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 ?

Coat of arms of the du Quenoy family

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 08:03, 06 July 2024 (UTC)

Extinct family

Following this contribution:

• About A. Clement, La Noblesse française, June 2024 (academia.edu)

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).

• 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).
  

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)

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:

• 28.002.Du Quesnoy (Normandie) :

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

Translated :

• 28.002.Du Quesnoy (Normadny) :

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

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)

References

There are now 4 works cited in the article, added from the notes (except #2, added recently):

1. Fr.-A. de La Chesnaye des Bois et J. Badier, Dictionnaire de la noblesse : contenant les généalogies, l'histoire et la chronologie des familles nobles de France, t. 16, 1870, 3e éd. (BnF 34209079, read online), p. 615-623.
2. H. Jougla de Morenas et R. de Warren, Grand armorial de France, t. V, 1948 (BnF 34209165, read online), p. 407 (no. 28.002).
3. J.-B.-P. de Courcelles, Dictionnaire universel de la noblesse de France, t. II, 1820 (BnF 30279723, read online), p. 215.
4. Fr.-A. de La Chesnaye des Bois, 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, (BnF 30035246, read online), p. 216-222.

The #3 contains a very short notice that adds nothing to reference #1; it is a very brief and incomplete summary (it does, however, contain a correct description of the arms, which is now unnecessary). It can be removed from the article.
The #4 is superseded by the #1 which is the 3rd edition of the same work, and shall be removed from the article.
(both, #3 and #4, will still remain here, though)

In the reference #1, p. 619 at the end of the left column, just after the passage on Anne du Quesnoy, daughter of Gaspard, last of the elder branch, it's written: The cadet branch, which remains, has as its author Robert, 2nd of the name, etc. ("La branche cadette, qui subsiste, a pour auteur Robert, 2e du nom", etc.).
It is indeed this branch, the (only) cadet branch, that was elevated to the rank of marquis, as stated later in the text; these informations are also available in the reference #4 (p. 218, right column)
The previous version of the article (June, 30th, 2024, read) ended with the following sentence:

• A cadet branch of the family, now extinct, was elevated to the rank of marquis in July 1714.
  

This wording is not correct, as it implies, on the one hand that there could be another cadet branch, which is not stated in any work at all, and on the other hand that the elder branch could be subsisting, while the references state the opposite.
Furthermore, there is no indication in the references that have been used up to now, in previous versions of the article, including the one linked above, that the cadet branch of the family that was elevated to the rank of marquis was extinct, neither in the 1870 work nor in the 1761 first edition.
It's quite the opposite: in both works, the latest date mentioned is december 1755, on which Jean-Jacques-Julien, Marquis du Quesnoy, is alive and well, so there was a contradiction between what was said in the article and the content of the (cited) sources.
Using the most recent work, #2 Grand armorial de France, which briefly updates the genealogy given in work #1 and does not indicate that there may be subsisting individuals (which is systematically done in the opposites cases), since all the males are said to have "died without descent" or "died without an alliance", the article could rather actually end up with a sentence as follows:

• The cadet branch of the family, which is now extinct too, was elevated to the rank of marquis in July 1714.
  

This is a rather simple formulation, which will be tempered, as is customary: everything that is written in the article depends solely on the references, and this will be made clear.
I would add that statements such as "among others", as can be read in work #1 p. 620 column 2 ("Several children were born of this marriage, including, among others: Gilles du Quesnoy, born May 8, 1619…" - French: "De son mariage naquirent plusieurs enfants, entr'autres: Gilles du Quesnoy, né le 8 Mai 1619…", should also be tempered, as they in no way suggest that there could be male children omitted from the genealogy, but are rather due to that mentioning certain individuals would not add anything worth specifying to it, such as children who died in infancy, etc.
Pending further information, corrections will be made, on the basis of references.
--Kontributor 2K 13:36, 08 July 2024 (UTC)

The cited sources under discussion earlier suggest that the marquessate died out in 1897 so it only makes sense that the earlier dated sources of 1761 and 1870 would still list it as surviving. This is not in contention. As before the new sources indicate certain individuals without surviving progeny but one cannot make a sweeping edit that the family is extinct on that basis or on the supposition that other family members add different times were “not worth” adding. To meet Wikipedia standards, you need to produce and cite undisputed and dispositive evidence. Speculative edits will be reversed as unsubstantiated and possible

vandalism 31.190.230.84 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Who do you represent? You do realise that threats hold no sway here. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We are concerned with authenticity of sources and accurate information and have threatened no one, unless you regard valid and frequently used Wikipedia editorial practices such as reversing unsubstantiated edits as a "threat." Establishing the validity of sources and how they are represented is the primary function of the "Talk" page feature and we and other users here are exercising it in what believe to be good faith. 31.190.230.84 (talk) 09:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The only source (not the sources, plural) that states that the cadet branch (that you call the marquessate branch) is extinct is the one that I have provided (#2 Grand armorial de France) listing the last members as follows: "Alfred-Désiré, marquis du Quesnoy, married with one daughter; Florent +1877 unmarried; Raoul +1897 without descendants".

There is absolutely no speculation on this point, especially since the reference was added to the article, there is no speculation either on the fact that the eldest branch is exctinct, as one can also read in work #1.

On the other hand, anything else that could be said in the article without reference to the sources, would figure only as speculation.

The work #1, which is the most complete up to 1755, also makes no mention of any potential subsisting sub-branches.

I'm not saying that sweeping statements should be made, but simply that one should state the facts on the basis of the references available to date, this last point (the facts on the basis of the references available today) being included in the body of the article.

It does fully meet Wikipedia standards to say a sentence such as: according to these references (#1, #2), the elder branch and the cadet branch are extinct.

At the opposite, to assert, or suggest, that there could be subsistence when there is no reference up-to-date to support this point would be tantamount to stating unverifiable facts, which doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, does it?.

In this regard, the sentence at the end of the previous version of the article (June, 30th, 2024, read) is too ambiguous, as saying "a cadet branch" instead of "the cadet branch" implies that there could be other branchs, which, currently, isn't stated in any work.

To quickly respond to so it only makes sense that the earlier dated sources of 1761 and 1870 would still list it as surviving : yes, that's what I said above, the point there, misunderstood, is that the exctinction was then mentioned in the article although none of the references quoted in the article (1761, 1820, 1870) stated this exctinction at this time (June, 30th, 2024), which means that this statement was unsourced, alias not meeting Wikipedia standards. Thanks to the addition of Work #2 that corrected this.

About the “among others”, referred to above, it must really be tempered, as I already said; people “not worth” adding to a genealogy are usually children who died in infancy.

That said, if the work #1, which we are talking about, was deemed too weak to be used, the existence of the article would then be moot as it would be considered as relying on a source deemed unreliable, wouldn'it ?

In all cases, it is not permissible to interpret the content of a source in one way or another, for an example in suggesting facts that are not stated in it, or suggesting in the article that this source could miss informations.

The fact is that, at present, there is nothing in the sources to support the idea that there might be a surviving branch, so such a suggestion cannot be included in the article; it's not possible to write (or even suggest): it happens that references miss informations, there could be a subsisitng branch.

It's possible to write : according to these references, the facts are.

In other words, the sentence : A cadet branch of the family, now extinct, was elevated to the rank of marquis in July 1714 must be corrected to :

The cadet branch of the family, extinct in 1896, was elevated to the rank of marquis in July 1714.

Also, the information that the elder branch was exctinct in 1667 has to be added to the article.

This is perfectly in line with the content of the sources, and I agree that there's nothing to say regarding the subsistence of the whole family, for it would be out of scope.

-Kontributor 2K 10:22, 09 July 2024 (UTC)

We fully agree about the marquessate's extinction (in 1897, not 1896). Qualifying the original statement as you propose (amended to note the year 1897) could be acceptable since a valid, independent third-party source definitely documents the marquessate's extinction and no person living since 1897 seems to claim it or use the actual or any identical title in possible contradiction of that source. Per your original edit, it could also be left out as superfluous since similar family history articles don't generally mention long extinct branches. Either way, our accord on this point conforms to Wikipedia policy and need not be discussed further.

Under Wikipedia standards, we would need similar valid and undisputed sources to include any statement about 1667 or that the family no longer exists, i.e. a positive equivalent to the source documenting the marquessate's extinction. Deductions alone, no matter how well researched, do not rise to the required standard to support such a statement. With that qualification, we can accept your suggestion that "there's nothing to say regarding the subsistence of the whole family" so no edits should be added either way. This would conform to Wikipedia policy and, it seems to us, both address your concerns and avoid causing unnecessary offense - even unintentionally - against living or potentially living persons, which is our primary concern. 31.190.230.84 (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I propose this basis for development:
“According to the references, the family split into two main branches: the eldest was extincted in 1697 (with Gaspard, father of Anne), the cadet one was raised to the rank of marquisate, and was extincted in 1897“.
Along with the correct coat-of-arms, this is the sound basis.
Afterwards, if a user feels motivated to really invest in this article, Work #1 specifies, at the end of the notice, the following: “See the entire genealogy of this House and the copy of the charters which prove the antiquity of its nobility, in the Armorial général de France, register IV, part. II“.
To this should be added the sources used by Work #2 (Chérin 166 - Nouveau d'Hozier 277 - Dossiers Bleus 552 - Pièces Originales 2414 - La Roque et Barthélemy - Woëlmont 1), which should also be included into the article, thus corroborating the Work.
This means that there are still references and a lot of work to be added to this article before it is anything more than a six-sentence single paragraph.
-Kontributor 2K 12:16, 09 July 2024 (UTC)

We almost agree. Suggesting "main branches," however, could slight existing people and also imply general extinction. So we propose this: "Genealogical sources indicate that one branch of the family became extinct in 1697 while another, elevated to the rank of marquis in 1714, became extinct in 1897." (mentioning Gaspard and Anne seems like extraneous details. Anyone who really needs to know the first names of people who died in the 17th century can surely just look them up). 31.190.230.84 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, what I propose does solely rely on the references: I'm just stating the facts.

In the Work #1, at page 619 (left column), it's exactly written : “the posterity of this William was divided, around the middle of the 16th century, into two main branches“ - French: “la postérité de ce Guillaume s'est divisée, environ au milieu du XVIe siécle, en deux branches principales“.

There's no reason to change this wording, and how it may or may not be interpreted is irrelevant.

-Kontributor 2K 17:10, 09 July 2024 (UTC)

1) Wikipedia guidelines do not allow shades of meaning that could cause offense to a living person. The interpretation is quite relevant, and anyone questioning it can reverse your edit on that basis.

2) Only one source, which you previously described as "superseded," supports the statement, so referring to multiple "references" or "sources" supporting it is ipso facto incorrect and misleading, even if that source is correct, which is disputed. Again, to make that claim at all you need a valid and undisputed source or set of sources.

3) Stating that there are "two main branches" ("deux branches principales") suggests there are others.

4) The phrase "was extincted" is not grammatically correct English, so even if the proposed edit were properly sourced, there would be a reason to change the wording. Also, the specific mentions of "Gaspard" and "Anne" remain superfluous and should be left out.

On the basis of the above, the most you could add without having the edit reverse is something like, "One source suggests that two branches of the family are extinct," or "One genealogical sources indicates that a main branch of the family became extinct in 1697 while another, elevated to the rank of marquis in 1714, became extinct in 1897." This accurately relates the information in the one source you have for 1697, confirms the multisourced and undisputed extinction of the marquessate in 1897, and causes no offense or potential offense to any living person or family, which you initially said you do not intend to cause but now seem to feel is "irrelevant" regardless of Wikipedia policy... 31.190.230.84 (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

1) No living person is cited on this article.

2) ?? The reference #1 is the superseding one, not the superseded #4 - I repeat : In the Work #1, at page 619 (left column).

3) Stating that there are "two main branches" suggests there may be others, nothing else. It does neither suggest that there could be subsising members nowadays, nor that the whole family is excinct. Reminder : I am the one who proposed this, from the sources.

4) Feel free to correct grammatical error, the main here is the background problems. And please re-read what I proposed above.

Also, you refer to yourself as "we" : Do you represent some members of this family, or people related to it ?

-Kontributor 2K 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, we are almost there. Our final word on the subject is that Wikipedia policy requires proof positive of the family's extinction. We substantively agree with point three but the current revision does read as though the whole family is extinct. We will correct for grammar and clarity on that final point. We are an informal consortium that protects individual rights in public sourcing. We do not represent the family or relatives. We regard the matter as closed, but may we know who you are? All we have is "Kontributor 2K" and an account with a name that looks like it's Russian. 2001:861:3AC0:5760:F837:5141:A987:B5F5 (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you,

The current version of the article states the facts exactly are they're stated in the references cited.

As said earlier, stating that there are "two main branches" suggests there may be others, nothing else. More work on the genealogy has to be done, as said earlier too (look for "if a user feels motivated to really invest in this article") before new elements can be added.

You may expose further arguments on the content of this article on the Administrators' noticeboard.

And : administrators over all Wikipedia can state my identity, through my email address, which is linked to a professional social network.

-Kontributor 2K 10:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please do not edit further without discussion here as Wikipedia policy requires discussion on Talk page until consensus is reached. As to your reversal of our recent edit, kindly note the following grammatical points:

1) In English we do not use Roman numerals to refer to centuries, rather we write them out (e.g. "twentieth century"). In any case, "XVI century" refers to the 1500s. You describe something that sources suggest happened in the 1600s, which would be the seventeenth century.

2) In standard American English, which is in use here and standard throughout U.S. Wikipedia, punctuation marks precede quotation marks and footnotes. Please do not change them back again as it is incorrect.

3) The comma after "Normandy" is unnecessary since the subject is not repeated after "and."

4) "has only been established" is correct. The extra "only" at the end of your reverse edited sentence is superfluous.

5) "Subsister" does not translate into English as "subsist," which has a different meaning in English, i.e. "barely surviving" or "surviving at a subpar level."

6) It is perfectly routine to refer to "Sources" citing material, especially highly specialized material.

7) Finally, your wording as written suggests a general extinction of the family. As we have repeatedly pointed out, this is simply not allowed under policy since no source states it. 2001:861:3AC0:5760:F837:5141:A987:B5F5 (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Arguments which imply the interpretation or the modifying of what exactly state the references, have to be discussed on the Admins notice board. Ping @Malcolmxl5:

-Kontributor 2K 10:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Grammatical issues do not. 2001:861:3AC0:5760:F837:5141:A987:B5F5 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)