Talk:Chateau des Amerois

Belgium Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Use of Springmeier's writing for reference purposes is not a breach of copyright[edit]

I dont believe the use of the quote is in copyright violation. Most of the quotes on the internet come from Springmeier's book. I beleive it to be under the quota and spirit of reasonable fair use.--Vaderspuppy (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the German documentary where victims have told and spoke about what happened within the castle? why isn't this in the article? iT HAS more proof then by an theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.205.33 (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RELIABLE. I'm not judging the accuracy of the documentary but there are standards of sourcing on Wikipedia that all articles must meet. Maybe nobody who's watched it has ever attempted to use it to back up those claims and include them in the article? That's a possibility too. Let me just say this: the Dutroux case does make you think a little bit outside of the box. Sol505000 (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This building is infamous.[edit]

This is probably one of the most famous castles in Belgium to the outside world because of its ties to criminal cases yet there is no mention of any of that in the article? Is that not an important component to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.67.240 (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Dutroux case, right? If it's confirmed that he abused children in this castle then we should probably add it. If it remains a conspiracy theory, then we may as well add it (or related conspiracy theories) as long as it's sourced and not given WP:UNDUE weight. It shouldn't be too hard to dig up some sources. Wikipedia is certainly not anti-conspiracy-theory as long as you make it clear that it is one, though I do find the insatiable need of some editors to debunk each conspiracy theory or alternative view to be akin to treating our readers as idiots who can't possibly decide for themselves what to believe, or the world would implode. Someone should write an essay "you don't need to debunk every conspiracy theory" when it's already clear that it's a conspiracy theory. Just my two cents. I really dislike being patronized, so maybe it's just me. Sol505000 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]