CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · People & Ideas

Leo Pleysier

Belgian writer

Correspondence, annotated notebooks and portrait silhouettes prepared for research
People and ideasInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMay 29, 2025
Entity authorityQ1670470 ↗
Source-derived summary

Leo Pleysier (b. Rijkevorsel, 28 May 1945) is a Belgian writer.

Bibliography

Mirliton, een proeve van homofonie (1971)

Niets dan schreeuw (1972)

Negenenvijftig (1975)

Bladschaduwen (1976)

En wat zullen we over het sterven zeggen?

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Leo Pleysier” as belgian writer. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Pleysier, Belgian and writer.

Editorial reviewStrongest as a route into the people, institutions and dated events that shaped the subject’s public record. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1945, 1971, 1972, 1975—that can be checked directly. The linked authority record independently contributes the date 1945-05-28. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Pleysier, Belgian and writer providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Leo Pleysier”, the useful work is to connect “belgian writer” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The entry’s evidential value lies in the named roles, institutions and publications that can be tested against primary documentation. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 29, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q1670470. VIAF identifies the subject as 36938112. The Library of Congress control number is n82052495. 3 of 3 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1945, 1971, 1972 and 1975.

Critical limits

Public reputation and documentary evidence do not always develop together; absence from a summary is not evidence of historical absence. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Read biographical claims against dates, named institutions and the cited references. Distinguish a subject’s later reputation from evidence produced during their lifetime.

Best used for
  • Establishing names and roles
  • Building a first chronology
  • Locating cited institutions
Verify next

Personal papers, civil or court records, institutional files and the scholarship cited by the source.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Leo Pleysier”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Leo Pleysier primary sources, Leo Pleysier archive and Pleysier research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Leo Pleysier”?
  2. Which claims depend on a single source or contested interpretation?
  3. How has the subject’s reputation changed across later accounts?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Leo Pleysier” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.