Talk:Johan Decavele

I deleted the references, extern links
They were in Dutch, therefore not comprehensible to the person who consults this English version. He can consult the Dutch version
 * The article as it now stands may be to your satisfaction, but it goes against a number of points on which there is either consensus or a stated policy on the English-language Wikipedia. To name only the most crucial of these, you have removed independent sources in favour of a reference to Dutch-language Wikipedia. This is likely to get the page deleted, because Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and due to concerns about libel, the policy on articles about living persons requires that the information be cited to verifiable sources independent of the subject (see WP:BLP). Your reasoning that a person who speaks English will be better served by a Wikipedia article in Dutch than an independent, reliable source in Dutch, is somewhat self-contradictory, but more importantly ignores the point that the English-language version itself needs to have verifiable sources, even if only a minority of users will be able to check those sources for themselves. The current mention of an eye condition is not referenced to any source, and looks like private rather than published information. If it has been published, it is important to state where. If it has not, then it should not be mentioned. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You are right. A reference to my Dutch version of Wikipedia makes little sense. Almost all my scientific work is published in Dutch, so only accessible to those who speak Dutch. I propose that the English-language version be removed entirely. All researchers will be satisfied with the Dutch version.
 * Or do you have a suggestion to keep something in the English version? Verloren16 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the historiographical importance of some of the works mentioned, I think that having a brief biographical notice with a list of the more important publications would be useful to those interested in the history of the Reformation and/or the Low Countries who have no or little Dutch. There are also scholars who have some Dutch but would not immediately look for information in Dutch. If you are the subject of the article and would rather see it deleted, there is a procedure for that. -- Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your valuable suggestions and make a selection of the most important works, including, of course, the contributions written in English.
 * Thank you very much. Verloren16 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to check the table of comments at the beginning ofleave the article in place? Can you remove it? Thank you. Verloren16 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean: the textbox about sources, or a table of contents for the article? -- Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of the article, at the top, there is a rectangle with entries like: "This article includes a list of references, related readings or external links etc.". I don't see such things any more in the article.
 * Plaese can you delete this rectangle? Thank you. Verloren16 (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that this site is interesting for bringing news about different aspects of the life and activities of Johan Decavele.
 * Excuse me that I asked to delete it. Let it as it is now! Thank you very much! Verloren16 (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ha! And I just did before seeing this. To make the "no references" tag redundant I added references to a number of sources (one of which you'd already put in as a bare url yourself). I also edited the article in line with the Manual of Style, and the English-language preference not to italicise titles of articles and chapters, but only of books and journals. I'm happy to help with anything you're not happy about, but won't be able to respond immediately. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I made some corrections. The article in Het Nieuwsblad of 2005 is not accurate. I've removed it in the footnote. Verloren16 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's the irony of Wikipedia: policy requires "reliable sources" (which a national newspaper would count as), so you have to include references of some sort, but the information they provide isn't always accurate. If you have access to any other sources for the biographical facts that can be cited instead (such as the liber amicorum) that would be very useful. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)