Which past tense is supposed to be used in historical accounts? After learning about the difference between the -di and -miş forms, the former to be used for direct observations and the latter for reported events, I assumed that the reported past would be used for most historical accounts, since the people writing about them didn't personally observe them. But, to verify that, I looked at a history article on Wikipedia, and it uses the direct past. If that's normal, then I guess "reported past" is misleadingly broad. What, in that case, are the limitations on the use of that tense?