Talk:Bello of Carcassonne

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

rodovid.org is not a reliable source of information. No serious scholars accept claims about Arabic ancestry of Bellonids. User: Arnaurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.67.97 (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

The identification of Bello with Borrell of Ausona needs to be proven. As the previous user says, the rodovid.org link is not reliable and lacks bibliography. Furthermore, the "Borellus Ausona" entry in rodovid shows a different list of children. --jofframes (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Worse than unproven, this identification is not accepted by any scholarly sources i have seen (they refer to the two as distinct men), and no such merger should take place. I have significantly pared down the erroneous material. Agricolae (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Add topic