Talk:House of Spoelberch

"The line of the house has been traced back to the 14th century"

This is false information. Jean-François Houtart (2008) dates this family back to not earlier then 1535. Paul Brussel (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable persons

The whole article seems more of a genealogical 'article' and doesn't list only notable members or indicates the position of this family in history nor in current times (one of the wealthiest families because of shareholders in AB-Inbev - by mariage, not in their own right). Paul Brussel (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel that is right, otherwise you cannot understand the family history. BTW someone who was Knight of Malta and died in battle, is considered to be very notable.--Carolus (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? Anyway, this article doesn't mention a single "Knight of Malta and died in battle". Paul Brussel (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually reading what is written? Alexandre-Charles-Ghislain, Viscount de Spoelberch, Knight of Malta, died in battle. ????--Carolus (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see now, so you think really every one who died in a battle is "very notable"? I am afraid you are again completely wrong, since millions of people were even unfortunate. And by the way, him being knight of Malta has nothing to do with that, and being a knight in that order is not notable at all. Paul Brussel (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone, but in this family is adds value to the family history. So i suggest you add more info, if you have more info.--Carolus (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is much better to delete much of the information here since again most of it is false. The family dates back till 1535, not earlier. The family did not get noble status in 1626: that was only a personal title of knight for one particular member. In this article again you prove not to be able to write accurate and true information based on reliable sources. Paul Brussel (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is you opinion, your right, but i will have a look later to add some sources.--Carolus (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can imagine, given your history and reputation, that I have very little confidence in your contributions here. I have seen some of what you added here regarding Belgian nobility, and quite a lot was just false or complete nonsense. Also given that you do not have the basic recent and reliable sources on the matter, I doubt whether you are able to add right information and I fear that most likely it cannot be trusted. Just an example: when do you think WWII started if you let one of the members die in that war in 1939? And why do you make Claude a countess de Clermont-Tonnerre which she is not? Paul Brussel (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wel, the same goes for me, given your history in the NL wiki, you are so full of your own wisdom that you cannot accept someone elses point of vieuw, you only can be satisfied if you have the last word. Well, i doubt if you add the right info, i never have seen a official source of the ministery of foreign affairs that has declared the Etat présent THE official journal of state. unless i am mistaken, this book is a privat initiavtif, and nothing more. So you cannot claim that this book is an official source and give it jurisdiction or official prove of state. Nobody is legaly bound to use this book, there is no law or decree that gives this book a superior or scientific, official position. It is a commercial product, nothing more nothing less. So you cannot refer to this work as beeing the only work that is correct. I even doubt if you are in that possition at all to declare such nonsense, i suppose you are just a big fan of this publication. unless you can give me a Belgian law, that says the Etat Present is The only official annuary of the Belgian nobility? If you say yes, then indeed we can just copy the book. Otherwise i do not see why other publications should be banned, even if they might have mistakes. It is not to wikipedia to judge publications or to declare them beeing the recent and reliable source. Or do you perhaps work for the foreign office, and have you been given legal power to do declare such nonsense?--Carolus (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Brussel,

I just corrected the origin of this family. I didn't check the rest of this article but that part is now correct and sourced with reliable & recent publications – at least.

Note that I don't contribute much on WP:EN because of a lack of time and because of a lack of knowledge in the WP:EN wiki syntax & in the WP:EN project's recommendations. So don't expect me much more here (for now).

This being said, it's true that all articles related to Belgian nobility, houses, etc should to be carefully reviewed in order to reach the same level of trustiness as on WP:FR & WP:NL.

These articles are full of mistakes & are written in a rather bad english.

I won't blame Carolus because I have the feeling his goal is not to hurt the project but I'm convinced he doesn't know the topic well enough in order to contribute to it decently.

Also, his english is terrible, as well as his french : [1], [2]

My $ 0.50.

Kind regards,

Apn (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Apn! I understand your worries as well as your limited time to oontribute to WP:EN, and I would prefer you continue your much appreciated contributions to WP:FR regarding the Belgian nobility. Also for me it will be impossible to check on WP:EN all contributions on Belgian (and Dutch) nobility: I am afraid that WP:EN has to live with people like Carolus (whose message before yours is not very encouraging). Anyway, I have spent interesting hours today, during my holidays, reading Houtart, ANB (also on this family, notably volumes 1847 and 1931-1932, part I)), l'Armorial de la noblesse belge and EPN, and discovered some very odd but interesting facts. Bien cordialement, Paul Brussel (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul Brussel,

I also enjoy these readings, especially Houtart's AFB book. Unfortunately, I do not have the most recent (> 1900) ANB volumes but who knows … one day they'll be lying as well in my library !

If you're interested in "recent" odd facts and anomalies regarding "higher" nobility of Belgium, then you'll be fond (as I am) of the articles written by Hervé Douxchamps in Le Parchemin (i.e. Aspremont Lynden, Oultremont, ...). Douxchamps is a really valuable & dedicated genealogist !

Met vriendelijke groet,
Apn (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Houtart's AFB is interesting, like Douxchamps. It's a pity you don't have all the volumes of ANB: there are interesting articles in that as well; I have bought the whole series in once, nicely bound in half leather and from a Belgian nobleman's library. I know the history about the Aspremont-Lynden family: I am afraid WP cannot be trusted either on this family. I think you would appreciate L'ordre de la noblesse as well, in which also Belgian nobility is dealt with. Also in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels and in the successor Gothaisches genealogisches Handbuch you will find Belgian families, like the De Croÿ (GGH, 2015, where they let start the family in 1287 instead of 1357 by Houtart). Kind regards, Paul Brussel (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]