Talk:Doamna Marica Brâncoveanu

Source
Here's an authoritative secondary source which speaks in detail about Brâncoveanu's finances and establishes beyond doubt that he was the sole administrator of his finances. I don't want to get into details, because I could cite dozens of secondary academic studies and biographies which treat the issue and do not mention her as an administrator of the family fortunes:

Editor discretion is ours and we don't have to include false info from dubitable tertiary sources. Regards, --Mihai (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, excellent, but the thing is: you don't have to erase references information you don't agree with: instead, put in your own, referenced information as well, and let both stand in the article, so that the readers can form their own opinion. Your info contradicts the info already in the article: that is fine. Let them both be there, as they are both referenced. That is common in scientific articles. Wikipedia is not about taking sides. I will put back the deleted text with the references, and what you do, is to put in yours as well, and reference it with your own, writing, for example: "However, this is contradictory to the biography of Țighiliu, who explains that X managed his own economy". That's fine. No one really has the energy to argue and fight here - at least not me - but it is best to be neutral, so referenced information should not be removed, because Wikipedia should not take sides. Thanks! PS: I really don't have the energy to argue, so I won't fight here, but please, just try to be neutral. --Aciram (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, I did it myself! No we don't have to argue about this any more. Have a good day! --Aciram (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No you don't understand: all researchers on the finances of Brâncoveanu contradict this false information put forward by your source; Brâncoveanu is well known to have administered his finances himself, that's why he was called voievod itinerant. You put forward a biographical entry in a compendium written by a person not specialised in Brâncoveanu (he hasn't written anything notable on Brâncoveanu, and I can say that because I have read almost everything written on him), which contains a false claim, not supported by the persons who have actually studied the subject in depth. That information is bogus and can't be kept, the least presented as if there were a controversy between historians.--Mihai (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Doubt?...
Hello. In the text - "She was eventually released, and exiled to Kutai, near the eastern shore of the Black Sea." - Should the Georgian city of Kutaisi be meant? At that time Kutaisi was really conquered by the Ottomans. Fiqriasidamonize — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiqriasidamonize (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)