User talk:80.189.135.100

In fact, secondary sources are preferred at Wikipedia. Meaning that Prof. Loud's translation is a better source than the original Latin, although you are free to quote the original with his translation (or your own, if you can't access his). But why, in any event, should the Takayama citation be removed? It's useful, and should therefore stay. Are you saying that it does not say what it is cited to support? (In which case, why did you add it?) The point is that at Wikipedia going from a late 20th-century scholar to a late 19th-century edition of a 12th-century primary source is not an upgrade, since we don't do original research. —Srnec (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)