Talk:Château des Amerois

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

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)

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)

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)

This building is infamous.

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)

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)

I will translate the comment I left on the French-language talk page: The reason for the removal of this "controversy" section was that the two sources cited were on the one hand a highly contentious work written by two Belgian conspiracy authors who have been tried for press offenses concerning this publication ([1][2][3]) and on the other hand that of another American conspiracy author with the work Bloodline of the Illuminatis (enough said). The English article also mentioned so-called "murders in the woods", with one source linking them to Satanism. In my opinion, the inclusion of this type of chapter and its "sources" clearly undermines the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia. No serious news articles or other secondary sources support the "facts" presented. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)