Talk:House van de Werve
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Sources[edit]
On WP:FR the sources to be used on Belgian nobility are listed, with indication of their reliability. None of those sources are used for this article, but lots of very marginal and totally unreliable or completely outdated 'sources' are used. This makes this article totally unreliable. Carolus, 'contributing' with a mass of edits on WP:EN, disposes of none of these sources and relies systematically on sources only to be found on internet, including lots of gossip newspapers and magazines, not weighing at all whether they could be used for a serious encyclopedia. Having consulted all the sources mentioned on WP:FR on this family, I can say that this article should be completely re-written based on those sources in order to be reliable; now it contains false information. This family, according to the very reliable Houtart (2008) dates back its proven origine to 1349, which means that the whole introduction and the first generations are false. Paul Brussel (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wel, again, repeating myself.... sorry...Batavia illustrata, ofte verhandelinge vanden oorspronk, voortgank ..., Volume 1 is considered a major good quality work. And if you can show why this work is wrong, with sources you can make a new chapter in the article and write about this. I do not claim Batavia illustrata is the major work, but it is a source, a very important source. You however claim that your very reliable Houtart (2008) is the only source, better and unique...how sad. I See you are very horribly frustrated, perhaps you should consider your intentions more carefully: you are not the (inter)national specialist on nobility, as i already pointed out before. Lots of mistakes already were inside the articles before i came; not one hair on my head ever thinks to change something that someone else has written. I am not that arrogant and selfish that i claim i have the right position to change someone elses text. If you really cannot live with my sources, then that is your problem. You always repeat you are leaving, but you never do. When everyone can look at your NL: Personal page, we can see you have left there after multipple personal arguements, that have nothing to do with me. But clearly you still want to push your point. I think you need some time to think, because you do not get the way things work, even years after i am gone, other people will change my contributions, fine for me. I do not own anything. And if you realy like this so called very reliable Houtart (2008), good for you. Multipple editions prove that the genealogy of this noble house is import for local history, so this is a major important contribution to Wikipedia. I like and trust the Batavia Illustrata, end of story.--Carolus (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't know anything about sourcing nor about the sources on Belgian nobility, I would strongly advise you not to write this sort of messages at all. And no: I can't live with your sources, and WP:EN shouldn't live with them either. Paul Brussel (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- You think that you realy can speak for Wikipedia, don't you? This is realy disturbing.--Carolus (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I only speak for myself. Paul Brussel (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- You think that you realy can speak for Wikipedia, don't you? This is realy disturbing.--Carolus (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't know anything about sourcing nor about the sources on Belgian nobility, I would strongly advise you not to write this sort of messages at all. And no: I can't live with your sources, and WP:EN shouldn't live with them either. Paul Brussel (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)