Talk:Fonblanque

LuciusAniciusGallus : Please stop Edit war and respect neutrality and reliability

Hi LuciusAniciusGallus,

Twice you have deleted a version which by neutrality indicated that there were no reliable sources for this French title of "count of Fonblanque" given by some English sources. Please stop your vandalism and respect neutrality and reliability.

I indicated that an English source cannot be considered as a reliable source for a French title of count in France and that a reliable specialized French source is required to provide this information. If you are not able to find a French source, it is because this French title of "count of Fonblanque" is an invention and I think you know that.

French sources say "sieur de Fonblanque") that means [lord of the manor] and not "comte de Fonblanque".

Please do not continue your vandalism by a third deletion or I’ll ask you to be blocked for vandalism ad edit war. Remenber that editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war.--Engwk (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Engwk,

First, your English doesn't reach Wikipedia articles standards, so your contributions on this page have to be corrected, as it isn't easily readable.

Second, after your first intervention, I integrated what you brought (a french source mentioning two Fonblanque brothers as Sieurs and not Comtes). So what I did isn't vandalism as I, on the contrary, took your contribution into account.

Third, you're the one who committed vandalism, by repeatedly imposing your point of view. For instance, you wrote that the English sources are "wrong and erroneous", without quoting an author saying so. Your unique French source doesn't prove that no members of this family bore a title of count ; in fact, it just mentions two Fonblanque as "Sieurs". You have no right, by Wikipedia rules, to reach the global conclusion that English sources made false statements, as you did : this is original research, which is forbidden in wikipedia. You also imposed your point of view on Sir John Pennefather, stating : he added to his father's name Pennefather the middle name Fonblanque, part of his mother's name. Which is not true, his middle name (please read the article about this english concept to get a better understanding of it), which is little bit like a French deuxième prénom, being officially de Fonblanque. Which is a part of his mother's family name, as is often the case in Anglo-Saxon countries.

As a conclusion, given all the explanations above,you should refrain from deleting anymore the sourced modifications I bring on this article. Which, as already said, take your contributions into account, only removing the non neutral part of it. You made it on a regular basis, without any explanation : this is an Edit warring, as my version included what you wrote, with neutrality (e.g. : However, French sources mention François de Grenier as Jean de Grenier de Fonblanque's father, and title members of this family as sieur (lord of the manor), and not comte (count) instead of your contribution : The Grenier de Fonblanque family was never titled "comte" in France, but was "sieur", which is original search (no source makes such a statement), and is, by the way, a non neutral point of view.

Please feel free to discuss any point you disagree with. Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk)

hi Engwk,

You once more resorted to vandalism, I'll ask an administrator to assess the situation.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LuciusAniciusGallus,

You can correct drafting, grammar or spelling errors, but I thank you not reporting false information from unreliable sources. If you want to add some information about the French origin of the de Grenier de Fonblanque family, please don’t use non reliable sources that report legends. The Grenier de Fonblanque family was never title “comte de Fonblanque ” In France. Its members only add the name "de Fonblanque" to their family name "Grenier" to differentiate themselves from other Grenier families.

If the French de Grenier de Fonblanque family had been titled count in France, there would be a French source who would give this information : There’s none, it’s an legend and you know that. So please stop using unreliable sources to report false information.

As a conclusion, respect your own request to others “given all the explanations above,you should refrain from deleting anymore the sourced modifications I bring on this article”. If you find only one a French reliable source about a French title of "comte de Fontblanque" granted to the Grenier family when this family wa in France, then we can discuss it. Regards --Engwk (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Grenier family : comte de Fonblanque in France ? Never : erroneous information given by non reliable sources

The de Grenier de Fonblanque family was never titled "comte de Fonblanque" in France : this is an "invention" of a member of this family (non-independent source) Edward Barrington de Fonblanque in his book The Life and Labours of Albany Fonblanque (1874) page 2 [1]. This forgery was then copied by other sources without any verification.

About this title of "comte de Fonblanque " the marquis de Ruvigny wrote in his book The nobilities of Europe (1909) :

"In the Life of Albany Fonblanque by his nephew (p. 2) (1874), it is further stated that Pierre de Grenier, having defended the castle of Cessenan against the Duke of Montmorency in 1584, his sons received from Henry IV the titles of Count de Hauteserre and de Fonblanque from two fiefs in the Foret de la Gresine, near Bruniquet, and that the elder branch of the family became extinct on the death of Cesar de Grenier, Marquis de Juliers, in 1829. A visitation pedigree of these Greniers appears in Pieces fugitives, pour servir à I'Histoire de France, &c., collected and edited by [C. de Baschi] Marquess of Aubois (3 vols., Paris, 1759), ii. 148, but no mention appears there of their being Lords or Counts of Hauteserre or Fonblanque. La Chenaye des Bois (Dict, de la Noblesse, viii. 988), however, gives the pedigree of a family of Gamier, descended from Balthazar de Gamier, Premier Consul of Toulon 1469, whose great-great- grandson was father of two sons (1) Balthazar, ancestor of the Garniers, Seigneurs de Julhians, and (2) Jean, ancestor of the Garniers, Seigneurs de Fonblanque; and the Editor cannot help thinking that a mistake has been made in attaching this family to the Greniers of Rainsins, rather than to the Garniers of Julhiers and Fonblanque"

The Grenier family added the name "de Fonblanque" to its name "Grenier" and its members were known as "sieur" {that means lord of the manor) de Fonblanque.

The Revue historique, scientifique & littéraire du département du Tarn, 1913, p. 33 specifies :

« Jean and Antoine de Grenier, sieurs de Fonblanque, from a family of gentlemen glassmakers living near Vaour in Albigeois, were educated in 1740 in England, perhaps to escape persecution. Jean was naturalized English in 1748 under the name Fonblanque and founded a credit institution in London. Antoine, a merchant in London, returned to France and died at Hauteserre near Vaour in 1766 ».

The same book give a genealogy of this French Grenier de Fonblanque family dating back to Paul de Grenier whose son Able married in 1632 Marie Reynaud (see Revue historique, scientifique & littéraire du département du Tarn, 1913, p. 33-34).

This is far from the so-called "Count of Fonblanque" invented in 1874 by a member fo this family Edward Barrington de Fonblanque in his book The Life and Labours of Albany Fonblanque and then copied by other sources without any verification.

In conclusion  : LuciusAniciusGallus, if you are not able tro present a French reliable source which precisely gives this information of a title of "comte de Fonblanque" granted to the French de Grenier de Fonblanque family (and not for a family with a close name as "Garnier"), the principle of honesty requires that you stop supporting a patently false information invented in the 19th century by a member of this family and that you stop your Editing war for this purpose. Regard --Engwk (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

LuciusAniciusGallus : please stop adding irrelevant inline

LuciusAniciusGallus, I remove The text you added : "In 1724, François de Grenier, sieur de Fonblanque was sent to Paris by noble Antoine de Grenier, sieur de la Seigne, noble Jean d'Azémar, noble Antoine de Girard, and noble Pierre de Robert, sieur de la Prade, representatives of gentlemen glassmakers, called syndics, for the departments of Gresigne, Vivarais, Bas-Languedoc and Moussans. He was to ask the king of France for a confirmation of this corporation privileges, as given by royal decrees of December 1655 and 24th of June 1724; gentlemen glassmakers would propose to limit their activities to only six months a year" because it's totaly irrelevant in this article.

This article is about personalities who bear the name Fonblanque and not about François de Grenier (totally unknown) and details of his live. Please stop using this article to promote this family. Regard --Engwk (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Engwk/Newloo,

First, I do not promote this family. And even if it was the case, this would be none of your business, as long as I comply with Wikipedia rules. For instance, I had no problem to write the title they self-styled is false nobility. Or to explain the interesting fact that they seemed to have a made-up genealogy, based on a confusion between their family and Garniers de Fonblanque. I didn't even create this article, or another about Fonblanque family members, except for one (out of nine) that was lacking (Thomas de Fonblanque)...

Second, you're the one who seemingly intent to censor, whatever the sources given, this article. This is, by definition, vandalism (for instance these passage about the role François de Fonblanque played, representing gentlemen glassmakers. Quoted by several reliable sources about this cast. And not particularly promoting this family in any way. Just describing activities of a forefather of a family, whose article gives logically background elements).

Third, your attitude is, since the beginning of your interventions here, rather inappropriate. Instead of initiating a discussion, and adding a "Citation needed" tag to ask others user to give more sources, your choice is to first delete, then aggresively soliciting the user not to write anything more. You even wrote It would be better to discuss in Talk page and have an agreement before further changes (sic), meaning I am to ask for your permission before writing in Wikipedia ?? You resorted to personal attacks, talking about supposed links I would have with Fonblanques. Or giving the order Do not promote this family...

Four, when you copy paste your previous version, you also delete lots of minor style, grammatical and syntax/punctuation corrections I make. Then I have to do it again. This is quite unpleasant. Or why, for instance, did you remove the link Consul-General to Serbia I added to another wiki article ?? You considered it a "promotion of this family"???

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy and about personalities who bear the name Fonblanque and not about François de Grenier (totally unknown) and details of his live. The text you added is totaly irrelevant in this article.

Please STOP you Edit war and before any modification and discuss in this Talk page to find a agreement. Regards, --Engwk (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The passage about François de Fonblanque, as explained above, is clearly relevant on a page talking about his direct descendants.

Moreover, you again removed many other adds not related to François; e.g. links to Commissioner of Bankruptcy and Consul General to Serbia, who are professions of two Fonblanques listed in this article.

Please adapt your attitude to comply with Wikipedia rules.

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No, sorry the passage about François de Fonblanque is clearly irrelevant  : This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy and about personalities who bear the name Fonblanque and not about François de Grenier (totally unknown) and details of his live.

I put back the internal links Commissioner of Bankruptcy and Consul-General to Serbia removed by mystake. Regard --Engwk (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

these links are not the only changes made that you vandalized repeatedly, which constitute vandalism.

this article isn't on ly a WikiProject Anthroponymy article, which you just added right now to try to support and hide your vandalism. This is about British history, military history etc etc too. This article is clearly a good start for an article about the Fonblanque family as a whole. And even if it isn't the case, you can't decide it on yourself, imposing your point of view.

Please consider this message as a last warning before asking an admnistrator to take some action about this case.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

About "vandalism" I have the same feeling about your mofifications. For the last time I strongly ask you to stop your unacceptable behaviour and your Edit war. You must find a agreement in Talk page before any further mofification. Please consider yourself this message as a last warning before asking an admnistrator to take some action about this case.. Regard, --Engwk (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I never reverted automatically your changes. Even if from the beginning you try to impose unilaterally your point of view in this article. Instead, I sticked to what the sources brought. For instance on the title of nobility issue, I clearly was cooperative. You never were.

Then when blocked and unable to confort your point view, you began to revert repeatedly my changes, including grammatical/syntax/style adds.

And you keep it on this way... Resorting by the way to personal attacks, or trying to cover your attitude through dishonest behaviour (inserting a "Anthroponymy category" panel to orient the debate, using two users account)

So, if you don't want some Administrator to block you, you should cool down and behave accordingly.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

LuciusAniciusGallus, follow your advise and STOP your Edit War. You must reach an agreement in Talk page, Your behavior is totaly inacceptable. --Engwk (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The passage you want to remove is totally relevant here. Speaking of a member of this family. Moreover ancestor of all the others mentionned.

You initiated this Edit warring, as clearly visible from the article history.

Just hope an administrator will quickly take action here.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

LuciusAniciusGallus : Please STOP ACCUSING ME AND STOP INSULTING ME ! Regard --Engwk (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Engwk, nobody insulted you, nobody accused you. It would be just perfect if you could behave yourself and adapt your attitude to Wikipedia standards.

Sincerly,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard : To put an end to this Edit war, I agree with the last version of LuciusAniciusGallus (21:32, 6 April 2021‎) who moved the irrelevant passage in notes. For me the disagreement is settled, but I strongly ask LuciusAniciusGallus to go - next time- through a discussion and an agreement in Talk page before any significant changes (not punctuation, spelling etc) rather than choosing to start a new Edit war. Regards --Engwk (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is, as I suggested, a non permanent solution. The passage considered, giving sourced details about a Fonblanques' ancestor and giving a good insight of gentlemen glassmakers lifes, is obviously relevant in this Fonblanque article.

Having initiated an Edit warring, deleting even adds which were not disputed, you shouldn't give advice to any user. The only reverts I made were in response to your behaviour. As can easily be seen in this article history, I always tried to settle an agreement and to stick to Wikipedia policy/sources. You were not cooperative. Far from it.

Regards,

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LuciusAniciusGallus, I maintain that this passage you wanted to add is totally irrelevant in this article. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy and gives a list of personalities who bear the name "Fonblanque" and not about this man "François de Grenier, sieur de Fonblanque" (totally unknown) and details of his life. You knew perfectly well that in case of disagreement, you had to go through a consensus in Talk page, but instead you engaged an endless Edit war and you wrongly accused me of "vandalism" to justify a point of view. Your argument "The passage considered, giving sourced details about a Fonblanques' ancestor and giving a good insight of gentlemen glassmakers lifes" is irrelevant (this article is not about Grenier de Fonblanques' ancestor and not about gentlemen glassmakers lifes). I agreed you put details about this unknown François de Grenier and his life in notes only to put an end to your circus and your Edit war. Now I suggest you move on and be more cooperative next time. Regard --Engwk (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Once more a personnal attack (circus ? and you dare using such a word after behaving as you did ?)

Your arguments : this article is a list of people named Fonblanque. And not the unknown François de Grenier de Fonblanque. And not gentlemen glassmakers.

However, François and his son Jean/John are direct ancestors of people mentionned in this article. Which is more a stub about this family than a "Anthroponymy WikiProject article" as, once more, you try to impose by yourself.

Furthermore, the fact that François de Grenier de Fonblanque is unknown doesn't forbid talking about him in a Fonblanque article. As he is... a Fonblanque himself, forefather of ther others mentionned, and had, although minor, a role played during his life interesting enough to be described in several quoted books about gentlemen glassmakers.

So, this passage about him is totally relevant.

Please feel free, Engwk/Newloo/Correcteur21, to give your argumented point of view on these points.

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Last Warning: @LuciusAniciusGallus : For the last time I ask you to stop calling me "Newloo" or "Correcteur21". I've already made it clear that I do not know these editors. You've been warned, next time I ask you to be blocked for non respect of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and for Wikipedia:Harassment.

A discussion will not be possible with you as long as you do not strictly follow these rules Regard. --Engwk (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Protected

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Edit_warring_in_article_Fonblanque

After seeing the threads at AN/I, and Talk:Fonblanque, and the various edit summaries for Fonblanque, I have reverted the page to a stable version, and protected it from editing.

And please consider this a warning: Any further bad faith accusations, incivility, edit warring, or any other disruptive editing, and the editors involved may be blocked by any uninvolved admin.

Please discuss civilly on the talk page and find consensus before attempting to update the page further. - jc37 03:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi jc37,

As said a few months ago during the Edit warring,the user Engwk is just a sockpuppet of Correcteur21, a user banned from French WP for harrassing other users and other misuses. The following page in French WP lists all the accounts used by Correcteur21, including Engwk (which is banned in French WP) : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Faux-nez/Correcteur21.

LuciusAniciusGallus (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make a few minor corrections, some of which went out with the bathwater during the deep revert:

• At the end of the lede sentence, please remove the comma from the comma–full stop sequence.
• In the entry for Florence Gertrude de Fonblanque, please add a comma after the parenthesis and decapitalise "Suffragist" to "suffragist".
• In the entry for John Anthony Fonblanque, please add a comma after the parenthesis and decapitalise "Politician" to "politician".
• Finally, please rearrange the entries either by alphabet or by year of birth.

Thank you! --T*U (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

For my part, I fully support this justified request. --Engwk (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... — xaosflux ^Talk 17:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)