Talk:Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette/FAC nom


 * Oppose
 * The treatment of the French Revolution is a mass of POV. In a page on the events of 1791-2, the words Legislative Assembly are never mentioned; we are left with the impression that Lafayette's arrest and that of his wife are the acts of a street mob, not of the elected legislature during a coup - or, perhaps, a civil war. (The solitary use of Assembly is calculated to confuse the reader; this is not the National Constituent Assembly of 1789-91.)
 * Furthermore, as mentioned below, the wrong party within the Assembly is mentioned.
 * The fundamental problem here is likely to be that one recent concise history of the French Revolution has been consulted, instead of the standard sources. It may well have been checked hastily; what editors do not understand, they cannot explain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A review of Lafayette's family which omits Madame de La Fayette is hardly comprehensive.
 * 25,000 livres ($30,000 in the 18th century). The date is 1770, two decades before the existence of United States currency; what is this supposed to mean, the piece of eight? More importantly, what is the conversion supposed to convey to the reader? In terms of purchasing power, this would be closer to $500,000 (2008).
 * Collating with ANB reveals that the problem with Lafayette's commission is that Deane's authority had been challenged; we should mention and explain this.
 * ✅ Clarified the circumstances sorrounding Lafayette's commission. Specifically that the C Congress had grown tired of Deane's appointments and "glory seeking" French officers. Made clear Lafayette's offer to serve without pay.
 * His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. His return to Albany, or to Pennsylvania from Albany? And in either case, how did the appearance of a single aide foil Gates' plan?
 * ✅ Recast much of this section; and made circumstances their own paragraph. Explained background of Conway Cabal, and Horatio Gates' role at its head. Continued and clarified Lafayette's trip to Albany to invade Canada, and his return to Valley Forge. Lafayette made quite apparent his displeasure w/ the War Boards decision, Congress agreed, and Gates was removed from his position on the Board.
 * So what, if anything, did Lafayette do at Monmouth? If the answer is "not much", why spend a paragraph getting him there?
 * ✅* Not much. As it were before, the paragraph was slightly misleading. The main "point" of that paragraph *should* be about Lafayette's command at Barren Hill. Mentioning Monmouth at the end inadvertently made that battle the climax of the paragraph. I pushed Monmouth into its own brief paragraph, I hope this clears the issue. In any event, Lafayette's main role at Monmouth was to alert Washington of Lee's erratic behavior.
 * He initially viewed slaves as property and, after meeting with American spy James Armistead, urged their use as soldiers during the revolution. A misunderstanding; all proposals to arm slaves included their eventual emancipation, if only from military necessity.
 * ✅ I actually didn't write this section; and, was largely against its inclusion; however, it stuck around long enough to be in the FAC. I cut it and re-added to other sections his involvement in societe des amis des noirs and letters to Washington.
 * Lafayette's promotion in 1783 to major-general in the French army is omitted.
 * ❌ Hmm...I don't see that. I have his promotion to marechal-de-camp (equiv to major general in the Cont Army) and in 1789 he was appointed commander in chief of the National Guard. I know he was assigned one of three armies; but, was that attached to a different rank?

✅ First point: well, I've seen "All of the states except Georgia"; so, I've used that. Honorary citizensip is now mentioned.
 * In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, ANB says ten. Maryland's grant of citizenship is omitted.
 * In 1789, Lafayette was elected to the Estates-General. In preparation, he worked with Thomas Jefferson on a document called the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen". He prepared a draft, one of several, of that Declaration; he consulted with Jefferson in the process. These do not add up to the assertion made here that Jefferson was the author of the Declaration.
 * ✅ Hmmm...I hadn't intended that interpretation. I've tried to make it more clear.
 * The Estates General convened on 5 May 1789 and Lafayette was a member of the noble Second Estate. When King Louis XVI encountered difficulty with the Estates General, he closed the meeting room of the Third Estate, the vast majority of the people who were neither clergy nor aristocracy This confuses the Third Estate, which was the vast majority, with its deputies, some 600 men.
 * ✅ Yes, I hope this is more clear. It was rather humorous as originally written (as if the ENTIRE Third Estate was in one room).
 * The next day in response to the dismissal of Finance Minister Jacques Necker, Camille Desmoulins organized an armed mob. In response, the Assembly authorized a National Guard, appointing Lafayette as commander and electing him vice-president of the Assembly. No mention of the royal army, under Victor-François, 2nd duc de Broglie, outside Paris. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * On October 6, 1789, Lafayette intruded into the National Assembly in uniform, but alone; the resulting view of him as an ineffective Cromwell contributed non-trivially to his eventual fall. We should not, of course, adopt this as our PoV, but the occurence and consequences should be mentioned.
 * ❌ I can't find this anywhere. Can you forward a source?
 * I did actually encounter this in Paysons "The Life and Service...", where he was greeted with "Behold, Cromwell!" upon his arrival at Versailles. To which he replied that, "Cromwell would not have dared to enter the royal palace alone". Is this incident worthy of inclusion in our article?
 * The Jacobins offered a reward for his capture or death....On September 1792 soldiers led by Jacobins arrested Lafayette's wife, Adrienne, but later released her. This is most unlikely. Jacobin does not equal revolutionary, and on August 19 and September 10, 1792, the Girondins were still in power; see Vergniaud. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As chaos grew in France, Adrienne was again arrested by the Jacobins. Many negative descriptions of the Great Terror of the summer of 1794 are reasonable, but chaos and tyranny are clean different things. We are not entitled to any POV, least of all Burke's.
 * On 22 January 1795 Adrienne was released. The fall of Robespierre seems to be missing.
 * Adrienne lived in his cell with him and finally, in September 1797, after five years' imprisonment, Napoleon released the family. From their captivity at the hands of the Austrian government, which is not here stated. Try liberated. And while the status of the Treaty of Campo Formio is somewhat unusual, This was at the request of the Directory and as a result of the Treaty of Campo Formio drafted in 1797. does not describe it well.
 * And it was signed October 17, 1797 - according to our article; what is drafted doing in this sentence? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lafayette's effort to improve his estates when he was in internal exile under Napoleon is omitted.
 * In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. So? Was this a risk, or not?
 * Lafayette's politics in 1834 should be explained.
 * Lafayette's politics in 1834 should be explained.


 * Badly written:
 * In 1790, Lafayette renounced his claim to the nobility title. Not idiom.
 * Lafayette created a control point allowing a more orderly retreat. Jargon.
 * His return foiled Gates' plan to assume control of the army. Melodrama; where's "Curses" and "again"
 * The flank scattered, and Lafayette organised a retreat while the British remained indecisive. Armies are not indecisive; they may be stationary.
 * In 1784 Lafayette returned to America, visited 11 states, and provided the Congress with news of trade negotiations. Indiscriminate collection of information; this is two sentences rammed together.
 * In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. Lafayette is the subject of this life:  Lafayette did not participate in the plebiscite of 1804 approving Napoleon's coronation as Emperor.
 * In 1804, Napoleon crowned himself Emperor after a plebiscite in which Lafayette did not participate. Lafayette is the subject of this life:  Lafayette did not participate in the plebiscite of 1804 approving Napoleon's coronation as Emperor.


 * More follows. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As a minor annoyance, the article has been through a style war. It was originally in American English, with the American format for dates; both appropriate for an American major-general. The spelling was switched to British English, for no particular reason, and the dates to the international format. The spelling has been reverted, properly; Lafayette has strong national ties to the United States. Can we also switch the dates back to the format customary to the nationality most likely to be assigned reading about Lafayette? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ya, do whatever you want with the dates and spelling. I am a hobbyist, not an expert. I didn't know the sources I was using were so horribly POV. So, whatever...I was trying to summarize his involvement in the French Revolution, that's all. The goal was: provide a concise summary of Lafayette in the Revolution. I'll look these over, and see what I can do; it will be a few days, as I am without reliable internet access. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A public library may be more helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One other suggestion, with which a public library will be particularly helpful: It is very useful to consult the lives of contemporaries of the subject. The scattered references to Lafayette in a life of Washington or Robespierre will tend to concentrate on the more notable incidents, and they will tend to present Lafayette as a human being, with a concrete political program, rather than as a hero (with a list of Plutarchian virtues) or a villain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support (i did provide some editorial comment, to Lazu's work)
 * i applaud the work to improve to this point
 * compares favorably with Daniel Boone, Stephen Trigg, and George Washington, Battle of Trenton. we have 12 GA-FA articles in American Revolutionary War - (actually Trenton should be a FA also)
 * For what it's worth, I tend to agree. The treatment of Washington's presidency is appalling, and Daniel Boone comes close to copying out a single modern source. This is also better than Daniel Webster; but all this is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * the POV is much improved (there is a pro-anti war out there)
 * i would like to see more in legacy, by way of conclusion.  Pohick2 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True enough. Where's Pershing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, it wasn't an existence discussion, but a benchmarking discussion, how do i know what a FA is but by comparing to another FA. hey Lazu, don't let the snarky nerds get you down.  we have a lot of work to to in this stub field.  btw, in re foiled, the Conway Cabal letters were sent to Lafayette, who turned them in to Washington (the joke was on them). Pohick2 (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm back. Sorry I was away for so long; my um computer was stolen. I'll try to address everything that's possible, within the time frame. Although, we may not have enough time to get these things done before the deadline. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Renomination is always possible; although I would think there is a substantial job of reading before they can be addressed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - What about those tags on the article? They are rather worrying. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 01:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They're mine; see the comments above. To which I would add that I deplore the absence of Jean Sylvain Bailly, revolutionary mayor of Paris - and Lafayette's coworker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't add Bailly because I was concerned about detail. He might be mentioned earlier. Regardless, I'll put him back. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I only read through the American Revolution sections, and I do not believe that the prose is quite ready for FA status. I've listed some examples below of issues with the prose, but that is not a comprehensive list. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A small MOS fix: In page ranges, often the last number is not abbreviated properly (for example 392 until 394 should be 392–4).
 * Do sources ever tell the full name of Madame de Chavaniac?
 * "on 24 April his grandfather died" - which grandfather?
 * May need to make it more clear in the article that Lafayette was part of his title, not his surname. The way it is presented in the lead confused me a bit and it is never addressed in the body of the article.
 * The prose in the Education and marriage section needs lots of work
 * "Through an arranged marriage he had his way with " - huh? This obviously doesn't mean what it sounds like to me...so what does it mean?
 * ✅ Err...that must have been vandalism. It now says, simply, "wed".
 * "their educations." - education is the plural - no s
 * What education was Marie Adrienne getting? Women didn't usually go to school in this time period
 * In what year were they "accidentally" introduced?
 * It is confusing that her father is first introduced at the duc de Noailles and then her mother later as the duchesse d'Ayen. I see from the article on the duke that he inherited the de Noailles title later, but readers shouldn't have to click the links to understand what is going on.  Either this should be reworded, or a footnote added.
 * Is there any information on whether Lafayette was very interested in the military before his marriage, or did he join because he was expected to?
 * Was it unusual for a Marquis to take an active role in the military?
 * More issues with ambiguous prose:
 * " De Broglie invited the young Lafayette to join the Freemasons, for whom the American Revolutionary War had become an issue. When " - this doesn't say what "issue" the Freemasons took (could be interpreted as either for the colonists, for the British, or against any war at all), and implies that he was invited to join because the Freemasons did not like the war.
 * next sentence: "When the Duke of Gloucester, King George III's brother and colonial policy critic, travelled through the region, he was invited to dinner with de Broglie and his men" - he who? King George II, Duke of Gloucester and de Broglie and Lafayette are all potential antecedents when you first read "he" (although de Broglie is quickly eliminated)
 * "and colonial policy critic," - not sure what this means - did Gloucester disapprove of the British handling of the Americas or did he support the Americans in the revolution?
 * Is there any information on what experience Lafayette gained while in the French military before he joined the American cause?
 * All quotations need to be cited directly, even if that means that subsequent sentences have the same citation. For example the "friend and father" quote is not cited directly.
 * There are some comma issues in the article (too many or not enough depending on the sentence).
 * "created a control point" - I am not sure what this means
 * There is a lot of passive voice that would be changed to active voice. Active voice generally provides better prose.  One of the most glaring to me was ""and was recommended for the command of a division in a letter to Congress on 1 November"
 * "General Howe led a further 6,000 soldiers" - can we get a full name and wikilink for Howe, please?
 * There are a lot of awkward prose constructions - (as an example) "Louis XVI, pleased with the soldier after Lafayette proposed schemes for attacking the British"
 * When he first went to America, he left a pregnant wife (1777). What happened to that baby?  The first child to be mentioned was born in 1779
 * The return to France section seems a bit off. Lafayette went to France, then "received news" his wife had given birth to a son (but wasn't he in France already), then in March 1780 he "left Adrienne"....
 * Make sure verb tenses are consistent - in "After the revolution" skips from "visited' to "would address" and back to "visited"
 * I am confused about how he "formed views in the US that he later applied in France". It says that he viewed slaves as property but suddently apparently had an epiphany where he didn't think so anymore.  Are there any details on how his time in American changed his views?
 * ✅ see above. I wasn't originally keen on this section. It has since been removed.
 * I wouldn't consider the Moland House website to be a reliable source. It is essentially self-published.
 * I also question the use of Valley Forge National Historical Park and Mountvernon.org. Surely that information is in one of the books?
 * Ok, thanks for the good review Karanacs. I am going to attempt more of these tommorow. I don't know if I have enough time; regardless, all of this feeback will be good for improvement for the article. Thanks much. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)