]) 21:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
MapMaster, I think you are confused or something. We are just quoting what every one said whether Mamluk historians or modern historians. We are not concluding anything. Again I tell you that Mamluk historians included Baibars in the conspiracy. They differed about the act itself. Modern historians took it over and each selected his version. We are telling that that is all . I think all the case you are thinking Muslim historians said Baibars not took part but the western historians said no he took part. Sorry this is not the case, It is not a racial conflict my friend. Muslim historians both Mamluks and modern said Basibars was involved. Western historians took it over. We only telling about the versions. I hope you understood now. By the way do not keep saying primary sources are banned. Wikipedea only means that you should not build conclusions upon primary sources and that is correct. Some western historians can not even read Mamluk names so should we write the wrong names which they wrote ! Again, I should remind you that David Tschanz is not a historian but studied history and works for an oil company in Saudia Arabia. his version is based on story of Ibn Khaldun ( probably you do not know that. ). That is all ok but there are a few other versions so do not keep stuck to one version just because Tschanz quoted it . :) [[User:Samsam22|Samsam22]] ([[User talk:Samsam22|talk]]) 21:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
| |||