Talk:Washington and Lee University

Source

How does an opinion writer for The Atlantic - ADAM SERWER - qualify as an disinterested, authoritative reference source?

Reference 17 -"The Myth of Kindly General Lee". theatlantic.com. Retrieved 2017-06-04. Lee was as indifferent to crimes of violence towards blacks carried out by his students as he was when they was carried out by his soldiers."

Snit333 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This article does not present a neutral point of view. I made an edit acknowledging a shift in perspective from historical to modern POVs but had those edits removed. I cited books and authentic scholarship performed on President Lee’s tenure. All of these revisions were undone and the author resorted to name calling instead of considering alternative sources. Gwhitfieldvi (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

You cited a second-hand source from the early 20th century reprinted in the Lee Family Archives, a poor source at best. And you inserted your own point of view directly into the article: "Modern scholars, Elizabeth Pryor among them, and modern writers have sought to criticize President Lee’s handling of his college boys by making unfounded assumptions..."

You are welcome to make or propose edits and improvements to this article. Please cite reliable sources and refrain from adding your own point of view. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with your characterization of imparting a view. However, if you feel strongly about that one sentence then that sentence should be flagged or edited by you. Removing entire revisions with links to WLU.edu, the University’s website, and to scholarly books, one of which was published by the University, is inexplicable except that the points of view expressed in those articles are ones with which you disagree. The context provided by the distribution of the University is important to understanding the impact that Lee had on the University. I am sorry that that impact is offensive to you. However, the fact that the University was in dire straits prior to Lee’s arrival and that his tenure saved the University and resulted in numerous improvements to the physical campus and curriculum is indisputable. You could have acted as an unbiased editor with advance privileges by making recommended changes to the statement which you believe reflects an opinion. That leads to debate and discussion which is healthy and encouraged by Wikipedia. Gwhitfieldvi (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Questionable Source in Lee Years

It seems like the majority of the Lee Year section is reliant on the dsuka.com source from this (archived) page Firstly, the source was cited as "Home – Jual Tiket Pesawat Murah – Rajawali Travel," which I have corrected to "Robert E. Lee" in accordance with the page's title. More importantly, as far as I can tell, dkusa.com doesn't rise to the standard of a reliable source. It seems to be a defunct page for the Kappa Alpha Order, a fraternity that claims it "was born under the white light of [Lee's] noble life" and considers him a "spiritual founder." It has no named author, with the writer listed as "Delta Beta," so it's difficult to establish whether the author qualifies as an authoritative source, and the webpage seems unlikely to be considered a 'published materials with a reliable publication process.' The article is openly laudatory of Lee, if not cloying, as he is an important figure to KAO's history, and the claims it makes are unsourced. As such it seems like it should at the very least be treated as a Biased Source, whereas the current article presents its claims without any qualification. As such, it strikes me as WP:SPS, and to whatever extent it may be considered WP:ABOUTSELF it seems to be overly self-serving.

The Lee Years section also seems to have issues with tone and NPOV throughout, phrases such as "it is hardly surprising that he welcomed the challenge" seem unnecessary. The claim in paragraph 2 that Lee's incorporation of new fields in the liberal arts curriculum is also uncited, the only related source, footnote 17, only establishes that the journalism degree was a new concept. The third paragraph is also completely uncited (the above footnote does mention "To help rebuild a shattered South" as a motive for some of the school's actions, but doesn't seem to support claims about admissions.) There's already a discussion about the reliability of the Atlantic article as a source for claims about Lee's racist behavior as president that doesn't seem to have been resolved.

In all, the section seems to have issues that I think require substantial revision. However, I'm a brand new editor, and this is a slightly contentious topic given current events and I'm hesitant to unilaterally attempt to correct this. Still, I wanted to raise the issue, and if people think it would be a good idea I'd be happy to attempt to find more reliable sources and revise.

Foridin (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the bit about "hardly surprising". I also put a refimprove flag on the section. I hope other editors weigh in. Attic Salt (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Foridin: You appear to have the qualifications to edit further. You're 100% in the right to point that citation out as inadequate. If we're honest, it was probably written by an undergrad student. I too find the "Lee Year's" section in need of some serious copyediting. The topic is wrapped in with the Lost Cause and that section doesn't appear to have a single academic source. I'll fix that in the coming days. Muttnick (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition to categories "American slave owners" and "American slave traders"

On March 18 I added the categories "American slave owners" and "American slave traders," which were reverted quickly, described as "incorrect," "inaccurate," "disruptive" and possibly "vandalism." These are good faith edits which are true, previously sourced in the article, correct, accurate, widely known and certainly not intended to be disruptive, vandalistic or controversial. Here is the citation to the facts, which was previously cited in the article, long before I ever added the categories:

Anyone have any thoughts? I'm attempting to establish a consensus about this so the categories can be re-added. Other pages in these categories are of people and institutions which later stopped slave-trading or slave-owning, as this educational institution has, through various actions/events (manumission, selling all their slaves, slavery abolition). Why would these categories not apply to educational institutions which were American slave owners and slave traders? How can I best go about re-adding them, as they are true, sourced in the article, correct, accurate and widely known? JBDouglas (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of those categories appear to be intended for individual people, not institutions. Have you discussed whether or not it's appropriate to add institutions to those categories? Is there perhaps a better category or a need for a new one specifically for colleges and universities? ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Both categories predominantly list individual people, but also institutions, indicating the intent to include them. But perhaps a new one might be useful or needed for colleges and universities which historically owned or traded slaves. I don't know if that's necessarily the case. JBDouglas (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see any institutions in those categories but I apparently just missed them. Regardless, I do think that a new category - perhaps several - warrants serious consideration. It would certainly be nice to be able to link directly to such a category (or list article) from Slavery at American colleges and universities. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Protection and decision

Can we add the info regarding to board of trustees decision back. At the same time of this decision, people are upset and vandalizing the article, should we protect it? Thank in advance!!! MAXMcow (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@MAXMcow: I made a protection request. I imagine vandals will attack this article for the next week or two. Might as well get some protection going. Muttnick (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I Agree. I did make a typo but someone corrected it so all is good but until then I think we should protect this article to prevent any unnecessary nonsense MAXMcow (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Claim that Lee tolerated rape is objectively false and relies on historically illiterate single sourcing

An editor of the Washington and Lee University page is violating virtually every element of historical authenticity to allege a claim that has been denied by the vast majority of historians. Rather, the editor is relying on one historian who weaponizes hearsay, neglects past course of dealing, and ignores all evidence that impugns her claim in order to assassinate the historical subject's character. This subjective politicization runs anathema to the basic precepts of historical research and claim assertion.

Please let me know how to proceed. Washington & Lee applicants, students, alumni, and professors read this page, and the university's founder shall not have his reputation adulterated by an editor relying on one ahistorical source (the Atlantic Magazine) that flies in the face of innumerable sources (from Lee biographers to the greatest Civil War historians) which prove the diametric opposite contention.

The edit, at most, should read as following:

"One historian, Elizabeth Brown Pryor, has argued that one of Lee's failings as president of Washington College was an apparent indifference to crimes of violence towards blacks committed by students at the college. She claims that students at Washington College formed their own chapter of the KKK and were known by the local Freedmen's Bureau to attempt to abduct and rape black schoolgirls from the nearby black schools, and that Lee seemed to punish the racial harassment more laxly than he did more trivial offenses or turned a blind eye to it altogether. However, Pryor's only source for these criminal allegations stem from an article written by John M. McClure, entitled "The Freedman's Bureau School in Lexington v. 'General Lee's Boys.'" In that article, bereft of citation or any corroborating evidence, McClure alleges that rape was committed by VMI cadets against local Lexington residents. Yet, his only mention of Washington College students references their "readily divine purposes," a phrase cited from one of Lee's principal biographers, Douglas Southall Freeman. In that very same biography, though, Freeman rebuts any allegation that Lee tolerated or condoned sexual assault on campus. In fact, there is no evidence that Lee was even aware of any allegations of rape against students at Washington College. In reality, Lee had previously expelled students who were apprehended for fighting with local men of color in Lexington, regardless of their lack of any conviction in a legal proceeding. Thus, historians agree that Pryor has may have read in her own surmise by invoking a citation that fails to support her unevidenced claim regarding Lee's purported knowledge and lack of punitive reprisal." Sir Facts a Lot (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Pryor misquotes the McClure article (there is no mention that Lee was aware of any rape allegations), which itself misquotes Freeman's biography of Lee (Freeman never alleges that Washington College students raped any women in Lexington). This is simply a case of a purported journalist (i.e., an untrained historian) for the political magazine, the Atlantic, quoting a "historian" who misquotes another historian who himself manufactured a claim by referencing a biographer who directly refutes the allegation in question. Frankly, the allegation should not be included in the article at all. Not only is it unconfirmed, but it is far more likely than not that it did not occur. This claim thus fails the preponderance of evidence standard required by Wikipedia. The fact that my qualifying the nature of the allegation as "unconfirmed" has itself been removed is evidence that the other editor clearly seeks to besmirch Lee's reputation, all legitimately sourced evidence be damned.

Please correct this and keep abreast of the future actions undertaken by this problematic "editor." Sir Facts a Lot (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Facts a Lot, you write that the claim a claim that has been denied by the vast majority of historians. Please provide links to historians denying the claim in reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects the content of reliable sources, and The Atlantic, a general-internet magazine renowned for its scrupulous fact-checking, is considered a generally reliable source.

Information about a university's president's tenure at that university is clearly pertinent and due, so we have an obligation to cover it. I'm open to including differing perspectives from reliable sources, but if those sources cannot be provided, then I default to support of using the Atlantic account. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we're not going to remove, omit, or edit information simply because you disagree with it or dislike it. It's a reliable source based on many other reliable sources. ElKevbo (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Your personal opinion regarding the reliability of the Atlantic is irrelevant. As I have objectively demonstrated above, that Atlantic article's only reference is to a person who - to state it politely - misquotes ("contrives" would be a more apropos description) a historian (Douglas Southall Freeman), who does NOT claim that (1) Washington college students raped women in Lexington, and unquestionably does NOT claim that (2) Lee had any actual knowledge of any allegations. Given the objective falsity of that quote, the burden of proof is on you to provide another source that demonstrates both that rape occurred and that Lee had knowledge of the allegations. The burden of proof is not on me to prove a negative. Perhaps you all to reeducate yourselves on the burdens of proof required in historical interpretation. Lee was a reputed taskmaster at W&L and had expelled dozens of students for engaging in even minor fracas with residents of color in Lexington, VA. That course of dealing would suggest that, at the very least, rape itself would result in discipline (in fact, McClure's piece even admits that Lee expelled university students for fighting with minority residents in Lexington. Should he have had them hanged, instead?). Moreover, his writings to the Virginia legislature at that time contain his almost relentless insistence that the state reconcile with newly freed slaves.

As to ElKevbo - as demonstrated above, claiming that an untrained historian's partisan political piece in the Atlantic is a "reliable" historical source is laughable, and tragically reflects on the quality (or lack thereof) of Wikipedia as a historical database. I could not root the Atlantic's fallacious source to Douglas Southall Freeman's own words any more clearly than has been articulated above. I can explain it you, but I can't understand it for you. That fundamental reading comprehension relies on your own cerebral capacity, regrettably.

Again, the burden is not on me to prove a negative. The fact that historians refute the claim lies in the reality that NO Lee biographer or Civil War historian has EVER claimed that Lee knew of or tolerated rape in Lexington. The ONLY "evidence" proffered is an article taken from an opinion piece in a political / social magazine (the Atlantic) which cites a source that does NOT even support its own claim. Is that the burden of proof we should now apply to all historical figures? Should a partisan piece from the National Review or Free Beacon (which harbor the same journalistic quality and historical expertise as a publication like the Atlantic) be relied upon as an objective historical source? Should a journalist who manufactures a claim - one in which no previous biographer has ever asserted - devoid of any physical evidence (letters, court papers, conversations, etc. proving that Lee knew of and condoned the allegations) suffice as evidence? Does that satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard in which we apply to historicity at the PhD level?

By the way, the McClure article referenced by the Atlantic also claims that Lee did "not enjoy his time as president" at W&L - a laughable assertion given that Lee almost religiously worshiped the university and frequently lauded it and his time there in dozens of private letters to family and colleagues (you see, actual letters would constitute the hard evidence required to satiate a preponderance of the evidence standard). In any case, enjoy prioritizing your libelous agitprop over basic precepts of historical interpretation and evidence. Sir Facts a Lot (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like @Jtchen26 has restored the passage, a move I agree with. WP:BURDEN is met through the RSP-greenlit source, and WP:ONUS is met with the prevailing consensus here (as well as the status quo ante). Jtchen, feel free to join the discussion here if you have thoughts.

@Sir Facts a Lot, welcome to Wikipedia, where our top concern is verifiability, which means references to reliable sources. You can write as much as you want, but if you cannot provide sources to back up your argument then it has no weight. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

At the least, the paragraph could stand trimming, with some of the weasel wording removed, as well as the replication of the Atlantic's text being put into quotes. The Atlantic article doesn't devote much space to Lee's transgressions as an educator, and that argues for its being undue here. The initial "However" doesn't really belong, since Lee's purported moral blindness could well have been in consequence of his leaving students to discipline themselves. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC) (edited 22:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC) and 22:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC))

I'd be fine with rewriting it, but the idea that it should go because it's not accurate or something is ridiculous. Whether the paragraph is weasel worded or not only takes away slightly from it's original point, which would still stand, something @Sir Facts a Lot is arguing the paragraph is entirely wrong. The general consensus is that the paragraph is right, a rewriting could happen (? It reads okay.) but removing it entirely is unfounded. Jtchen26 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Subheading organization

The notable alumni section is short, while the sections above it on art talk about notable alumni like Sally Mann, who don't appear in the alumni section. Does someone want to move the art and other similar sections under the alumni heading? Or would you just put Sally Mann and others in both sections? I'm not experienced enough on Wikipedia to know what conventions are on other college and university pages so I'm hoping this prompts someone more experienced to reconsider the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlm275 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)