Jump to content

Talk:Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adrienne

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
I'll take a look shortly. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit more, take a look and let me know what you think. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. It doesn't add too much length and provides a nuanced detail. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i bit the bullet, and put some things in an article about her. she's notable given the Maurois biography. i will start to mine the letters, which have some gems. put family info there, one descendant is queen of Belgium. wish we had more french nobility; title links (like the english) that would make the genealogy easier. pohick (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pohick2: Remember that Adrienne was a Mlle de Noailles. You probably will find more in that family genealogy & history (Category:House of Noailles) & in French wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_de_Noailles. Marie Victoire de Noailles (1688-1766) married the comte de Toulouse, the youngest legitimised son of Louis XIV & Mme de Montespan. Their son, the duc de Penthièvre was the grandfather of Louis-Philippe king of the French as Mlle de Penthièvre had married the duc de Chartres, later to become duc d'Orléans, Philippe Egalité during the French Revolution, who was the father of Louis-Philippe. So there is quite a link with French royal family. Frania W. (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

btw here's an external link, might have some stuff of interest http://www.friendsoflafayette.org/data/genlaff.html

another (i know this mcjoynt fellow) has some good stuff, maps of barren hill and virginia campaign, hmm too much detail http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/lafy-4.htm Pohick2 (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one of the maps of barren hill is LOC so should be available Pohick2 (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC) the barren hill image is here [1]and [2]- you can zoom in to read the French description (love those French engineers) had difficulty downloading the .jp2 file, maybe that would be better to link to? Pohick2 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC) writing on left side: Plan de la retraite de Barren Hill en Pennsylvanie ou un detachment de deux mille deux cent hommes sour le Genl LaFayette sois[?] ensource j[?] l'Armee Anglois source le Genl Howe, Clinton, Gram[?] le 28 may 1778. ....Pohick2 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ancestry

[edit]

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)[reply]

Jacobins

[edit]

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)[reply]

this is a good point - Andrienne was arrested by Girondins, and almost executed by Jacobins (per her letters to Brissot, and Jean-Baptiste Lacoste) Pohick2 (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable edits

[edit]

Any reason people accepted these anonymous edits over the last month or so? Their consequences are in the article as it stands. [4] (uncited); [5] (unexplained removal), [6] (unexplained removal); [7] (uncited). - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied FAC to article talk space

[edit]

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)[reply]

This is not English

[edit]

Among the major errors and dishonesties of the present text, which reads like the product of an illiterate and bigoted royalist:

  • 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)[reply]
      • That is the 1911 Britannica's take, but I think it's a minority view: the Jacobins were a small faction in the summer of 1792; the real issue was between the Legislative Assembly (and the Ministry), on one side, and the King on the other. Lafayette also felt this the chief issue, but as a constitutional monarchist, felt he had to support the King. The Royal Family refused his service, because he had been consitutional, rather than an out-and-out monarchist, in 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and the continued to refuse it (specifically Marie-Antoinette) much later than that. I am convinced that he was, in fact, concerned with the Jacobins. I do, however, believe what you write is correct: he was essentially walking a "tight-rope" between the Assembly and the Queen; something which was observed as particularly dangerous by contemporaries. Lazulilasher (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gouveneur Morris (June 17th):

            This new ministry will be purged (at any rate) of some of its members, but one great doubt exists whether it will not be driven off by the Jacobin faction. It is in contemplation to make a serious effort against that faction in favor of the Constitution, and M. de Lafayette will begin the attack. [8]p.545

          • when you read the Morris diary, he's pretty free with the Jacobin talk throughout this period. pohick (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's the trouble with using primary sources. Morris is seeing things through the opaque medium of his own POV; as he would in America, he uses Jacobin for the mob, for middle-class radicals, and for middle-class centrists alike. (As a Federalist hysteric, he dislikes all of them; but they have little else in common.) We use Jacobin only for a particular flavor of middle-class intellectual: those who followed Robespierre and Danton in staying in the Jacobin club after it divided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • i tend to agree with you, so let it stand, but it is a verifiable source, his federalist conservative POV is clearer than lafayette. the nuance tends to get lost in the emotional recollection, people see the jacobin threat earlier than they were (where did they come from)(who are those guys)pohick (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • The most scholarly source on Lafayette in English would appear to be Gottschalk's four volumes (not just one); unfortunately he died before getting further than October 1789.
  • Lafayette Comes to America should indicate both the actual publication date, 1935, and the date of the edition cited. There are several ways to do this, including "Gottschalk, Louis R. (1935), Lafayette Comes to America cited in 2002 reprint, [bib data]". This is one of many reasons why {{cite book}} should only be used, if at all, for completely unproblematic cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • are the After the Revolution; Return to France and visit to America sections duplicate? should they be merged?pohick (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not duplicate, at least; they could be united. One deals with what our subject did in France after Yorktown; the other with his (first) return visit to America. His correspondence with Washington could be moved from one to the other. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I broke the sections up because we were actively working on the article; it makes it a little easier to edit, I think. I was not certain where to put the correspondence with Washington. The intention was to have a section that dealt with Laf's activities that were not directly related to either Revolution. They could likely be merged; again, I think I split them out to make editing a bit easier. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date order

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Cherchez la femme

[edit]

This article contains none of the three or four names of Lafayette's mistresses; since the first has a whole book written about her effect on Lafayette's carrer (Lady-in-waiting, by Gottschalk), this seems a failure in completeness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, did you read that book? I have not, but my understanding was that Gottschalk predicated this assertion upon a letter between Aglae de Hunolstein and Lafayette. I'd also thought Gottscalk's general description of Adrienne/Laf's marriage was of a happy one. I'm not arguing that we should not include assertions of the affairs; but it should be stated that it is nothing more than that: an assertion. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
better yet, find the letter in the Library of Congress (went there yesterday) Adrienne's handwriting is small - check out Adrienne de La Fayette pohick (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's great work, Pohick. I'm reading Wright's description of the Honulstein affair; apparently the lady was disowned by the Duc de Chartres, and eventually wound up in a convent. It's all quite gossipy. Regardless, it's not quite in the mainstream. I believe it should be entered in the record, but not given undue weight. By the way, thank you for writing Madame de Lafayette; since we have that article we'll be better able to seperate the lives. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the descriptions:

Her disappearance caused only a minor ripple of interest.

The gossips, putting two and two together, said that Lafa- yette had deserted her. His heart could not have been broken because he was often seen in the more sedate salons that he now frequented with yet another lady whom he had met even before he went to Spainl She was a sister of one of his Franco-American officers. She was even more beautiful than Madame de Hunolstein and, unlike poor Agla, was witty and intelligent. There was a kind of magic about Madame de Simiane; when one met her at a social gathering she was so charming, it was said, so ready to be pleased, that one felt

like giving another party especially in her honor.

It's all so saucy; almost thinly veiled eroticism. I'm reminded of the modern TV show "Gossip Girl", with these lurid descriptions of supposed affairs. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My favorite line is: "She was even more beautiful than Madame de Hunolstein and, unlike poor Aglae, was witty and intelligent." *SNAP* 1-2-3. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if included i would caveat it, is this the same Laf who got laughed at, when he couldn't dance? Laclos was a reporter of the times, is Laf more like Jefferson than Washington? (see also chateaubriand quote) yes i put more of the family stuff at Adrienne, good lead into Château de la Grange-Bléneau pohick (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is post clumsy-dancer-Laf: whom the Queen laughed at. He was, according to our gossip columnist, quite a social disaster pre-USA. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another juicy tidbit about our saucy temptress, the Comtesse d'Honulstein:

It was even said that Aglaé had become thoroughly promiscuous and at night went scouting for lovers in the dark arcades of the Palais Royal

How sordid! I love how the snarks drip from the author's pen! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yep, after america he was quite the hero, but wouldn't Adams and Jay have been all over the scandal, if true, i don't recall any letter references, i just looked at the first reel and there are 200 whew. (this strikes me like the Sally Fairfax inuendo) pohick (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have the letter from Lafayette to the Comtesse? Should be addressed 27 March 1783. It apparently is "ambiguous", to steal the term. Marat is said to have accused him of destroying the Comte de Chartres/Orleans' "honour"; as Lafayette had been with his wife (perhaps he scoured her under the "dark arcades of the Palais Royal"). How dramatic! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, regardless of the events sensationalism: it has been included in the article (although as an assertion). Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well i didn't see any letter from Laf to Comtesse, in the index of numbered series of papers, (only 43 reels) (dosn't mean it ain't there) i could search the 5 reels in the time period pohick (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here's what unger says:

(1774) at the urging of Noailles and Segur, he found relief in "two romances with celebrated beauties, in which my will played more of a role than my heart." "jealousy smashed the first one before it even started, and in the second, I was less interested in conquering her than triumphing over my rival" -- (1783) by comparison, the Lafayettes were staid: even puritan John Adams commented on their strict repudiation of card playing, gambling, latenight parties, and other fashionable amusements.

pohick (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pohick, hmmm...did you see the bits I added about his relationships? How do you think we should fit this information into it? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
je me lave les mains, i have that Lady in Waiting 1933 book on order, (or rather will have to go to LOC) it will take a while to find the letter, 'til then, what you have is more than i would have done. pohick (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting passage:

It is gayer to read of George Lafayette's return from America, and of the unexpected arrival of Lafayette's mysterious admirer, Madame de Simiane, who traveled night and day to see him, and for some time took up her abode with the Lafayettes.The Household of the Lafayettes, Edith Helen Sichel, p. 259

pohick (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok went to LOC, read book, Gottschalk was very even handed (i don't believe he asserted that there was an affair) had a translation of the letter, French transcription, and photoplate of letter. typed translation of letter here[9] will type transcription later.

It is unsigned but in the Lafayette's unmistakable handwriting. (p.100)

the letter is in the John Carter Brown Library [10] (not LOC) seems platonic to me, but the rhetoric is flowery, and easy to snip:

You have known me; you have loved me in every respect .... All that you are, all that I owe you, justifies my love and nothing, not even you, would keep me from adoring you

as Gottschalk notes, a switch to tutoyer at the end, which he didn't use with Adrienne. (which for me is more shocking than an alleged affair) the letter seems to show the family consternation of gossip without bitching. there seems to be a series of ladies gushing over Lafayette, giving him money etc. it's not clear to me how much was consumated pohick (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Burton's take:

Taking their cue from Lafayette’s letters of bereavement and Anastasie’s biography of her mother: historians have interpreted Adrienne’s death as the culmination of a love story. After all, Adrienne's last words to Lafayette [whose extra-marital affairs in his youth, including the one with Mme de Simiane whom she had forgiven, had been known to her] had been quite touching: “Je suis toute a vous.”

maybe we should write her to ask for the reference- Burton, p.15 pohick (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am kinda dissatified with the verbiage, but will take enough notes from gottschalk to rewrite, (i.e. no evidence what Adrienne knew; do justice to gottschalk nuance)pohick (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hmm cornell "Excerpt from an early manuscript of Lafayette's Memoires alluding to several love affairs. That paragraph has been scratched out in the manuscript and does not appear in the published version." [11] pohick (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, went to loc, read Lady in Waiting, Gottschalk sets out her life based on some letters from her to Suvurov (in Russia), and the Lafayette letter to her. she was lady in waiting to Mme de Chartres. (affair with Chartres)(Philippe Egalite) (Marat made gossip of her link between the political rivals) Gottschalk portrays Laf more as a Danceny than Valmont (i.e. more a passionate idealist, than a libertine). had affair for one year after his return before Cadiz expedition. her family was angry, made her break off, less because of scandal than her failure to maintain denialibility. she entered convent. lots of nuance in a little pamphlet. rewrote verbiage in article to reflect pohick (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Champ de Mars Massacre

[edit]

Our present treatment is about like telling the Kent State Massacre as an act of self-defense by the Ohio National Guard. In both cases, the view is verifiably one existing view; but we should not endorse it in Wikipedia's voice. Like the Boston Massacre, the civilian population was stoning the troops (and in Paris, there may have been shots as well, although Buckman says there was one gunman, and his gun misfired - I gather citing Lafayette); the troops fired back and killed several people (I believe 20 is a very low estimate). Lafayette and Bailly tried to restrain the troops, not the mob. I have tagged accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my fault; I'd thought that we'd mentioned that the crowd was stoning the troops. I'm rewording now. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange text

[edit]

"He was educated by his aunt and two priests, Curé de Saint-Roch de Chavaniac. " - makes little sense. What is this supposed to mean? Or what is the name of the second priest? Ohconfucius (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Ohconfucius & Lazu: I have begun to read La Fayette/Lafayette's article & here is what I left on Lazu's talk page earlier:
Lazu: J'ai lu environ la moitié de l'article et corrigé des petits trucs, rien de très important. Une phrase me gêne dans son enfance: *He was educated by his aunt and two priests, Curé de Saint-Roch de Chavaniac.* There are the two priests, then Curé de Saint-Roch. Would not that make three priests??? or was it only one who would be the curé? [...] FW Frania W. (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am also confused as to which grandparents raised him, paternal or maternal.
À plus tard. Frania W. (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands: I think this portion is misleading. In sa prime enfance he was educated by Abbé Fayon, beginning at age 7; the Abbé replaced another priest. The third priest was not actively involved. I'm also going to cut the Plutarch & Livy; I'm concerned that it is intended to paint Lafayette as Mr. Morality. Let's let his actions influence reader's judgment. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lafayette found that the Continental Congress did not have the money for his voyage; hence he paid for the ship La Victoire himself" I think it's supposed to mean he paid for the trip, but it reads like he bought the entire craft... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Ohconfucius: LF, who was extremely wealthy, did buy the sailing ship La Victoire. Frania W. (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and subsequently the entire cargo, i added the notes of his annual income of over 100,000 livres (or pounds of silver). pohick (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can cite 'George Washington's World' by Genevive Foster. Noghiri (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retort to Bonarpartes brother after Waterloo

[edit]

I was recently reading an article about Washington and Lafeyette in the Smithsonian magazine. They told of a great speech made in retort to Napoleon's brother after the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon's brother was berating the Assembly/Parliament/congress (not my expert subject obviously) for lacking the will to stick with Napoleon after his latest defeat. Lafeyette emerged from the back row, much to the surprise of others, and gave a speech to the effect taht millions of french men had died for Napoleon, don't dare question France's will. It effectively ended the debate. I think it should be added here, if it is in fact true. What do you think, and is it true? Thanks for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.190.142 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quoting:

Lafayette returned to France in 1799 but stayed out of politics until 1815, when he was elected to the National Assembly in time to put the weight of his revolutionary-era credentials behind the call for Napoleon to abdicate after Waterloo. When the emperor's brother, Lucien Bonaparte, came before the assembly to denounce the attempt as that of a weak-willed nation, Lafayette silenced him. "By what right do you dare accuse the nation of...want of perseverance in the emperor's interest?" he asked. "The nation has followed him on the fields of Italy, across the sands of Egypt and the plains of Germany, across the frozen deserts of Russia.... The nation has followed him in fifty battles, in his defeats and in his victories, and in doing so we have to mourn the blood of three million Frenchmen." [12]

James R. Gaines. Adapted from the book For Liberty and Glory: Washington, Lafayette and Their Revolutions
this is true, but will require a reading of the book Pohick2 (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is the article discussion: "He had been a member of the Chamber of Deputies from Seine-et-Marne since 1815 and had pursued the abdication of Napoleon". could be added to about the 100 days. Pohick2 (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
added a sub-section Hundred Days with sourced quote. Pohick2 (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with French version

[edit]

"C'est donc son arrière-grand-père, le comte de La Rivière, ancien lieutenant général des Armées du Roi qui s'occupera de lui. ", whereas the English text says he was raised by his paternal grandmother. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette's memoirs have nothing; but Gottschalk says this:
  • "His father died without leaving a will, and the widow reclaimed much of his property."
  • "The new marquis' grandmother...appeal[ed] to the king for an allowance" No mention of which side...
  • "when he was four years old the death of his maternal uncle made him the heir also to that vast La Riviere fortune...That was a fortune few among the court nobility would ever be able to enjoy."
  • Several guardians were appointed to him; they did not take an active role in his upbringing. They were: great-grandfather the Comte de la Riviere and grandfather the marquis de la Riviere; "uncles" Nicolas de Bouille, Bishop of Autun, and the Abbe Murat ("his tuteurs"); and, Jean Gerard who was his lawyer-financial advisor.
  • The above men did not frequent Chavaniac; rather, he was raised by the women of the household. And, according to Gottschalk: "His mother left most of that task to his father's family, for she had a father and a grandfather of her own in Paris, and found it desirable to spend most of her widowhood in the capital. Until he was eleven years old the boy saw her only a few months a year. He was mostly given to the care of his grandmother and his two aunts" (I believe this indicates paternal grandmother? Could be wrong; our current line is cited to a book I no longer have in my possession, however, that confirmed what we had...likely that book cited Gottschalk.)
    • Gottschalk does later confirm that it was, indeed, the paternal grandmother. When speaking of how Chavaniac came into the family: "Her beloved Chavaniac, upon the death of her son..." This appears to reference Laf's father's death at Minden.
  • On to the two aunts, his grandmother's daughter (note: Gottschalk refers to grandmum as Mme de Lafayette, not Mme de Chavaniac as we do); their names were: Marguerite-Madeline & Louis-Charlotte de Chavaniac (merely a coincedence, that Chavaniac).
  • Perhaps the French version intends to indicate that, upon his maternal uncle's death he became, essentially, a rich man (to-be, rather). It was then that mum was presented at the court and decision was made to take country-bumpkin Lafayette away from Chavaniac and to the big city...

Ok, this is likely way too long of a response, but I believe it clears up the inconsistency. We could likely order our paragraph better; to indicate his mother's actions before she died. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good reply, thanks. Just spotted that his father died on 1 August 1759, but the french version says 9 juillet 1759... Ohconfucius (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius: In order to correct inconsistencies, we cannot rely only on fr:wiki or any other wiki. As you know, Wikipedia is not the Truth parachuted to Earth. What we need to edit this article are a couple of books written by historians & based on documentary evidence. Frania W. (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree. I know the inconsistency could mean that one, other, or both are incorrect. I was thinking that we should therefore seek out the real date and correct the errors wherever they may lie. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confucius, please do not worry, we'll get it! Frania W. (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as is claimed, LF's father was killed at the Battle of Minden during the Seven Years' War, then the date of his death is 1 August 1759. Frania W. (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the truth parachuted to Eartth? What? huh? By the way, I apologize if my reply was unecessarily verbose; I was working through the confusing lineage myself in order to verify our accuracy. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lazu: No apology necessary. This is a discussion page, so *verbosity* should be welcome! You were simply thinking out loud, wikipedially speaking. Cordialement! Frania W. (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

capture at Rochefort

[edit]

i added the verbiage about the capture based on his notes, however check out the French website with pictures: http://www.eix.be/rochefort/histoire/rumeur/lafayette/lafayette.html ROCHEFORT, Histoire Faits et divers Ragots, rumeurs, cancans et potins, Marie Joseph Gilbert Motier, marquis de la Fayette pohick (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American English?

[edit]

I'm not entirely convinced that an article, which has evolved in British English, should suddenly be changed to US English. Indeed, Lafayette gained honorary US Citizenship, but in fact remained a French subject and died in France. Having said that, it's no big deal as all instances of non-American spelling appear to have been changed, so I won't revert it. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Confucius and also believe that Leodmacleod could have discussed the change with others working on the article before imposing his point of view, as such a change is debatable and, whether we like it or not, we are left in front of the fait accompli (oops! French!!!). However, this is not going to stop my day. Frania W. (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why you would go ahead and impose your view point without a debate! So let me go ahead and explain my reasoning, and we can all have a discussion. And, as I have but one point, it should be a short one. Frankly, as American, I find the use of British dialect and spelling in an article about a hero of our Revolution to be insulting and little bit condesending. So, I changed it. I'm sorry if I ruffled anyone's feathers. I was just trying to "be bold" as per wiki's guide, but perhaps I went too far. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leodmacleod: Speaking for myself, I was not trying to impose my view point! I simply said that before going ahead with the change you could have left a word on the discussion page in order to give all of us a chance to debate your move. Also, please note that neither Confucius nor myself reverted you, so there does not seem to be any ruffled feathers; besides, wiki issues do not touch me deeply, mais glissent comme l'eau sur le dos d'un canard. Frania W. (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c'est marrant: meme expression en chinois! (水過鴨背) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Leodmacleod: I'm not entirely sold on the American national hero to American editor argument. just looking at the article both in French and in English, and seeing their different emphases, it is clear that Lafayette was an important figure in France too. Incidentally, I am trying to spend some time understanding how these articles could be homogenised, hopefully to the benefit of both. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frania, what I meant was that the spellings were already American and then you came along and changed it without a discussion. I kinda felt like that was you imposing your viewpoint. That's what prompted my doing that. Also, being from Texas, I don't speak much French, us being by Mexico and all, so yeah... you know....sigh...
Confusius, I'm sure he's very important to the French as well, but, as he made a name fighting the British and helping America, it just seemed more appropriate that his English language article be in the standard American dialect (and not Yat). That's all. I mean, for Wikipedia, I wouldn't expect Cornwalis or Joseph Brant to be in anything other than British English. I myself have enforced the use of British English on articles concerning UK subjects, like On the Origin of Species and Disraeli Gears, and, as he's more of a US than UK topic, yadda yadda. Look, I just wanted to make myself a little clearer, and not sound like some stident nut-job nationalist or something, mostly cause you seem alright. Anyway, happy editing mon ami. --Leodmacleod (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leodmacleod, I thought you were from Scotland... and had a beef against the English! Now it turns out that you are from Texas. What chance do I have, me, a little Parisian, against the arguments of a cowboy? my baguette against your lasso? Anyway, I am taking the responsibility for this because I believed that en:wikipedia in general was using British spelling, hence my switching *z* to *s* & *or* to *our*. I already had to concede "de La Fayette" against "de Lafayette" - ah! ces Amerloques, il faut toujours qu'ils gagnent! Now that you made your point, there does not seem to be any argument against having this article in American English & our time should be put to better use clarifying facts & dates.
There is a book in French (maybe Lazu, Pohick or Confucius read it? I have not, but it sounds as a good source to be used/added to LF article): La Fayette, pionnier de la liberté, Paris, Hachette, 1974, by René de la Croix, duc de Castries (1908-1986), (with biography on fr:wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_de_La_Croix_de_Castries), a French historian, also a member of the Académie française. The book had a reprint in 2006 by Tallandier & is available only thru Amazon.fr. I do not think it has been translated in English. http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/BOOK/castries-duc-de/la-fayette,162824.aspx
¡Hasta la vista!, Leodmacleod & a nice weekend to y'all. Frania W. (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
alors, une autre livre no, i've not read, just read Unger les américains ne gagnent point tout: nous avons gagné Bernie Madoff, les francais avait gagné Jérôme Kerviel pohick (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to your Madoff, our Kerviel is a tiny peanut! Frania W. (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, des cacahuetes... et il y peut en avoir plein de ce genre de traders dans les banques americaines dont ses pertes sont cachées dans les 'sub-prime'. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oui, il doit y en avoir plein et les mauvaises surprises vont nous tomber dessus! Now back to work! Frania W. (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yessir! Ohconfucius (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world were you guys talking about while I was away? Way too much fun and joking around here.... au travail Lazulilasher (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the policy has changed, wikipedia uses American English for American articles, and British English for English articles, others that do not fall strictly within those group use whichever one was used first. I wouldn't say that this article is strictly American, and would not bother changing it to American English, but if it is already, then I don't see any reason to change it back. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict and imprisonment

[edit]

I have begun attempting to reconcile the version of events, again between the French and English versions, and have added a small paragraph on his captivity, sourced from the French article. I am slightly stuck for the moment, as it seems that there are some gross inconsistencies, especially in terms of dates (and timelines). On examining the French article, I find it leaves much to be desired. In particular, its citations are not always relevant, and often lacking in references to cited text (which I have tagged accordingly). Nevertheless, the French article asserts that Lafayette was transferred from Wesel to Neisse, where he was held until 1795 and then moved to Olomouc, where he supposedly spent 5 years; his wife was apparently arrested twice - once in 1792 (released soon thereafter) and again in 1794 (to be released January 1795). Adrienne supposedly shared gaol time with her husband until his release (no date here). Ohconfucius (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius, please check above comment in American English? with name of a book by duc de Castries that could be used as an added source & reference. I bet you it is filled with treasures. Frania W. (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
let me just say since i wrote some of that, that the French version is the old one. i mentioned Magdeburg since there are letters in the LOC written by him there. (that i will get around to copying one of these days) The Prussians captured him at Rochefort, and then moved him around, (he was at all those forts, Wessel, Neisse, Magdebourg) finally turning him over to the Austrians (Olmutz), when the heat grew, Americans who traded with Hamburg). check out my version at Adrienne de La Fayette. She was held under house arrest, and then moved to Paris during the Terror, and transferred to many prisons in the city before being released. then sent Georges to US (he had been in hiding), then got the passport to join Gilbert. I agree the secondary sources are confused about his and her whereabouts, but now we have the primary source material (letters) to construct a timeline pohick (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok this source has a narrative of the prisoners movements (1883) [13] pohick (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pohick, thank you for sharing this with us - quite a job you are doing. Frania W. (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just pulling on the ball of string. some errors in that narrative, Rochefort is in Belgium (not Luxembourg, though close), passports were from Monroe, not Mr Parish, (wouldn't have been able to enter Hamburg without), but the movements are the clearest i've seen, now if i could just get the play pohick (talk) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok went to loc; got sequence of letters by Laf at various prisons:

  • Nivelles 25 August - 3 September 1792
  • Coblentz 16 - 29 September
  • Magdebourg 15 March 1793 - 22 Jan 1794
  • Niesse 16 February 1794 - 16 May 1794
  • Olmutz 25 July 1794 -

note the gaps, but I will incorporate in the text. pohick (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. Hamilton

[edit]

I wasn't entirely sure if the mention of Hamilton was relevent in the encyclopedic sense. I know his couragousness wasn't though and it seemed a little clunky and misplaced. If anyone, especially the editors doing the big overhaul, think it fits, please go ahead and add it back in a not so not NOPV way. --Leodmacleod (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, Hamilton was a subordinate who led the assault as mentioned at Seige of Yorktown. pohick (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New file File:Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette from NPG.jpg

[edit]

Recently the file File:Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 04:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary citizenship

[edit]

I discuss my changes to the article on Lafayette's honorary US citizenship over at the Talk page for that article. Summary: Lafayette became a full-fledged citizen of Maryland in 1784 and, thus, the United States in 1789; his is the one case in which "honorary" does not mean "symbolic only." YLee (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, and also because of Connecticut, all the family too; they all got passports. made a note on your article talk page. Pohick2 (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A noteworthy distinction. Well done. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I merged/moved Londonbroil's footnote transcript of the relevant portion of the newspaper article (thanks for that, by the way), along with the detailed discussion of Lafayette's US citizenship, into the article body; such detail does not belong in the summary. I also removed the commentary about the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" from Londonbroil's footnote; not only is it WP:OR, it is irrelevant. I discuss this issue in Talk:Honorary citizen of the United States, but I see I need to explain further.

Article Two of the US Constitution prohibits anyone who is not a natural-born citizen of the United States--that is, someone who was not born a US citizen--from becoming President, but it also has a one-time provision that extends the definition of the phrase to everyone who was a US citizen when the Constitution was ratified; otherwise, neither Washington nor anyone else would've been eligible for the office! In other words, Lafayette was not only an American citizen, he was eligible for the Presidency; thus, he was a "natural born citizen" as much as any of the Founding Fathers. (By the way, for some reason many people believe that Alexander Hamilton was ineligible for the Presidency because he was born in Bermuda; some even go further and claim that Article Two was crafted by his political enemies to disqualify him. Hamilton could've been born on Mars; he was an American citizen when the constitution was ratified and thus eligible. Period.) YLee (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His honorary citizenship was separate from his actual citizenship. It would be like getting and honorary degree and a real degree from the same school. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

La Victoire or L'Hermione

[edit]

While reading this entry I noticed a difference concerning the names of the ship that Lafayette sailed on. According to French history he sailed on L'Hermione (not mentioned in the French entry), where as in the English version it states the name of his ship as "La Victoire". Can some one please point out to me a confirmed source in English for verification?

i believe it is both, depending on the crossing, some confusion may have crept in, i will review the sources. Pohick2 (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in 1824, the ships were Cadmus, and The Brandywine Pohick2 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To which crossing are you referring? He sailed to the Americas numerous times throughout his life. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
according to Clary Adopted Son: westbound April 20, 1777 was La Victoire (p. 84) ; eastbound January 1779 Alliance (p.229) ; westbound March 11, 1780 Hermione (p. 256) ; eastbound December 21 1781 Alliance (p.342-3); westbound July 1784 no name (p.364); eastbound October & Decenber 1784 La Nymphe (p. 369; 370) - i believe that's all the crossings. in the article only the French frigate Hermione (1779) is mentioned with a link to ship article, this could be trivia - though good DYK (i do hope it's not a homework question) - and please TenJed if you're going to make a question, please sign using the 4 tildes. Pohick2 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World-famous in New York

[edit]

"Many streets around the world are named for Lafayette, such as Lafayette Street in Williston Park, New York and Lafayette Street in Lower Manhattan, New York."

Do we have any examples of streets named after him that are not in the USA or in France? Right now it's saying more or less "Streets have his name in two different parts of the same city" 121.45.206.2 (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I don't know about the rest of the world... but a lot of US cities have a Lafayette St. I swapped Williston Park for Hartford CT. to show some variety in States. Actually, New York City may not be a good example either... it actually has multiple Lafayette Streets (and at least one Lafayette Ave.) Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that there is a Lafayette Avenue in Brooklyn but fails to mention that there is a LaFayette Avenue also in the Bronx's Throggs Neck section. I grew up a half block away from that avenue.

Aside from France & the United States, what other country/countries would have a reason to honour La Fayette? There might a few streets named after him in Quebec, but certainly not in... Angleterre.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

title

[edit]

on the bottom of the page of most people with hereditary titles there is a table. why does Lafayette not have one? also, does anyone have his Coat of Arms? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name

[edit]

his name is so long, I tried to understand it by reading French name, but that didn't help. I understand part is his title, but could someone explain it? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed politically motivated wording/citation

[edit]

The section cited from Tuckerman page 198 previously said roughly, "... was opposed to new taxes and advocated cutting spending". This seemed a bit too close to the political slogans we hear nowadays, and in my curiosity about whether or not someone would actually put words in the marquis's mouth, I checked the source in question.

Here is a link on google books to the actual page: http://books.google.com/books?id=C7kYAAAAYAAJ&vq=198&dq=lafayette%20chief%20of%20staff&pg=PA198#v=onepage&q=tax&f=false

In fact, what the source says is that the marquis was vigorously against raising taxes while the king and his government were wasting it on "useless estates and gifts for courtiers". That is, he was chastising the king for wasting money that had been collected from the hard-working people of france, and that it was immoral or unethical to piss it away on nonsense.

This is, as I expected, quite a bit more subtle than the tiresome slogan of "lower taxes and cut spending" we hear about constantly these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.82.22 (talk) 08:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that differs from contemporary political thought (opposition to high taxes and and government waste). Although I am pretty sure more people today would view the French regime's expenditures with less favorable light, than their own governments. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason you have made it quite less subtle, which I think you meant nuanced. anyway, in the article, there is no mention of "the sheer amount of government malfeasance and corruption" surely you might interpret the expenditures described as thus, but we have no indication Lafayette did. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

coat of arms

[edit]

the blazon is "gules, a bordure vair, a bend or" On the shield a marquis's coronet, below the shield the order of St. Louis. I am not sure where this would go. source: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/famous/misc.htm 98.206.155.53 (talk) 23:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contempt for danger" ?

[edit]

The second paragraph of the Ancestry section states that "Members of his family were noted for a contempt for danger," and gives an anonymous source. The page cited does not make this fanciful claim, and, since the source is from 1825 - when books were more hagiography than scholarship - the sentence should be expunged, along with the questionable citation. The sentences immediately after this are fine and should remain Asburyparker (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, however, it is notable his father was killed in action, seems like a family trait. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education, Marriage & Early Service?

[edit]

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!

Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette → Marquis de Lafayette

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Battle of Pacman 3.0????

[edit]

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)[reply]

Masonic membership

[edit]

I found four brief mentions of Masonic membership: one when determining to go to America, one when arriving there, one when meeting Washington, and one re the laying monument cornerstones on his 1824 visit. This hardly appears enough to make a separate section. J.J.Nutt's 1891 Newburgh: Her Institution, Industries and Leading Citizens describes Lafayette's visit to that upriver town when on Wednesday September 14, 1824 "a deputation from Hiram Lodge, F.&A.M., invited and accompanied the General, his son and M.Levasseur to the lodge room in the hotel building, where he was received with Masonic honors, and the Rev.Dr. John Brown delivered to him an address, to which Lafayette made an eloquent and appropriate answer. After an introduction to his Masonic brethren , he retired ...." Granted this is not a scholarly tome but an account of an event that people remembered. I expect a similar welcome occurred in other places. Is this in anyway controversial? Mannanan51 (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that sources has it that the General's attendence to at least American free masonry is undesputed. However, statements of eventual French membership should probably be framed according to such statements' uncertainty. Moreover, I suppose that his allegd masonic attendences could well be concentrated to under a single heading, perhaps along with sourced membership of other organisations? What do you think about that? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this necessary? His Masonic membership is mentioned where relevant, which was mostly having to do with the Revolution and the 1824 visit. You can't take it away from the biographical section or how it is that he was given a commission by Congress and dozens weren't would go unexplained.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I have added a perspective on it in the Assessment section. Feel free to further elaborate. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette Escadrille

[edit]

Recommend a reference to the Lafayette Escadrille of World War I be included: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lafayette_Escadrille — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altemuej (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added to the see also with other stuff named after him. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it, but there's an awful lot of stuff named for Lafayette, if that's your sole criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They have an article would be the other criterion. If the list gets too big for "See also", it could be its own section or article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It already does, Honors and memorials to the Marquis de Lafayette.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I added a paragraph about Lafayette Escadrille to that article and removed everything in the "See also" that is in that article. I also removed Château de la Grange-Bléneau as it has a link in the text. That leave the portals and LaFayette Motors. LaFayette Motors is not really an honor thing per se, they just use his name to sell cars, so it is not going in the honors and memorials page. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks for your work. I suspect we agree; Lafayette had an awful lot of stuff named for him, some in his lifetime, and some later. The article covers some of that in text (mostly dealing with the 1824-25 visit), the see also should take stuff immediately relevant to Lafayette that for some reason wasn't used in the text, and the Honors article the rest.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2016

[edit]

This set of sentences is VERY ambiguous: "Lafayette spent the first part of the winter of 1780–81 in Philadelphia . . ." and then, at the beginning of the next paragraph: "After the Continental victory at the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina in January 1781, Washington ordered Lafayette to re-form his force and go south to Virginia . . ." This leads the reader to believe that Cowpens is south of Virginia, which is not the case. I would suggest rewording the second sentence/paragraph to suggest Lafayette was coming from Philadelphia. For example: "After the Continental victory at the Battle of Cowpens in South Carolina in January 1781, Washington ordered Lafayette to re-form his force in Philadelphia and go south to Virginia . . ." 2602:306:BC85:1320:85F4:A3EB:1779:CAD (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry about the protection, we are dealing with a large number of Hamilton fans.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image reversion

[edit]

User:Wehwalt: rv. The image does not have proper licensing and would the article would not pass FAC with it there, accordingly I remove it. Please add required information such as the painter to the image page on commons and then re-add it to this article

you might want to check the painting of the image you reverted to. fix the metadata and licenses, rather than venting in edit summary. 158.59.127.107 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two ways of looking at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

[edit]

nickname- America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman

Kananiali (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag in infobox

[edit]

The infobox shows the tricolor flag for the Kingdom of France during the Bourbon restoration, but it did not use that. It brought back the fleur-de-lys. Funnyhat (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Funnyhat:. If you mean File:Pavillon royal de France.svg, it says in the image description that its use as the flag of the Kingdom of France from 1815-1830 is contested. I corrected the template parameters in the article to Kingdom of France during the Bourbon restoration, but that uses File:Royal Standard of the King of France.svg and I am not sure if that is the correct flag. I think to get a change to the template you need to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template to discuss changing Template:Country data Kingdom of France. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Bourbon brought back the white flag of the Ancien Régime, and the tricolour came back in 1830 with the constitutional monarchy. That is the whole point of paintings such as Delacroix' Liberty Leading the People , or Cogniet's Scenes of July 1830 (the latter even has documentary value to answer your question). Cheers! Rama (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the tricolor, as Lafayette is closely associated with the creation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose both loyalties should be chronoligically indicated? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surname etymology

[edit]

It would be good if the article were to present an explanation of what the name "La Fayette" means, especially with so many things and places named after the Marquis. I have yet to find a source that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but I did find an excellent explanation so I will post it here, and hopefully someone will be able to get this info up to the standard where we can add it to the article:

French surnames often go back to a place where people or a family used to live. For instance the surname "Dumont" or "Lamont" meant that a family lived on a hill or a mountain. The "Lapierre" and "Delpierre" families originated from an area that was stony. "Delamare" lived near the sea or a mere, "Dulac" lived near a lake.,The "Dubois" came from a wood and the "Laforêt" or "Laforest"" from a forest.
In the case of Lafayette the etymology goes back to middle French "la faillette"."La faille" means "the crack" and the "ette" ending indicates something small. So it is likely that the original families bearing that name originated in a place where there was a crack on a hillside or a small cave near by.
Until spellings were formalised, they were approximate, hence the variations.
That came from here: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071022220217AArxpnO
There are other references that give an explanation that Lafayette means "little fairy". It might be best to present both versions, and then give qualifiers regarding the level of veracity of both.--Cy Maddox (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a source that satisfies everyone, I will be happy to polish the prose. It might be best to put it as a footnote, but I could see it either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2016

[edit]

Hello, can you add "The Hero of the Two Worlds" under nicknames?

Zotronic (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the article protected? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 11:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the above sections. As I understand it, the article is protected because people keep adding "America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman", which is what he is called in the play Hamilton and nowhere else. I eliminated the nickname field from the infobox to reduce temptation; the request by Zotronic is reasonable. I will happily abide by a community discussion on the point, but as you can see above, no one seems inclined to engage. I should note that although I have protected the article in the past, another admin has put on the present protection; I had removed the protection I had laid on it when you earlier requested it. So. To Hamilton or not to Hamilton, that is the question.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but can we unlock the article to find out if that is still the case, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I ping Favonian. I am neutral on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotecting the article would only result in renewed edit-warring. Promoting this nickname from "in popular culture" to the infobox will require talk page consensus and most likely a request for comments. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

[edit]

Please add "America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman" to his nicknames, because that is what he is called in the modern age. OliviaM81 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find OliviaM81 accurate and I'm reliable. 70.44.220.123 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RS. What we are looking for is evidence that it is something more than a nickname from Hamilton.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Lafayette's opinion on slavery

[edit]

Do you think these sources would be reliable if I am looking to add a section on Lafayette's opinion on slavery? If you have any other references you think would be useful please let me know. Thank you! http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/marquis-de-lafayettes-plan-for-slavery/ http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/lafayette/exhibition/english/abolitionist/ https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/marquis-de-lafayette "Lafayette and Slavery; From His Letters to Thomas Clarkson and Granville Sharp" by Melvin D. Kennedy https://rare.library.cornell.edu/collections/europe/france/lafayette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorte106 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm wondering is why is it needed? Lafayette never lived in the US and we do mention that he urged emancipation on Washington, who wasn't that interested.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: He probably wants to add information about Lafayette's opinions on slavery in general, rather than his opinions on slavery in the US in particular. France had questions about slavery at the time as well. Jorte106 Alfgarciamora (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources look fine. They mention that Lafayette did attempt to buy some property in hopes of converting slaves to free tenant holders.[1] It is more about pipe dreams that didn't work out. A section about it might give the reader insight to the man. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A section might be much. A paragraph or two, dealing with the (as I recall) French Guiana scheme and his views, would be very welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Marquis de Lafayette's Plan for Slavery". George Washington's Mount Vernon. Retrieved 21 February 2017.

America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman

[edit]
If the article's semi-protection has not been lifted yet, I propose it does so. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed it per your request.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 12:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've had to revert another "America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman", which is how he is referred to in Hamilton. How do people feel about this? If people want it included in the article, I'm prepared to accept that. Can we have a discussion? I'm prepared to accept things either way. The public certainly has a voice in this article and if it's clear this is what the public wants, I'll source it, possibly annotate it, and we go on. If people feel it should go, well, then I'd have that behind me when removing it. I started out opposed, but now I'm indifferent.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have an opinion on this? Should I start a RfC?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had added the description "America's Favourite Fighting Frenchman" to the Wikidata entry; it was showing up on mobile. I removed it from there, FYI. Robaato (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "ideals good be" to "ideals could be"

[edit]

In the "Beliefs" section, there was a non-grammatical phrase, introduced by Jorte106 in edit 2017-03-19T20:00:51:

"tradition and revolutionary ideals good be mended together"

My guess is that "good" was used instead of "could" because of its phonetic similarity. To fix that problem and two other nearby issues, I replaced that phrase with edit 2017-03-30T14:37:08. I changed it to:

"traditional and revolutionary ideals could be melded together"

I am not sure that's exactly what the original editor intended, but it seems plausible, and the sentence now makes grammatical sense.

I also note that the whole paragraph has a cite to encyclopedia.com, but that the encyclopedia.com article does not support the paragraph. I believe that the paragraph needs better support, but that's a different discussion.

--Peter Kaminski (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2017

[edit]

America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman to Lafayette's description. From musical 'Hamilton'Skyerocket (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Skyerocket (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. That has nothing to do with Lafayette the person, but a representation of him on the stage. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

[edit]

Surprised that an addition I made to the "Further reading" section was reverted. What I added was the 201-page catalog for a major exhibition on Lafayette's farewell tour of America that included scholarly essays and was supported by a grant by the National Endowment for the Humanities. The publication included hundreds of illustrations. This was a joint publication by the Queens Museum (New York City) and the University Press of New England, with a print run of five thousand. Fort Greene 2010 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fort Greene 2010: I agree that your addition of the Exhibition Catalog in "Further reading" should not have been reverted. The "reflections by curator" link is a little more questionable, and seems to be what caused Justlettersandnumbers to consider your change to be spam. Why don't you re-add the exhibition catalog in "Further reading", without the "reflections" in "External links" this time? Then, as a second, independent edit, simply make the text "Lafayette, Hero of Two Worlds" in the "Further reading" section an external link to your reflections page with the reproduction of the Exhibition Guide (as in this sentence)? That way, if that page is again deemed to be spam rather than providing description and context for the Exhibition Catalog mention, it can be reverted without removing the catalog. --Dan Harkless (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

[edit]

Add another nickname to Lafayette, and make one called "America's Favorite FrenchMan." LargeBaguette (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have information that "America's Favorite Fighting Frenchman" was used outside the musical Hamilton? That a character has a nickname in a play does not mean that the real person has that nickname.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting plaque

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, what is the problem? I have managed artworks in the Wikipedia before and know a bit on Commons. It meets the full criteria for a free license picture. It is attached to the wall permanently in Pasai Donibane (also called Pasajes), Basque Country, and therefore meets the criteria for exhibition. Is it a FA specific condition? What could ever compromise its showing in this article? Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's like taking a photo of a statue. It is a derivative work. So you need one copyright tag for the photo and one for the plaque. You need to show that the plaque is out of copyright. It is a work of art, and the artist or the one who hired them would hold the copyright until it expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since you say it is in Spain, and Spain has freedom of panorama, it seems to be OK. So I will revert myself. But keep the general principle in mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Violates Wikipedia NPOV Rule

[edit]

In at least two instances, this article does not maintain a neutral point of view. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view


Instance 1):

"Decline: Flight to Varennes and Champs de Mars massacre

On 20 June 1791, a plot, dubbed the Flight to Varennes, almost allowed the king to escape from France. As leader of the National Guard, Lafayette had been responsible for the royal family's custody. He was thus blamed by extremists like Danton for the near-escape and called a traitor to the people by Robespierre."

"Extremists" is a subjective word. Extreme compared to what or to whom? A person who advocated for the abolition of slavery 200 years ago would have been called an "extremist." Suggest: "leaders," "other leaders," or "radical leaders." Danton was radical in comparison to the milieu at the time, but would have been considered a "moderate" during the period of the Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre (which had Danton and Desmoulins executed).

Instance 2) In the same section:

"Martial law was declared, and the leaders of the mob, such as Danton and Marat, fled or went into hiding . . . "

"of the mob" is again a subjective appellation. Suggest "popular leaders." Note: Danton at the time did not hold official office, but was a popular leader and in the Cordelier's club, one of many such political clubs formed in the immediate aftermath of 1789. Marat was a publisher, and a noted scientific writer prior to the Revolution.

With respect to the use of the term "mob." A mob is a negative and subjective appellation. There is no wikipedia entry for Paris Mob or the Revolutionary Mob. The article indicates Danton and Marat were leaders of something that cannot be defined precisely and has no wikipedia definition. There is a wikipedia entry for "Sans-Cullotes" of which it can be fairly said that Marat was a (not the) leader of the Parisan Sans-Cullottes (among other groups such as readers of his journal). https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Sans-culottes.

This is not a debate about the subject, these are non-neutral appellations which violate the rule. The suggested edits are minor. Please rectify these violations. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.129.178 (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilbert_du_Motier,_Marquis_de_Lafayette/Archive_2&oldid=1136765053"