Talk:Ursel family
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Carolus reverted my deletion. I would like to know how this information he reinserted is sourced:
- "Today the family is still known in Belgium, and form [sic] an important part of local society. Public appearances of the family are often reported in the local papers" - there is only one reference to a local newspaper, and local newspapers are of course not reliable for a general remark like: that the family forms "an important part of local society".
- "The Current duke still keeps a high ceremonial rank in Belgium, he is a member of the noble Families du Salon Bleu" - the so called "noble Families du Salon Bleu' don't exist and an article about this invention by Carolus was deleted on WP:NL. The given reference is only alluding to the old past in connection to this family (Carolus doesn't give pages, but I read this book and see that Carolus misinterprets this source). The reference is also to a book by a journalist of the Flemish magazine Dag Allemaal, a totally unreliable and not serious source for anything that relates to nobility.
- "and was adressed [sic] as Monseigneur": can Carolus indicate when and where the current duke is addressed as Mgr?
- "The current 10th Duke of Ursel is Stéphane, grandson of Henri, he has left Belgium and lives with his family in Central America" - can Carolus give reliable sources that that is the case? According to the Carnet mondain (2016) he is living in Miami and in Panama.
- "His mother the dowager Duchess resides in Belgium, with her youngest son Didrik, Count d´Ursel in 2009" - can Carolus give a source for that? According to the État présent de la noblesse belge (2013) and the Carnet mondain (2016) she is living in France, with her daughter and son.
- "The head of the family still holds old recognised titles, given from father to son for generations" - can Carolus indicate which public authorities 'recognize' these titles?
Etc. If no reliable and recent sources are given, I will remove again this false information in this article. Paul Brussel (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wel, if you want to take resposability and ruin the privacy of these people? I sourced everything with public available sources from the web. Are you realy going to put the private info of these people online (with a claim of not public available info)? You never gonna stop and try to make your point, that in your opinion the only source is the EPNB? Wel, if you cannot prove anything that can be verified, i will delete this for adding false info and possible violation of privacy + own private research. I refuse to viollate private info of people on basis of a non public, commercial, unofficial book. I prefer to source things with public available info, and online facts. And as you can see, everyting is sourced very clear and correct. Do not try to be disruptive and make your weak EPNB pushing point. We have no need of an Alphabetical list of noble (Belgian) families, based on one single book. Put the book aside, you have no right to reproduce it and try to find other sources. You are not to judge what is reliable, you are just an addept who happens to like nloble history, nothing wrong. But do not claim to be the national specialist of the Belgian nobility, nobody gave you the power, or the task, to act as such, based on a commercial book. I realy doubt if you can just reproduce Carnet mondain (2016) or EPNB here whithout warning of privacy viollation. --Carolus (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC), And if you realy like to put "[sic]" everywere in my quotes, be my guest.
- It seems useless discussing with you. Most of my points you don't address. You simply don't accept that the EPN is considered the most reliable recent source on Belgian nobility, and you don't accept that EPN and Carnet mondain are public sources. That you don't know what reliable sources are is well shown by the fact that you accept a 'source' like a journalist of Dag allemaal as valid, especially if you don't read it well and you put nonsense in this article. It's a pattern with you: your editions are mostly untrue or false or based on random sources: internet is in general not a reliable source, especially when you seem to use all sorts of genealogical amateur websites. Paul Brussel (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wel, you do not get the point, I do use correct and different sources, and nobody (exept you), can prove me an official approbation that these two commercial references are the HOLY and TRUE bible of Belgian nobility, and i even doubt if this is allowed to reproduce all the info that is published in the recent editions. If you realy have issues with the fact that The internet is full with hundred of types of sources; (most of them being incorrect), i suggest you find another way to make your point. Believe me, here in EN the people are very strict in applying correct source rules, and they would have corrected other things if they do not agree. So, i repeat my advise, do not PUSH your single vieuws based on 1 commercial book into wikipedia, that shall be reverted if you do not accept the basic rules. You can always add your opninion on a talk page, nothing more, nothing less.--Carolus (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- As said: "It seems useless discussing with you. Most of my points you don't address". I have now seen that you have added lots of nonsense based on unreliable and outdated sources. It's impossible to follow and verify all your editions here. I am not the only one who thinks that you are using unreliable sources; you do not even seem to know what reliable sources are and where to find them, and what are not. That's it. I am glad you have been blocked at WP:NL so that at least there you aren't able to edit any more and add false information. I am curious to know when you will be blocked here, for the same reasons as on WP:NL. I won't contribute on nobility any more: it's a waste of time when some one like you is 'contributing' here. Paul Brussel (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wel, i hope you have a nice time on WP:NL, and lots of edits. Regards,--Carolus (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- As said: "It seems useless discussing with you. Most of my points you don't address". I have now seen that you have added lots of nonsense based on unreliable and outdated sources. It's impossible to follow and verify all your editions here. I am not the only one who thinks that you are using unreliable sources; you do not even seem to know what reliable sources are and where to find them, and what are not. That's it. I am glad you have been blocked at WP:NL so that at least there you aren't able to edit any more and add false information. I am curious to know when you will be blocked here, for the same reasons as on WP:NL. I won't contribute on nobility any more: it's a waste of time when some one like you is 'contributing' here. Paul Brussel (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wel, you do not get the point, I do use correct and different sources, and nobody (exept you), can prove me an official approbation that these two commercial references are the HOLY and TRUE bible of Belgian nobility, and i even doubt if this is allowed to reproduce all the info that is published in the recent editions. If you realy have issues with the fact that The internet is full with hundred of types of sources; (most of them being incorrect), i suggest you find another way to make your point. Believe me, here in EN the people are very strict in applying correct source rules, and they would have corrected other things if they do not agree. So, i repeat my advise, do not PUSH your single vieuws based on 1 commercial book into wikipedia, that shall be reverted if you do not accept the basic rules. You can always add your opninion on a talk page, nothing more, nothing less.--Carolus (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- It seems useless discussing with you. Most of my points you don't address. You simply don't accept that the EPN is considered the most reliable recent source on Belgian nobility, and you don't accept that EPN and Carnet mondain are public sources. That you don't know what reliable sources are is well shown by the fact that you accept a 'source' like a journalist of Dag allemaal as valid, especially if you don't read it well and you put nonsense in this article. It's a pattern with you: your editions are mostly untrue or false or based on random sources: internet is in general not a reliable source, especially when you seem to use all sorts of genealogical amateur websites. Paul Brussel (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)