User talk:Squiretuck

Mother Teresa
Hi and welcome - a more constructive way to approach Christopher Hitchens, Tariq Ali and Aroup Chatterjee, rather than just a brief tag like the one added is to discuss why their arguments are flawed individually. Good on you for getting involved though. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 23:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert again as you'll be breaking the Three-revert rule. Please have a look and discuss on the talk page.cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 11:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to spend more time examining what edits are being made. You state in a recent comment that I shovel out hundreds of slanderous words against Mother Teresa?  You got it exactly backwards, my friend.  I have actually CUT the criticism section in that article, and have never added anything to it, besides correcting some grammar or spelling.  In fact, I would prefer that the entire criticism section be removed...but I have settled on reducing it.  I am probably responsible for getting rid of over half of it, actually.  That being said, I agree with every other editor that has had to revert your bizarre addditions regarding the critics listed...you can't put in a parenthetical calling someone an "anti-catholic Anglophile" without sources or reference.  You're fortunate that we have all been kind enough to just revert it, and not label it vandalism, which it arguably is.   --Anietor 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS As Denesh Desousa points out in exhaustive detail in his recent book and debate with Hitchens, What's so great about Christianity?, Hitchens really is an "anti-catholic Anglophile"!  I'll add the references.        Squiretuck


 * Thanks for your message on my user talk page, and I certainly accept your apology. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of who posted what with all the edits and reverts!  I also wanted to ask you to check out the recent edits I made to Mother Teresa, which I also explained in the talk section.  I assume you would support the changes I made there, at least as going in the right direction.  I expect others may not, so I hope you will add a little something to the discussion page on the issue.  Cheers!  --Anietor 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lafayette
Do you realize that General Lafayette simply re-directs to Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette. This makes your edits to the various places named for the general moot. I am sure that your point is valid. Perhaps this issue should be taken up at Talk:Gilbert_du_Motier%2C_marquis_de_La_Fayette.
 * Dincher (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Dincher, I'm not sure who made that link name. I found it works by mistake. I realize that General Lafayette points to the same incorrectly named site. However, even though the title block contains false, genealogical revisionism, the scholarship and references on that page tell more of the real name story. I strongly urge you, until we can find a way to correct the current target title block, you continue to use General Lafayette and not the "Marquis" (error) AND "La Fayette" (2 word error) version to prevent more ignorant naming practices not honorable to the General.  If you know how to correct this title block, make it happen!
 * Also, you may have noticed how many of the current talk page comments prove ignorance in that they really don't know Lafayette.
 * Squiretuck (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed your many Lafayette edits and have a few comments:

I appreciate the point you're trying to make; however, does it really need to be made every single time Lafayette's name is mentioned? It looks like essentially the same block of text has been copied verbatim into scores of pages, which seems quite redundant; instead you could just link to the article on Lafayette and give a fuller explain of the usage of his title there. —

Secondly, the confrontational nature of your edits are unfortunate: you suggest that anyone who uses Lafayette's original title must be "ignorant", a "revisionist", or an "enemy" of Lafayette. Please bear in mind that Wikipedia requires its editors to assume good faith on the part of others, and name-calling really doesn't square with that. If someone disagrees with you, it may be because they have a valid concern.

Finally, I have to question some aspects of your premise, that one should never refer to the "Marquis". Though he did indeed renounce his title, that doesn't alter the fact that he did for some time bear the title. To cite a very similar example, Wikipedia has an article on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. Did the editor who named that article err? No. Edward VIII abdicated the throne and renounced his title in 1937, at which point he ceased to be Edward VIII (and instead became Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor). His reign lasted less than a year. However, continuing to refer to him using his kingly title acknowledges the historical fact that he was the king. I don't question that Lafayette disliked hearing his title after his renunciation of it, but personal feelings aren't the standard here.

I also question the assertion that using the title "Marquis" amounts to historical revisionism. How is it revisionist to say he was a marquis when he was for part of his life a marquis? Huwmanbeing &#9728;  &#9733;  12:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Huwmanbeing, Your first point is valid but unfortunately references were demanded on each by Nyttend. Are you friends?  Are you calling Niles a non-credible reference?  Many American historians, old and new, would beg to disagree. Why does this reference bother you so much?
 * Your 2nd and 3rd points are partially valid, but only in the obvious past tense usage of marquis in references before June 1790 (when Lafayette permanently renounced the title) and never appropriate in a present tense usage such as in a current Encyclopedia (and especially when it is well known Lafayette loathed that title, as did most of his friends and most Americans).
 * The 1824 quote (below) from Niles (to Americans) makes this point very clear. You seem to have a bias and are very fond of British aristocratic practices (citing, exactly like Nyttend did in his edits?) Are you a loyal constitutional republican (American or French)?, or are you Monarchist?, neo-aristocrat?  I assume "good faith", but if you are biased toward the latter, I cannot be of service, nor do I have the time for an endless debate discussing aristocratic vs. republican cultures. I would rather part as friends and agree to disagree.
 * Also, please see J.Q. Adams December 1834 Eulogy for "Gilbert Motier De Lafayette" given to U.S. Congress. Adams never makes those ignorant present tense errors. Why defame someone like Lafayette with inappropriate name-calling when it isn't at all necessary in the present tense, especially when it historically skews their reputation?  Your sentence above (now in bold) seems to say you want to make a sport of unnecessary defamation?
 * I don't wish to offend anyone when I use the word ignorant, but anyone who uses the 2-word form "La Fayette" is acting in pure ignorance. But what naming currently appears in the current General Lafayette title block?  Any real Lafayette scholar who has read his many 100s of letters, has seen his original, hand-written birth certificate, and has seen his grave stone knows this ignorance well!  Please confer with the following reference before continuing your argument to protect the ignorant. (cf. Gottschalk, Louis, Lafayette Comes to America, 1935, pp. 153-154, titled, Lafayette, LaFayette, or La Fayette?)


 * Sometimes it is necessary to charitably point out ignorance and bias in order to encourage them to continually improve. I'm certain the other editors, who know me well, would not accuse me of name-calling as you have in this case. Thankyou for your comments.
 * --Squiretuck (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still not sure why your approach is so hostile, and am disappointed that aspersions and name-calling seem to be your first resort. The claims that I must have aristocratic bias or be a monarchist (because I took the time to look up another incident of titular renunciation for comparison) are particularly puzzling.  However, since you posed the question: no, I'm not a monarchist, nor am I a neo-aristocrat (whatever that is), a defamer, or any of the other things you "charitably" suggest.  I'd be happy to participate in a civilized discussion, but only if you give the ad hominem stuff a rest.


 * Moving on to the matter at hand:


 * Firstly, you ask why the references to Lafayette bother me. They don't, and I never said they did.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  A link to Lafayette can and should appear in any community that's verifiably named for him.  I merely voiced concern about the redundancy of your edits — copying the section about his renunciation into practically every article bearing the name seems unnecessary, particularly when you could just link to the article on General Lafayette and there give readers a much fuller, richer more detailed description of his life, his history, his title, etc.  Surely that's a good thing, yes?


 * Secondly, you take my sentence on Wikipedia standards ("personal feelings aren't the standard here") to mean that I want to "make a sport of unnecessary defamation". No, I'm simply voicing Wikipedia policy, which I'll summarize again: Personal feelings aren't the standard for what to include in an article.  Facts are.  If feelings and personal wishes were the standard, then hardly anything that anyone might interpret as negative would ever appear in Wikipedia.  If you wish to lobby to change this standard, here might be an appropriate place.


 * Here's a good parallel: Not long back I defended the inclusion of a section about a mob lynching that took place in 1930 in Marion, Indiana. Why?  Not because the act was good (it was horrendous), not because I hated the town, not because I had an axe to grind.  I defended its inclusion because it seemed a well-documented event with important historical significance, and that's the standard here.  Another editor wanted any mention of it cut completely from the article because it "didn't reflect well on the town", and he didn't want his community's name "dragged through the mud".  Like you, he got rather nasty about it, and saw it as defamation and character assassination, but it wasn't — it was just facts.  I don't wish to defame Lafayette, but nor do I want to place wishes and sentiments over historical fact.  For better or for worse, Lafayette was a marquis and was (and is) widely known as such.


 * I can see you hold Lafayette in extremely high regard, and rightly so — he was a remarkable man who gave great service to this country, and justly deserves the many honors he has received. However high we hold him, though, normal Wikipedia standards for how an article is crafted still apply.  Don't guess at the source of a placename, cite it.  Avoid letting an individual's wishes or sentiments color WP content.  And please be civil on talk pages. :-)  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Huwmanbeing, Most of your points are valid. I apologize, since you confirmed my perception of you is wrong.
 * However, feelings have nothing to do with this case. Long term defamation by Lafayette's enemies (e.g. See the Sylvia Neely reference at General Lafayette ) and then compounded by ignorance (e.g. as Niles, Levasseur and J.Q. Adams (See ref. below) all document well) are the main issues here. Unfortunately, I predict that unless you work your way through those many solid references on your own, you will never be convinced and remain too skeptical to help.
 * '''Your "marquis" sentence above shows you still don't get it, nor do you believe the key fact that Lafayette was a marquis up till June 19, 1790, and after that date he was not, permanently! (including his children and grand children)
 * Popular opinion is often wrong and it is wrong in this case (for post 1790 and present tense uses of those aristocratic titles when naming Lafayette, his wife and offspring for at least 2 generations).
 * Popular opinion (or in your exact words "is widely known as such" does not equal "historical fact" in references after 1790 !
 * Also, false "popular opinion" can defame a person's character which is true in this case. It is well documented that his aristocratic enemies used this defamation against him politically which hurt him un-measurably.
 * Does Wiki have a new policy?, that declares "popular opinion" is now "historical fact".


 * Also, as I mentioned to Nyttend (below), regarding Lafayette towns, most of them are larger towns and they previously claimed they are named for Gen. Lafayette but I have yet to find one referenced as to Name source.
 * Why is it OK to erase-revert my edits completely yet give those original un-sourced entries a pass?
 * More importantly, (since you like to quote Wiki policy) why wasn't the standard courtesy policy of "citation needed" -superscript placed on suspect text followed by talk notice and a reasonable time to find citation -- applicable in this case vs. erase-revert immediately, (as was done yesterday) especially when the edit is very likely true? Is there a new draconian Wiki policy I'm not aware of?  Either way I will research and report back on those 8 small towns to show that an educated guess is sometimes appropriate.
 * Because of the draconian behavior, Wiki management will need to be involved at a higher level.
 * I hope you start and help us find a permanent solution to correct the page title and find a way to restrict page moving/forwarding to nip the main problem. (SEE page naming suggestion below)
 * You now know what we are trying to correct. Please contribute and help us! Thankyou for you comments.
 * --Squiretuck (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. You're correct that Wikipedia has no policy that says "popular opinion is historical fact".  What I was saying is that a vast majority of sources refer to him either as "Marquis de Lafayette" or by his full name, "Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette".  These sources include:


 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Encarta
 * USHistory.org
 * Princeton University
 * The Marquis de Lafayette Collection
 * The American Friends of Lafayette
 * Lafayette College
 * The Order of Lafayette (official site)
 * IMDB
 * 3,319 items at Amazon


 * If Google is to be believed, this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to sources calling him Marquis. Are the legions of editors at all these sites (and the authors of the mountain of books at Amazon) ignoramuses and defamers who seek harm to Lafayette?  Unlikely.  Given the enormous number of such sources, it seems far more plausible that calling him Marquis is not in fact a slur in modern times, just a recognition of the fact that he was a marquis.  (By the way, I do get it -- he wasn't a marquis after 1790.  He was, however, a marquis before that time, including during the American Revolution when he gained notoriety.)


 * At this point I'd like to suggest that any further debate be continued at the Lafayette talk page. I've already posted an informal request for comment there, since other editors associated with Lafayette may wish to see and comment on this issue.  Thanks!  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (By the way, I do agree that citing the placename stuff with a tag would've been better; doing so gives the original editor time to find the necessary sources.  As an alternative, your text could be slightly rephrased to "such-and-such is likely named for General Lafayette", since (as you say) that's really what's being conveyed.)  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  10:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Huwanbeing, Thankyou for your kind response.
 * You are right concerning those towns, I should have used more select wording as you suggested -- "... is likely named for General Lafayette", and use of a tag, (both) to encourage a citation entry.  Great idea! I will still research those 8 towns I promised Nyttend, but adjust the other towns never-sourced-original-edits, following your great suggestion.
 * Regarding sources, I think you answered your own premise ("If Google is to be believed").
 * In this case Google Search cannot be trusted to distinguish "historical fact" from compounded and repeated ignorance and fiction.
 * As mentioned earlier, chronologically, first the defamation articles by the European (especially post Restoration, anti-Lafayette, French state press) and British Press followed by repeated passing down of these dubious press texts as gospel caused this phenomena. That arch-master of Carlsbad Decrees censorship, Metternich, had an especially bitter hatred for Lafayette.
 * Even at their deaths the British press deliberately tacked those titles back on Lafayette AND his children. (Most of the U.S. press knew better and got it right at that time.)
 * Similarly, highly credible, pre 1790 documents such as Lafayette's officer commission from the Continental Congress (with his Marquis title) have been passed down for generations by historians (including many Presidents, Congressman and Senators)that don't really know the whole, true history, then assume too much and in the end do more damage than Metternich or that post-Restoration, anti-Lafayette, French-state-press could have dreamed of in defaming Lafayette. I think you realize, by now, that feelings (his or mine) have nothing to do with it.
 * We are talking about defamation and "historical fact" about a man who completely changed (some historians would say, accurately, much earlier, in 1778, when he stopped, abruptly, (from his usual practice of signing his letters with marquis title) in ALL his American correspondence.
 * I, personally, think it was much earlier, growing up in that isolated "Appalachia of France" Auvergne, with 2 non-aristocrat minded male teachers, who shaped him into who he became.
 * George Washington's salutation in letters to Lafayette abruptly changes after 1790, from his light hearted "My dear marquis," to "My dear Sir,".
 * Lafayette truly believed that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", as was stated in the Declaration of Independence and that belief defined who he was.
 * However, once you are well armed with known non-biased and factual sources, http://book.google.com CAN be trusted to put those sources at your finger tips in seconds '''(e.g. J.Q. Adams 1834 Eulogy, Lafayette's Memoirs, Nyles, Idzerda et al, Neely, J.F. Cooper, Jules Cloquet, Levasseur, Brandon, and several others).
 * Are all these more knowledgeable sources liars and Google-Search-results pure reason, truth and "historical fact"?'''


 * It is interesting to note what source you place at the top of your list. I am learning German and French just to get a more balanced view than the "1911 Encyclopedia Britannica" (and the current version with compounded carry-over errors) that infests the current Wikipedia-English pages (and give the English pages a bad name). The German and French Wikipedia pages are far more balanced on many entries (e.g. Notice the strange, 1911-Britannica quote on the General Lafayette page).
 * Like Noah Webster's breakthrough Dictionary, perhaps, to keep the peace, it is time for a major improvement and separate British-Canadian-Australian-New Zealand-English Wikipedia page vs. American-English Wikipedia page so British aristocratic traditions aren't trampled on and vice versa for the American (and French) republican traditions. (just food for thought)
 * (e.g. like the traditions both you and Nyttend wish to preserve, inferred by your comments on example of King Edward VIII, however there wasn't the extreme Lafayette-defamatory state press in this case or were they?)


 * Please note, the Wiki French Lafayette page;
 * [ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier_de_La_Fayette ] for Lafayette is a bit of a mess. (to mention one obvious error example, many of the French and their Press truly believe Lafayette spelled his name in the 2 word form "La Fayette", NOT!
 * This is very easy to confirm, genealogical revisionism dating from the late 1800s that nobody bothered to correct [Yet] !
 * Also, notice, as of this date, on that Wiki-French page they include the marquis title and make NO mention or explanation that he renounced it permanently, nor does it mention the continuous defamation and censorship by the state press after the Restoration (that Neely and other historians document so well).  This is historical revisionism at its worst away from Lafayette's struggle for constitutional republicanism!  As you may already know, monarchists are now even more fashionable in France.
 * Further, I know of at least 2 living French men who are distant relatives of Lafayette, or married to a woman who was a distant relative, that changed their last names to "Lafayette" apparently in order to gain a phony form of undeserved fame, a practice that Lafayette himself denounced on that same day (June 19, 1790) as he permanently denounced the marquis title and nobility. SEE [| Lafayette's Memoirs Vol. 2, pgs. 392-394]
 * Due to a corrupted view of their history, Most modern French consider Lafayette as just an aloof bungler and it is extremely rare to find any French that know that it was Lafayette who designed their own modern French flag (which he created for the French National Guard).
 * Many of these errors apparently originate from post-Waterloo-Wellington-Restoration revisionism (in France) and their citing in the Lafayette-defamatory state press at that time, that cost Lafayette at least one political election and possibly crushed 2 revolutions.
 * Remember, aristocracies ruled Europe after that time and every one of the Lafayette supported European Revolutions were crushed dead, and of course, Who writes the History?, the victor or the crushed? (e.g. Lafayette supported revolutions in Greece, Poland, etc. were crushed by the allied-European-aristocracies, including the British)
 * Bad habits and errors die hard, but that doesn't mean we should stand for bad errors as "historical fact".
 * (Don't get me wrong--I still love the French and the British),But,
 * No real republican (American or French) wants to have aristocratic and genealogical traditions forced upon them!  (I do realize there are a tiny minority of aristocratic minded Americans, but they aren't really true republican-Americans)


 * For the balance of the Web sites you found, I know most of them very well, and will just say that many have some very good historians associated with them that are aware that what they have on their Web sites, in many cases, is historically wrong, but are afraid to approach Webmaster and article authors for fear of provoking possible-unjust-retaliation and therefore don't make waves. Others are mostly social organizations with the same issues with Webmasters (non-Lafayette historians) that just copy or point to other Web sites they think have reliable information.
 * One Lafayette Society on your list has an associated Newsletter with mostly Lafayette history edited by one non-historian. The articles are accepted from any member, not peer reviewed not edited in any way from the original author. Most of this Society's members are not historians, they just like Lafayette.
 * A college on your list associated with that same Society has a Webmaster and/or writer that knows very little of Lafayette nor are their site articles peer reviewed by a true Lafayette scholar. It seems no one has the courage to risk his job, (or fears being perceived as harsh) to correct the many errors.
 * Recent speakers to some of these groups, (on your same google list) for recent Lafayette Birthday celebrations, that are all highly-regarded, historical-experts in their own individual subject (e.g. Washington, Hamilton, Adams etc.) but know very little about Lafayette and they give false-credence, not only to their Lafayette errors but the many errors on that hosting group's Web site.
 * Please excuse my vagueness in not mentioning names, some very big. I could tell you many more Lafayette historical-horror-stories about groups on your list but I don't want to offend anybody.
 * You have to understand, in their mind, they don't see the error [yet] and are doing the best they can with what little they know about Lafayette, with the very best of intentions.


 * I have a job and family to feed and cannot continue this discussion, except maybe once a week. I have said too much already (that I'm sure bores most, except the true Lafayette historians) and hope you spend time (even if just a few moments) and check these more reliable sources, then, please help us. Don't trust me, but at least read those more knowledgeable, less corrupted, sources!


 * This may be a job for Sr. Wiki management.


 * I will leave you with this reference which is one of many that shows that typical Americans in the 1800s were far less ignorant than they are now on this subject (thanks to poor historiography and Encyclopedias with a genealogical-aristocratic bent).
 * Note, the following was published over 40 years after NILES' publication.


 * From:   RECOLLECTIONS OF GENERAL LAFAYETTE ... By A.A. Parker, Esq., 1879, Keene, N.H.,pg. 4.
 * "INTRODUCTORY...


 * In this Sketch, I have uniformly applied the title of GENERAL, to Lafayette, as he publicly renounced that of Marquis, at the time of the French revolution. ..."


 * Thanks, you have uncovered some very valuable observations on sources that need correction to align with "historical fact" and I appreciate your time. Please note, I am not a book writer, nor do I have any profit-making axe-to-grind here now or in the future.
 * We are on the verge of loosing some of our most important and inspiring American history. Please Help!
 * My purpose is solely to expose this defamation and restore the historical fact and knowledge of who this man is to constitutional-republican-Americans. (the rest can create their own, more aristocratic-genealogical versions of this page, like the Wiki-French have already done)  Your Sincere Friend,  --Squiretuck (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This thread is getting way too long to keep straight, so (since we seem to be wrapping things up) I'm moving this to the bottom for clarity. Here are a few final points:
 * When I said "if Google is to be believed", I was saying "if it's to believed that untold thousands of sources use the term Maquis de Lafayette". Google definitely shows that.
 * You again mention Lafayette's permanent renunciation and how he didn't use the title afterwards, which isn't in dispute. That he didn't like using the title afterwards, and that some at the time used it against him, is also not in dispute.  The point you need to support is that its use today is inappropriate.
 * The Britannica I cite is not the 1911 version, it's the contemporary online version. A quick survey reveals that other modern encyclopedias also present the Marquis in much the same way.
 * You again infer that I, and now Nyttend too, have aristocratic bias because I mentioned Edward VIII. Seriously, what's up with that?
 * I question that you're personally acquainted with the writers of most Lafayette-related websites, and that these writers fear confronting their webmasters with "the truth" for fear of retaliation. While one can't positively disprove the existence of a sinister, shadowy cabal of webmasters bent on the defamation of Lafayette, it's clearly in conspiracy theory territory.
 * It's just as well this conversation is winding down, since there seems little point in continuing. Citing representative and reputable sources is all I can do, and if every one is to be discarded (either because in your opinion its writers are incompetent or because those writers must be hiding the truth for fear of reprisal), then a wall has certainly been reached.  Suffice to say, Wikipedia's usage of "Marquis de Lafayette" rests on reputable sources that so term him, and will continue to do so.  Thanks  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  11:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Huwmanbeing, Out of courtesy, Please keep your responses in your string line in order so as not confuse the reader, as you are now giving the appearance of engaging in censorship-by-smear by name-calling me with the "conspiracy theory" category moniker.
 * That's fair: it's your talk page, so I'll certainly do as you suggest. Given that new responses are now embedded in the midst of an unsectioned, 15-page long block of text, though, I suspect this is actually somewhat more confusing for visitors.  As for conspiracy theories, I certainly didn't intended it as censorship or a smear, just a description of the idea you seem to be advancing.  The suggestion that neo-aristocrats and monarchists even today seek to attack Lafayette, and that historians know the truth but fear to speak it for fear of what might happen to them if they do is at least sticking a toe into conspiracy theory territory.  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In other words you wish to give readers the appearance that I am crazy to win your argument or as a retaliation for your hurt feelings.
 * No intelligent reader could twist my comment about Webmasters/article authors--"You have to understand, in their mind, they don't see the error [yet] and are doing the best they can with what little they know about Lafayette, with the very best of intentions." to words in your spin -- "sinister, shadowy cabal of webmasters bent on the defamation of Lafayette",
 * Oh really?, is that what I really said? I'm sure the other readers will know what you are up to here.
 * You didn't use the words "shadowy cabal", no — that was my own attempt at using a bit of levity to illustrate what I feel is the silliness of the point, which was (as you said) that historians on websites fear bringing the truth to their webmasters for fear of retaliation. (And you've suggested a number of times that you think people are out to attack/smear/defame Lafayette.)  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The known "historical fact" defamation, started in Europe in the 19th Century against Lafayette is thoroughly documented by Neely and many other true-Lafayette historians.
 * Remember, re. your Edward VIII comment, it was you and Nyttend who made the same Edward VIII comment within minutes of each other (Nyttend in one of his many erase-WITHOUT-citation-request revert edits and you on this page), Coincidence?
 * No, I presume he simply read what I posted and echoed the point. Again you're leaping to conspiracy theories.  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My last comment above is out of sincere courtesy, that if many English speakers wish to uphold aristocratic traditions that they should do it on their own separate page like the French Wiki page. You already made it very clear you are not of the monarchial-aristocratic tradition, but that tradition should not be trampled on or discriminated against in any way (since you 2 brought it up, it should not be ignored). I'm sorry, if I hurt your feelings.
 * Regarding your Google "Marquis" word Search, Did your search turn up this paper by one of the finest Lafayette historians? (notice this historian doesn't use "Marquis" once in his text) http://www.cofc.edu/~croutr/ahapaper.htm   (this shows a major flaw in your Google Search -- unless you know who the best sources are to begin with, you can easily be swayed into ignorance)
 * I also notice that the historian doesn't use the title "General" once in his text either, so it's hardly compelling. And even if it did support the point, holding up a single source that supports a position while ignoring or dismissing thousands of others than do not doesn't constitute sound scholarship.  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Remember, I think we need to include the marquis in reference to periods before 1791, but to ignore the fact (as your favorite encyclopedias and non-Lafayette historian editors currently do) without even one explanatory sentence that Lafayette permanently renounced that title as a young man (including living without it for a period of more than half his life) is misleading at best! ("formerly marquis de" would be another very-short, proper and respectful way to write his name). Including the defamation story (by European aristocracies toward Lafayette) and citing of sources like Neely et al should also be the minimum standard for an Encyclopedia meant for republican-Americans.
 * Or, should we hide that information, the way the current Wiki-French Lafayette page does, along with their repeated, incorrect use of the 2-word "La Fayette"?
 * Who said we should hide it away? The information on Lafayette's renunciation of his title is already clearly presented in his article (here), in the very second sentence in fact.  If there's more detail you want to add to it there, that's great and I strongly encourage you to do so — strengthening and improving the article is a worthy task.  My objection is to the extreme redundancy inherent in indiscriminately pasting that information into every other article in Wikipedia that includes the word "Lafayette".  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * '''It boils down to this, regarding proper naming of Lafayette (for true republican-Americans);
 * Is it Britannica, Encarta (and other Encyclopedias that feed off each other), are they the most proper and respectful in naming Lafayette, OR'''
 * Should it be the long, republican-American, scholarship tradition of; George Washington's letters (SEE quote above), J.Q. Adams - 1834 Eulogy, George-Washington-Lafayette who wrote Lafayette's 6 Vol. Memoirs, Nyles (SEE quote below), Parker (SEE quote above), Idzerda et al, Neely, J.F. Cooper, Dr. Jules Cloquet, Levasseur, Brandon, and many others.
 * The Britannica and many others have a long history of reputable scholarship, so the choices you present seem the same. —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will report this to Sr. Wiki management for their help. Thankyou for you comments, which continue to shine valuable light on these very old, un-corrected, errors.  --Squiretuck (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to do so, and I'll assist in any way I can. While the course of action is up to you, you might consider posting your points on the Lafayette talk page since (as I've suggested previously) this is something that should be open to other users.  If a consensus supports what you propose, it'll be adopted.  —Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PS Readers, Notice the scores of edits (made today) to many Lafayette pages made by Huwmanbeing 


 * Why would this editor spend so much time hiding the few short sentences of NILES' (SEE NILES' text below)?
 * This source is very difficult to find at libraries, and not yet easily found on the Web.


 * Why is Huwmanbeing (and his friends) so hell bent on hiding this text?
 * Notice also Huwmanbeing's same text-hiding job today here at   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_College
 * Shouldn't Huwmanbeing have left it up to the college to edit (or censor) their own Web site as they do regularly?
 * Is this vandalism or is it censorship on all those sites Huwmanbeing spent a lot of time with today?
 * I leave it to the other readers (hopefully some real Americans) to decide....  --Squiretuck (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may misunderstand how Wikipedia articles are managed. It's not up to members of the college to edit the college's entry in Wikipedia, though they're certainly welcome to; instead, every editor is entitled to edit the article, and if those edits are deemed suitable then they'll persist.  If not, they may face adjustment or removal.
 * As for the removal, the position expressed by myself (and others) is that pasting the same passage of text about titular renunciation almost verbatim into every WP page that includes that name of Lafayette is highly redundant and not good practice. Also, your edits often include editorial asides, such as your desire that we "not offend him by heaping the senseless thing upon him".  ((Example)  Further, the information you claim is being suppressed already appears prominently in the Lafayette article for all to see.  If you wish to expand upon that article, please do — you clearly care about the subject and I'm sure could make good contributions.
 * Finally, note that most of your edits were reverted because they appear to be indiscriminate guesses made en masse — in particular, assuming that every locality, county, college, ship, etc. that includes the word "Lafayette" was named for the French military leader. While it's probably likely that many were, such a guess is insufficient; instead, a citation should be provided.
 * Thanks! Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Nyttend (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nyttend, Every one of your many Lafayette page edits were incorrect and time wasting. Please don't make changes before you do some minor checking on General Lafayette linked page which has several directly related references that are too numerous to place on each Lafayette page.  Thanks.
 * Niles' Weekly Register, BALTIMORE, June 26,1824; LAFAYETTE
 * (before Lafayette’s arrival in NYC on August 15, 1824; In an 1818, book preface to "Olive Branch", Lafayette’s close friend and protégé, Mathew Carey wrote of Nile's, "the best periodical work ever published in America")
 * "I have taken the liberty to strike out "the marquis" and say general LaFayette: seeing that he himself has disavowed the title, it is to be hoped the republicans of the United States will not offend him by heaping the senseless thing upon him"
 * --Squiretuck (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nyttend, are you saying that Lafayette's own Memoirs, Niles Register, Levasseur's 2 1824-1825 Books (Lafayette's secretary), Idzerda's 5 Volumes Lafayette Letters and Dr. Clouquet's book (Lafayette's doctor) are all wrong and you are right about Lafayette's enemies deliberate use of the phony Marquis title to give a false impression of General Lafayette's permanent renouncement of aristocratic titles?
 * Levasseurs's books covering Lafayette's 1824-5 visit to all 24 states, describes of Lafayette's severe embarrassment every time someone ignorantly called him Marquis (early in his visits to coastal states, until nearly everyone got it right, thanks to the newspapers that corrected themselves at that time.)
 * I have read 100s of Lafayette's original letters. Have you also?
 * Why are you bent on ignoring these solid references, you say you want in each of your revert edits?


 * Your comment on my talk page; "Please do not add content without citing reliable sources." reveals your faulty logic, since every one of my cited sources are extremely reliable and either from Lafayette himself, his son, secretary, doctor or a highly regarded periodical like Niles! No reputable Lafayette scholar would consider any of these references dubious or non-credible!
 * Your various revert edit comments;
 * 1) "(Rv: unreferenced, and likely but not certain) " and
 * 2) " (It's common to refer to people this way, even if (like Edward, Duke of Windsor) :they renounce their titles: we speak of him as Edward VIII) "
 * betray the error in your thinking. There is an aristocracy present in Britain (e.g. House of Lords, which is still propped up by aristocrats), but not in U.S. or France (at least not to that extreme), and Lafayette was consistently a modern (old-liberal) thinker. General Lafayette was continually harassed by aristocrats for the last 3/4 of his life. He and his children did not use aristocratic titles for at least 3 generations and truly believed "All Men are Created Equal" from an early age. (SEE General Lafayette, ref. 2, pp. 392-394, Lafayette's Memoirs Vol. 2, June 19, 1790 -- which is what I clearly referenced on every page I linked.


 * If you have a poor understanding of Lafayette, we would be glad to help at the Talk Page.
 * If you really wish to help, please tell me and Dincher (See message next to your comment on my talk page) how to re-label the current Lafayette title block to;
 * 1) Read Lafayette not "La Fayette" (this 2 word form which Lafayette NEVER used in his letters, birth certificate and grave stone and is a result of Genealogical Revisionism from the very start of this Wikipedia page)
 * 2) the permanently renounced marquis title should not be in title block, but explained below (as it is now) that the aristocratic title was permanently renounced in June 1790 before the National Assembly.
 * The block should read exactly as President John Quincy Adams used in his December 1834 eulogy to the joint session of the U.S. Congress and as appears on his birth certificate; "Gilbert Motier De Lafayette" (Adams was extremely intelligent and knew how much Lafayette hated that permanently renounced "Marquis" aristocratic title.) Also, the 2-word form "Lafayette that exists now on the current Lafayette Wiki-site, was originally set up by Genealogical revisionists who know very little about Lafayette. Only the ignorant and his enemies called him Marquis" and "La Fayette" and those are good markers to spot the phonies. I would be glad to send you a copy of Lafayette's original, hand-written, birth certificate, scores of original letters and an authentic circa 1824-1825 calling card (engraved Gen. Lafayette), that was given to me during my recent tour of Lafayette's wife's family chateau, La Grange, outside Paris, by the current proprietor, all which demonstrate the correct, un-revised usage.
 * Please help us true Lafayette scholars find a way to fix the Wiki title block and restore Lafayette's good name to his preference, not some genealogical revisionist's choice of what his name should be historically revised to. Help us with this, and We and the true Lafayette's reputation will be extremely grateful.
 * It is obvious to us that if this reverting continues a 3rd time that you are engaged in censorship and blocking of the real truth behind Lafayette's name and his preference. Thanks,
 * --Squiretuck (talk) 09:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nyttend, Thankyou for your comments. I now understand that you agree that all the references I used from the very beginning of my edits are highly credible, but there are a last few towns named Lafayette that you don't think are named to honor Lafayette.   I don't think you realize how important General Lafayette's extraordinary self-sacrifice was in the founding this country and his extraordinary popularity in the U.S.
 * Do you really believe that General Lafayette is not the root in naming these last few towns or, (for a more appropriate example) the root in many other names, like the name of Lincoln's top spy Lafayette Baker? Just to prove the obvious point, I will contact those towns and get official clarification and report back.
 * More importantly, I noticed you ignored my request for help to correct the title block on the current General Lafayette page. Please, I beg you, reconsider and help us find a way to correct this to a less defamatory form and consistent with Lafayette's own name preference as Niles did (earlier) and John Quincy Adams did in December 1834 to the joint session U.S. Congress, thwarting Lafayette's many aristocratic enemies and the ignorant.
 * This President Adams was a man who got it right!
 * Thanks for your guidance and help.
 * --Squiretuck (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever is a "title block"? Even if I were wholeheartedly and enthusiastically wanting to support you in every way, I couldn't help you without being told what a title block is.  Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I don't think any of your unsourced edits are good: it's simply that I have other things to do, and I don't have time to revert pages that aren't on my watchlist. I'm a historian: I'm well aware of the man's accomplishments and well aware that he was quite popular in the country.  Very accomplished and very popular was Benjamin Franklin as well, but Franklin County, Idaho is named for someone else.  Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nyttend, Thankyou for your response and continued guidance.
 * 1) By "title block" I mean the page title as it appears in block at top of General Lafayette page.
 * It currently shows [Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette] but;
 * A) following President J.Q. Adams 1824 referenced lead should be [Gilbert duMotier de Lafayette] OR
 * B) more simply [General Lafayette] -the general's well known and documented preference.
 * Please Note, I have no preference, but I know;
 * A) what is appropriate and less defamatory but still formal and
 * B) Lafayette's preference.
 * Someone else can choose from these two then find a way to lock title to page and technically prevent moving/forwarding.


 * 2) I think there are now only 8 smaller towns in question, all which you claimed the last revert. I couldn't help but notice that most of the rest are larger towns that already had a claim to be named after Lafayette on their old or original pages. However, I have yet to notice one with a town naming-source-reference but you did not erase those edits. Isn't it standard Wiki courtesy to plant a "citation needed" superscript for a reasonable period of time rather than completely-erase-revert-edit arbitrarily with no easy chance for other editor's verification?   Why was it that every one of those un-sourced named towns you left untouched in their old edits?


 * 2) You may agree, Lafayette is a far rarer original U.S. name vs. Franklin except for the root influence due to Gen. Lafayette himself.


 * 3) So far I found only one town page that alleges (unsourced) that it was named for someone besides the general. However, that guy's first name was Lafayette and usually last names are used in town naming.  I suspect the general had a partial part in that as well. I will confirm that town and the other 8 towns and report back to you.  Please count on me to verify other Lafayette towns you find with need of naming-source especially those many more towns that claimed the general but were never sourced.  Please, next time, consider planting "citation needed" superscripts to work for you, and thereby recruiting an army of editors for scrutiny by those most interested in each page.
 * Please continue to help us improve this page to make it more honorable to Lafayette, especially correcting the page title and preventing changing and forwarding. Thanks  --Squiretuck (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the title of the article is very simple, but I don't think that it will go over very well and I don't recommend it. But if you want to you can simply move it by clickin on move and moving it to General Lafayette. Chances are somebody else will just move it right back. Dincher (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dincher,   Apparently someone else has already tried what needs to be done. I will bring this to the attention of Wiki tech management since this revisionism and apparent page move/forwarding is also a defamation-vandalism issue. You continue to shed valuable light on this issue! Keep em coming! --Squiretuck (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PS Readers, Notice the scores of edits (made today) to many Lafayette pages made by Huwmanbeing 

Why would this editor spend so much time hiding the few short sentences of NILES' (SEE NILES' text below)?

This source is very difficult to find at libraries, and not yet easily found on the Web.

Why is Huwmanbeing (and his friends) so hell bent on hiding this text?

Notice also Huwmanbeing's same text-hiding job today here at   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_College

Shouldn't Huwmanbeing have left it up to the college to edit (or censor) their own Web site, as they do regularly?

Is this vandalism or is it censorship on all those sites Huwmanbeing spent a lot of time with today?

'''I leave it to the other readers (hopefully some real Americans) to decide.... --Squiretuck (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)'''


 * I think you may misunderstand how Wikipedia articles are managed. It's not up to members of the college to edit the college's entry in Wikipedia, though they're certainly welcome to; instead, every editor is entitled to edit the article, and if those edits are deemed suitable then they'll persist.  If not, they may face adjustment or removal.
 * As for the removal, the position expressed by myself (and others) is that pasting the same passage of text about titular renunciation almost verbatim into every WP page that includes that name of Lafayette is highly redundant and not good practice. Also, your edits often include editorial asides, such as your desire that we "not offend him by heaping the senseless thing upon him".  ((Example)  Further, the information you claim is being suppressed already appears prominently in the Lafayette article for all to see.  If you wish to expand upon that article, please do — you clearly care about the subject and I'm sure could make good contributions.
 * Finally, note that most of your edits were reverted because they appear to be indiscriminate guesses made en masse — in particular, assuming that every locality, county, college, ship, etc. that includes the word "Lafayette" was named for the French military leader. While it's probably likely that many were, such a guess is insufficient; instead, a citation should be provided.
 * Thanks! Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  23:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Having seen this situation develop, I'd have to agree with Huwmanbeing: the article on the man is the place to provide details about his title, et cetera.  It's not necessary, useful, or good practice to include that level of detail on every article about anything that may have been named for the man.  The whole point of linking one article with another is to provide direct and easy access to related information without having to duplicate it.  If information is duplicated in many places, it's difficult and impractical to keep it up-to-date. Omnedon (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
You are welcome to join the discussion there and give your own opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Squiretuck, the Marquis de Lafayette article has been semi-protected, which means that anonymous editors can no longer change it. An IP appearing to represent your views has been blocked for vandalism. If you wish to continue to edit that article, you will have to use your Squiretuck account. (You appear to have been working there with a set of four different anonymous accounts, which is not good for your reputation). I strongly urge you to engage in good-faith discussion with other editors and seek reasonable compromises. Your continued ability to edit Wikipedia is in jeopardy. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just wanted to echo EdJohnston's comments, and again encourage you to discuss any concerns you may have on the Lafayette talk page. Thanks!  Huwmanbeing  &#9728;  &#9733;  16:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)