Talk:Robert E. Lee

The paragraphs are too long. Please. Five or six lines, max, especially as how wide are the Wikipiedia lines.

And truly, Robert Lee had only a single good calendar year, from the end of the Seven Days Battle (in which he did not distinguish himself) to Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg (what was he thinking).

Yes, he had the visage of a Greek god, and, perhaps (I wasn't there), the personality of somebody who was simultaneously a Greek god and a regular guy, but he was not that great a general.

Spartacus was better. Thomas Jackson was better. Even MacArthur was better.

So please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.160.77 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read the messages at the top of this page. Everyone has opinions, but a talkpage is not a forum for everyone to chip in with their own opinions; it's a waste of space and reading time because there is absolutely nothing we can do with your subjective opinion to improve the article. If you find an opinion in a published source, we can look at the appropriateness of quoting it. Your only comment touching on improving the article, about the width of the screen, is actually a setting on your personal computer, not everyone has the same width setting. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicknames: The "Marble Man" or "Model?"

Hi. I was recently listening to The Teaching Company's 'Robert E. Lee and his High Command' series by Dr. Gary W. Gallagher from the University of Virginia. Great series. Anyway, he referred to General Lee's nickname not as the "Marble Man" as is written in the information box on this page, but rather the 'Marble Model.' He also suggested that this nickname might not have been entirely free from ironic meaning. Anyone here know anything about that or if "Man/Model" or both is/are the historically correct nickname? I'm familiar with a biography on Lee called "The Marble Man" but Mr. Gallagher sure seems to know his Civil War... Thanks118.7.207.60 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture - Marriage and family - Not Robert E. Lee

The picture posted under "Marriage and family" appears to be of a young female and her mother, not the Young Robert E. Lee. The Supposedly male child has long curly hair, and what appears to be a dress. This does not match the picture description as "Mary Anna Custis Lee and her son, Robert E. Lee, Jr., c.1845". I could be mistaken with local customs of that time, and the blurry and decayed state of the picture.
File:Mary_Custis_Lee_and_Robert_E._Lee_Jr_1845.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdesmet (talk • contribs) 02:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the photo; the source of the photo is wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"The Supposedly male child has long curly hair, and what appears to be a dress..." This doesn't make sense at all. It was fairly common in the Western world to dress small children with dresses. Or else, was Afonso, the heir to Emperor Pedro II of Brazil a girl (see here and here)? --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That isn't RE Lee Jr. and that was not common to dress the males like girls in the Southern US. See my comments below that the photo comes from a wiki and not a publication. I think we would need an additional source which could be considered reliable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

So Emperor Pedro II's grandsons Pedro Augusto (Peter August; see here with his parents) or José Fernando (Joseph Ferdinand; see here, at the middle, between his brothers) were what? Girls? --Lecen (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Those are different cultures and not exemplary of Southern US culture at that time. I would suggest that you try to locate another source (preferably from books not websites that may have republished a bad photo). I have written Encyclopedia Virginia for an explanation. I also note what is written at the bottom of their page under the photo.."Image courtesy Virginia Historical Society. Additional publication or distribution of this image without the explicit written consent of Virginia Historical Society is prohibited." ..which seems to indicate that they have copyright on a previously unpublished photo and we are in breech of it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's quite clear that you have no knowledge of 19th century fashion (See here, here and here why). About the copyright violation, see Commons policy (See here and here). There are countless pictures taken from museums and that's not a problem. If you don't like the picture because for some reason you don't like the idea of a small boy in dress then say it and remove the photo. But please don't try to find 1,000 different reasons which none makes sense. --Lecen (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the photo for another of Lee and one of his sons. Now I see why this article is a mess and won't ever become a FA. There are no editors with enough knowledge of the subject in question. I'm out of here. --Lecen (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Robert Lee's wife photo

I'd like to know why the photo of General Robert Lee's wife was removed. Why the source given to the photo isn't reliable? --Lecen (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It says "Mary Anna Randolph Custis Lee, artist, author, and wife of Confederate general Robert E. Lee, poses for a daguerreotype portrait with her son, Robert E. Lee Jr.". The source given is Encyclopedia Virgina which took the photo from the Virginia Historical Society. If they aren't reliable, what else is? --Lecen (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the thread above. That isn't RE Lee Jr. in that picture (can't you tell that is a girl?) and the Encyclopedia Virginia is nothing more than a wiki itself. They certainly got this one wrong. We need to leave it out while we discuss because it is clearly wrong.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(1) The Encyclopedia Virginia is a publication of the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. How is that an anonymous, unverifiable, all-comers-equal collaborative webpage with no existence off the internet? See the WP article.

(2) In the 19th Century, boys and girls were dressed in dresses for toilet training. Mothers let boys hair grow until about age five, cut it then and not before, and kept a lock as a keepsake. The boys then dressed as men. There was no "childhood" until invented in the late Victorian era among the upper and middle class. Even then, after age five, working class boys dressed as their fathers and went to work at child labor.

They certainly got this one right. Restore the photo until a preponderance of reliable sources can document that it is either misidentified or that it is a fake. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, the photo is not Robert E. Lee, as the original poster thought; it's his son, Robert E. Lee, Jr. (I made the same mistake, initially!)

Secondly, it's sourced to the Virginia Historical Society who have it on display in their museum. I would assume the VHS would know what they're doing in this area. (I think it was fairly common to dress little boys like little girls in those days; and when I zoom in on the child's face, I can see a certain "masculinity" there.)

Thirdly, assuming the VHS know what they're about, the only issue is copyright, which I know nothing about. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you gentlemen for the response. I acquiesce to the source of the photo as being a reliable source. I couldn't verify authorship (missed it) and thought it to be a wiki. It was when I was looking for more on the photo that I noticed their disclaimer which seems to indicate that it might be under copyright. Contrary to what Lecen may think, I was not trying to think up reasons to delete it but rather found a concerning issue about copyright while searching for attribution. I first thought the photo was inaccurate and removed it and although I'm topically familiar that some may have dressed boys as girls, I still can't convince myself that they haven't misidentified the child in the photo especially since Lee had several daughters...but that is irrelevant as I don't need to be personally satisfied for its inclusion on Wikipedia. That leaves my only standing concern that it might be a copyright issue.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

After receiving assurance from someone that I feel to be one of our resident experts on copyright issues, I have no further objection to using the photo.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting an expert opinion on the copyright issue, Berean Hunter. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lee's Civil War battle summaries

The statistics for the Battle of Cheat Mountain are inconsistent with the statistics presented in the main article of the Battle of Cheat Mountain. The most blatant inconsistency is the strength of the CSA (15000 vs. 5000). Should this be corrected? Altay8 (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"King of Spades" and Negroes

As a secondary comment to the fact that Robert E. Lee was called "king of spades" was the fact that when Lee first ordered the digging of trenches a lot of his white soldiers protested and proclaimed "Digging is not fit for a white man"!, implying that digging was only for negroes. This fact is mention in civil war author's trilogy: Shelby Foote's "The Civil War: A Narrative" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.32.171 (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Errors

Have found a few errors in this article that need to be addressed. Jawilson136 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Amnesty Pardon

The amnesty section contains the following sentences: "For 110 years Lee remained without a country, as the Confederacy had dissolved and Lee's United States application and oath were lost and disregarded. It is probable that someone at the State Department did not want Robert E. Lee to regain citizenship while Lee was alive.[91] "

The second sentence is utter conjecture bordering on nonsense, and not supported in a singe scholarly publication. the reference is to a discussion board comment by a single person who has no peer reviewed material, indeed no published material. they are simply a civil war buff who comments a lot on forums. That is not a wikipedia quality reference. Anyone who has done archival research of govenrment records knows misfiling is extremely common. ascribing any motive to it is simply unsupported. 71.252.87.118 (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I've removed the sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)