Talk:Robert E. Lee/Archive 1

message: The article mentions two dates, 10 October and 12 October, when reffering to the date of his death.  Also, it says that his stroke made speech impossible, but then states that his last words were spoken on his deathbed.  Can someone clarify this?
68.12.247.85 05:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: The medical part of his death is, to say the least, "quite weak". Please ask your local pharmacist or any highschooler to improve it.--80.133.106.233 08:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about you, can you do it? Everyking 08:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The medical part of his death is, to say the least, 'quite weak'..." 

message: There are two references to his citizenship.   Needs cleaned up.
Matt Yohe 02:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: The second paragraph of Early Life and Career states, "They lived in the Custis mansion, which today is a National Memorial, located at Stratford Hall Plantation in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on the banks of the Potomac River in Arlington, just across from Washington, D.C.."  Westmoreland County, VA (where Stratford Hall is located) is a considerable distance from Arlington, VA (where Custis Mansion is located).  Custis Mansion is a National Memorial located in Arlington National Cemetary.  I have not made an edit, as I am still new to participating in Wikipedia and would prefer a more knowledgable and experienced person to confirm and edit this.--Asacan 19:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Custis Mansion? 

message: I'm afraid the passage about how the General "incorporated law into the academic curriculum -- at the time an odd concept, because law was seen as a technical rather than intellectual profession" is mistaken, and I have to remove it. The College of Law at no less proper and Virginian a place of higher learning than William and Mary was established in 1779, and Harvard Law School in 1817. (Charles Sumner was one of its first librarians...) Samaritan 07:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law schooling 

message: Not sure the George Form by reference is too trivial as it may be the first or only time someone (not familiar with the US Civil War) hears the name. Having said that, the reference may be indirect as I recall that a paddle steamer or similar vessel was named Robert E.Lee too....
One thing more that occurs to me is that the car in the Dukes of Hazzard was named the General Lee. Could this be the same General Lee? The Dukes are often referred to as being Southern (see the Dukes article) and according to this page Robert E.Lee was a Southern hero. If this is the case,then perhaps this too should feature in the trivia section. DavidFarmbrough 16:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The nature of triviality is of course subjective. There are probably tens of thousands of facts associated with Lee and his legacy, and the art of writing a good encyclopedia article is not to enumerate them all, but to include only those that improve the reader's sense of who the man was, what he accomplished, and what impact he had on society. In my judgment, citing a modern song in which his name is used as a euphemism [for "ass"?] does not meet that standard. It is vaguely offensive as well as trivial. As to the Dukes, if you can find a source that confirms the car was named for this general, that probably had enough cultural impact to warrant mentioning it because it was a long-running TV show and a movie. Saying that it "probably" was named for him is not useful. As to the vessel, if you can find out which one it was (type, location, years of operation, etc.), including it is appropriate for a Wikipedia bio article, but only if you can be specific. Hal Jespersen 17:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The collective response to the trivia entry of "The General Lee car in Dukes of Hazzard was named after Robert E. Lee" would be a collective "DUH," methinks. Remove it? --Pathogen 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing to remember here: common sense is not common. Some people may actually not know this, specifically those in other parts of the world. Or the few people who are too dumb to know. Zchris87v 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too trivial? 

message: The earliest known source for "Strike the tent" is referenced in Freeman, q.v.; at which point Freeman (and, a fortiori! Bartlett's Quotations) should not be quoted, of course. Whether Lee said any such thing is of course very much open to doubt, but I removed the sentence that states that, since there is no known contemporary source that he did not, and the reader may form her own opinion: certainly, he did mumble things after his stroke, according to the accounts of witnesses, so "or anything else" isn't right. Bill 14:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last words 

message: Lee himself is not known to have claimed Scots ancestry, "Lee" is an English name, not a Scots, and again, his folks had been here for at least 2 generations since the old country — whatever that was. Freeman, his best biographer, mentions the idea only to sniff at it, as the brainchild of some other author: see his footnote. Bill 20:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Added after the 2d revert by our Scots friend) The Fontaine paper, mentioned in the footnote I just cited, on careful reading, will be seen to be commendatory and very vague: 17th in descent, assuming it's true, from Robert the Bruce does not make one a Scots-American. At that remove, Lee very likely had French and German ancestry as well: that doesn't make him a French- or German-American. At any rate, the paper traces Lee's descent to Bruce via 17 generations of mostly very non-Scottish, English ancestors. At some point almost any Englishman has some Scottish blood; and if Lee's connection with Scotland is so tenuous that you have to go back 17 generations to find it — as opposed to a real Scots-American, whose more immediate forbears would be Scots —  why would anyone call Lee a Scot, or want to? Bill 21:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lee's had been in Virginia since the late 1600's...his mother's side of the family, the Carter's had been in Virginia since at least 1624...I'll look it up if needed, but both branches originated in England.--MONGO 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares where his surname came from? I have an Irish surname, does that mean I can't have Scottish, Welsh, English and Scandanavian ancestry? (I do by the way). People don't only have "2" branches to their families. Have a look at a family tree. They have 4 or 8 or 16 or 32 etc. etc. depending on how far back one chooses to go. Unless Lee was very inbred I think it's safe to say that not all his ancestors were Lees from Shropshire. 130.159.254.2 12:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scottish-American" 

message: If you just scan quickly thru "diff", the last edit just looks like the simple addition of Lee's horse Traveller. In fact, the same editor performed repeated edits and deleted a lot of material; not that I think there was intent to deceive, it's just the way they edited. I have no axe to grind on any of it, but others may want to take a look, to revert or not. Bill 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deceptive edits by anonymous, 26 Jan 06 

message: We are currently unsure at de: where Lee really was the first cadet (and so far the only) to graduate the Academy without a single demerit. -- 84.20.183.30 17:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did well to check. He was not the only, by any means; nor can he be considered the first, since 5 of his own classmates went thru the entire four years without a single demerit (reference, naming the 5 cadets, and see the further note there). There may have been others before. I'll rewrite the passage in the English Wiki in a few seconds. Bill 20:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only cadet without demerit at West Point? 

message: But the edit summary line warn't quite big enough to lemme write this, even abbreviatedly:
*I threw out the junk commercial link just added
*per standard policy, I removed a pair of higher cats
*more controversially — especially since the link is to my own site — I added a link to Freeman's bio in the Links section, and this although it's already under the References: because it's by far and away the most important Web resource on Lee, and might not be seen buried in the Refs. I will hardly be offended if this gets reverted, but the aim is to be useful to a reader scrolling down to "Links". Bill 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor adjustments 

message: I have merged Arlington House into Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial and added some significant text (e.g. the story of the selection of Arlington as the site of Arlington National Cemetery).  Given the heat that things Lee-related can generate (see above), I thought that I'd ask the denizens of this page to take a look.  Inevitably, the story or Arlington House is inextricably linked to the story of Lee.  Help me achieve NPOV.  --JohnPomeranz 12:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger and changes to related article 

message: i don't understand the sentence "by finding a route to attack the Mexicans which was not defended because the terrain was thought to be impassable."
what?
*You're right, this doesn't make sense.  I commented it out.  If anyone can fix this, please do. Gwimpey 04:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
**fixed. big_hal 22:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  had to attack some mexicans 

message: I added some battle details, but a few comments in case you're concerned:
*I changed 2nd Manassas to Bull Run because other battles here, such as Antietam, used the northern names.
*James Longstreet was Lee's "war horse", not Traveller, who was just a horse.
Hal Jespersen 02:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Freeman (Vol. II, Chapter 27, note 41) traces the Lee-Longstreet-war horse quote to G. Moxley Sorrel, Recollections of a Confederate Staff Officer (New York, 1917, 2d ed.) — p116. As for horses of a more equine species, a 6th horse fought with him in the Mexican War: Grace Darling (opening sentence of Freeman's Vol. I, Chapter 18, and note there). Bill 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on Commander, AoNV 

message: I inserted "field" command into text as his role prior to this was essentially as an advisor excepting the W. Virginia theater of 1861. The current version makes it look as though he was a field commander prior to this which he essentially wasn't, hence my edit.--MONGO 14:16, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. Well, I now understand your intent and have reworded it appropriately. See if that does it for you. Hal Jespersen 16:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look great, thanks..not much time to edit...but try to adjust and or add as time allows.--MONGO 20:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command 

message: It seems as if the Battle of Gettysburg, or rather, Lee's and the Confederate's role in it, could do with a better explaination.  As is, it seems rather disjointed, and decreases the amount of blame that can be laid upon Lee.  Is it fair to absolve a general from blame, because his troops don't "fight as vigoursly" as he expected? The implication is that its more their fault and not his.  I think it all can be phrased better.  I take it, also, that the lack of much detail on the other battles is due to articles existing for them.  That said, I think more should be explained, condensed, sure, but enough to let a general reader interested in Lee understand better his generalship without having to click through a dozen articles in the process. RebelAt 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, go ahead and make the changes and we'll see if we agree. Almost all of the recent activity in this article has been regarding slaveholding issues, so it would be refreshing to have more martial discussions. At one time both Lee and Grant had relatively condensed analyses of their campaigns, but recently Grant fans have been pumping a lot more detail in his article, so it would make sense. I did not write the passage about "fight as vigorously", but I believe it refers to Ewell and Longstreet, not the soldiers. Hal Jespersen 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gettysburg and Others

message: On October 23 substantial and documented information about Lee's treatment of Custis's slaves was deleted from the "Lee as slave-owner" section. This was done without explanation or justification by an anonymous user at IP 64.58.97.230. Here is the text that was deleted:
: The decision caused dissatisfaction among Custis's slaves, who had been given to understand that they were to be made free as soon as Custis died.
: In 1859, three of the slaves—Wesley Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin of theirs—fled for the North. Two 1859 letters to the  New York Tribune (dated June 19 and June 21), and an 1866 interview with Wesley Norris, record that the Norrises were captured a few miles from the Pennsylvania border and returned to Lee, who had them whipped and their lacerated backs rubbed with brine. After the whipping, Lee forced them to go to work in Richmond, Virginia,  and then Alabama, where Wesley Norris gained his freedom in January 1863 by escaping through the rebel lines to Union-controlled territory.
I have restored the deleted text since no reason was given for removing it and it states material information about Lee's career as a slave-holder based on three contemporary printed sources. If there is some reason why the text should be edited, or even removed, I'd be glad to hear it. But I would like to hear it before it is simply stricken.
--Radgeek 09:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of information about Lee and Custis's slaves (Dec 3-7, 2005) 

message: After that lengthy discussion of the slavery issues, are we ready to remove the POV sticker from this article? If not, please enumberate reasons here. Hal Jespersen 20:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: 28ii06
In our debate over Lee and slavery, two events have happened that simply delight me.  The first: I received notice, when logging on to the Lee article, that I might be blocked from making contributions because of my ostensible, alleged, and putative “vandalism”.  He who has made this charge and this threat is a certain “bill”. This “bill” has made no way to reply to him save in the manner that I am using now, unlike my honourable opponent “Radgeek”, who is to be applauded for being approachable via email.
:Point of personal privilege, so to speak. I have a suspicion I'm the "Bill" you refer to; I do remember telling someone quietly, to expect that they would be labeled a vandal for what they were saying. It's hard to say this was you, since your user page is empty, and you have a single contribution (this one) under this particular user name of yours. If it is me being referred to, though, (a) you completely misunderstood what I wrote: I am about 95% in agreement with you and merely warned you that you were rocking the boat, that people are fractious and rude around here, which you yourself promptly proved. I most emphatically did not threaten you with a blessed thing. (b) I'm one of the most transparent people around here, not hiding under absurd aliases like GeekThis or V0nThat: I use my own name, and on my Wikipedia user page, provide links to my website (with my e-mail address).
:The stupidity you evinced in writing the preceding is a pity, because your points that follow, in addition to being an entertaining read, are right on target. Bill 12:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caveat Lector

message: I have taken a stab at removing all of the annotations regarding NPOV. As I have spent more time looking at the Wikipedia guidelines on  No Original Research, I have come to realize that much of the material that was causing controversy is original research based on primary sources, which is not what Wikipedia wants us to use. For example, dissecting Lee's letter to his wife is not in the purview of Wikipedia editors, it must be left to the professional historians (secondary sources). Therefore, I have deleted this analysis and replaced it with the full context of Lee's letter and Douglas Freeman's analysis of it. If there are alternative professional historians in scholarly publications who have alternative views, someone should feel free to include them with the proper citations. I have retained the citations to the Wesley Norris testimony because it is documented in a scholarly publication. I have also retained the citations to the New York Tribune anonymous letters, but balanced them with Freeman's skepticism as to their authenticity. Oh, PS: I have also converted to the newer Wikipedia footnote mechanism, which I believe is a lot easier to use for future citations. Hal Jespersen 01:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV & NOR 

message: It is in fact probably time to start to consider making many articles permanent, with no further editing by anyone. There has not been a change of substance to this article for months: all quibbles, vandalism, revert wars. This is to be expected: if several hundred people work on something for several years, it's normal that it should be finished; especially since Wickypedia frowns on "original research"; understandably since if we were authorities, we'd have written elsewhere. Close off this article and many others. Bill 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just went through a recent exercise in which there were significant modifications made to the sections on slavery. So it is an overstatement to say the article has been reasonably stable for months. I think that the semiprotection is a good idea that should apply to almost every article in Wikipedia, but do not think that this particular article on Lee should be permanently frozen in its current state. It needs additional work in footnoting throughout and should include more thoughtful analyses of Lee as a strategist and tactician. I am generally reluctant to make wholesale changes in an article that has extreme visibility such as this one, which is the reason I have moved slowly. Furthermore, adding more material does not require original research; there are many secondary sources of value that have not been fully tapped by the editors and reviewers in this space. Hal Jespersen 21:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent protection of the article 

message: I wish people would stop trying to soil Gen. Lee's good name by trying to lable him with slavery.
Why not - he did hold slaves, didn't he? And he fought in defence of slavery, didn't he?(ummm..NO)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery 

message: It is getting to be really annoying to see these massive dumps of bibliographic information going into Civil War articles. It is very tempting for me to simply revert them, rather than expending my own effort trying to reformat them to match the rest of the article references and to sort them correctly as to whether they are references or merely suggestions of further reading. We have to remember that Wikipedia is not a series of scholarly journal articles, it is an encyclopedia and that genre is governed by a particular style in which important information is given and less important information is weeded out, so that it does not distract readers. If you look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for instance, you will not see dozens of citations for further reading in an article. I recently obtained a copy of the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War, edited by the Heidlers, and it is a massive, superbly done encyclopedia that we would be well served by emulating. The excellent, very lengthy article there on Robert E. Lee is written by Gary Gallagher and he sees fit to list only six works for further reading. A good target for us as well. Hal Jespersen 22:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not be sarcastic or simplistic.  There was no "dump". I have been studying and writing about Lee for about 16 years (ever since I was a professor at West Point), and I tried to include the most important scholarly studies, as well as a few popular items.  Wiki does not have arbitrary formulas like Ency Brit on how many books there should be per 1000 words. A subject with a large bibliography should get proper attention.  The American Civil War A Handbook of Literature and Research  ed by Steven E. Woodworth, has about 150 books on Lee, which were selected from over 2000. Wiki's goal is to help users, many of whom are interested in specialized topics (Cold Harbor, Gettysburg). Many have to use small libraries that have only a few of the books listed. If anyone does not want to read books they do not have to--they are tucked away at the bottom of the article where they won't bother people who don't like those funny old paper things called books.  Rjensen 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note that articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica and (even more so) the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War have a degree of inherent credibility which wikipedia simply does not have, and will never have.  Wikipedia articles ought to cite sources to a much greater extent than normal encyclopedias because if they don't, there's no way of knowing if anything a wikipedia article says is true.  john k 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: it's very easy for people to ignore the books if they want. But for those who want to study Lee it's designed to be a big help. The list was compiled by an expert on the Civil War, I might add. :) Rjensen 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: I have semi-protected this article due to daily vandalism by anonymous editors...I will remove the protection after a week or so, or anyone can contact me to do so.--MONGO 20:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Lee County, Georgia was so named in 1826, when Robert E. was a student at West Point. It was named after Lee's collateral ancestor and Declaration of Independence signer Richard Henry Lee. Ellsworth
:I have taken the liberty of modifying the Lee County, Georgia article to add the origins of its name. Scott Mingus 22:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl. Ellsworth 15:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorials 

message: I've dropped by to review the article and like what I see. All that is needed for promotion is to add inline citations to the first few sections of the article, which have none at the moment. I'll put the article on hold for these. --CTSWyneken(talk) 19:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Comments 

message: Please bring the nom back after addressing above concerns. --CTSWyneken(talk) 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed -- Hold expired 

message: For some reason the Notes section is blank (at least in my browser). After a little experimentation, I found that removing the picture gallery in the Monuments section restores the notes. Does anyone know the methodology for troubleshooting this problem? Hal Jespersen 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too see nothing in the Notes: that's from IE6 and Windows.  I tried a fix and it did no good.  If it is the 'Monuments', then it would be sensible to move it to a new section.  It is already large.  --GwydionM 17:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnotes 

message: A great deal of material on Lee's early life seems to have gone missing during the fixes for vandalism.  --GwydionM 17:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine now.  --GwydionM 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huge chunk of 'early life' has gone missing 

message: The weird thing about this is that it says he suffered a stroke that made speech impossible. So how could he say his final words...? Someone answer or fix please. Sometimes1must 02:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Illness and Death 

message: Well, the section on Lee's early life is gone again . Personally, a brief overview of the slavery issue is needed but it doesn't need to be longer than sections on his military career of course. Can someone with a better knowledge of this person's history clean this up and get the early life section put back in?--MONGO 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, early life section now gone 

message: Thus continues the attack on the history of the southern soldier. Lee did not "almost accept" command of the union forces. He refused on the grounds that he would not lead an "invasion force" within his own country.
::All history books agree: Lee was in serious negotiations on command of Union army. He made it clear he WOULD accept if virginia did not secede. Rjensen 14:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revisionist history 

message: I am an 8th grade student from St. Louis and I was wondering if you know of any websites where i could go to find primary sources about robert E. Lee?
I need this by tonight so if anyone can help it would be much appreciated.
Thank You
::for some of the letters Lee wrote goto Robert E. Lee Papers  good luck! Rjensen 03:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary Source 

message: The article says that Lee graduated second in his class at West Point, but also that he had the top academic record. Can these both be true? I would assume that rank in class at the Point is determined entirely by grades, but I don't know for sure.--Tex 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll back to the Talk section on West Point Class Rank to see a lengthy discussion. Hal Jespersen 14:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much, I missed that.--Tex 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic record 

message: I notice that this January 19th will be the 200th anniversary of Robert E. Lee's birth. I hope you will join me in looking forward to seeing it commemorated on the Wikipedia Main Page on that day!--Tex 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Bicentennial 

message: Happy 200th Birthday to R.E. Lee! Hal Jespersen 15:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Birthday 

message: Why is it written under legacy that Lee was revered by WHITE southerners after his surrender, as a BLACK man I find this offensive because I revere Lee and I am not white. Please change this by removing the word WHITE and just saying SOUTHERNERS.
If you do not then you will be hearing back from me and others like me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.16 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Southerners? 

message: I am not qualified to write about this historic man, though I would like to read about him without having to wade through randomly inserted rubbish.  Can someone fix this please?
Thank you.
89.101.2.193 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpolations 

message: It is stated in the Trivia Section that R.E. Lee is a grandfather to Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird. No source was given. It is not mentioned in the Wiki article on Harper Lee and can not be confirmed by reference to a Harper Lee bio on the web at http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/culture/mockingbird/bio.html#Francesa 
A Family Tree of Lee's descendants at http://www.stratfordhall.org/reltree.html  makes no reference to novelist Harper Lee being a direct descendant of General Lee. I removed the sentence from the Trivia Section of the article.
Dawziecat 17:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia Section 

message: The "Awards" Part of the Article Simply says R. any real awards for this guy? Downatball5432 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I proposed at WP:RM to drop the disambiguator here, moving it back to Robert E. Lee. This is primary usage. The competition for this name are the coauthor of Auntie Mame and a two-term congressman, chairman of the Mileage subcommittee; oh yes - and a bunch of high schools (see Robert E. Lee (disambiguation); we seem to have missed the steamship). 
===Survey===
*Support as nom. Bets on whom the high schools are named for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I think this move proposal was a response to the previous move, which had been made without discussion, and could probably have been reversed by anyone. -- Beardo 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: *Support as nom. Bets on whom the high schools are named for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Despite the consensus, this article got moved anyway. I have put it and the related talk page back as they should be. WP admin Vaoverland 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I think this move proposal was a response to the previous move, which had been made without discussion, and could probably have been reversed by anyone. -- Beardo 22:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: In the trivia section, it states, "...he also promoted new subjects such as engineering, and introduced the first Reserve Officers Training Corps (or ROTC). Up until then they were only held at the military service academies."  This is not true.  ROTC first started in 1819 at the American Literary, Scientific, and Military Academy at Norwich, Vermont. This is now Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont.  Norwich produced many famous officers who served throughout the period leading up to the Civil War, including Civil War Medal of Honor winners Brigadier General Edward Bancroft Williston and Brigadier General Edmund Rice, as well as Major General Grenville Dodge, later Chief Engineer of the Union Pacific Railroad.  The history can be verified by contacting the university and confirming with the Wikipedia entry on ROTC.Ipoc1 17:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert E. Lee and ROTC 

message: I'm no expert on Robert E. Lee or the Civil War, and I haven't read this book, but:  A new biography by Elizabeth Brown Pryor, published this year, apparently refutes the image of Lee as a secret or would-be Abolitionist. I saw a program featuring the author on "History on Book TV" and thought it was very interesting.
Pryor's biography is Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters. She said she had examined some 10,000 pages of Lee letters and papers at the Virginia Historical Society. In the program, she described Lee as very much a white supremacist, who indeed had three recaptured slaves whipped, and said the postwar effort to portray Lee as a nascent Abolitionist did not jibe with the reality of his racist views.
From a review in Booklist:  “Although Lee had his doubts about the utility of slavery as an institution, his views on race relations were hardly enlightened.” 
Sca 19:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New biography 

message: In early life & career:
"Lee's father "bit the shit" when Lee was twelve years old, leaving the family deeply in semen."
Can somebody revert that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.132.105 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Took out part that said "received education in Greek, Latin, algebra, and geometry", and replaced with "classical education along the lines of quadrivium". If anyone has a better wording for that section, go ahead, it just seemed that mine was a bit more "encyclopedia-like" Cronos2546 19:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life-Educatioln 

message: Does anyone besides me find it odd that NONE of Lee's daughters ever got married?
He had several, and two lived into the 20th century.  None got married.  I don't
mean to imply anything inappropriate, it just seems odd to me.  Does anyone have
more information on this?  Bigmac31 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's Daughters 

message: User:68.158.247.75 do you have a reason for twice deleting the References section? Please explain your reasoning before reverting a third time. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of any possible legitimate reason for deleting the references (hence my revert).  This page is a pretty big target for vandals, though, so I wouldn't be too surprised if this is nothing more than simple vandalism.  ----Folic_Acid talk tome 19:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting References 

message: I set up MiszaBot to archive this page. Gtstricky 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most pre 2007 discussion moved to the archive page. Gtstricky 21:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: The article has passed Sections : 3), 5) and 6). Corrections are needed on sections 1), 2) and 4).
Overall, the assessment is : ON HOLD
The assessment is,as follows :
1) Written Quality - Overall - Well written. Good use of quotes but Engineering section - remove "see below Marriage and family", a clumsy, redundant note.
2) Factual accuracy 
*After the War section - Cartersville is a non-existent link.
*Postwar politics section - Give a reference for the claim that William H Seward had "assumed" that someone else had dealt with Lee's application for an amnesty.
*Geographic features section - Lee Avenue and Grant Avenue are non-existent links.
*Memorials section - William Sievers is a non-existent link.
3) Coverage - Article is broad in scope and stays focused on the topic
4) Neutrality - 
*Legacy section - Given Lee's previous ownership of slaves, as stated in the article, expand this section to include an account of African American views of Lee. Consider this article and the views of noted African American writer W.E.B.Dubois  or this article here . An African American perspective of Robert E. Lee must be included for balance.
5) Stability - No major edit wars that would prevent the granting of GA Status but I note you have suffered acts of vandalism by unregistered ISP users and that the article is semi-protected.
6) Photos - Free public domain photos are used, including one Featured photo. No Fair Use photos. Good use of photos.
Corrections must be carried out within seven days. Contact me when they have been done and I shall re-assess.
Tovojolo 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected bad links. Article still needs Neutrality (section 4) addressed and one item under 
section 2. Gtstricky 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Status 

message: Can someone look at this revert and make sure I didn't revert any good edits?  Especially the november/december thing and the woman's quote.  Thanks, delldot talk 04:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Cannot this article be somewhat protected from the almost daily minor edits attributed to vandalism?
Kresock (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly that could be done, but the General serves as sort of a lightning rod, taking blows that would otherwise hit articles that are not as well defended. One might say that the article, or even the General himself, stands in testimony to the possibilities of Wikipedia. If he can retain his integrity (with the able help of you, me, and a host of others) then so can the entire project. Snezzy (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing minor vands 

message: The claim, supported by a quote from a book by Larry Tagg, that Lee was the only cadet in West Point history to receive no demerits, appears to me to be entirely false.  D. S. Freeman's 1934 biography of Lee meticulously documents Lee's record as a cadet and finds that five other members of the 46-strong class of 1829 graduated with a perfect conduct record (see here).  This was discussed a while back in the now-archived talk page.  See also the article on the head of the class of '29, Charles Mason, who tied Lee in Artillery, Tactics, and Conduct and bested him in all other subjects, with an overall lead of 29 points out of 2000 (see here).  Please don't reintroduce claims to the contrary without good documentary evidence. -- Eb.hoop (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record at West Point 

message: I see mentions of Stonewall Jackson in the article but nothing of James Longstreet the only Corps commander he could really trust to do a good job during much of the war after Jacksons death. Theis plays into the whole problem of him finding good leaders for his army somethign that plauged him for much of the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkwand (talk • contribs) 04:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Longstreet should be mentioned 

message: One link had decayed to a spam site, out. The Recollections need not figure twice, and the Gutenberg version is in a much less manageable format than the other. The Florida letter is a very minor squib; if we added links to every similar item scattered thru the Web, we'd have a huge link directory of trvia. Bill (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links neatened 3 Feb 08 

message: Your article states that the statue of Lee in New orleans faces North because it should face the enemy. The magnificent equestrian statue of Lee in Richmond on Monument Avenue faces South, while those of JEB Stuart and Jackson, also on horseback and on Monument, face North, because the latter two "died in the face of the enemy", or so I was taught. Jefferson Davis' and Matthew Fountain Maury's Monument Avenue statues, sans horses, face East. 199.72.1.10 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's Statues 

message: From a correspondent:
By modern standards, Robert E. Lee would be considered a war criminal.  When he invaded Pennsylvania, Robert E. Lee had his troops round up Negro citizens [not fugitives from the South, but people who had lived their whole lives in freedom], load them into boxcars, and ship them to slave auctions in the South. 
Reported source: The PBS series "The Civil War", produced by Ken Burns.
If anyone has a transcript of the program or the accompanying book, can you check this?
WoodenBooks (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the Civil War DVD set.  It doesn't say this at all.  Lee's subordinates did press gang locals into digging fortifications on occasion, though this was not reported at Gettysburg. Lee may not have been aware of it in any event.  Poor health during the time of his Gettysburg Campaign allowed for little attention to detail beyond the immediate troop dispositions.  On the other hand Union Generals Hooker and Sherman were almost certainly aware and actively encouraging the actions of their troops in the destrction og Fredericksburg and the South Carolina Countryside. I guess those would be considered War Crimes as well.  Or we could listen to Ben Franklin when he advised against drawing hast judgements when view the past thru the lens of the present.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.181.47.130 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is the question. When Robert E. Lee acted in his times, this was all right. Perhaps this is why one studies history, to know from a historical perspective, what was right or wrong at _these_ times. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.43.190 (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert E. Lee in Pennsylvania 

message: - I would like to point out that, other than the "American Civil War" being the most common title for this "War between the States," Abraham Lincoln never recognized the Confederacy. During the whole war, the Confederate states were considered as the Rebelling States. This is just one key note, and of course history is always arguable, but many other factors make titling the war as the "American Civil War" more appropriate than "The War for Southern Independence," though I do believe that "The War Between the States" is an interesting angle... but it essentially means "Civil War." I don't believe that "The War of Northern Aggression" is a plausible title, as it was known that if Abe had become president, a few states promised they would succeed. Plus, it was the southern states that fired the first rounds at Fort Sumter.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.34.223 (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue has been discussed exhaustively in conjunction with the article Naming the American Civil War and the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that American Civil War is by far the most common term for the conflict. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Civil War 

message: Am I the only one that reads this section as trying to excuse he's large use of slaves because he found himself needing money? Just reading this is quite clear there are weasel words all over the place providing reasons for his time using slaves and even renting them out. Thanks.
:It is a generally accepted fact that Robert Lee sought to free his slaves, that he never personally owned more than 30 slaves in his life, and that he believed slavery to be an evil. Is this ever addressed? And what credibility can we give to the report that Lee ordered the whipped slaves to be tortured with the brine? I have researched Lee quite well, I think, and have come across nothing of this like.67.142.161.34 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give zero credibility to the report..it was propaganda when it was written. The notion of adding "balance" to an article sometimes means that people add any controversial thing no matter how far down the chain of credibility it lies.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee as a slaveholder Section 

message: New letters have emerged and have recently and researched by Elizabeth Brown Pryor, a highly decorated and credible diplomat and historian. As a historian of the civil war, Pryor has written the quintessential biography on Clara Barton, which is considered the authoritative work by historians. Her fairly recent book, "Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through his Private Letters," analyzes these overlooked letters and provides a great deal of information on Robert E. Lee, some of which negate some of what we thought to be correct, and illuminating that which we already know or don't know. I have just started reading the book, and I hope others will too, especially if your a college prof. cause that would be cool, and I believe that it would be of much benefit to the people, and to Wiki, if some of the information was reviewed (I.E. Lee's stance on slavery, and underscoring the idea that joining the Confederacy was not instinctive).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.34.223 (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an upgrade on Lee? 

message: I edited the section on the auction of a few of Lee's war-era letters because the prose made no sense.  However, it doesn't seem to me that this section even belongs in the article.  Documents and artifacts of historical figures, including Lee's, are bought and sold at auction all the time, and the prices will rise and fall with the sentiment of the market.  Nothing about this sales seems at all noteworthy.  It seems likely that this case piqued minor interest because the seller carried these particular letters around in his auto for a while before realizing what he inherited, but that's insignificant trivia that has no bearing on the subject of this article.  It might be otherwise if evidence was presented that these particular letters had an impact on our understanding of Lee and his times.  --Kbh3rdtalk 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree GtstrickyTalk or C 16:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction of letters 

message: Lee's Retreat Driving tour is a road tour that "follows the course of that critical action on roads that were used April 2–9, 1865." 
Here is an external link to the information regarding this tour: http://www.civilwartraveler.com/EAST/VA/va-southside/retreat.html
It would be great if this information could be included somewhere in this article. 
Stephensjl1 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be much more appropriate in Appomattox Campaign than Lee's bio. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external link 

message: Early in the war, Lee was nicknamed 'King of Spades' by Southern troops for his widespread digging of trenches around Richmond. This would be a valuable addition if properly cited. 
 
I cited it all. Someone might want to check it out though, just in case.  
Palantini (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Spades 

message: Helen Keller should be set up as a link in the last line of the "Marriage and Family" section  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.202.248.52 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helen Keller 

message: Sorry if I am not formating this correctly, but I think there may be an error in a potion of this article. In the section "citizenship" under "after the war" in the second paragraph, it is stated "In 1975 after a five-year campaign by Senator Harry F. Byrd, a resolution to posthumously restore Lee's full rights of citizenship passed by a unanimous April U.S. Senate vote and a 407-10..." yet in the Harry Byrd article that Harry Byrd redirects to it is stated that Byrd died in '66. I am just uncertain how he could have campaigned for Lee's citizenship after being dead for 9 years.(68.231.241.81 (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Harry Byrd Sr. His son Harry Byrd Jr. was also a Senator and indeed he is still alive. Hope that helps clear tings out.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of citizenship 

message: Both documentaries, though more prominently the first, seem to be soliciting themselves by not only providing irrelevant details of the productions themselves, but also using peacock terms such as "brilliant" and "excellent". I suggest either rewriting these entries or deleting this subsection altogether. 116.214.112.95 (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed that section -- it does appear to add nothing to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of Films/Documentaries Subsection 

message: I think that almost any American would say that Lee is notable as the commander of the Confederate forces in the Civil War, not as a United States Army officer. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence, etc. 

message: Mention could be made that the painful loneliness of REL in Texas was ameliorated by off duty association with paymaster R. H. Chilton, particulalrly with daughters Laura and Emily. Post war correspondence shows Laura begging the depressed REL to attend her wedding.
When in Richmond, REL spent time with cousins Robert Hall Chilton and Montgomery Ala Rep. William Parish Chilton, the latter partly due to his committee assignmments. REL knew that the Chilton family seat on the Potomac was Currioman, walking distance to Stratford and that their roots were intertwined.
At some point, the three had to discuss Andersonville. Wm. P. Chilton knew Capt. Henry Wirz from his time spent in Montgomery. Robert H. Chilton probably dispatched the photographer to the Andersonville parapets in response to reports coming across his desk, threatening "the judgment of history".  -- Ed Chilton, 19 July 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.20.56 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Robert Hall Chilton 

message: Didn't the British name the Medium Tank M3 after General Lee?  --Kiern Moran (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee Grant tank 

message: Omissions
Leesburg, VA
U.S Route 7 through Fairfax County, VA is named Leesburg Pike
173.79.120.13 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographic Features 

message: The discussion of the Civil War battles seems unbalanced; there is a strong tendency to make excuses for Lee's losses. This is particularly evident in the section "Ulysses S. Grant and the Union offensive" which does not give adequate credit to Grant's generalship or explain his strategy, and makes it sound as if Grant was stymied by Lee during the Overland Campaign. Lee's performance as a general was, without a doubt, strong enough to permit of a discussion of his strengths and weaknesses without appearing to deprecate him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although REL was a good general, as well as a very good man (in spite of what George B. McClellan thought of him; GBM considered REL cautious and weak and wanting in moral firmness), his greatest strength was knowing his opponent and what his opponent would do next.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance in discussion of Lee's performance in the Civil War 

message: Lee was not a slave holder or slave owner of the Arlington slaves.  As executor of the will, Lee was suppose to get the Custis estate in financial order and release the slaves, not run a slave plantation.  What Lee did was against the Custis will.  Lee had no right to punish the slaves that ran away because he was not their owner!  Lee was pretending to be the owner.  Nothing in the will said Lee was the owner of the slaves or could lease the slaves to other slave owners.  Lee ran Arlington like a slave plantation.  The wordings need to be changed.  I propose to put the actual will to show that Lee was not the owner of the slaves.  Lee did emancipate the slaves, yet he acted as if he owned the slaves. {Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee as slave holder 

message: I added this summary to give a quick glance of what Lee was doing and the major battles he fought.  It gives troop strengths and casualties (exception for the Confederates on the Union's Appomatox Campaign) and the generals whom Lee was fighting. {Cmguy777 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be far too much OR in the section on the civil war battles, as none of the sources given seem to suggest a victory or defeat; it appears as though the outcome is being put to arbitrary decision without proper sourcing. Mrathel (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's civil war battle summary 

message: Did Lee's course of study really consist of Arithmetic, Geometry, Harmonics and Astronomy? I know this is picky-picky but when I see unusual words not commonly associated with American education it just jumps out. I thought those were the days of reading, writing, and arithmetic (and for some French and possibly Latin and Greek).Nitpyck (talk) 04:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Leeschildhood.htm Robert E. Lee's Childhood(Taken From Robert E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman, Chapter II.  I have edited for length and style) Accordingly, by 1820, possibly before that year, Robert entered the Alexandria academy. ... the school was made free to all Alexandria boys after January, 1821. ... For approximately three years Robert studied the rudiments of a classical education under Mr. Leary. He read Homer and Longinus in Greek. From Tacitus and Cicero he became so well-grounded in Latin that he never quite forgot the language, though he did not study it after he was seventeen. ... In mathematics he shone, for his mind was already of the type that delighted in the precise reasoning of algebra and geometry.
Based on this I'm taking out Quadrivium. Nitpyck (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quadrivium. 

message: I haven't been involved in editing this page and have no history about decisions made regarding what to/not to include on it, including whether the list of statues /memorials is intended to be a complete list.
In case you guys aren't aware of it, there's a statue of REL on the campus of the University of Texas at Austin.  Here's a link to a picture of the statue:  http://www.utexas.edu/tours/statues/lee.html. 
Best, Rosmoran (talk) 07:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statues/memorials 

message: I'm just beginning the process of updating/creating wikis related to every President of Washington and Lee University.  Not adding additional bibliographic materials to this page, but I am planning to add a W&L President succession box, which currently is only included in George Washington Custis Lee's wiki.  I thought a good place to put it on REL's page would be under the military succession box and above the Gettysburg figures.  Just for purposes of clarity, I want to mention that it would be a separate succession box from the military one.  Does anyone have any thoughts/criticisms/better ideas? Rdxtion (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning of a Washington and Lee Presidency succession box 

message: The section on the battle summary fails to meet with the sourcing guidelines, mainly WP:verifiable. The cites listed as sources for this section in no way conclude the outcome of the battles or support the reasons given for the outcome listed. This, this, this, and this do not constitute a credible source for an encyclopedia article and should be replaced with books or peer reviewed journals on the subject. Civil War historians have provided ample research on the subject, so there is no need for an independent website to be used as a source in this article. Mrathel (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle History Section in need of better sources 

message: Antietam is generally considered a defeat. Lee abandoned his northern offensive and Maryland, and retreated back to Virginia. Is there some technical reason to claim it was not a defeat? Nitpyck (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barely escaping defeat at the Battle of Antietam in 1862 

message: I noticed that the Second Bull Run and Antietam both have reasonably sized paragraphs dedicated to them in the article, but the Battles of Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville are both squeezed into one pretty small paragraph. I understand that there are large articles dedicated to both battles, but would it really be that much work to make two more paragraphs dedicated to those battles?--McBuHoMeGr (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville 

message: Im not quite sure these were the last words of Robert E. Lee because they sound suspiciously like Stonewall Jackson's.  It is my recommendation it be removed.
His last words are the actual last words of Stonewall Jackson and not Lee's. Andman0121 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is correct. Read Stonewall Jackson to see that general's last words. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last words? 

message: I'd like to edit the death of Robert E. Lee. While some of the information is correct, some is not. Physicians believed the generla had laryngitus and made his lie down while his wife fed him chicken soup. His health began to deteriorate and finally died. In the twentyith century, physicians proclaimed the gerneal hada stroke of the lyranx. The larynx did not allow Lee to swallow so he slowly died while his wife filled his lungs with chicken soup, unknowing she was hurting him. Moments before he died, it is reported he sat up and stated, "Strike the tent," and died, but this is disproved as the larynx was damaged from the stroke and would not have allowed him talk.
Historygeek92 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 21:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Historygeek92, 19 May 2010 

message: "All this has been MY my fault."  Can't fix as the article is semi protected and I don't have an account  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.138.205 (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled word in Robert E Lee quote 

message: I expanded the section on slavery by adding new details and new cites, and reduced the excessively long section on the Curtis estate issue. --it was 10 times longer than the battles of Antietam, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville combined! Curtis estate  still gets more % space than is allocated in the major books by Freeman, Thomas, Feldman etc. Rjensen (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavery coverage 

message: I noticed in the first couple of paragraphs that it refers to Lee's tactics or strategy that lost Vicksburg.  In July of 1863, Lee was at Gettysburg and had no bearing on the loss of Vicksburg.  Vicksburg fell on July 4, 1863, one day after Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.87.234 (talk) 08:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim that Lee lost Vicksburg 

message: This article is one of a  number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue   are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes"  would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: In downloading this aricle on General Lee, certain photos do NOT appear in the download, specifically the Currier & Ives painting of the BATTLE OF GETTYSBURG (left hand side), the photo of LEE, his son Fitzhugh(aka Rooney) and aide Walter Taylor (also left hand side), and LEE's Amnesty Oath pledge (right hand side).  Anyone else having this problem, and any ideas on a remedy? 
71.60.245.234 (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the problem is on your end...I don't have any problem seeing the images.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  downloading Robert E Lee article-- certain photos missing 

message: It is question here about Lee´s lacking of proper "Strategic Vision", as opposed to his undoubted tactical skill, in that Lee advanced into the North in spite of being inferior in strength, hoping to bring the war to a quick conclusion. It may legitimately be asked what else he could have done. Stay where he was, allow time for the Union armies to form, and be defeated? What sort of vision should he have had? In war, you do what is necessary with the means at hand. Lee constantly generated 500 % output where 100 % is pretty good, and the only real problem was that he got his field command so late, or we would have a very different U.S. today.
Traveller45 (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: every time the Confed invaded the North they met disaster (Lee in West Va, KY-Perryville, MD=Antietam, PA=Gettysburg, Tenn=Nashville) and Richmond never learned. His "strategy" (ie "the North will demand peace if we invade") was totally fallacious. Meanwhile he was desperately needed at Vicksburg and did not go there.Rjensen (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy 

message: It's likely that towards the end of the summer, other editors and myself may start work on this article as part of trying to get it to FA prior to the 150th anniversary of the Civil War (and perhaps to the main page next April).  It's a decent article but rather disorganized and there's a lot of cleanup to be done, and references added and the like.  I hope that people who monitor this article will join in.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement 

message: Article now says:
:In his class of 46, he ranked second overall, surpassed by only Mason due to the latter's better performance in other disciplines.
It links to as a source: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/4*.html
which says:
:From their presence, in his regular turn, Robert emerged the third man in his class. Charles Mason led and William Harford was second.
Does that not mean he was ranked third overall, surpassed by Mason and Harford? --SJK (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's referring to an earlier class year. On page 81, Freeman says "In final class standing Mason was No. 1; Lee was No. 2; Harford, Joseph A. Smith, and James Barnes followed in order." Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he come second or third? 

message: I argue that it is incorrect to state that the battles of the Wilderness and Cold Harbor were "inconclusive" simply because Grant did not retreat.  
I believe battles should be examined in a vacuum in terms of wins or losses; otherwise, any victory by the eventual defeated army could be argued away.  Of course, this does not preculde discussion of how the particular battle's outcome fit into the larger picture of the war.  My opinion holds for any war, but I find the discussion of the Overland Campaign, at Wikipedia and elsewhere, to be particularly rampant with battle descriptions and outcomes being unduly colored by the eventual end of the war. 
I will accept that the outcome of Spotsylvania was inconclusive due to the partial breakthrough of the Southern lines, but I fail to see how anyone could call the Wilderness or especially Cold Harbor inconclusive: that Grant's forces were nearly routed at the Wilderness and completely thrown back at Cold Harbor should not be ignored merely because he attempted to flank Lee after.  
Grant was surprised in the Wilderness and did not want to fight the battle at all, very nearly lost a significant portion of his army.  
At Cold Harbor, the very fact that Grant made the attacks and then attempted to flank Lee after demonstrates that this battle was a Union defeat: Grant attempted to flank the Army of Northern Virginia only after being defeated in his main attmpt at Cold Harbor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.248.5.3 (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most historians argue that the Overland Campaign was a smashing success for Grant, because it permanently destroyed the effectiveness of Lee's army.  By the end all Lee could do would be retreat into trenches defending Petersburg (and Richmond).  In other words, the individual battles (which Lee indeed did win) were not especially significant, but the overall campaign was decisive to winning the war, primarily because Lee could not replace his losses, and Grant could replace his losses. Rjensen (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overland Campaign Results 

message: The last part of the second paragraph is problematic.  
Whether his decision not to "protect Vicksburg" was a "major strategic blunder" depends on, among other things, whether Lee, the General of the Army of Northern Virginia, had the ability
 to protect Vicksburg in the first place.  Vicksburg was over a thousand miles away, and it would have taken much time for the Army of Northern Virginia to get there.  Moreover, transporting them would have left Richmond undefended.  Even had Lee been able to move his troops to Vicksburg quickly enough to make a difference (presumably without losing Richmond) there's no guarantee they could have, or would have, won a battle there.  It's purely speculative.
The idea that Lee invaded the North because he thought morale was weak, or that he could defeat the North with a "handful of victories" is unsupported.  In terms of the 1963 campaign Lee himself offered a number of justifications, including a desire to stay on the offensive, a desire to spare Virginia the ravages of war during the harvest season (food was always scarce in the Confederacy), and the hope that a victory on Northern soil might help the South win international recognition.  Nothing he said ever indicated he questioned the North's will to win.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinusK (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: what historians say is NOT that Lee's army was needed at Vicksburg but that HE was needed to give overall supervision to a divided command. Grant beat each separate army one after the other. Lee's biographers emphasize his desire to weaken northern morale by a successful very large raid into Pennsy. Rjensen (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have sources which illustrate your point?⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lee's "Strategic Vision" 

message: Substituted at 22:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment