Talk:Richard Lee I/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

• Captain William Lee (1651-1696) married Alice Felton in 1675 in Northcumberland, VA and fathered four children by her. The article indicates he was not married and is in error.

Muhammad Ali

Does Muhammad Ali claim that Richard Lee is his ancestor? If it's true, that's fine, but it needs a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.126.5 (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One big block of text

I think this article needs to be moved around a bit to become slightly clearer - a few subsections would help, i.e a definative intro, Early life, Marrage, Issue, and Death or such and such. At the moment it's a little strange having just two sections of Children and Ansestry. Any thoughts? ArdClose (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In the last part of the article, its says ..." Who came with William the Conquerer." What does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.16.71 (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Irresponsible writing of history

Aside from legal records (including court cases, will, and deeds), there is not one provable or even evident-supported statement in this entire article. Even the most recent Lee family biographer, writing in 1991, made similar claims but provided no cites, save for "According to the Lee family genealogist..." For those who would know the true, and amazing story of Richard and Anne Lee, this article is disappointing, irresponsible, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marina Adams (talk • contribs) 05:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Lee and Margaret Wyatt, the sister of Thomas Wyatt, had 4 Male children; Sir Henry, Robert, Thomas, and Cromwell. There is information that would precludes the inclusion of a John Lee (1530-1605) the Great Grandfather of Col. Richard Lee "the immigrant" as their offspring. Any reference to Thomas Wyatt, Anthony Lee and Margaret Wyatt should be removed unless supportive citation can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1801:1D4:3485:E4EC:DDEE:F890 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Prove they're not connected, then. You're not going to unlink the American Lees from their British counterparts out of a whim, like the User:Agricolae. 213.30.22.157 (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It is not the job of Wikipedia to establish (or disprove) distant genealogical connections between families with the same surname, and it is not the responsibility of the challenging editor to prove people are not connected when no reliable evidence is given for the claimed connection to begin with. Part of the reason that Wikipedia avoids gratuitous genealogy is that there is so much unreliable material floating about. Agricolae (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a very unusual edit by 213.30.22.157 a sockpuppet of the sockmaster Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino, becuse GMC doese not usually post to talk pages. I have been systematically removing edits by GMC made during the last quater of 2018 and early 2019, but I will leave this one is place (but with a line through it) as the answer by User:Agricolae covers the issue. -- PBS (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

the First What?

what is the ordinal for? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Per MOS:FULLNAME, the lede sentence of a biographical article is supposed to contain only the given/birthname of the individual (not their military rank or an abbreviation of that rank).

Please discuss this here - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, military rank unsourced & MOS:FULLNAME still applies. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Parents of Col Richard Lee of Virginia

As of recent research and review of Thorndale's article, I have been able to disprove Thorndale's attachment of John Leyes and Jane Hancock, as well as Thorndale's listed 'siblings' for Col Richard Lee of Virginia. I have found and have proven that the 'sources' of documentation that Thorndale used as his supporting evidence of the parental and family relationships were not primary UK Parish records as he stated in his article but genealogical references at best.

It was the 1988 article by William Thorndale that was published in the National Genealogical Society Quarterly that changed parents when he stated that his research proved that Col Richard Lee was actually the son of a John Leyes, a clothier, and his wife Jane Hancock and that Richard had been born not at of Coton Hall in Shropshire England, but in Worcester England. In this publishing, Thorndale presented what appeared to be legitimate sources and arguments which carefully and systematically dispelled the accepted ancestral lineage of Col Richard Lee from the prominent English Lee’s from Shropshire. Since that publishing, it appears that the majority of research today has adopted this parentage of Richard Lee from this John Lyes and Jane Hancock assertion, even though this 1988 publishing had overridden the legal and historic documented facts that stated otherwise. I have discovered that there is no evidence of historical documentation that can back up Thorndale's claim.

I have listed primary UK Parish records and primary historic references here: http://www.leesofvirginia.org/Col_Richard_Lee.html so please read and verify sources so that the correct parentage can be presented and reflected on Wikipedia properly as many use this page as a genealogical reference.

Jacqueli jacqueli@leesofvirginia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I was afraid of this. Wikipedia is not intended as a way to publish your own conclusions. This is what is called Original Research, and is expressly forbidden by a Wikipedia core policy, No Original Research. Wikipedia editors are not expected to independently evaluate someone's original research, that is the role of the editors of books and genealogical journals. If you want to see your own research on Wikipedia, there is only one way to do it that is consistent with policy - you have to get it published elsewhere. Write an article for NGSQ, get it published, then, and only then, will it meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. That is when it would be appropriate for it to be incorporated into a Wikipedia article (preferably by someone other than you, as you have an inherent conflict of interest in citing your own work.

Completely separately, you are still doing what I told you does not conform to the style of Wikipedia pages. We do not say "X is son of Y, but this is untrue". If it is really untrue, there is no reason to say the wrong information at all only to then say it is wrong. We also don't say "see the reference"- the very fact that it is cited is an implicit direction for the reader to do so if they choose - we don't explicitly need to tell them to. Most importantly, though, Wikipedia editors are encouraged to make bold edits, but when these are reverted, it is incumbent on the editor who wishes to add the challenged material to refrain from adding it again until they achieve consensus for its inclusion. We need to reach agreement here FIRST rather than you just repeatedly putting it back in. Agricolae (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

For your information - This is not my own conclusions but proof that there are no source documents to prove that John Leyes and Jane Hancock as presented on the wiki page for Richard Lee I as prior to Thorndale's research it was excepted that his parents were Richard Lee of Coton and Elizabeth Bendy - OLD 'prior' research - as I have presented along with the primary sources that show the relationship. These are all PUBLISHED HISTORIC DOCUMENTS. ALL I DID WAS PROVE THORNDALE'S ERRORS.

I should not have to publish with the NGSQ to prove that Thorndale used the LDS Family Data Collection as his sources because in the article it clearly shows he did - these are not sources. I am a professional genealogist, member of the APG, am I am asking for fairness, correctness, and transparency. I have complied as directed as it seems your 'opinion' is over riding facts? If Wikipedia has a biased against the fact I am presenting and will not publish publicly the truth, then maybe the public should know that the individuals on Wikipedia who over see what the public views are refusing to publish factual information and sequestering those who wish to provide the factual information with biased rhetoric.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

To add - Quote: "That is when it would be appropriate for it to be incorporated into a Wikipedia article (preferably by someone other than you, as you have an inherent conflict of interest in citing your own work." that is ridiculous as I am considered and used as a "SOURCE REFERENCE" by many (and on Wikipedia as a source I might add) as in this instance I AM the source reference - it is not a CONFLICT OF INTEREST when I am presenting facts and citing sources other than MYSELF. To justify by stating to have someone else edit with the same information is definitely a BIASED and DISCRIMINATORY STATEMENT towards me, the reference source.

I am just asking Wikipedia to do the right thing and reflect correctness since many use Wikipedia as a genealogy reference.

If anyone has a problem with the facts then perhaps they can come up with legitimate primary sources showing parent/child connection for John Leyes and Jane Hancock to Col Richard Lee - not a reference to the Thorndale article or pointing to Thorndale's article instead of giving opinion, internal politics and arguments. Suggestion: Instead of berating a individual who is trying to provide factual information because they did not do things exactly they way someone wants, even explained their disability, perhaps it would be better to please help them and assist with proper edits instead of using excuses to avoid publishing factual truths because then it seems to become a personal opinionated agenda instead of doing what most would consider the RIGHT THING. I do not want conflict I just want everyone to be able to get the correct information. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. If you are doing research in primary records to 'correct' the accepted published account, that is original research. It doesn't matter if it is to prove the published consensus right, or to prove it wrong. You should have to publish it first, because Wikipedia is not based on what is true, it is based on what is verifiable (see policy WP:V)- what has been published in reliable sources. It doesn't matter if it is wrong, only that it is verifiable. As such, published and wrong is still verifiable, while unpublished but 'right' is not. It seems counter-intuitive, but that is how Wikipedia was envisioned by its creator and that is how the policies dictate editors to act. If you don't like a web site's policies, that web site may not be for you. As you have pointed out, that means Wikipedia contains incorrect genealogical information, and is why no genealogist should rely on Wikipedia for there information. See WP:NOT - a list of whole lot of things that people sometimes mistakenly think Wikipedia should be, but isn't. If you wish to broadcast far and wide that Wikipedia has a bias against unpublished information, please do - far and wide - because that is one of the principles of Wikipedia and the fewer people who come here with misconceptions about how it works, the better.

One thing Wikipedia is NOT is a place to distribute you own unpublished research. It doesn't matter who you are, whether you are an expert or a novice, Wikipedia is not intended for that purpose. Wikipedia holds the view that no editor can claim the right to determine content based on expertise - only published sources determine what content should be included. This has absolutely nothing to do with bias or disability, and everything to do with how Wikipedia works. If you want everyone to get what you consider to be the correct information, PUBLISH IT! And COnflict of interest has nothing to do with what is or is not correct - you shouldn't put your own material into an article, because nobody can be dispassionate in evaluating their own work - let someone else decide you are right, rather than you deciding you are right. Then you can do the same for someone else's work - it is not discriminatory and has nothing to do with your abilities as an editor or genealogist, simply a reflection that most humans are not as critical of their own ideas as they are of those of others.

None of this is 'excuses' - it is how Wikipedia works. Agricolae (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

My work IS PUBLISHED and COPYRIGHTED - as I have presented as an archive of the records that present the primary and secondary sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

IRONICALLY to suggest that Wikipedia would only accept what I have presented if I publish same fact via NGSQ which published Thorndale's incorrect material? Or to suggest if someone other than me presented SAME EXACT FACTS then Wikipedia would accept what I have presented? AGAIN - my work IS published.

AS I have suggested, if Wikipedia wants to show incorrectly that John Leyes and Jane Hancock are his parent, so be it, but where are the sources to prove it? PRIMARY SOURCES. If Wikipedia wants to show correct parents - best use my reference because otherwise it will be plagiarizing my published research.

In 2019, most researchers use the internet as a way to publish other than the old conventional methods because a publication from other entities may or may not be correct as in Thorndale's case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

First, you are not representing what I am saying correctly.

1) your personal conclusions do not represent a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia. A reliable source is one that has undergone some form of independent expert review - someone other than the author has been involved in the publication process. Anything that is self-published, whether it be you web page or a 'vanity' published book, does not qualify. You don't have to publish it in NGSQ, you could publish it in TAG, or (if they will take it) in NEHGR, or American Ancestors or The Genealogist, or the Genealogists' Magazine, or any of a number of other publications, or you could make it part of a book which you publish via an academic press or other publisher with a reputation for fact-checking, or you could get it published as a newspaper or popular magazine article, so long as is has been subjected to independent editorial review, rather than you as the author being the one that published it. If this is the case with yoru materiaal, you should be citing that publication and not a web page - they are rarely reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia, unless they have rigorous independent review.

2) I did not say that if someone else reached the same conclusion it would be acceptable - I said that nobody can be unbiased with regard to their own conclusions. It is improper for me to cite the genealogical articles I have published, because though I think the material they contain is incredibly interesting and of high importance to the relevant articles, but that may just be my own ego talking, and the same applies to you and everyone else. I shouldn't cite my own work, nor should anyone else cite their own work - this has nothing to do with you, per se, just with an inherent conflict of interest. If your work is of sufficient interest and merit, you won't have any problem getting another editor to insert your information, it just shouldn't be you who does it.

Wikipedia does not want to present incorrect information, it wants to present verifiable information, and the source for this is the NGSQ article. (And no, it would not be plagiarizing your work to present your information - that is not what plagiarism is. Only if Wikipedia uses your exact words is it plagiarism.) If you have published your information via appropriate editorial review, that is what you should be citing and not your web page - if the web page is what you are referring to, that is not really 'publishing' as referred to here.

In 2019, Wikipedia still has a policy that bars publication of original research, and more broadly, of research that has not appeared in reliable sources, 'as defined by Wikipedia'. If you think this model of information propagation doesn't work for you, the solution is to avoid Wikipedia, use Ancestry.com or FamilySearch for example, not to simply ignore core Wikipedia policy because you don't like it. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me but I have not misrepresented your statements they are quite clear - as for the source references that I cited, ALL are linked to historic publications that ARE verifiable information FOR THE CORRECT PARENTS OF COL RICHARD LEE - only the NGSQ article is the verifiable information for Thorndale's article which is wrong - which BTW has NEVER been cited on this wikipage.

When you state "your personal conclusions do not represent a reliable source" is completely wrong and maybe instead of arguing with me why do you not check out the verifiable information that I cited for the correct parents? That would probably be best instead of assumptions.

And for the individual that stated here about the cited verifiable information being 'quite old' in regards to the Stratford Hall publication (well sourced book) - Col Richard Lee lived a while ago and so most of the verifiable information on him is not going to be 'new' which includes E.J. Lee, Lee of Virginia, 1642–1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the descendants of Colonel Richard Lee -

References: Same as above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

References

And you misunderstood my plagiarizing statement completely. I am fully aware of proper citing as why I give proper credit to those who research I have used as reference and do not steal others research as others have done to me. Sigh.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The no original research policy is very clear. We do not permit article content that consists of editors' own conclusions that they have reached by reviewing primary sources. Instead, there must be reliable secondary sources that have come to those conclusions and published them. Your efforts might be better spent trying to take your conclusions to sources like reputable media outlets or scholarly journals. If they publish it, then, and only then, can we include it in the article. Wikipedia is never meant to be the first source to come to or publish a given conclusion. So no matter how right you think you are, and no matter how right you even actually are, you must have sources publishing that conclusion before we can follow suit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Some thoughts here regarding contributing to Wikipedia as found in the About informational page & its trademarks/copyrights section WP:ABOUT#Trademarks and copyrights - I am not sure that the Lee family researcher understands the ramifications of publishing their information onto the Wikipedia platform:

"Most of Wikipedia's text and many of its images are dual-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). ...

"Contributions remain the property of their creators, while the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses ensure the content is freely distributable and reproducible. (See content disclaimer for more information.)"

So what this means is that our contributions remain ours but we do not own them in the traditional sense...any other editor can come along and - keeping in mind Wikipedia policies and guidelines and with justification - can change/alter/adjust/remove/revert our contributions. And per the Wikipedia policy of Ownership of content we do not own or control any Wikipedia article we have contributed to.

"All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

"Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone.

Wikipedia is edited by consensus which means "an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Achieving consensus - working together with other folks closely on articles - can get messy at times but that's the way we do things around here. Shearonink (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Which one of these verifiable published references that state with sources the parents of Col Richard Lee of Virginia's parents were Richard Lee of Coton and Elizabeth Bendy are my original research? Please - be fair, honest and accurate and stop the biased opinions and arguments. I am just trying to get his parents correct as they were before the Thorndale article as the edit is correct and I have cited correctly and might add with more legitimate citations than this wikipage has ever had since it's conception: References

https://archive.org/stream/stratfordhallthe00rich/stratfordhallthe00rich_djvu.txt 
http://www.leesofvirginia.org/uploads/Emma_Lee_Bettis_Manuscript.pdf 
https://www.worldcat.org/title/lee-family-of-shropshire-england-1100-ad-to-1961-in-america-called-the-lee-family-of-virginia/oclc/181163656 
https://archive.org/details/newenglandhistor1877wate/page/n5 
https://archive.org/details/leeofvirginia16400inleee/page/n5 

So it is nonsense that the correct parental edit is being reverted because of the argument that I am quoting and using original research. That is a bold face LIE.

• • • Lee was son of Richard Lee of Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, and his wife Elizabeth Bendy of Aveley[2][3][4][5][6]
    • FROM EDIT ON PROFILE ARTICLE - clearly NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH!

At a minimum, these have been superseded, but several are not what Wikipedia considers to be a Reliable Source to begin with. The first was published almost a century ago, and it is unclear what it is being used to document, given that it is a 600 page book and no page number is given. The second and third are exactly the same thing, and represent an unpublished manuscript (unpublished in a formal way, involving independent review). Number four is 142 years old, from a period when NEHGR applied little editorial scrutiny, and would certainly be considered superseded, and number five is 120 years old and appears to be self-published (plus, again, no page numbers makes it almost impossible to tell what information is supposed to come from these sources). When there has been a scholarly publication on the family, published recently and generally accepted, this is considered 'the new normal' and we simply cannot pretend that it doesn't exist, or worse, as you are doing, put the information there but then adding a note that it is wrong. To overturn the more recent, more reliable solution with the 'legacy' version requires a reason and that reason can't be based on a single editor's claimed expertise or their Original Research in PRIMARY RECORDS, which you have repeatedly claimed as the basis for your edits. There may be a way to dance around the issue you have raised in a manner that is consistent with policy, but we will never get there the way you are going about it - it needs to be resolved here on this Talk page, in collaboration with other editors, rather than simply reinserting the same problematic material. Agricolae (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

SO blatant censorship? You state "these have been superseded" - how and where are the citations?

You state: "The first was published almost a century ago, and it is unclear what it is being used to document, given that it is a 600 page book and no page number is given. The second and third are exactly the same thing, and represent an unpublished manuscript (unpublished in a formal way, involving independent review). Number four is 142 years old, from a period when NEHGR applied little editorial scrutiny, and would certainly be considered superseded, and number five is 120 years old and appears to be self-published (plus, again, no page numbers makes it almost impossible to tell what information is supposed to come from these sources)" - this is your opinion - where is the proof on what you state why these verifiable publishing's are not accepted because of the age of the publishing's? This statement is an opinion and a blatant untruth about these sources that I presented. Where is the public 'memo' that source references (citations) have to be within how many years to be acceptable? What about the Magna Carta? Is that obsolete now too? Really. That is probably one the most moronic excuses yet.

You state: To overturn the more recent, more reliable solution? - what more reliable solution? Citation? NOTE: To add citation for Thorndale now, after my edit, would be blatant censorship of the truth AND DISHONEST. John Lee (Leyes) and Jane Hancock have been listed as parents on this wikipage article without any mention of his article or any citations of reason given for these parents - not until I stated this was wrong and should be reverted to the parents that were prior to his assertions. It is all timestamped for anyone to see this FACT.

As you all are just avoiding the facts and stating your assertions - which seem to change for whatever argument against the facts I present to justify the edit. Publicly anyone can see this double talking, demeaning and biased sequestering towards the factual evidence I have presented for trying to correctly present Col Richard Lee's parents - not just my conclusions, but by many scholarly publishing's by prior researchers. It appears to be a sort of bullying tactic you all may use to discourage what you do not want presented instead of the truthful facts and sources to prove it?

If so you all should be ashamed of yourselves. It is clearly presented here on this talk the discrimination and down talking displayed as you are all presenting yourselves in a very bad way.

Wikipedia is considered an online encyclopedia and an 'implied' understanding of accuracy - as the public inline audience for Wikipedia is 100% your audience, and in spite of any statements by Wikipedia warning of inaccuracies and unreliable information, there is the 'implied' understanding as most publicly view Wikipedia as a research source - as you all know. A young adult doing a research paper, or anyone for that matter, who may not be well versed on the high probability the information is not correct on Wikipedia, will most likely believe what they have found in researching on Wikipedia as actual truth. Regardless of what Wikipedia or the powers that be state so there should be always a BEST EFFORT to present the factual truth - not opinionated agendas.

Instead it seems that those who oversee here are against any truths or facts that they do not wish to accept over their own opinion. There has been much dishonesty publicly displayed from the comments here. That much is probably obvious to most. Especially the statements that if I didn't like it I could go somewhere else by a couple of you now - as it seems that it is not I who has a problem with the facts, it is you all. As this is all timestamped and publicly viewable for all to see your tactics.

This behavior is destroying our history and genealogy - and again - you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

The bottom line is this: Col Richard Lee of Virginia's parents were Richard Lee of Coton (Shropshire) and Elizabeth Bendy of Aveley (Shropshire) per baptismal records, proven Wills, and verifiable scholastic publishing's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW - to add - William Thorndale uses the Family Search Data Collection as his 'sources' for the parents for Richard lee which is tantamount to using Wikipedia as a source - which is not acceptable to Wikipedia standards - and any publication after Thorndale's that refer to Thorndale's research for these same parents would be doing the same. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Now - TRY TO DIGEST THIS and lets see how you spin the story this time:

LIST OF PUBLISHED VERIFIABLE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHINGS FINDING PARENTS OF COL RICHARD LEE OF VIRGINA PARENTS AS RICHARD LEE AND ELIZABETH BENDY AS COMPILED AND PRESENTED BY JACQUELI FINLEY(APG):

• Collections for the Ancestry of Colonel Richard Lee, Virginia Emigrant Paperback – June 10, 2011

by Alan Nicholls (Author): “Richard Lee I claimed the right to the Coat of Arms of the Lee of Shropshire, England, before the Court of Admiralty in London. According to this view, Richard was purportedly a son of Richard Lee, Gent, and his wife, Elizabeth Bendy. This elder Richard was baptized October 6, 1563 at Alveley Parish, Shropshire and he married Elizabeth on October 21, 1599 at Alveley Church. Richard was alive as late as October 21, 1621, when he received 15 pounds in the will of his brother, Capt. Gilbert Lee (d. 1621), of “Tolleshunt Darcy”, Essex, England. He was the sixth of eight sons of Sir John Lee (1530-1605), of “Coton Hall”, Shropshire, and his wife, Joyce Romney (1528-1609)” - Genealogist Alan Nicholls's research into Richard's ancestry reasserts the traditional Shropshire ancestry that he claimed his whole life, and which was verified by a member of the college of arms during his lifetime.

• ARMES, Ethel, "Stratford Hall : the great house of the Lees", (Richmond, Va.: Garrett and Massie, 1936, 594 pgs.) STRATFORD HALL: THE GREAT HOUSE OF THE LEES, Pg. 524: “NOTE: Richard Lee was the son of Richard Lee and Elizabeth Bendy Lee of Aveley of Shropshire and Stratford Langthorne in Essex”.

• The Parish Registers of Broseley, Shropshire, 1570-[1750], Volume 1 By Broseley (England), Pg. 16. Richard Lee Baptismal Record Note: Grandfather Ricardus Lee (father of John Lyes Lee) present

• The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 46, Pg. 71.

“As Will of Richardus Lee, wife Elizabeth Bendy, also does confirm lineage of Richard Lee b.1617/18 married Anne Constable”

• A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry. (1899). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 6(3), 255-260. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4242160

Letter from Lancelot Lee, of Coton, to Thomas Lee, of Stratford JOURNAL ARTICLE: A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry: The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jan., 1899), pp. 255-260 Published by: Virginia Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4242160 Page Count:6 Title: A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry Created Date: 20160808195236Z

• Edmund Jennings Lee*Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, Pg. 38 (Preferred reference of Society of Lees regardless of age of publishing accepted as credible)

• Vols. 37-52 (1883-98) include section: Genealogical gleanings in England, by H. F. Waters.

• Miscellanea Genealogica Et Heraldica Hamilton, Adams, and Company, 1894 – Genealogy, Pg. 109

• Full text of "Genealogical history of the Lee family of Virginia and Maryland from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1866, LEE FAMILY VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND FROM A.D. 1300 TO A.D. 1 866 WITH NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS EDITED BY EDWARD C. MEAD

• ALEXANDER, Frederick Warren, "Stratford Hall and the Lees connected with its history : biographical, genealogical and historical"

• BETTIS, Emma Lee, "Lee family of Shropshire, England, 1100 A.D. to 1961 in America ", (Montgomery, Ala.: unknown, 1961?, 49 pgs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: The above citations should qualify as Wikipedia verifiable source references and SUPERCEED Thorndale article as these use primary sources as their citations and QUADRIPLE what has been previously cited on this wikipage for Col. Richard Lee of Virginia. One would think with having any integrity. And that is not my opinion these are facts that I am presenting.

And it is a shame because I have almost 40 years of experience in researching my Lee family and would love to have it correctly presented on informational platforms as Wikipedia - if I can add all of this in 2 days (less than) just think with co-operation what I can assist with in citation and sources, accuracy (not agenda or opinion) for the sake of public accuracy of dissimulating historic information. That IS MY GOAL - now what is YOURS? As long as this misinformation based on your all consensus assertions, biasness, and opinion - the inaccurate destruction of how our history is being portrayed on these public platforms will continue as well as the prolonged distribution of INCORRECT data from all the individuals that gleam and reuse.

Again - that is beyond shameful and abuse of the positions you all hold over the information that is viewed on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

PER EDIT OF COL RICHARD LEE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE PAGE FOR PARENTS 14 VERIFIABLE PUBLISHINGS THAT PROVE UP PARENTS AS RICHARD LEE AND ELIZABETH BENDY: Biography[edit] Lee was son of Richard Lee of Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, and his wife Elizabeth Bendy of Aveley[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . Richard Lee arrived in Jamestown at the age of 22 with very little to his name other than the patronage of an influential man, Sir Francis Wyatt, the first Governor of Virginia. Once there he became Attorney General of the Colony of Virginia, Colonial Secretary of State, and member of the King's Council.

All of the 14 citations have not been retracted or disproven and use primary source documentation as the cited sources for conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

To further prove - from this wikipage article: "Lee's will directed that his wife and children, "all except Francis if he be pleased", were to return to Virginia. His property at Stratford [19]Langthorne, Essex in England was to be sold" link to Will:https://leefamilyarchive.org/papers/manuscripts/immigrant-lastwill/index.html ANd as Col Richard Lee in his sworn oath: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. I, Colonel Richard Lee of Virginia, and lately of Stafford Langton in the County of Essex" Please explain (hopefully without the prior superiority complex opinionated belittling comments and/or arguments) how and why (with supporting citations) COl Richard Lee would acquire the same EXACT residence of Richard Lee of Coton and Elziabeth Bendy before their deaths mentioned in their Wills and Probate if it was not passed down to him and part of his family ancestry and how these people were not his parents? If they were John Leyes parents please give supporting evidence?

Right there is the legal paper trail folks without any one's added two cents.

I am not claiming a page as my own here obviously just trying to correctly portray the article with factual evidence not assertions. This article is viewed publicly and should reflect correctness.

About Richard Lee of Coton (father): Richard Lee, born at "Coton Hall" in 1563 and was a resident of Alveley Parish in 1599, when he married there to Elizabeth Bendy; was still living in 1621. In 1599 he acquired the estates of Stratford Langton in Essex, near London, which Richard Lee1, the emigrant, later possessed. (Bettis Manuscript page 10) And … Regarding Will of Richardus Lee (Richard Lee of Coton) Proven:

STRATFORD HALL: THE GREAT HOUSE OF THE LEES, Pg. 524:

JOHN LEE of Coton Hall (aged circa 59 in 1588/9) mar. Joyce, only dau. of John Romney of Lulsley, co. Worcester, bur. Aiveley, 4 Dec. 1609 Thomas William Edward Gilbert RICHARD Mentioned in Chancery suit 1610 — j Elizabeth Bendy as having life interest in farm at | married at Aiveley apd. Aiveley apd. Bapt. at Aiveley 21 Oct. 1599. 6 Oct. 1563. Ment <! in Wills of his father 1605 and brother Gil- bert 1621. (Left Aiveley to live at Stratford Langthorne, Essex. ) Note: .John Lee of Cotton or Coton Hall and Joyce Romney his wife had eight sons of whom five are men- tioned in this transcription. Of Gilbert Lee the record states he was of Tolleshunt, Darcv, Co. Essex; that his (Richardus) will was dated April 12. 1621. the year of his marriage to Elizabeth ; that lie was a leather merchant trading with Virginia, and that his ship fought the Spanish Armada.

and …

COl Richard Lee Probate: This will was probated in London, the next year: 1664-5 Richardus Lee. January. Decimo die p robatum fuit Testamentum Richardi Lee nup de Stratford Langton in Com Essexine sed apud Virgi nia in ptibus transmarinus ar defunct hents, &c. Jurament Thomae Griffith et Johis Lockey duo r Execut, & c, guih. & c., de bene & c. Jurat. Reservata ptate Similem Comnem faciend Johi e t Richo Lee alt Execut & c." Johis P C C Probate Act Book fo 3.

Please provide links to your argument or opinions against the legal documentation and verifiable secondary published scholarly citations I have presented for my edit(s). That would be the correct, prudent and honest as well as 'best practice' in genealogy and historical preservation to do so.

Thank you, Jacqueli Finley - leesofvirginia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't think this would need to be explained, but apparently it does: 1936 is before 1984. Surprisingly, so is 1961 . And 1866, and 1894, and 1892, etc. That is what superseded means - you need a reason, more than just 'I'm right and the other version is wrong' to replace the more recent work published in a scholarly publication with older work that appeared in sources considered by Wikipedia to be less reliable. And while we are at it, for all of your pontificating about sources, what am I to make of the Waters source? seriously? you are citing 16 volumes? That is ridiculous. And for that matter, so is citing 14 sources. I can find 14 sources for things that are definitely untrue: more is not better - one good source trumps 14 bad ones, so what is important is the quality of the sources, something we can discuss (which also involves listening). And in citing the will, you are doing Original Research.

I know you are new here and don't understand the operating principles of Wikipedia, but this is not the way to go about this - just insist that only you are the expert while bludgeoning anyone who disagrees with you with accusations of abuse, incompetence and dishonesty. When you make an edit and it is challenged, the appropriate next step is to discuss the changes on the Talk page, not just ignore everyone else and repeatedly reinsert the text that you want.

We need to talk about it here. I am happy to work through it with you, but I have little tolerance for this browbeating you seem to think you have a right to administer simply because I have the temerity to suggest that we follow Wikipedia policy and discuss the best way to deal with the conflicting sources, first. Even if you think you are the one who is right, Wikipedia deals with disagreements by discussing them on the Talk pages. So, let's talk it out here - actually talk about the sources, their quality, and what they really say. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

SO AGAIN - where is your one GOOD source that supersedes the rest?

AGAIN - Thorndale used the LDS FAMILY SEARCH FAMILY DATA COLLECTION AS HIS SOURCES - that is equal to using WIKIPEDIA as a source - you do not it isn't a source.

SO please present your legitimate source(s) for John Lee (Leyes) and Jane Hancock as parents of Richard Lee other than Thorndale or please explain why his article should be considered reliable just because it was published? If that is acceptable by Wikipedia those are low standards to supersede two proven Wills Probated. So PLEASE present your ONE GOOD or MANY source(s). Thank you for there are Lee family members who do care about our ancestry to be correct and I will not even begin about what our DNA is revealing to us as correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Here: THIS is what the article on his wikipage states now: Lee was son of John Lee I (c. 1588-1630) of Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, and his wife Jane Hancock. - unsourced unproven - please provide and explain why this information should override legal documentation? Otherwise I may consider taking up that gauntlet thrown down in one of the above comments to me about taking this far and wide about the censorship culture and irresponsible reporting of incorrect data while knowingly sequestering factual data and information - not because I am right - my motive is simply because I am presenting the facts and legal documented evidence and in spite of what is being said here by the Wikipedia mob, primary sources are always best and secondary sources that refer to a legitimate primary source are the only way to present legal historic paper trails that are verifiable - not just because something is published and it says so. That is not worth anything but possibly a reference at best. That is REAL genealogy and history. Not what you have presented here - not one of you have presented your overwhelming evidence.

I realize that ironically the Vol 76 of the Dec issue of The NGSQ published in 1988 is no longer available for public viewing so to be fair you can read Thorndale's article your self on my copy here:http://www.leesofvirginia.org/Col_Richard_Lee.html it begins on Page 253. I am speaking the truth - he uses the LDS Family Search Family Data Collection, equal to Wikipedia as a source - as you all have stated yourself the warning that Wikipedia is NOT a source. Neither are other person's GEDCOM's which is primarily the source for that LDS family data base collection archive. HIS SOURCES FOR JOHN LEYES AND JANE HANCOCK ARE INVALID. Only someone who has no concept of right and wrong in genealogy and historic data sourcing would argue that. I should be understood by now - the resistance to keep your incorrect information and misrepresenting many of your viewers family member is not only irresponsible but morally wrong and you are continuing to do so knowing and publicly we all know this now.

I would say you may be messing up big time and making a huge mistake. This could go viral you know and all the edits in the world cannot take back the point you are making - censorship of the facts - or you could help make history - the proper and correct way and in a civilized manner. So maybe do right by all of us who claim him as our ancestor and do the right thing please. And if I was not willing to try to help I would not still be here after the talk downs, insults, and demeaning comments towards me by some of the egotistical individual responses by some people with the superiority complexes, but someone has to stand up to the bullies, correct? I will if it gets this correct, I am used to it by now :).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

These walls of text are really not helpful toward resolving the issue. So, let's ask again: What particular published, secondary, reliable sources do you have that support your claim? Perhaps you believe that use of primary sources is better, but that's not the way it works here. So, not your website, not primary documents, published, reliable, secondary sources. If those don't already exist, you could always try to get your own work on the subject peer reviewed, fact checked, and published in a reputable publication—if that were to happen, we'd be having a very different discussion here, and you likely would see a consensus to make the edit. But using all caps and repeating the same thing over and over is not going to get you there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may not understand what Seraphimblade is referring to. See the essay WP:Wall of text: "The massive wall of text (MWOT) often appears in disputes and bombards you with so much information and underhanded hostility that it's almost impossible to keep up without replying with one of your own. MWOTs are a good indication that people are talking past each other." It is impossible for anyone to make a productive response to such massive walls of text. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You state "So, let's ask again: What particular published, secondary, reliable sources do you have that support your claim?".

Obviously no one here is interested in the facts or reading the citations as these walls of text have been the secondary primary sources - for the third time I will list them:

HERE AGAIN IS A LIST OF PUBLISHED VERIFIABLE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHINGS FINDING PARENTS OF COL RICHARD LEE OF VIRGINA PARENTS AS RICHARD LEE AND ELIZABETH BENDY AS COMPILED AND PRESENTED BY JACQUELI FINLEY(APG):

1. Collections for the Ancestry of Colonel Richard Lee, Virginia Emigrant Paperback – June 10, 2011 by Alan Nicholls (Author): “Richard Lee I claimed the right to the Coat of Arms of the Lee of Shropshire, England, before the Court of Admiralty in London. According to this view, Richard was purportedly a son of Richard Lee, Gent, and his wife, Elizabeth Bendy. This elder Richard was baptized October 6, 1563 at Alveley Parish, Shropshire and he married Elizabeth on October 21, 1599 at Alveley Church. Richard was alive as late as October 21, 1621, when he received 15 pounds in the will of his brother, Capt. Gilbert Lee (d. 1621), of “Tolleshunt Darcy”, Essex, England. He was the sixth of eight sons of Sir John Lee (1530-1605), of “Coton Hall”, Shropshire, and his wife, Joyce Romney (1528-1609)” - Genealogist Alan Nicholls's research into Richard's ancestry reasserts the traditional Shropshire ancestry that he claimed his whole life, and which was verified by a member of the college of arms during his lifetime.

2. ARMES, Ethel, "Stratford Hall : the great house of the Lees", (Richmond, Va.: Garrett and Massie, 1936, 594 pgs.) STRATFORD HALL: THE GREAT HOUSE OF THE LEES, Pg. 524: “NOTE: Richard Lee was the son of Richard Lee and Elizabeth Bendy Lee of Aveley of Shropshire and Stratford Langthorne in Essex”. The Parish Registers of Broseley, Shropshire, 1570-[1750], Volume 1 By Broseley (England), Pg. 16. Richard Lee Baptismal Record Note: Grandfather Ricardus Lee (father of John Lyes Lee) present

3. The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, Volume 46, Pg. 71. “As Will of Richardus Lee, wife Elizabeth Bendy, also does confirm lineage of Richard Lee b.1617/18 married Anne Constable”

4. A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry. (1899). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 6(3), 255-260. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4242160 Letter from Lancelot Lee, of Coton, to Thomas Lee, of Stratford JOURNAL ARTICLE: A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry: The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jan., 1899), pp. 255-260 Published by: Virginia Historical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4242160 Page Count:6 Title: A New Clue to the Lee Ancestry Created Date: 20160808195236Z

5. Edmund Jennings Lee*Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of the Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, Pg. 38 (Preferred reference of Society of Lees regardless of age of publishing accepted as credible) Vols. 37-52 (1883-98) include section: Genealogical gleanings in England, by H. F. Waters.

6. Miscellanea Genealogica Et Heraldica Hamilton, Adams, and Company, 1894 – Genealogy, Pg. 109

7. Full text of "Genealogical history of the Lee family of Virginia and Maryland from A.D. 1300 to A.D. 1866, LEE FAMILY VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND FROM A.D. 1300 TO A.D. 1 866 WITH NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS EDITED BY EDWARD C. MEAD

8. ALEXANDER, Frederick Warren, "Stratford Hall and the Lees connected with its history : biographical, genealogical and historical"

9. BETTIS, Emma Lee, "Lee family of Shropshire, England, 1100 A.D. to 1961 in America ", (Montgomery, Ala.: unknown, 1961?, 49 pgs) (The links for above citations were added to the article edit - and timestamped on the article FYI)

AS you have it now as John Lee (should be Leyes per Thorndale) and Jane Hancock the listed sources are no longer visable on the article - which the PUBLIC should be able to view the facts - all of them - including that the parents ate being disputed (as Geni, wikitree, and other platforms like Wikipedia are now doing) so that the PUBLIC can see both sides and read the facts and make a determination - that would be FAIR. But as you all are double talking and going around in circles (and probably taking barking orders not to allow the change) and not operating out of good faith or in the public interest.

SUGGESTION: NOW either do the RIGHT THING read the facts and as you are deciding display the disputed parents - both John Leyes and Jane Hancock along with Richard Lee and Elizabeth Bendy (with the sources I added) and just display that they are in dispute. Period. That way whilst you all decide what to do the public is not in the dark about ALL THE FACTS which they are entitled to or you all can keep being doing the wrong thing and show the wrong parents or only the one argument (without sources I may add). It would be the prudent, honest, right thing to do for the public - not because I say so because if you have any conscience it is the right thing to do.

Locking and protecting the profile only adds to what we all can see as censorship and pure ignoring of facts the have/were presented that beyond a reasonable doubt proves a legal parental relationship for Col. Richard Lee to Richard Lee of Coton and Elizabeth Bendy. You are all possibly creating a HUGE liability for Wikipedia in your actions and I am ready to expose all of the bad actors on these online genealogical and informational public platforms. I will involve the media if this nonsense does not stop and you all do not step up and do the right thing. Go ahead, make my day. I will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

FYI - I AM keeping an accurate accounting of all transactions on this subject and the on going shenanigans here.

HISTORY OF MY PRIOR EDIT TO ARTCLE: PER EDIT OF COL RICHARD LEE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE PAGE FOR PARENTS 14 VERIFIABLE PUBLISHINGS THAT PROVE UP PARENTS AS RICHARD LEE AND ELIZABETH BENDY: Biography[edit] Lee was son of Richard Lee of Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, and his wife Elizabeth Bendy of Aveley[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] . timestamp: 16:38, 29 May 2019

AGAIN - BESIDES THE 14 Secondary reliable sources that I cited, I present the legal documentation of the proven Wills of both COl Richard Lee and Richard Lee of Coton: To further prove - from this wikipage article: "Lee's will directed that his wife and children, "all except Francis if he be pleased", were to return to Virginia. His property at Stratford [19]Langthorne, Essex in England was to be sold" link to Will:https://leefamilyarchive.org/papers/manuscripts/immigrant-lastwill/index.html ANd as Col Richard Lee in his sworn oath: "IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. I, Colonel Richard Lee of Virginia, and lately of Stafford Langton in the County of Essex" Please explain how and why (with supporting citations) COl Richard Lee would acquire the same EXACT residence of Richard Lee of Coton and Elziabeth Bendy before their deaths mentioned in their Wills and Probate if it was not passed down to him and part of his family ancestry and how these people were not his parents? If they were John Leyes parents please give supporting evidence?

About Richard Lee of Coton (father): Richard Lee, born at "Coton Hall" in 1563 and was a resident of Alveley Parish in 1599, when he married there to Elizabeth Bendy; was still living in 1621. In 1599 he acquired the estates of Stratford Langton in Essex, near London, which Richard Lee1, the emigrant, later possessed. (Bettis Manuscript page 10)

And … Regarding Will of Richardus Lee (Richard Lee of Coton) Proven:

STRATFORD HALL: THE GREAT HOUSE OF THE LEES, Pg. 524:

JOHN LEE of Coton Hall (aged circa 59 in 1588/9) mar. Joyce, only dau. of John Romney of Lulsley, co. Worcester, bur. Aiveley, 4 Dec. 1609 Thomas William Edward Gilbert RICHARD Mentioned in Chancery suit 1610 — j Elizabeth Bendy as having life interest in farm at | married at Aiveley apd. Aiveley apd. Bapt. at Aiveley 21 Oct. 1599. 6 Oct. 1563. Ment <! in Wills of his father 1605 and brother Gil- bert 1621. (Left Aiveley to live at Stratford Langthorne, Essex. ) Note: .John Lee of Cotton or Coton Hall and Joyce Romney his wife had eight sons of whom five are men- tioned in this transcription. Of Gilbert Lee the record states he was of Tolleshunt, Darcv, Co. Essex; that his (Richardus) will was dated April 12. 1621. the year of his marriage to Elizabeth ; that lie was a leather merchant trading with Virginia, and that his ship fought the Spanish Armada.

and …

COl Richard Lee Probate: This will was probated in London, the next year: 1664-5 Richardus Lee. January. Decimo die p robatum fuit Testamentum Richardi Lee nup de Stratford Langton in Com Essexine sed apud Virgi nia in ptibus transmarinus ar defunct hents, &c. Jurament Thomae Griffith et Johis Lockey duo r Execut, & c, guih. & c., de bene & c. Jurat. Reservata ptate Similem Comnem faciend Johi e t Richo Lee alt Execut & c." Johis P C C Probate Act Book fo 3.

SO not only have I provided both reliable verifiable secondary sources I have given LEGAL proof.

If you all do not agree you need to prove with your secondary verifiable reliable sources that disprove these - the Wills were both probated and proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

REGARDING PARENTS AS JOHN LEYES (LEE AS PORTRAYED ON THIS WIKIPAGE) AND JANE HANCOCK: PER WIKIPEDIA RULES ON RELIABLE SOURCES: " If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." PLEASE PROVIDE A SECONDARY RELIABLE SOURCE OR REMOVE - Thorndale's article has been proven unreliable source as unverifiable. that IS the consensus outside of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 14:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

And a refresher course since none of you have been able to produce any citations at all as you are only double talking and not being honest here: "Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Shortcuts WP:RSPRIMARY WP:WPNOTRS Main page: Wikipedia:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited. However, although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Thus, Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose (except as sources on themselves per WP:SELFSOURCE). Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that is not citable with something else. Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

All of my citations sources are reliable secondary sources that refer to the primary sources that can be verified. WHERE ARE YOUR SOURCES?

And NO responses well as an INCORRECT responses will cause Wikipedia a huge lability if this goes viral. As I said I will say again you all should be ashamed of yourselves. This is not fair and a biased portrayal of historic information and you all are acting in BAD FAITH to your public viewers. PERIOD. And there may and can be legal ramifications if this bad behavior continues. That is not a threat but a fact. You are holding the TRUTH HOSTAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

This last paragraph crosses a clear line. WP:No legal threats Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The only line being crossed here is the sequestering and censorship on valid legal facts and truth being kept from the PUBLIC who are 100% of your Wikipedia viewers. And THAT IS a VERY BIG DEAL. As you continue to stonewall and not do the right thing - it is not a clear legal threat for me to clarify my stance on this by contacting the news media as this is a public informational online platform that implies to the public an understanding of portraying accurate information. Instead of complying you all are using diversions and tactics to avoid publishing the facts I have presented, as you all cannot produce counter sources for your arguments. Just opinion and bullying. Which BTW is unlawful behavior - all of what you all are doing is even against Wikipedia rules.

Yes - it IS a big deal and it is not a threat to go viral or to the media about this if not resolved correctly. As I have tried several attempts to do complying all the way with each and every one's arguments and Wikipedia rules. It is not a threat, but you attention seekers should be aware that this page is public and already displaying your bad unlawful behaviors for everyone to see. I am just telling the truth - a big liability dishonesty is - like it or not. SO if you do not want to be seen as bad guys get your act together and start doing the right thing here instead of non-sense. AS EVERYONE can see and only your group will be sympathetic to your tactics. Clearly if Fox News or OANor social media platforms wants to cover this dispute they surely are able to be viewing this right now - so it was not a threat - just a highly probable outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:

Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors.(did not happen) It does not refer to any dispute-resolution process within Wikipedia. Legal threats should be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere to an administrator. Users who make legal threats are typically blocked from editing while the threats are outstanding. Rather than immediately blocking users who post apparent threats, administrators should first seek to clarify the user's intention if there is doubt. Blocking for legal threats is generally not such an urgent need that it must be done before determining whether an ambiguous statement was genuinely a threat of legal action. Instead of posting a legal threat, you should try to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute-resolution procedures. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation. That a legal dispute exists between users, whether as a result of incidents on Wikipedia or elsewhere, is not a valid reason to block, so long as no legal threats are posted on Wikipedia. Editors involved in a legal dispute should not edit articles about parties to the dispute, given the potential conflict of interest.

NOTE: To clarify my intentions - no legal threat was made just more DRAMA from the bad actors when the truth of their bad behavior was highlighted. Probably another tactic to sequester me and the facts I present. Please Notice - no sources or legitimate response from peanut gallery yet to be produced or real discussion of the facts presented.

Now - again I suggest perhaps to display the disputed parents as both sets on this wikipage profile for COl Richard Lee are in dispute with the associated sources presented so that the public can view all the facts and that the facts presents are not kept hidden from public view whilst this dispute is discussed as other online informational platforms that share information on this wikipage profile are now doing in their portrayal of COl Richard Lee's parents. I believe that is a fair, unbiased, honest approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be a reasonable solution for the majority of people out there.

As this edit on the wikipage profile by you all clearly is a lie and unlawful tactic: curprev 18:29, 29 May 2019‎ Orangemike talk contribs‎ m 16,754 bytes 0‎ Protected "Richard Lee I": Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (indefinite)) curprev 18:14, 29 May 2019‎ Agricolae talk contribs‎

As it is a clearly bold face lie as I cited 14 well sourced reliable scholastic published secondary and primary sources. SO lock the profile and only permit you all to edit or add facts when I have done nothing wrong.

You all should be ashamed of yourselves for you are not acting out of knowledge, or a good conscience in good faith to your viewers but obviously taking barking orders not to allow changes even though well sourced, and keeping information on the profile that is unreliable unsourced and inaccurate purposefully. And only you all know the truth about the internal politics here on Wikipedia - so what now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Col Richard Lee parents as portrayed here on this wikipage: Biography Lee was son of John Lee I (c. 1588-1630) of Coton Hall, Shropshire, England, and his wife Jane Hancock. UNSOURCED AND INCORRECT And Per Wikipedia it should not be there at all. I know you all are scrambling trying to locate a source or record but they do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.134.105 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I had put a warning on your Talk page that your ability to edit might be restricted if you continued to simply reinsert the same contested information on the page, rather than trying to reach consensus on the Talk page first. You just kept doing it, with entirely predictable results. (Oh, and there is absolutely nothing unlawful about it - Wikipedia is a privately-owned web site, and can regulate how and by whom their pages can be edited, for any reason or even for no reason whatsoever.) That leaves one way to get the information onto the page - use your powers of persuasion in this discussion to convince someone else to change the page. That is not going to happen if all you do is post these insulting and bombastic massive walls of text. Generally speaking, shouting at people, talking down to them and insulting them is not a productive way to win them over to your point of view. Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I seriously doubt Fox News cares who the father of Col. Richard Lee was, but if you think otherwise, go for it. Please post here when they are going to air this feature story on the debate that is gripping the nation. A little perspective might be in order. Agricolae (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

More work needed

I performed a major copyedit of this article after listening to the audio version of the late Professor Paul Nagel's book, which was recommended to me at a local history library which is closed on this holiday and for the weekend. Perhaps I would not have done so if I had read the talk page first, LOL. In any event, I was surprised it was not referred to in the article, since the hard copy looked competent when I glanced at it early last week, and Oxford University Press is known for competent citechecking. I'll add his terms as burgess to the infobox per the book I borrowed from the Library of Virginia earlier in the month, but I have little time and I really wanted to put up an article on Ludwell Lee, who is barely mentioned in the Nagel book.Jweaver28 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Jweaver28 (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I fixed this up enough (I think) to remove the more citations needed tag, though the book I relied upon doesn't go into the blow-by-blow of all the land titles. Certainly more sources would be useful. I did not read the two volumes in the bibliography which could have been retitled as "see also" given the article's initial poor quality which combined with the citation deficit.Jweaver28 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Anne Lee

There's a slight internal inconsistency in the article about Anne/a Lee's origins. She is listed three times as an orphan (introduction, no citation; under "Early and family life" with reference to a dead link to Genealogy Magazine; and under "Career," no citation). But Francis Constable, listed as her father (same dead link), appears to have been alive in 1639 (according to citations on his Wikipedia page - several of which focus explicitly his activity post 1640). Nagel's book (page 9) indicates she was not an orphan but was entrusted as ward to Sir John Thorowgood, which would not have required her to be an orphan. I believe that for the sake of verifiability, the word "orphan" should be cut. 50.5.234.83 (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Confusing stuff I agree but the Francis Constable of Francis Constable does not appear to be the same Francis Constable mentioned in this article as Nagle mentions his many daughters and the publisher apparently only had a single son. There were many men with the same name at the same time within the same area of England. Shearonink (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Francis Constable (the publisher) having only one son? That would be useful for correcting his page, which currently lists 15 children (11 of them daughters) and links to a genealogical website that includes Anne (and mentions her as wife of Col. Richard Lee I) and also mentions that Francis Constable is a publisher. 50.5.234.83 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

All the info on the Immigrant Richard Lee is in Nagle's book...here's what I have found available online about Anne Constable, read on from Page 9 -> Page 9, The Lees of Virginia: Seven Generations of an American Family by Paul C. Nagel - "one of the many daughters of Francis Constable". I'm not an expert, I'm just an editor who tries to keep Wikipedia articles in general somewhat on the straight & narrow. As I understand it, the problem with trying to pin down any particular Francis Constable in that area of England during that timeframe is that there are apparently many, many Francis Constables all over the same place...someone else will have to try to tease out which of the many is the singular father-in-law of the Immigrant Richard Lee and which is the publisher. Shearonink (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just a copy editor who normally sticks to stray punctuation and typos but doesn't like the apparent inconsistency of an orphan with a living father. I'd like to ask: do the word "orphan" or the link to this specific Francis Constable pass the requirements for verifiability (something I normally don't deal with and absolutely defer to you as a more experienced editor) or should we delete one/either/both? There's no reference in Nagel to Anne being an orphan. The circulation of children (such as passing them off as wards) was a fairly customary practice of early modern family life in Western Europe, so her status as ward does not necessarily imply that she was an orphan. Given the overall dearth of information on the immigrant Richard Lee and his wife, I'd like to make sure we don't let unverifiable material through and that we don't maintain an easily disprovable internal contradiction. 50.5.234.83 (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

Hello,

The current Wiki reads that Richard was born in 1618. However, I have a copy of his baptism dated 15 May 1617.

I am happy to remit said upon request.

Thank you Daniel Stepel DanStepel (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia can only use published reliable sources to make statements, please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Even if you have a copy of this person's baptism certificate that type of material is considered to be a primary source and is not usable for Wikipedia's purposes. Shearonink (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)