Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette/Archive 1

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

No infobox-- but whether to use one should be carefully considered by the workgroups. Wikifying the references might also be helpful.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 11:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 07:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Voting and discussion
Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;".


 * Support as proposer. David Kernow 15:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

family? he had children -- he must have been married. Wolfman 03:26, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, he married Marie-Adrienne-Françoise de Noailles, daughter of Jean-Paul-François, 5e duc de Noailles. I don't have the date. --Tkinias 10:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article should move to his name (Gilbert Du Motier, marquis de La Fayette), since he is not the only marquis de La Fayette in history. There's no reason, since we have redirects, to keep it where it is. It should also be spelled correctly. See the Bibliothèque nationale de France's card catalog for the correct form of the name. --Tkinias 10:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this currently follows the rule of using the most commonly used name in English. Always a tricky call when that is different than the person's actual name, but in this case the actual name is so obscure that I bet that not one English-speaker in a thousand would recognize it (in fact, I'd venture that not one French-speaker in a hundred would identify just "Gilbert Du Motier"), and there is no other famous Marquis de La Fayette. Of course, whatever we choose, all likely variants should be added as redirects. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:12, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would argue that my suggestion would not violate the rule, since it is not replacing the commonly-known name with one less known, but expanding it to include his name as well as his noble title. I wouldn't suggest simply using Gilbert Du Motier, but Gilbert Du Motier, marquis de La Fayette.  I also note that Britannica has him under his full name, not simply his title. --Tkinias 20:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There was another famous Lafayette, as mentioned in the section Early life, who fought along side Joan of Arc. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Move
Thanks for the move, john. I think he should be under La Fayette, though, as that is the standardized spelling of the title, and is AFAICT universally used for all other members of the family. --Tkinias 09:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Crap damn . I was just fixing the redirects when I noticed the downcasing of Du. According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue, it's Du Motier, with a capital D (odd, I know, but I'm not going to argue with the BNF!)  I can't move it there, though; the system won't do it. --Tkinias 09:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Britannica uses the small "d" (I checked before moving it)...I don't think it's a terribly big deal. john k 16:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was taught in school that the question of whether or not do capitalize articles and prepositions that are part of personal names depends on the context. These include "du", as well, as "van", "von", "de", "la", etc. If the article or preposition is the first part of the name in its context, it is capitalized. If it is preceded by another part of the person's name, it is lower case. Hence, you might begin a sentence about a noted German-American rocket scientist with either "Von Braun" or "Werner von Braun". Very few people seem to follow this usage. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 17:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Name change
This is ridiculous. He is known universally as Marquis de Lafayette (See use common terms). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 02:09, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason for the move was to avoid ambiguity with other other holders of the title (whom I am planning on writing up), and to be in conformance with the standards set up for nobility (see Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29). &mdash;Tkinias 04:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * But see also #6: "In general, use the most commonly recognized English-language form of the  name. Create redirections or disambiguations for other plausible links." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a case where it appears a more specific guideline conflicts with a general guideline; furthermore, #6 does not apply at all to French names&mdash;it addresses solely "Non-European and non-Western" names and titles. Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, known almost universally as simply "the Duke of Wellington", is under his full name and title, in compliance with Wikipedia naming conventions. Similarly, the Black Prince (AFAIK the only person ever known by that nickname) is at Edward, the Black Prince.  If you disagree with this, you might join the discussion on naming conventions, but on this point there seems to be something of a consensus there.


 * There is also a strong precedent that pages with names like Marquis de Lafayette are pages describing the title and listing its holders (see, e.g., Duc d'Orléans). &mdash;Tkinias 04:45, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Tkinias. I would say more, but I couldn't put it more eloquently or more simply.  Let's just leave it at that.  --SimpleBeep 04:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, let's keep the full name for this page. Matthieu 17:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemasonry
Lafayette was a prominant Freemason in both his home country and aknowledged and respected by American Freemasons (1), I was dissapointed to find no aspect of that side of his life covered in this article. Jachin 06:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All that particular citation says is that he was a Mason and was warmly greeted by his fellow Masons when he toured the U.S. in the 1820s. If someone can document that he either affected Masonry or affected the world through Masonry, or that Masonry had a particular effect on his thinking or actions, then it belongs. Otherwise, it is no more notable than a present-day figure being a member of the Masons… or the Sons of Italy, or the ACLU, or even the RIAA. Most people have many such affiliations; they should show up in the article only when significance can be demonstrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * I see that Category:Freemasons has now been added to the article. I will not unilaterally remove it, but consider this a request for a "second" on the suggestion of removing it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the real question is whether Category:Freemasons is a worthwhile category. I'm not precisely sure.  But I think 18th century freemasonry is quite different from 20th century freemasonry.  While everybody who belonged to a masonic organization in the 20th century certainly shouldn't be so categorized, being a freemason was a considerably more significant thing back in the 18th century.  So I'm not sure why it's inappropriate to include Lafayette in such a category. john k 05:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the Freemasons were far more significant at that date than they are now, but I'm still not sure if it's useful to mention membership unless (as I said above) we have some evidence that the person "either affected Masonry or affected the world through Masonry, or that Masonry had a particular effect on his thinking or actions". But I'll drop the subject at this point. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please have a look on Les Neuf Sœurs and/or, if you can read a little french, on this website and I guess you'll find such an evidence. Sincerely. --82.227.42.76 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (from french Wikipedia).

Freemasonry is a category that includes several groups and organizations in numerous nations across the planet, all of which claim descent from the original European organization. In the USA, Freemasonry has two primary groups, the Free and Accepted Masons, and the Prince Hall Masons. There are others, and even the F&AM ahnd PH Masons have Federal structures with Grand Lodges in most if not all 50 States and the Districts and Territories. The point is that Freemasonry is clearly a Category that should be inclusive, NOT exclusive. - 18:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a statue of LaFayette in the French Quarter Museum (or whatever is left of it) honoring him as a Free Mason. This has to be checked since Katrina may have destroyed that building.

Uncritical biography
I find this article somewhat biased in favour of La Fayette, describing him solely as a great friend of liberty and a free press. For example, it is quite clear that La Fayette went very far to prevent Jean-Paul Marat from publishing some of his essays and also in opposing the Jacobins and the club des Cordeliers generally. The article should also reflect these actions during La Fayette's command of the Parisian police prior to the fall of the kingdom in 1792. Maybe the pre-marxist views of Marat are not well received in many quarters, but La Fayette waged a fight that violated the freedom of the press - at least in Marat's case - and he could be considered a contra-revolutionary royalist to a certain extent. All of which ended with his condemnation as a traitor for trying to uphold the monarchy against the will of the National Assembly. Sir48-Denmark


 * I agree, but have something to add as well; this articles reference to the Champ-de-Mars Massacre as the "supressing of a riot" is not only biased, but unfactual. The truth is this (from the French wikipedia article on the Champ-de-Mars--roughly translated):


 * The Cordeliers' petition of the 15th of July, 1791 was taken to the alter of the Patrie which had been raised for 14 July, 1790. A crowd assembled there to sign the petition, demanding the end of the monarchy and asking that France become a republic. The Constituent Assembly ordered them to disperse. The Mayor of Paris decreed martial law which institution was signaled by red flags. This law permitted the forces to be ordered to use their arms. La Fayette tried in vain to disperse the crowd, but Bailly gave the order to fire on the people, [which he did;] there were 50 dead and hundreds of wounded.


 * So, it wasn't exactly a riot, and whether following orders or not, he fired on an unarmed crowd. Whether one thinks this is excusable or not, it is a white-washing of the historical personnage not to mention such an incident. --Montagnarde1794 06:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In agreement: I've rewritten this section to expand the information on constitutional monarchists like Lafayette, and I've given a summary of the "massacre of the Champ de Mars". --Linden Salter 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Swords or La Fayette
I have heard that when La Fayette was in the colonies that he gave out 3 decorational swords as a sign of honor. I know that he gave one to George Washington and one to Daniel Shays but I do not know who he gave the third sword to and would like to get any information on it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.67.234.72 (talk • contribs) 10 Nov 2005.

Last Words
The article states La Fayette's last words were "Je sous ve toute ou." I'm inclined to delete this as there's no citation for it and the French is gibberish. (My translation is "I under ve all or". "Ve" isn't in my Petit Robert dictionary -- is it a misspelling or an archaic word?)  A google search turns up a different "last words" (http://www.trivia-library.com/a/famous-last-word-part-2.htm). Geffb 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Je me sousviens du toutou" ?
 * "Je suis venu trop tôt" ?
 * "Je vous dit tout de go" ?

He would have been expected to mumble, of course.
 * (Lunarian 18:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

I think it is: "Je vous suis tout ouïe". But yeah, it seems butchered, I'm not sure it's archaic French at all. Matthieu 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Geese you guys, for a bilingual like me i almost puked when i saw this. By the way "go" does not exist in french. Ouie is an expression which translates to "ouch".Fheo 23:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What? "ouïe" is the hearing sense in modern french and the expression ( still used currently in french ) "je suis toute ouïe" means "My ears are wide open, I can hear what you have to say". 90.11.50.49 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Clearer Opening Paragraph
The opening should have a sentence or two about his actual roles and accomplishments in the American and French Revolutions respectively so that the most important bits don't have to be laboriously culled from the more detailed paragraphs. Youdontsmellbad 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout "What happenned to you France? You used to be cool.  Take this guy for example."--Murphoid 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to Murphoid's comments: I know you're just joking, but I don't think that type of introduction would be acceptable for an encyclopedia.  Not to be rude, though, it is funny!


 * And yes, I agree that there should be a bit more, but not much. There is already mention, and it suggests that one should read on.  Maybe that's enough, maybe it's not.  Personally, I think there shouldn't be such a fuss.  --SimpleBeep 04:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The "slavery" information is too vague and has some inaccuracies. For example, while the majority of the slaves who lived at Mount Vernon at the end of Washington's life belonged to the Custis estate (Martha Washington's first husband), the proportion was fairly close to half. And, Martha Washington did not free her own slaves after Washington's death. She did not own slaves in her own right; therefore, she could not have freed them. Rather, she renounced her life interest in George Washington's slaves a year after his death, which led to their being freed--according to the provisions of his will--early. It is true that both Lafayette and Washington grew to dislike the institution of slavery, though for different reasons and with different results. Washington actually pursued the idea of freeing both the he owned outright and purchasing, with the intention to free, the Custis slaves. He had a two pronged strategy. He hoped to rend his Mount Vernon lands to English farmers who would pay him rent, ensuring a continued income stream, and employ the freed slaves. In order to raise funds to purchase the Custis slaves, he hoped to sell the lands he owned in th western territories. Neither plan was successful. He found no takers to either rent the Mount Vernon farms or purchase the western land. Lafaytte, who as a Frenchman, did not own slaves in his home country, purchased a plantation in French Guyana, with its slaves, where he practiced a system of education and gradual emancipation. For more infomation on these issues, see the George Washington papers at the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia.

Is this the worst article on Wikipedia?
I hate to say this, but I have never read a Wikipedia entry in worse condition than this one. Can we get someone who is neither attached to American founder myths nor French revolution myths to redo it? 89.49.65.139 21:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

However after looking over my notes of this website i soon came to realize that the chronological accuracy is awful. In certain parts it states that in 1812 Lafayette helped in the French Revolution. Im sorry but im an expert on French history and the revolution took place in the 1790's. This article is a disgrace to wikipedia! Fheo 23:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Honorary Citizenship
When Winston Churchill was made an Honorary Citizen of the United States in 1963, I recall the news media stating that this was the first such grant "since LaFayette". I also recalled that Lafayette's honorary citizenship given him during a visit to the U.S. commemorating the 50th anniversary of Independence, and that it was special in that it carried over to all living descendants.

Lafayette was granted honorary citizenship more recently, in 2002, without any mention of his descendants.

I did a little more digging, and found a three web pages the first of which states: Demonstrating the gratitude of the American nation, Congress proclaimed Lafayette an honorary citizen in 1824 and invited him to tour the U.S. as its first official guest.

Another web site says: The Marquis named his son George Washignton (sic) Lafayette. His direct descendants, members of the Chambrun family, are honorary U.S. citizens.

Well, my memory wasn't totally accurate (LaFayette left the U.S. before 1826), but it seems that it was better than that of Congress. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 17:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added, to the main article, his 1824 grant of Honorary Citizenship.

University
I think we should point out that there is a university called Lafayette in Easton, PA(for all you sad souls who dont know were Easton is, its near Allentown, for all you sad souls who dont know were Allentown is, get some geography lessons). The coolest town in all of PA.Fheo 23:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Early Sections
I made a bunch of edits to try to clean up the early sections, which need a lot of work. I think it's improved, but what it really needs is some substantive beefing up of the American Revolution section, which relies too much on long quotations and doesn't give enough detail of what he actually did in America. Feel free.

--Eldred 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Masons
"However, as Washington's letters show, by the end of the war, since some of the worst traitors like Benedict Arnold were masons, focus turned to the proven loyal in his Society of the Cincinnati, of which one of the biggest Chapters was in France."

Besides being terribly written & uncited, I can't see why this belongs in an article on La Fayette. I haven't been involved in this article lately, so I'm hesitant to delete unilaterally, but I'd welcome deletion by someone who has been active in it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"Tradition has it that, with General Washington's sponsorship[citation needed], Lafayette had been raised as a Master Mason in 1777 or 1778 shortly after his arrival in America."

We already know the masons are a powerfull, influential and sometimes charitable organization. Please cite this statement, above, using primary sources. NO popular-opinion-sophistry, hear-say or tradition please! Also, nowhere on General Lafayette's birth certificate, grave stone or anywhere in his signed letters do we find Lafayette's name written as 2 words. (i.e. as in "La Fayette") What does this say about some modern historians who continue to revise his name in this way? --4.156.117.22 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would never apply one of those lazy and vulgar "cleanup" notices, but a beginning might be made here by fixing errors of bolding and italics, by dropping the genealogy of Lafayette's descendents to the bottom, and cleaning it of genealogy-hobbyist jargon. --Wetman (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Did he draft the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen?
Just curious, this link http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-DeclarRMNC.html seems to say that Emmanuel Sieyès drafted it, as well as this wikipedia entry for Sieyes. -Maimone (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the title "Marquis"
I've recently been involved in a discussion (here) with a user who suggests that referring to Lafayette as "Marquis de Lafayette" amounts to a slur and is something to be avoided assiduously. The basis for this is Lafayette's renunciation of his title in 1790, and the fact that detractors subsequently belabored the title to try to harm him. I see no evidence at all that usage of the title in modern times is anything other than an acknowledgment of fact, but I just wanted to give others a chance to comment. Thanks! Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. The title might have been used at the time in a negative fashion, but from our perspective now, he was at one time the "Marquis de Lafayette", and I don't see how the use of the title now has any negative impact on the person, especially when (in the article) the situation is explained.  Former presidents of the United States retain the title "Mr. President" even though they no longer fill that role; granted, I don't know of any that have renounced that title, but we now refer to past presidents that have passed away as "presidents", even though they were not presidents throughout their whole lives, and in most cases were not active in that role when they died.  Omnedon (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No American Lafayette scholar (who wishes to keep his reputation) would make this "LA FAYETTE" error (or use "Marquis" in present tense or post-1790 usage, since General Lafayette was the principle author of the vote in which the aristocracy was abolished in France and that remains abolished today).


 * These errors stem from original (British)Encyclopedia Britannica (SEE the perfect paper trail in old editions through current edition available in google-books) and post Restoration French Press in the early 19th century that started that fraud. Wikipedia rules are very specific about known sources of fraud especially when they are designed to deceive.
 * It seems those old British Empire and French editors were quite upset about Lafayette's leadership in the abolishment of the French aristocracy/nobility in 1790 and many paybacks ensued from those aristocrat editors that continue through to this day.


 * ALSO NOTE:


 * --From his birth certificate, through all his written letters and his grave stone all contain one word; LAFAYETTE.


 * --Americans for over 100 years(including many decades after Lafayette's death) knew to ignore the old Ency. Britannica and old British and aristocratic-French Press frauds. Many US towns were named LAFAYETTE (all 1 word) during these years when Americans knew about these British and post-Restoration French frauds on Lafayette's name.    SEE E.E.Brandon, General Lafayette, 4 Vols. who documented the American Press and found >90% knew about the fraud and it was nearly wiped out in U.S.

Calling Lafayette "Marquis" (in post 1790 usage) is like calling a former slave from Georgia, after Lincoln's Abolition of Slavery, still a slave.
 * --So called historians that throw those "MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" titles around (in present tense usage and in post 1790 references) is one great way to spot the "not so thorough" phony historians.


 * SEE also


 * 1)--Gottschalk, Louis, "Lafayette Comes to America, 1935, pp. 153-154, titled, Lafayette, LaFayette, or La Fayette?"   (Gottschalk is one of best Lafayette historians in the last 100 years. He also wrote an excellent book titled, "Jean Paul Marat" that is far better than Wikipedia's current Marat page.


 * 2)--Lafayette's Memoires


 * You need to ask yourself are you a proponent of Wikipedia-Britannica (sic) to continue that same old Encyclopedia Britannica fraud?   Please note, this Wikipedia Lafayette page started off as a copy of the complete original 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica's page for Lafayette that continued the same British fraud through all those editions.


 * Do we really wish to return to that same old British Empire and aristocratic-French press fraud?
 * CUR NON? --68.162.239.221 (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Name spelling issues
The article is called "Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette".

The text opens with "Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert-DuMotier Lafayette".


 * He's called Lafayette throughout. Is this because when he renounced his La Fayette title, he adopted the one-word surname Lafayette?
 * "du Motier" seems to have been his personal surname at birth, but it looks like it became part of his 7-barrel given name. Is this correct?  Or should the opening para start with "Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert DuMotier Lafayette"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The naming issue is explained in the article under the heading Name and family. Over the last three years the article has been moved once in each direction, from La F to Laf and back again. Since the article pays proper attention to both names that are still in actual use, I suggest we leave it the way it is. In my opinion, it is more important that we track how people refer to him in print than to obey all of his wishes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation help
I am in contact with a professional voice actor who is trying to record a spoken version of George Washington and he wants to hear someone pronounce "Marquis de La Fayette". If anyone would be willing to call him up or even leave a voice mail with the proper pronunciation, please email me and I will send you his contact info. Thanks.  howcheng  {chat} 18:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wife
I wish I knew more about her, because the beginning of the article suggests she had a lot to do with his safety and well being. But I can't find a link to her page. Does she even have one? If she does it is not easily found on this page the way it should be. Someone, please answer the call! Sixer Fixer (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Descendents
I just cut this from the article, for the time being, in a more streamlined form. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: Children:
 * 1) Henriette (1775-1775)
 * 2) George Washington Lafayette (1779–1849), whose godfather was Lafayette's close friend George Washington; like his father, George permanently disavowed the title and served only in the lower House of the National Assembly. He married in 1802 Françoise Emilie Destutt de Tracy, and they had two sons and three daughters including:
 * 3) Oscar Gilbert Lafayette (1815–1881), liberal politician.
 * 4) Edmond Lafayette, (1818-1891)
 * 5) Anastasie Lafayette (1 July, 1777-1863), who married Charles Fay de LaTour-Maubourg (1774-1824), the youngest of the three LaTour-Maubourg brothers. (His eldest brother César (1756-1831) was a French general, one of Lafayette's closest, loyal friends and who was imprisoned, in isolation, the same as Lafayette, and is buried at the head of Lafayette's grave at Picpus/Paris.). They had a daughter:
 * 6) Jenny Fay de LaTour-Maubourg (6 September 1812 La Grange-Bleneau-15 April 1897 Turin), who was matrilineal ancestress (great-great-grandmother) of Belgium's Queen Paola.
 * 7) Virginie (1782-1849), who married Louis de Lasteyrie du Saillant (1781-1826) (who permanently disavowed the aristocratic "Marquis" title and had descendants surviving until date.) They had several children including two daughters listed here, one of whom was ancestress of the Pineton de Chambrun family. Another son was Jules, Marquis de Lasteyrie (1810-1884)
 * 1) Virginie (1782-1849), who married Louis de Lasteyrie du Saillant (1781-1826) (who permanently disavowed the aristocratic "Marquis" title and had descendants surviving until date.) They had several children including two daughters listed here, one of whom was ancestress of the Pineton de Chambrun family. Another son was Jules, Marquis de Lasteyrie (1810-1884)

Naming
I'm not proposing a move (just want to make that clear before I'm yelled at ;)).

Articles need to be consistent - and this article is no exception. If the spelling in the title is La Fayette, then he should be referred to as La Fayette throughout the entire article (as opposed to what we have now, where he is referred to as both).-- daniel  folsom  20:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a tough cookie. His name was La Fayette, but at least in the US he is known as Lafayette. I agree with the above, we should use La Fayette because it is the correct spelling of his name, and he is not only well-known in the United States but in France as well. But, as I come from the US, I must admit that it is rather disingenuous to see the name spelled "La Fayette" (as here in New York I find myself frequently debarking the subway at the Broadway-Lafayette station and the town next to mine where I grew up was Lafayette) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, I just went to the library to get some reference material which will hopefully help us: Adopted Son: Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship that Saved the Revolution, For Liberty and Glory: Washington, Lafayette, and their revolutions, and Lafayette in Two Worls: Public Cultures & Personal Identities in an age of Revolutions. Notably, the spelling is always "Lafayette", again I am in the U.S. So, I am rather confounded about the way to progress regarding the spelling of the subject's name. Any other suggestions? Lazulilasher (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's simply disputed - I'm also from the U.S. and I'm used to Lafayette, however I'm not saying it should be Lafayette OR La Fayette - I'm simply saying that we need to be consistent. If it's La Fayette in the title, it should be La Fayette throughout the entire article; if it's Lafayette in the title, it should be Lafayette throughout the entire article.-- daniel  folsom  19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to go with La Fayette now as that seems to be the English manner of spelling Monsieur La Fayette's name. We can change it back, later if we decide that that is the case. Honestly, I don't know the correct answer. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A spelling change would need consensus
With this edit, User:Lazulilasher changed a bunch of occurrences of La Fayette's name to the American spelling, Lafayette. I urge him to revert this change. The spelling of his name has been discussed many times over the past year, and the current spelling is (I believe) supported by consensus. Americans are more used to seeing 'Lafayette' while in England and France, the spelling 'La Fayette' is more common. I suggest that the original spelling, still captured in the current name of the article, should be kept. 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I'll change it back. Give me a moment to finish the edit I'm working on presently and then I'll replace Lafayette with La Fayette. I wasn't sure (see the conversation above), so I merely chose one and went with it for consistency. It's a simple matter to change, I'll just load it up into Word and replace all instances with La Fayette. I personally am torn on the matter, as all published material I have says "Lafayette", on the other hand the French spelling is "Lafayette" -- so I really did not know which to use. My apologies. Wait a few moments and I'll put it back...Lazulilasher (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's done. They should be all La Fayette's now. I really don't have an opinion on the matter, as long as it is consistent, although if one could find a definitive source, that would be great. Regardless, it is a fairly simple matter to change. :) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spotlight Todo

 * Put tags where needed
 * Subsequently cite everything
 * Split up the French Revolution section into more subsections
 * Clean up Legacy section

Issues

 * Per LEAD our lead section is too short
 * Questionable whether OR is used in the Name and family section and the Legacy section
 * Both section should have more citations
 * Images need to be checked (all images must have "copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content)"

Citations linked to page numbers
Here are the page numbers used for the citations I added this weekend, so we can link the cite directly to a page in the source text: Adopted (Clark):

Hate the English, page 13

Schooling, marriage, page 17

Rank of captain, page 20

Raynal, rights of man, 28

De Kalb/de Broglie/decision to travel to America 75

Great Conversation 100

Washington’s recommendation

Sword presentation=243

Departure for America=257

Yorktown=330-338

Liberty & Glory=

Ancestors in war 33

Brandywine= 75

Richmond defence=153

Drive through Virginia=155

Here to learn 70

Battle of Barren Hill 112

Holbrook:

Lafayette: Man in the middle

Silas Deane=15

Commission=19

Retreat=23

Albany=26

Barren Hill=28, 29

Return to Boston=33

Return to France=33

Lobbying, house arrest=39

Tasklist
Hey guys, it looks like we're making some great progress on the article. So, to keep the momentum going, here are a few things that we can continue to ameliorate:
 * 1) Add page-numbers from Holbrook's book Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Finish formatting all refs with  templates and move those templates to the Works Cited section.
 * 3) Expand the lead - down to: "it'll need expanded about the french revolution, his time in prison, etc...".
 * 4) fact check and verify all sources for the French Revolution are reliable Done by Lazulilasher
 * 5) Clean up Legacy section, consider removing parts, and verifying all claims to a reliable source. Lots of it does not have sources at all. (in progress by Jamie)
 * 6) Make "Later Years" more concise and again, verify all sources are reliable. Later Years and Legacy need a thorough scrubbing. Make sure sentence flow is logical and we follow WP:SUMMARY by not delving into too much detail.
 * 7) Consider integrating "Etymology" section (which isn't an etymology) into Early life, somehow. Much of this has been done.
 * 8) Copy edit for grammar and copy edit for style, verify thematic elements link paragraphs and that all sentences logically lead to the next
 * 9) Examine and consider relevance of citation numbers 3,4,5,38,39,42,43
 * 10) Perhaps, create a section detailing La Fayette's relationship with Washington.
 * 11) Add  template done as far as we can. We need a death location . —— nixeagle 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) reduce the number of sections by merging them.
 * 13) Shorten image captions
 * 14) Remove and cite all  tags.
 * 15) Cite 12 needs to be fixed with the correct format. - Also note that this ref only cites the year, not the date as the article has. So... we need a ref with a date.


 * Cite 12 needs to be fixed with the correct format. (fyi miranda, you can do this simple task :), needless to say I'll put it in the tasklist abovfe )
 * Miranda, for future work, please be more specific when saying "fix to correct format" or just do it yourself. Even better, if you are not sure how to do it, just mention it on IRC. Cheers! —— nixeagle 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For reading purposes the References should be split into a differento section (contain.ing books) and a citations section (author, book, page number). miranda 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to explain what is wrong with the current format, perhaps someone else will understand. I think what we have now is acceptable. —— nixeagle 03:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Legacy section is listy. (we know).
 * In a section "Virginia and Yorktown", please clarify: "On the 28th, the men neared Yorktown and began preparations for the siege" to say which men were effected. miranda</b> 21:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As we were talking about washington in the prior sentence, its not quite obvoius, but it is clear that the men are the US. (under command of general washington). I'll clarify that in the article —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 03:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah in context the men obviously refers to the french and the english. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Crud I can't remember. Its worded so "men" refers to the french and the english, but it could be the british. (I thought the british were the ones besieged there). —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Long term questions

 * Should there be ant forks for this article? (as in see main article: . (asked by Synergy on IRC) `
 * Some were put in last night for the french revolution section, other sections should probably have them as well. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Date formats
La Fayette was a Frenchman, France uses International Dating format (day-month- year), so please don't change dates to American Dating format. Most of the dates are in d-m-y format and always have been. I went through and corrected them all some months ago, but it seems that I have to keep a close and continuing eye on it. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We will be moving everything to the correct date format in a bit. I'm not too concerned about date format at this point, we are working on other issues that the article has. Our goal is to get the article to a GA or an FA status. To do so, I'm sure we will have to have the correct date format. Please don't mind us if we get a few wrong while working on other issues. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to give you an idea of the commitment we have to getting this article to GA or FA status... during the time spotlight has worked (some 3 days now) 306 constructive (no vandalism reverts) edits have been made to the article: A link to the diff is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilbert_du_Motier%2C_marquis_de_La_Fayette&diff=231326599&oldid=230600988 —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One final note, I'd suggest you continue to keep an eye on the date stuff during the duration of the time we are working on the article. Nobody in spotlight is intentionally changing the dates around, just it is not on the top of everyone's mind. When we get done with the tasks we listed above, folks involved will take the time to check all the minor details. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 23:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah! I keep thinking of things, could you do me a favor and link me to the guideline/policy on the dates. I know there is one in the manual of style but its not something I have taken the time to investigate. As you seem to know which format is which and what its supposed to be, I'm assuming you know which part of that style guideline is relevant. Much appreciated! —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 23:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DATE has the relevant policy. Wikidating - making dates into links so that the editor preference autoformatting kicks in - has recently become optional, so I'm removing the linking from dates when I modify them into the appropriate format. This article is one where either date format is appropriate, because while La Fayette is/was a Frenchman, and France uses d-m-y format, he also has significant ties to the U.S., where the reverse applies. However, as the article was predominantly d-m-y, I changed m-d-y to International Dating format for consistency, in the process removing the wikilinks. This has had the paradoxical effect of making these dates appear inconsistent to those editors who have date preferences enabled in the American Dating format. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright. Works fine for me, I don't think anyone will be changing it to the other format. At least not without a proper discussion here. However I will note that at points of opportunity (when I'm copy editing sections) I have taken the habit of adding in the wikilinked dates. Please remember that most of this is fairly minor, considering that a complete overhaul of the article is in progress. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been making a concerted effort to use the International format whenever I add new information. Just an odd note: I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but for some reason, the Date thing just completely confuses me. I have no idea why--it just blows my mind. Hence, if I were to add a date in the wrong section, will rectify it as soon as I see the error. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Task List
Now that our project has progressed, Nixeagle has suggested we have a new tasklist.

Pursuant to that request, I am pleased to present WP:SPOT tasklist v.2. Please note that a number of these tasks may seem mundane, but their completion will certainly help us reach our goal.


 * 1) Update Lead with more information about the French Revolution.
 * Thanks to dudman for work here. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Verify that all non-book (i.e. URL citations) are 1.) Reliable, per WP:RELIABLE and 2.) Verify the information cited in the article. This will be one of the more thankless tasks, but it is essential.
 * 2) Verify that all dates are accurate. Again, this is is an important task--dates must be accurate.
 * 3) Merge/Copyedit/Evaluate Legacy and Later Life section. Is it presented in the most appropriate manner? I notice a one sentence paragraph, could we incorporate that better into the text?
 * 4) Read and re-read article with an unbiased, objective viewpoint with an eye towards verifying article is NPOV and that explanations exist for those who are introduced to the topic for the first time (example: Dendodge caught that we did not directly assert which branch of the military Noailles was a captain of)

I think that's got it. Yours humbly, Lazulilasher (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New Lead?
This was the Lead in former times. I find it pretty good and am in favor of including it in our Lead

Lafayette served in the American Revolutionary War both as a general and as a diplomat, serving entirely without pay in both roles. Later, he was to prove a key figure in the early phases of the French Revolution, serving in the Estates General and the subsequent National Constituent Assembly. He was a leading figure among the Feuillants, who tried to turn France into a constitutional monarchy, and commander of the French National Guard. Accused by Jean-Paul Marat of responsibility for the "Massacre of the Champ de Mars" (before which, Lafayette was nearly assassinated), he subsequently was forced out of a leading role in the Revolution by Jacobin Terror anarchists. On 19 August 1792, the Jacobin party seized control of Paris and the National Assembly, ordering Lafayette's arrest. He fled France and was arrested by the Austrian army in Rochefort, Belgium. Thereafter, he spent five years in various Austrian and Prussian prisons. He was released in 1797; however, Napoleon Bonaparte would not allow his return to France for several years. He continued to be active in French and European politics until his death in 1834. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Book citations without page numbers
User:Lazulilasher there are multiple citations from your books that don't have their relevant page number. Please add these page numbers if u can. There are also Citations tagged with Payan, who is unknown. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Blackjack
Surprised to see no mention of the wonderful line that marked the arrival of American troops in France: ''After departing from Fort Jay at Governors Island in New York Harbor under top secrecy in May 1917, Pershing arrived in France in June 1917. In a show of American presence, part of the 16th Infantry Regiment, lacking polish and discipline, but demonstrating much enthusiasm marched through Paris shortly after his arrival. Pausing at Lafayette's tomb he was reputed to have said the famous line "Lafayette, we are here." The morale-boosting sound bite was in fact spoken by his aide, Colonel Charles E. Stanton. Token American forces were deployed in France in the fall of 1917, with an enormous tonic effect on Allied morale.'' I realise that this occurred many years after La Fayette's death, but to many readers, it will be the reason they turned to the article. --Pete (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We could mention that in his legacy/Death section perhaps? If you would like to talk/work with us, please click this link: http://embed.mibbit.com/?server=irc.freenode.net&channel=%23wikipedia-spotlight&noServerTab=false —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

LAFAYETTE and the "MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" FRAUDS in old British Empire and French Press
Hey everyone I received this message as an explanation of why we should use Lafayette:


 * No American Lafayette scholar (who wishes to keep his reputation) would make this "LA FAYETTE" error (or use "Marquis" in present tense or post-1790 usage, since General Lafayette was the principle author of the vote in which the aristocracy was abolished in France and that remains abolished today).


 * These errors stem from original (British)Encyclopedia Britannica (SEE the perfect paper trail in old editions through current edition available in google-books) and post Restoration French Press in the early 19th century that started that fraud. Wikipedia rules are very specific about known sources of fraud especially when they are designed to deceive.
 * It seems those old British Empire and French editors were quite upset about Lafayette's leadership in the abolishment of the French aristocracy/nobility in 1790 and many paybacks ensued from those aristocrat editors that continue through to this day.


 * ALSO NOTE:


 * --From his birth certificate, through all his written letters and his grave stone all contain one word; LAFAYETTE.


 * --Americans for over 100 years(including many decades after Lafayette's death) knew to ignore the old Ency. Britannica and old British and aristocratic-French Press frauds. Many US towns were named LAFAYETTE (all 1 word) during these years when Americans knew about these British and post-Restoration French frauds on Lafayette's name.    SEE E.E.Brandon, General Lafayette, 4 Vols. who documented the American Press and found >90% knew about the fraud and it was nearly wiped out in U.S.

Calling Lafayette "Marquis" (in post 1790 usage) is like calling a former slave from Georgia, after Lincoln's Abolition of Slavery, still a slave.
 * --So called historians that throw those "MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" titles around (in present tense usage and in post 1790 references) is one great way to spot the "not so thorough" phony historians.


 * SEE also


 * 1)--Gottschalk, Louis, "Lafayette Comes to America, 1935, pp. 153-154, titled, Lafayette, LaFayette, or La Fayette?"   (Gottschalk is one of best Lafayette historians in the last 100 years. He also wrote an excellent book titled, "Jean Paul Marat" that is far better than Wikipedia's current Marat page in covering Marat's roots and education in Britain.


 * 2)--[| Lafayette's Memoirs Vol. 2, pgs. 392-394]
 * You need to ask yourself, are you a proponent of Wikipedia-Britannica (sic) to continue that same old Encyclopedia Britannica fraud?   Please note, this Wikipedia Lafayette page started off as a copy of the complete original 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica's page for Lafayette that continued the same British fraud through all those editions.


 * Do we really wish to return to that same old British Empire and aristocratic-French press fraud?
 * CUR NON? --68.162.239.221 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC) PS Notice the editors and recently erased changes in History of this particular talk section.

Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem changing it to the more preferred naming, so long as its accurate. I just disagree with edits that do not mention this, nor bring this to the talk page for discussion. Lets get some other opinions before changing anything.  Syn  ergy 10:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Squiretuck: Please note that editing others' comments or contributions to a talk page isn't encouraged — see WP:Talk. I'd entitled my earlier post Usage of the title "Marquis, but you had edited it to say "MARQUIS" "LA FAYETTE" NAMING FRAUDS stemming from old British Empire and French Press.  This I reverted.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  14:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of your reasoning involves what Americans would do - but this is not an American encyclopedia - it is simply an English one; in the same what that we use Yoghurt (instead of Yogurt) - we can use La Fayette here, no?-- daniel  folsom  14:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have a reliable source on the birth certificate? We don't know what it says at the moment. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 15:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with switching to Lafayette is that La Fayette has been established, and, per WP:ENGVAR, we should: "Stay with established spelling -- If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated."-- daniel  folsom  16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the change to Lafayette; not because I believe it should be La Fayette (although I do), but because reference titles were changed when the first user changed everything to Lafayette - that is not acceptable.-- daniel  folsom  16:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I do not have a preference between the two spelling, I do like the reference to WP:ENGVAR, which I believe affirms a question I wasn't exactly sure how to answer: which spelling to use. I think it is probably easiest to leave it alone as references source both names--with U.S. generally preferring Lafayette and France La Fayette. As the MOS confirms that names should be left as they were established, I agree with the reversion to the spelling. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As I'm sure the American Lafayette scholars noticed that many of the editors above, know little about Lafayette and the old Britannica fraud of which there is a perfect paper trail that has now been exposed. Their insistence that Lafayette was born in Chavagnac,Cabal??? is typical of their low and faulty level of accurate Lafayette historical knowledge.(SEE their edits dated 18 August,2008) Notice also the references they present are the from either non-referenced sources or from poor, shaky sources that are non-referenced when you dig to their origin.

Wikipedia rules are very clear about use of non-credible and deliberately deceptive sources containing fraud.

--An exact photocopy of Lafayette's authenticated birth certificate can be found in;

'Pialoux,Paul; Lafayette, TROIS REVOLUTIONS POUR LA LIBERTE'', 1989, Edition Watel, pg. 24.'''

--"Lafayette" and "duMotier" in one word appear in one word on his baptismal certificate, all his letters, Memoirs and grave stone. His grave stone also contains a "D." (but no "M.") reinforcing the one word non-aristocratic form of "duMotier. It is now clear, some of the editors, above, are engaging in a repeated, nearly fascist, vandalism (including erasing key, high level, historian references like Gottschalk etc.). CUR NON? --68.162.239.221 (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Howdy, first off let me explain that the rewrite was done by members of WP:SPOTLIGHT, a wikiproject geared towards rapidly improving articles. We found this article as originally coming from the 1911 Britannica. As per wikipedia rules we have not changed the name or the usage of the name on fear that it may have been put that way for a reason. (we generally do not change what original articles started as, this applies for things such as spelling (US/English/Canadian/etc) and date formats (US/International).
 * However as such you have pointed out that 1) he has an existing birth certificate, and it says lafayette. This is new information to us. If you would like to show us the "false" trail or whatever about the 1911 britanica (the state this article came from) we would appreciate it. The prior version of the article, before spotlight touched it, is here. Notice how it originates from the 1911 britanica. Again part of the policy of wikipedia dictated to us to leave those potentally sensitive issues in the state that we found them. That meant we left it as La fayette.
 * Lastly, I would appreciate it if you would stop calling our edits vandalism and using hyperbole. We have edited this article in good faith with the sources and knowledge avalible to us. I'm open to corrections, as I'm sure the other members of the projects are. Calling us "fascist" is just way out there. Please have a look at our guidelines on civility. Cheers! —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on past discussions and a previous incident report, I'm assuming the editor in this case is User:Squiretuck. Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have had a short discussion on IRC, and after re-examining the article before we touched it, we realized that we have made a mistake, based on the title of the page, and the opening of the page. Lafayette is used throughout the page. As such I think its going to be changed back to the usage found there.
 * If there had been an issue with the birth certificate, or whatever (there were a few sources saying something about a screwup with that) I'd appreciate info or sources about that. Was a mistake made, as the rest of the family has La Fayette. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * After further discussion, it has been noted that using the US spelling (lafayette) would conflict with the British spelling that is used throughout the article... Thoughts? —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Though either would be acceptable, I think it would be suitable for the article to follow the most widely-used convention. In this case, that seems to be "Lafayette", as used by Britannica, Encarta, the Order of Lafayette, the Marquis de Lafayette Collection, IMDB, etc.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there are conflicting sources about how the name is spelled - here (third book down if it doesn't go automatically) it is spelled: "Sr. Gilbert du Mottie, Chevalier de Chavaillac"-- daniel  folsom  19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Here is the issue: British English is established in this article (the article spells honor "honour"), therefore by using Lafayette as the primary spelling, we will be combining British and American English; this practice is prohibited by the MoS.-- daniel  folsom  20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."

Seeing as how Britannica now spells it "Lafayette" - obviously La Fayette is not the British spelling, so i'll change it-- daniel  folsom  20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

First note this author, Tower, covers a time period only before 1790. It is only the period after 1790 (when aristocracy was abolished in France) that present tense "Marquis" title usage is improper.
 * Danielfolsom, please notice the Lafayette book you linked (above) authored by Charlemagne Tower is typical of the scholars influenced by the old Britannica fraud (SEE the 1911 or earlier edition Britannica "La Fayette" entry for an eyeful example of deliberate fraud) and other bad scholarship.

One last note, most of the references listed in the 2007 Britannica entry are the worst (authors using no references) and typically all POV types of authors. Only one listed reference source, in that current Britannica-short-bio is credible to most historians, which is well known historian Louis Gottschalk, but Louis would cringe if he saw that current very poor write-up that clearly was not done by any credible Lafayette scholar. Hence Wikipedias rules on credibility of sources and especially not using those that have a long paper trail of deceptiveness and known fraud. CUR NON?--68.162.239.221 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, note on page 9 the correct transcription of birth certificate showing "Lafayette" and "DuMotier" each as one word. But also note on same page the comment that Lafayette's father "died before he was born" from Tower's neglecting to get the battle date correct.  This is mediocre scholarship at best and typical of many current "copied fraud" edits on this main page.


 * Applying the term "fraud" to the Britannica's treatment of Lafayette is quite extreme, since the word connotes deliberate trickery or a conscious will to deceive, something I see no evidence of. That aspects of the article may be inaccurate is certainly a possibility, but this also would need to be demonstrated, not simply asserted.  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  12:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you yourself have any sources on this? You cite the 1911 Britannica "fraud", yet I don't see any sources verifying it. My own eyes don't count. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 00:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me expand on that, please post sources for the marquis thing as well, I don't really care who you are, as I can't verify that you are who you say you are. The only thing that matters here is sources. I'd appreciate being linked to something we can see. —— <b style="color:navy;">nix</b><b style="color:red;">eagle</b> 00:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this matter seems settled at the moment. But allow me to weigh in with one last tidbbit. Consider this link: Lafayette ought to be correct, for that is the way it is portrayed on his gravestone; it is LAFAYETTE not LA FAYETTE, that is unequivocally one word in caps. Perhaps it could mean LaFayette (very very possible) I truly believe that the Lafayette family most likely would like their correct name portrayed in stone (maybe someone could verify who commissioned the last gravestone of Lafayette, I will gladly shut up if it was commissioned by an American). You may verify this by going to his gravesite. Or a google search it. Consider the matter set in stone...hehe. Selfexiled (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Monroe's intervention
The article states that Monroe intervened to the French Directory for the release of Adrienne, Lafayette's wife. This must be incorrect. Adrienne was released, according to the article, in January 1795, while the Directory started on November 2, 1795 when the the French Terror and no American intervention was necessary to ensure her release.Afil (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, let me check on this. I'm not at home, so I've got no books with me, but I will be later--I'll do some clarification :) Lazulilasher (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Although many political prisoner/aristocrats/emigres were released at the Terror's end, Adrienne was not. Monroe did intervene on her behalf (replacing Morris, who had previously intervened). My sources say that Monroe intervened with the "5 man directory". What is going on here? Hmm... Lazulilasher (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have it confirmed in a second source that Adrienne was not freed until Monroe's intervention. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See French Directory. (Morris had been dismissed from France much earlier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor's thoughts
I think most of the things mentioned by User:Mattisse have been fixed as well as a large number of other similar things. Trying not to distort the content, I did a lot of prose tightening as well as low-level, nit-picky stuff. Another copyedit by a fresh set of eyes wouldn't hurt. The list of works cited should be re-arranged alphabetically by author's last name. I, too, wonder why Time magazine is in this list. I hope this helps. Finetooth (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, I put the Time down there...I'm not sure why. I do recall a small voice in my head telling me not to do it. Ok, I'll take it off...Lazulilasher (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's alphabetized. Btw, nice to be working with you again, Finetooth! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion
I agree that the prose problems have been remedied by the copy editing. The prose now is very good, certainly good enough for GA. I have only two questions:
 * What does "Lafayette awoke the king" mean?
 * Why, under Legacy, is there nothing about Lafayette's accomplishments in France?

Certainly passes GA, in my opinion. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lafayette literally awoke the sleeping king. The crowd outside was becoming agitated, calling for his head, etc. Lafayette, a moderate, woke the king and queen and took the queen onto the balcony in order to placate the crowd, and then the entire group moved from Versailles to Paris. I think, if I could be present at a moment in history, I might have chosen to be on the balcony in the middle of the night with Lafayette and Marie Antoinette.


 * Also, thanks so much for the excellent review (we got two!) It's so helpful when a solid review, with points for improvement, is given. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Mason section
Today I reverted text added by an editor pertaining to Lafayette's involvement in the Freemasons. It was entirely unsourced, and appear to be give undue weight to the subject's affiliation.

Here is the removed text: {{Quotation|

Lafayette the Mason
The Marquis De Lafayette, like Washington, was a Freemason. On the occasion of his visit to Troy N.Y., a deputation from Apollo Lodge No. 13, consisting of Leland Howard, Samuel Pitcher, and Adna Treat, together with several other brethren, waited upon him and invited him to visit Apollo Lodge. The invitation was accepted, the Lodge through its committees made preparations for the reception of the distinguished visitor; and although the time was short, the preparations were creditable to the brethren.

The arch under which he was received bore the inscription "Welcome Lafayette". The lettering on the arch was done by Brother Ebenezer Prescott. On the 12th day of June, 1825, the Marquis de Lafayette became the guest of Apollo Lodge, and was received with all the honors due to his distinguished character. He was received on the "level" as all true brothers are, and after kindly shaking the hand of every brother present, accompanied with many pertinent and happy remarks, the Lodge commenced its labors and all spent a pleasant meeting until the Master announced the Lodge closed "on the square". After refreshments, as one present on the memorable occasion relates, the members tarried still to take a parting shake of the hand, or even to take a parting look at him they so highly honored, not only as a Mason, but as a patriot and hero.

The arch under which Lafayette was received remained in the hall for some thirty years, until the Lodge removed to the new hall, when, the room being furnished in a different style, there was no appropriate place to be found for it, without marring the symmetry of the lodge, and it was thrown among the rubbish. However, the apron he wore that night still remains. General Lafayette personally presented the apron which he wore at this visit to Brother Adna Adams Treat, then Worshipful Master, who had received him. In later years Brother Treat had the further distinction of being the oldest life member of the Grand Lodge of New York, and at the time of his death in 1900, at the age of almost one hundred four years, he was the oldest living Mason in the United States. The apron was handed down to Brother Treat's son, Charles A. Treat of Denver, who in turn gave it to his brother, Marcus J. R. Treat of Hayes City, Kansas, and he presented it to his nephew, Nathan 0. Vosburgh, P.M., for many years Treasurer of Albert Pike Lodge No. 117 whom on September 27, 1928 presented it to his Lodge where it has resided since.

The apron now sets on display at every regular meeting of Albert Pike Lodge No.117 at Denver Masonic Temple Building located in Denver Colorado, for all regualr Masons to view.}}

I welcome discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hasten to add that it is already mentioned in the article that Lafayette was a Mason. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i would say that Lafayette's membership was part of his salon in France, these were the freethinkers that developed the moderate (Girondin?) position, and the Droites des hommes. Lafayette didn't know how he was playing with fire, how the plebes might be so Enlightened.  Lafayette brought some of the American Masonry back to France, along with the order of the cincinnati.  (was it lost in translation?) the boilerplate above dosn't give the flavor, (is this too impressionistic?) also, i would be leary of Masonic story telling without a firm provenance, there are lot's of aprons out there; however, the key to the Bastille did get to Washington, so it's not impossible Pohick2 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Lafayette's involvement is mentioned in our article--in reference to the salon in Paris (as you say). I have read in reliable sources that it was there he heard many incendiary speeches, as the monarchy was unable to control speech as well as they could on the "outside". I think that is noted in the article. My opinion is that the Mason bits included are sufficient, but who knows, I could be wrong. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it would be nice if there was an historical article about Masonry during the revolution, in the U.S. and in France, Lafayette was in that mix. Pohick2 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Adrienne
"Adrienne then organized the family's finances"

I would like to see a sentence or two about Adrienne's regaining the family castles, property (some of them, Chauvinnac?) after release from prison, Lafayette was debilitated from prison, and she held it together Pohick2 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Adrienne's work on behalf of the family was remarkable. I'll add a line or two tomorrow if you don't beat me to it. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * naw you write better than me - here's a link to the musee lafayette chauvinac http://www.chateau-lafayette.com/us/indexus.htm Pohick2 (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha, that's too kind. In fact, I wrote much of the content; however, an editor with whom I collaborate often came behind me to clean the prose. It is him who is responsible for the flow/prose. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Adrienne released" - "During the Terror (1793-4), Adrienne’s grand-mother, her mother and one of her sisters were guillotined; she owed her life to the American ambassador Gouverneur Morris" (from Cornell website) I believe it's also in the Morris bio, might be worth a mention Pohick2 (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look shortly. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a bit more, take a look and let me know what you think. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * good (i realize the more detail, the greater the length) but it does make the narrative more accurate, nuanced. Pohick2 (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It doesn't add too much length and provides a nuanced detail. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ancestry
i'm surprised the the de la fayette peerage is not there unlike Duke of Noailles, but i suppose it's work for another day Pohick2 (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI it's because the Dukes are listed, List of French_peerages, developed, and the marquisates are not. (I always knew he married up.) [] One intrepid soul is only up to the B's.  Pohick2 (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * now moved to List_of_marquisates_in_FrancePohick2 (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jacobins
Lafayette and his wife were impeached or arrested by Jacobins in August-September 1792? Really now? The dethroning of Louis XVI was a Girondin project; the Jacobins did not take power until the end of 1792 at the earliest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Questionable edits
Any reason people accepted these anonymous edits over the last month or so? Their consequences are in the article as it stands. (uncited); (unexplained removal),  (unexplained removal);  (uncited). - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied FAC to article talk space
I copied the failed /FAC nom here; so that it may be edited without disturbing the original document. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not English
Among the major errors and dishonesties of the present text, which reads like the product of an illiterate and bigoted royalist: Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I look forward to seeing what Lazulilasher does with this after he does some research; it is hopeless without. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * News, as an English noun, needs a terminal s, just as Versailles does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Appointments aren't slowed, they are delayed. Do let us know when this page will be stable enough to clean up.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I fixed the new-->news. It should take me a few days...or, go ahead and edit (I don't mind edit conflicts). I was going to come to your talk page yesterday and mention what I was doing; I'd thought it'd be a good opportunity for the date thing. Perhaps we should mention that on the talk page for a few days to see if there's an objection (I don't object). Lazulilasher (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I won't have time or resources until after Christmas even for copyediting, and the French sections really need rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we agree on that. I've been preparing for a rewrite of the French section for the past month or so. I am in the process of doing that now. It should be enough on its way for another look, by then. Have a nice holiday, I'll see you on the flipside. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lazu, i notice you don't have a reference to the Unger biography, or the books of Lafayette letters. (or rather the Lafayette - Jefferson letters) I will make a trip to the reference room in the new year, and see what i can find. (i do blockquote subjects too much) &#39;&#39;pohick&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lafayette was not responsible for the Constitution of 1791; the Constituent Assembly had been working on it for two years.
 * While a royal veto did become questionable when it became clear how Louis was likely to use it, it was part of the constitution as enacted.
 * He stood for mayor of Paris in the fall of 1791, and was defeated by Jérôme Pétion de Villeneuve.
 * Lafayette's campaign of 1792, which had limited success, should be included; so should the role of Charles François Dumouriez.
 * In June 1792, Lafayette left his troops, then engaged with the enemy, without permission of the Minister of War; he then threatened the Legislature by claiming to speak for the troops. (The failure of his mutiny in September suggests that he was wrong.) He was impeached for being AWOL and for sedition, and IIRC the vote on the impeachment was much closer than two to one.
 * His disputes, therefore, were with the Girondins, then in power; the Jacobins did not take over until May 1793.
 * From what I understand, Lafayette was concerned about the Jacobin's growing power. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Jacobins then tried and executed the Girondins chiefly for cooperating with Lafayette; but the claims of the Revolutionary Tribunal are not generally regarded as a reliable source. (But cf. Albert Mathiez, however, for as much of that PoV as is defensible.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think much of the problem was that the French section was largely based on 1911 Brittanica. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks that way; the rest of it is our editors, who have misunderstood the Britannica's half truths and PoV into outright falsehood. I think the Britannica is also correct in saying that Lafayette was made head of the National Guard by acclamation rather than by anybocy's appointment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources variously say "appointed", "acclaimed", "made the popular choice", and "declared"; but, from what I can tell, he was not appointed. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Date order
The above discussion is whether, in an article on an American citizen, it would be appropriate to restore the date format July 4, 1776, instead of 4 July 1776. The former was used until quite recently; it was changed at the impulse of one editor, who thinks there is only one right way to do dates.

Is there objection to switching back? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I generally have no opinion regarding the use of dates. In this case, due to Lafayette's activities in Europe and the United States, an argument could be waged for either format. I support Pmanderson's proposal because Lafayette has strong national ties to the United States; and, I find it more likely that a student would be assigned reading about Lafayette from that country. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Education, Marriage & Early Service?
The article neglects these significant periods in La Fayette's life. Currently it jumps from his birth straight to his American adventures! Where are they? Information on his education and early career is well documented; surprised nobody has bothered to include it in the man's bio! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.197.240 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Battle of Pacman 3.0????
What is this event? A (bad) joke? (it figured in the list of battles but I had no idea of how to delete it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.27.100.115 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up the streets
Streets named after Lafayette were listed in two places in the "honors" section, so I have combined these, and added ulice Lafayettova, the street named after Lafayette, close to the prison where he was held in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Gordoncph (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * In the same spirit, I can report that there is a motorway service station named in Lafayette's honour on the A75 motorway south of Clermont Ferrand. This service station is the motorway service area closest to Lafayette's home in Auvergne.Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de Lafayette
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. The arguments opposed to moving are significantly stronger than those who wish to rename. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de Lafayette –, per WP:COMMMONNAME. The proposed form is used by Encyclopedia of World Biography and by The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Hundreds of books use it in their titles. This ngram suggests that "Marquis de Lafayette" is vastly more common than any version of the name that includes "Gilbert du Motier." Contemporaries also used the proposed form, as you can see here. relisted --Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Kauffner (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:Mouthful. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Gilbert du who? I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment according to this article, the marquisate existed before Gilbert du Motier, since his father held the title as well. So there seems to be a missing article on the title and exactly when it was raised. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- With very few exceptions, an article such as the target should be an article on all holders of the title, not merely the most notable. At present we do not have such an article, but the space (currently a redirect to the most notbale holder) should be left for a list article on all title-holders.  When created, the list artile would need a hatnote for the present redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Marquis de Lafayette is already a redirect to this article. La Fayette family is supposed to be the title article here, but it does not tell you much of anything. Even in terms of British dukedoms, there is already a Duke of Wellington (title) and a Duke of Marlborough (title). As for marquis titles, very few get their own articles. Why would a title automatically take priority over other meanings of a term? It is certainly not the most likely desired topic, at least not in this situation. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment but it isn't it doesn't cover the marquis title, only the descendants of Gilbert, who changed their surname to La Fayette. 65.92.180.188 (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Peterkingiron's arguments above and per my arguments on Lafayette elsewhere. FactStraight (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply. Based on your earlier comments, it is not obvious why you would oppose this RM. Are you suggesting that the lemma Marquis de Lafayette should lead to an article other than this one? Quite frankly, I think that would confuse a lot of readers. (Over 5,400 a month, to be exact.) Kauffner (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose His common name is not "Marquis of Lafayette" but just "Lafayette". I had heard of him, knew a little about him, but did not realise that he was a marquis.  We already have a similar situation with several British people e.g. Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, "Lord Palmerston" already redirects there, many people who have heard of him will not know his surname. PatGallacher (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Peterkingiron. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per PatGallacher: I think WP:COMMONNAME actually supports a move to Lafayette instead. Regards  So Why  20:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As second reference, maybe, but not on first reference. Just because he's recognizable without first name doesn't mean we omit it or title, when that is how someone is commonly known on first reference, e.g. Robespierre, Saint-Simon, Goethe, Münchhausen, etc. FactStraight (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The main reason for the Bob Smith, Duke of X titling format is because multiple people were the Duke of X, so just calling them the Duke of X (as is often common in the time) isn't specific enough.  I'm not aware of any vaguely notable Marquis de Lafayette other than, well, the Marquis de Lafayette, and practically nobody knows the Gilbert du Motier name.  Agree that just "Lafayette" has something of an argument, but "Marquis de Lafayette" is better than the current title.  So. SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support, per RM request; I like the conciseness too. There is a potential problem with moving an article about an individual to a title held by that individual, if others may have held the same title - but as far as I can tell, this one is much more notable. If moved I'd want some kind of hatnote or some other arrangement so that readers landing on this page could easily find his father Michel du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WTF -  opinon? this what wikiledia does NOW????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.218.6 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Acquired?
>Lafayette learned that the Continental Congress did not have the money for his voyage; hence, he acquired the sailing ship La Victoire with his own funds

Does this mean he bought the ship or that he paid for his own passage? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems he bought it. Is it ambiguous?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * maybe rented?--109.188.126.16 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

One more son
According to Wikipedia in French, it seems that there is another son of his died in 1778. Lsls421 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do they give a source?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The second paragraph of this article states that Lafayette became an officer at "age 1,003." 76.115.0.196 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We try to keep out vandalism, but with all the attention from it being on the main page, ...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag
I've removed the undue tag. Please remember that this recently passed FAC, which is a consensus process, and so there is consensus that the version that passed FAC did not give undue weight.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)