Talk:Du Quesnoy

Coat of arms
After this contribution, I have added to the article the url to the book used as reference : Dictionnaire généalogique, héraldique, historique et chronologique, contenant l'origine et l'etat actuel des premières Maisons de France, des Maisons souvernaines et principales de l'Europe, t. VI, 1761, p. 216-222 (read online). There are two du Quesnoy families in there : the first's coat-of-arms is argent a lion passant gules, an orle of nine acorns vert (d'argent à un lion passant de gueules accompagné de neuf glands de sinople), at page 221; the second family's CoA is a quarterly shield : 1 & 4 or three lozenges azure in fess, 2 & 3 gules a lion sable armed and langued gules. Both arms are totally different from those below Maybe there's another reference for these ? Also, other works can be added to the new Works cited section. --Kontributor 2K 16:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have corrected one reference (Dictionnaire de la noblesse: contenant les généalogies, l'histoire & la chronologie des familles nobles de la France, 3rd edition (Paris: Schlesinger, 1865), Vol. 7): the exact notice on the family is actually in the Vol. 16 (t. 16) of this work, not Vol. 7.
 * Fr.-A. de La Chesnaye des Bois, Dictionnaire de la noblesse, t. 16, 1870, p. 615-623 (read online)
 * The exact page range is 615-623, the pages that follow (631-638), currently cited in the article (see refs. #4 and #6) contains data about other families. There is absoltely no related information in Vol. 6 p. 216-22 that is cited as ref. #5 which is anyway used once as redundant.
 * In the notice in t. 16, the arms of the family are also described as argent a lion passant gules, between nine acorns vert.
 * The Grand armorial de France gives argent a lion rampant gules between nine acorns vert; the lion rampant rather than passant seems to be the correct version, as one can see in the Armorial général de France, t. XXI, p. 915 (img. #2, link).
 * By the way, that reference shows that a valid alternate name for du Quesnoy is Duquesnoy (see 'Anne Duquesnoy, noble').
 * The correct coat-of-arms will be added to the article.
 * --Kontributor 2K 15:17, 04 July 2024 (UTC)
 * --Kontributor 2K 15:17, 04 July 2024 (UTC)


 * --Kontributor 2K 08:03, 06 July 2024 (UTC)

Extinct family
Following this contribution: This work could miss informations, but also contains a lot of complete data ; it is in constant development and is the most recent reference on french nobility. At page 898, it says : Quesnoy (du) (Normandy): Extinct family (†), 'Last of the name': Alfred (1813-1963), Florent (1816-1877), Raoul (-1897). This means that the family is extinct in agnatic line (which is a pleonasm). In t. V (pdf), at page 407 (notice no. 28.002), it's also written that the family is extinct. Perhaps there's confusion somewhere and the 'members living in Costa Rica and the USA' are from another du Quesnoy family? Other references are welcome. --Kontributor 2K 20:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * About A. Clement, La Noblesse française, June 2024 (academia.edu)
 * Another reference, widely used on the french wikipedia, is the Grand armorial de France (published by the Société du Grand armorial de France between 1934 and 1952, BNF).

A. Clement's unpublished, self-authored pdf file, which does NOT meet Wikipedia's standards for independent third-party sources (precisely because it is unpublished and self-authored), claims to include families that submitted documents to the ANF, a category that is far from comprehensive or complete. Even if Clement's pdf were a valid source, it only states that the du Quesnoy marquessate (created in 1714) is extinct, not the entire family, which is indeed alive.

As recently, Le Figaro, a major national newspaper which DOES meet Wikipedia's standards as a valid independent third-party source (precisely because it is a major national newspaper) records the death on [content unrelated to the article, removed], who left male issue, one [content unrelated to the article, removed], who is alive and well and has children. According to the Figaro, [content unrelated to the article, removed]. Would you like photos of their graves, or would you prefer to find a better hobby than harassing other people's families with false and libelous Wikipedia edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.107.84 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The documents you have provided are death notices without any information, and cannot be considered as a reference.
 * There is no evidence that [content unrelated to the article, removed] is from the same family that is the subject of this discussion.
 * As a matter of fact, he could be from another du Quesnoy family, like [content unrelated to the article, removed] (link, removed), for an example (not for a reference), or from any other family of the same name.
 * The 2nd reference I cited above, that does fully meet 'Wikipedia's standards for independent third-party sources', Grand armorial de France (BNF), actually states that the entire family is extinct, starting the notice with: 'This house was establishing its filiation since 1213' (Cette maison établissait sa filiation depuis 1213).
 * The question here is whether you can provide sources (meeting Wikipedia's standards) that would enable the classify of this family as subsisting.
 * It should be noted that this does not solve the issue with the coat-of-arms mentioned above.
 * There is no harassment here, solely contributions aimed at improving the quality of the information presented.
 * --Kontributor 2K 14:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policy on sources. Recognized newspapers, especially major international ones like Le Figaro, definitely are "considered as a reference" by Wikipedia and are routinely used to document events, people, families, and many other subject entries. You cannot simply dismiss or ignore them because their data appears to contradict your edits. The Figaro death notices in this case do in fact include detailed information, including names, dates of birth and death, life activities and service, surviving family members, places of funeral and burial, etc., all of which are again routinely recognized by Wikipedia as valid, independent third-party documentation. You yourself appear to have verified some of the Figaro information and found additional info not in the Figaro notices at this site: deces.matchid.io. That source could also be "considered as a reference" contracting your edits. Even if that were not the case, as a Wikipedia user seeking to edit an approved Wikipedia entry, the burden of proving any new or revised information about that entry is on you, not those who object to your corrections or people in the entry. In this case, you have failed to present any valid source documenting your edits. You readily admit above that the pdf file, an invalid source you originally used, "could miss informations [sic]." The Armorial may be a valid source under Wikipedia policy, but likewise it only establishes the extinction of the marquessate of 1714 ("Raoul, s.p."). It does not anywhere state that the entire family is extinct. The formulation "Cette maison établissait sa filiation depuis 1213" uses the past imperfect tense to suggest that the family began to establish or "was establishing" its line of descent from 1213, but this certainly does not mean it is or ever became extinct, nor is there any information recording any year, individual, or circumstances associated with extinction. The Armorial entry also contains substantively different information from multiple other sources, including the suggestion that the family originated in 1213. The other sources (based at least partly on Vatican records) correctly state 1181, and then not as "establishing a line of descent" but through mention in a Papal Bull. Your personal speculation that the individuals recorded recently in Le Figaro, or the relatives outside France, "could be" from a different family that coincidentally bears the same name and holds the same title, while possible if not particularly likely, is equally not a valid source to support Wikipedia editing standards.

Unless you have conclusive, independent, and verifiable third-party evidence that this family is "extinct," you must cease your activity on this page and reverse your edits. Regardless of your intentions, Wikipedia policy does hold this sort activity toward living people (i.e. saying they do not exist without solid evidence) to be libelous and therefore impermissible. Defying that policy could invite consequences and limitations on your usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.107.84 (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As (any)one can read, there is no evidence in the newspaper that [content unrelated to the article, removed] mentionned is from the same family this article is about, thus their is no evidence that it's subsisting. It's more than dubious information, and there are many potential namesakes. This can't be considered as a reference here.
 * The 'multiple sources' you're citing, that 'correctly state 1181', are considered as obsolete (1761, 1820), most recent sources have to be used in such articles.
 * Yes This house established its filiation as far back as 1213, but this has only been perfectly proven since Jean du Quesnoy.
 * The notice of the Grand armorial de France is exactly as follows:

Cette maison établissait sa filiation depuis 1213, mais celle-ci n'est parfaitement prouvée que depuis Jean du Quesnoy, dit Taupin, Chr, tr 1378, allié à Jeanne de La Hautemaison, dont le fils : Guillaume, Eyr, épousa en 1413 Jeanne de La Heuse. Leur arrière petit-fils : Robert, épousa Austreberte Doulle de Neufville-La-Ferrière puis Françoise de La Haye de La Pipardière. Du premier lit vint : Jean, sgr de Boissay, tr 1565, allié à Marie de Martainville, et dont la postérité s'éteignit en 1767 avec Gaspard, sgr du Quesnoy et de la Métairie, Page de la Reine, Gent. ord. de la Ch. du Roi. Du 2e lit vint : Robert, allié en 1578 à Anne Vivien dont il eut : Jacques, baron du Quesnoy, gent. de la Ch., marié en 1605 à Anne de St-Germain. Leur fils : Louis, baron du Quesnoy, maintenu noble en 1667, Page du roi, épousa en 1649 Léonore de Gouvetz de Clinchamps qui lui donna : Emmanuel, marquis du Quesnoy par L.P. de 1714, allié en 1689 à Catherine de St-Rémy. De là vinrent : Jacques qui suit et Jean-Baptiste, dit le comte du Quesnoy, marié en 1743 à Madeleine Verduc dont le fils mourut sans postérité mâle. Jacques, marquis du Quesnoy (1690-1747) épousa en 1739 Jeanne Juhellé de Martilly et en eut : Jean-Charles, comparant à Avranches en 1789, Lieutenant des Maréchaux de France, Chr de St-Louis, allié en 1763 à Geneviève Lempereur de St-Pierre, dont 2 fils. Le second : Julien- Emmanuel, comte du Quesnoy, épousa Perrine Pinel, et en eut : Hervé et Jules, morts sans alliance. en 1883 et 1878. L'aîné : Emmanuel-Désiré, marquis du Quesnoy, allié en 1851 à Hélène d'Houdemare de Vaudrimare, dont une fille - 2 Florent, marquis du Quesnoy, mort sans alliance. en 1877 - 3 Raoul, marquis du Quesnoy, mort sans postérité en 1897. - Sources : Chérin 166 - Nouveau d'Hozier 277 - Dossiers Bleus 552 - Pièces Originales 2414 - La Roque et Barthélemy - Woëlmont 1
 * 28.002.Du Quesnoy (Normandie) :
 * Translated :

This house established its filiation as far back as 1213, but this has only been perfectly proven since Jean du Quesnoy, known as Taupin, Chr, tr 1378, married Jeanne de La Hautemaison, whose son Guillaume, Eyr, married Jeanne de La Heuse in 1413. Their great-grandson Robert married Austreberte Doulle de Neufville-La-Ferrière, then Françoise de La Haye de La Pipardière. From the first line came Jean, sgr de Boissay, tr 1565, married to Marie de Martainville, and whose descendants died out in 1767 with Gaspard, sgr du Quesnoy et de la Métairie, Page de la Reine, Gent. ord. de la Ch. du Roi. From the 2nd bed came: Robert, married in 1578 to Anne Vivien, from whom he had : Jacques, baron du Quesnoy, Gent. de la Ch., married in 1605 to Anne de St-Germain. Their son: Louis, baron du Quesnoy, maintained noble in 1667, Page du roi, married Léonore de Gouvetz de Clinchamps in 1649, who gave him: Emmanuel, marquis du Quesnoy by L.P. of 1714, married Catherine de St-Rémy in 1689. From him came : Jacques, who follows, and Jean-Baptiste, known as the Comte du Quesnoy, married in 1743 to Madeleine Verduc, whose son died without male issue. Jacques, Marquis du Quesnoy (1690-1747) married Jeanne Juhellé de Martilly in 1739 and had two children: Jean-Charles, appearing in Avranches in 1789, Lieutenant des Maréchaux de France, Chr de St-Louis, married in 1763 to Geneviève Lempereur de St-Pierre, with 2 sons. The second: Julien-Emmanuel, Comte du Quesnoy, married Perrine Pinel, and had : Hervé and Jules, who died without issue in 1883 and 1878. The eldest: Emmanuel-Désiré, Marquis du Quesnoy, married in 1851 to Hélène d'Houdemare de Vaudrimare, with one daughter - 2 Florent, Marquis du Quesnoy, died without issue. in 1877 - 3 Raoul, Marquis du Quesnoy, died without issue in 1897. - Sources : Chérin 166 - Nouveau d'Hozier 277 - Dossiers Bleus 552 - Pièces Originales 2414 - La Roque et Barthélemy - Woëlmont 1
 * 28.002.Du Quesnoy (Normadny) :
 * By the way, what about the coat-of-arms in this notice ? Erroneous, or not ?
 * Kontributor 2K 17:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but you continue flagrantly to ignore Wikipedia policy, which requires that your edits must present verified, independent, third-party information. No valid source you have produced, including the language of the Armorial in either French or English, establishes that the family is extinct. The Armorial entry merely suggests that some individual members of the family, notably the last holder of the marquessate, died without issue. While all valid sources appear to agree on the marquessate's extinction, which is not at issue here (in fact the orignal entry noted the marquessate's extinction before you deleted it), none establishes that the family is extinct. Unless you have incontrovertible information that proves the family's extinction, you must reverse your edits or stand in violation of Wikipedia policy.

Neither the Figaro articles nor the people in them were ever included in the entry. They merely represent valid, independent, third-party sources that potentially contradict your edits, which are without valid sources. Again, dismissing living or recently living people as "dubious" or baselessly claiming that they are not related to their possible relatives is libelous under Wikipedia policy and also potentially harassing and could result in consequences for you. Why take such a risk, especially when you have publicly admitted that your sources could be faulty?

No further comment on the coat-of-arms. That's a matter for their family, but if Wikipedia should find that you are libeling living descendants, it likely will not be decided in your favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.124.107.84 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The articles in Le Figaro in no way contradict my editions, and it could even be said that they do everything but back up your assertions.
 * There's enough material on this talk page for everyone to make up their own minds, and, although I fully understand your investment in here, I eventually find it hard to comprehend your withdrawal when it comes to justifying the insertion of data unrelated to the sources cited.
 * --Kontributor 2K 19:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fully agree that interested people (if there are any...) can make up their own minds and pleased to conclude our discussion cordially on that note. On the one hand, no valid source establishes the family's extinction apart from the marquessate of 1714. On the other hand, at least three valid sources noted above record multiple individuals bearing the same name and a baronial title living currently or in the recent past, with no source disproving their connection to the entry. The entry as currently written is acceptable and violates no Wikipedia policy or the rights of any family or member thereof, which is our primary concern. 151.124.107.84 (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry: What does exactly mean: 'No further comment on the coat-of-arms. That's a matter for their family, but if Wikipedia should find that you are libeling living descendants, it likely will not be decided in your favor.' ??
 * Apart from that, it seems that I haven't been clear enough on one point, so I'll put it differently:
 * What you call "three valid sources with no source disproving their connection to the entry" are in fact the two death notices of members of one namesake family mentioned above, the main one being that of [content unrelated to the article, removed] (link, removed), the official data that I have then provided (link, removed) show that the full name is [content unrelated to the article, removed], and from this information one can deduce that it is much more likely that this person is from the family of [content unrelated to the article, removed], whose title and forenames are similar and whose online genealogy is available here (link, removed), than the du Quesnoy family of the article, which originated in another region and for which there is, unfortunately, not even half a genealogy online, is it ?
 * There is absolutely no source either disproving their connection to this entry rather than the other family that is the subject of the article, which means that what you call references are not references at all.
 * I have reverted your last edit because it did not provide any reference; the form "du Quenoy" of the name, does not appear in any reference work at all.
 * If I don't admit that, on this point, a reference 'meeting Wikipedia's standards for independent third-party sources' is yourself, does it mean that i'm libeling living people ?
 * Kontributor 2K 01:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Our meaning is that Wikipedia has the authority to reverse or remove edits that do not conform to its policies and can and does take actions to counteract or prevent violations of those policies. Depending on the severity of the case, this can include locking a page against further edits, barring an offending user from further edits to a particular page, and banning users from all editorial participation on Wikipedia, among other possible sanctions. Libelous or potentially libelous material is expressly prohibited, and there have been numerous successful civil legal actions in multiple countries resulting from persistent edits that presented libelous or harassing material.
 * Again, Wikipedia's policies on editing and sources are determined by Wikipedia and not by you. All edits to established pages must be supported by valid, independent, third-party sources and are otherwise impermissible. Established media, government records, and similar sources like those noted above are valid under Wikipedia's policies. Your personal opinion of those sources or the information they contain is not sufficient to discount them.
 * For the last time, unless you have valid, independent, third-party sources supporting your edits, kindly refrain from making them. If you prefer to persist, we will take the preliminary step of requesting a lock on further edits to the page. We hope this will resolve the matter and that our discussion will, as you originally suggested, now come to a cordial conclusion. 151.124.107.84 (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I see you refer to yourself as "we". Do you represent an organisation? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the editing discussion involves or end up in resulting in, one more comment like "if Wikipedia should find that you are libeling living descendants, it likely will not be decided in your favor" your going to end up on the end of a block for legal threats. Amortias (T)(C) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what the editing discussion involves or end up in resulting in, one more comment like "if Wikipedia should find that you are libeling living descendants, it likely will not be decided in your favor" your going to end up on the end of a block for legal threats. Amortias (T)(C) 14:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC)