Talk:George Pickett

Should disambiguate these notable people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.120 (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That could be done, provided that this other Pickett is notable enough for inclusion at Wikipedia. Got anything? Kresock (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Professor of Low-Temperature Physics, for which Lancaster University is world-renowned. He was one of the main designers of the adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator, which allowed the University's Physics Department to reach milli-kelvin temperatures and lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a Wikipedia article about him? If you provide the title, we'll disambiguate the two guys. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Suggest an new wikipedia article entitled George R Pickett. The text above gives some suitable content for the article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.226.120 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The fellow sounds notable enough if we can provide sources for an article. As far as the disamb. page we need year born, nationality, and middle name if known for now. It would look much like this:

George Pickett may refer to the following people:

• George E. Pickett (1825-1875), American soldier and Confederate general during the American Civil War.
• George R. Pickett (????-), (nationality) physics professor, Lancaster University, known for his work in Low temperature physics.

How's that look? Kresock (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I guess speciality is low temperature physics...

If you are thinking about moving George Pickett to a disambiguation page, I would object. The CW general is vastly better known than this physicist who doesn't even have a bio page yet. The {{For}} template can be used on the current page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No way I'd name the disamb page that. Just looking through the What links here for his name, with or without the middle name/initial, I see the vast amount of work that would entail. It would be better to use {{For}} on both bios and add George R. to this page, using something like I structured above. Thoughts? Kresock (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The study of Physics is a worthy human endeavour. In the interest of equality, I do not see why a physicist should be discriminated against by a general. The fact that the physicist does not even have a bio may be argued to be indicative of such discrimination. Thus, I favour the Kresock option, i.e. George Pickett may refer to the following people...

If you would like to see an article about this professor, please write it. That's the way Wikipedia works. And I think you are misreading Kresock's comment, which I interpret as agreeing with my point of view. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're interpreting correctly Hal. I would add both Georges to the all things Pickett page found here. Kresock (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

That would put this august physicist in with Bobby "Boris" Pickett and Wilson Pickett! A lot of interesting people with that surname. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why pick and choose when you can have articles on each and all of the Picketts! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.227.144 (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC) pickett home page http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/spc/staff/pickett.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.248.142 (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The university link would be a good addition to George R.'s page, if it ever gets written. It says "Professor George Pickett, FRS" What does the FRS mean? Is this guy British? Born when & where? If this fella's noteworthy, then there must be journal/magazine articles about him and/or his work, and possibly a bio published somewhere. With these we could sketch out an article, probably a stub, that others over time could build on. Got anything? I'll help write it if we can get reliable stuff on him! Kresock (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

FRS is Fellow of the Royal Society, a British institution. There is a wiki entry on this society. I presume he is British as he has been at the British University of Lancaster for a long time. Also, he sounds British English when he speaks... but I'm no expert on English dialects... Try some Physics papers and magazines, e.g. "Scientific American" and "New Scientist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

What I find astonishing is that Pickett's role in the hanging of 23 Union soldiers at Kinston in February 1864 is not mentioned here. True, it is not known well, but I think his actions should at least be noted. Pickett later faced a court-martial and trial in October of 1865 and was compelled to flee to Canada with his family and cut his hair to avoid being found. He was given pardon by his old friend Ulysses S. Grant. Pickett's Charge and Five Forks were not the only battle he was a part of, and this should be made clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.119.20 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please provide some sources for this allegation. You state he got a trial in October 1865, after leaving the CS army with his parole in April 1865 and returning to Virginia in 1866. He had previously resigned from the U.S. Army in 1861. How could he be court-martialed? By whom?

In February 1864 he was leading the Department of Southern Virginia and North Carolina, with headquarters in Petersburg I think. The only actions near Kinston (not the Alabama one) that I know of are the Battle of Kinston in December 1862 and Battle of Wyse Fork in March 1865, and I don't think Pickett was involved in either. As far as New Bern goes, the battle there in March 1862 seems to have gone down without Pickett's help as well.

I know he quickly left for Canada, but the "with his family and cut his hair to avoid being found." part I cannot dispute with yet. The rest of this needs clarification and sources please. Kresock (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• http://www.nextag.com/Justice-or-Atrocity-Gen-1795345/specs-html
• http://www.historicalpreservationgroup.org/gerry_kinstonhangings.pdf
• http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ncuv/kinston2.htm

Here's your sources.

The governor of North Carolina during the War, Zebulon Vance, even testified against Pickett in the post-war court marshal, arguing that the Union soldiers hung had signed up for local home guard duty and been transferred to the regular Confederate army in violation of their enlistment agreement. (This was no small point, as regular army deserters were treated much harshly than militiamen who then picked the opposing side.) Richard Nelson Current's "Lincoln's Loyalists" (p. 122) is one source on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.37.222 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no doubt that he was shot and knocked off his horse. The problem in my view is the contention that he "made an enormous fuss". The general tone is that Pickett is lacking in either courage or toughness or both, and it is based on the recounting of some fellow officer. That strikes me as thin evidence to attack Pickett's character with. He was months in recovering from this wound. Hancock was wounded at Gettysburg. He thought himself to be mortally wounded, and was months in recovering. Hancock was one of the best general officers of the war. Should we suggest he was shy? Look at Pickett's actions in Mexico. Look at his attitude in his various postings. Look at his friendships, and the manner in which his men regarded him. It is all the same man. Those things do not happen to a man that is foolish and shy. Something isn't right.

Pickett is mostly known for Pickett's charge, but Pickett's charge wasn't Pickett's idea. He did carry out the order though, and for that we consider him foolish and perhaps showy? Both Longstreet and Pickett knew there would be a heavy cost. Heck, most of everyone involved did. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The account if his wounding was reported by at least two secondary sources. The source you gave does not mention it, but does not contradict it. If you find contradictory sources, we can include those for balance, but it is not up to us to make judgments of this type. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, though I would think it better to exclude those things that are not generally agreed upon and known rather than attempt to balance them with competing views. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. If we had a disagreeing secondary source (vs. one that is silent on the issue), we'd handle it differently. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Sounds good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The man mentioned previously and described: "a staff officer examined the wound and rode away" was John Cheves Haskell, who was a major at the time. Haskell reached the top of the Federal fieldworks in the second assault, had his horse shot out from under him and then was wounded twice by pistol shot from a Union captain. Haskell ended up losing an arm in the engagement. (see To The Gates of Richmond: The Peninsular Campaign by Stephen Sears, page 242) Pickett ended up gaining renown for a charge that he forever regretted. Haskell was one of several officers that could not forgive him of it. Describing Pickett as "cowardly, unmanly, and weak" speaks of Haskell's resentment of Pickett, more than it speaks of Pickett the man. Besides being an unusually bitter thing to assail any fellow officer with, his opinion is at great odds with Pickett's long record of combat, two brevet promotions for conduct in the Mexican campaigns of 1847, the many favorable reports from superiors officers, the esteem given him by his subordinate officers, and the high regard he was held in by the men he led. Pickett did not engage in arguing about the war in the years that followed it, and made no effort to answer critics like John Cheves Haskell.

In her book "General George E. Pickett in Life and Legend" Lesley Gordon states:

"At the Battle of Gaines's Mill (1862), Pickett was severely wounded and, as a result, left active service for the rest of the summer."

Commenting on the "controversey", Edward Longacre offers the following:

"Artillery Major John Haskell strains credulity by asserting that a "perfectly able officer", repeatedly cited for courage and determination, would claim to a passing stranger that he lay at deaths door. Haskill went out of his way to downplay a wound which kept its victim out of active service for three months, three long tedious months far from the fields of fire that that held such an attraction for George Pickett. (see Pickett: A Biography of General George E. Pickett, C.S.A. by Edward Longacre, pages 86-87)

As an officer, Pickett may have had some flaws, but being "cowardly, unmanly, and weak" were clearly not among them. The personal animus of one officer against another may be worth mentioning on a wikipedia page for Major Haskell. It is immaterial for the article on Pickett.Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Though certainly a devoted wife, Sally Pickett spent a great deal of time post war re-inventing her husband and idolizing both the South and her relationship with Pickett. It has been shown that many of the letters she later published were not actually the work of George Pickett. Though I am sure her intentions were good, they should not be cited as source material for the encyclopedia. Please see this page on Sally Corbel Pickett from the Virginia encyclopedia. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like what Libby Custer did...agree that it shouldn't be considered as a reliable source.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

What about assertions that George Pickett was actually a woman? See http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/usa-confederate-war-general-revealed-to-be-a-woman/ . Rammer (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he was a male. In their About us section, the website you are linking to states:

World News Daily Report is an American Jewish Zionist newspaper based in Tel Aviv and dedicated on covering biblical archeology news and other mysteries around the Globe. Our News Team is composed of award winning christian, muslim and jewish journalists, retired Mossad agents and veterans of the Israeli Armed Forces.

One article states that tobacco-less cigarettes are very popular with children. Apparently they are having incredible marketing success with children as young as 2. So, perhaps one should take the article with a grain of salt. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The site also contains the following:

"Disclaimer

"World News Daily Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within worldnewsdailyreport.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction.

- See more at: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/#sthash.bCmCiezq.dpuf

Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George Pickett. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.fortpickett.net/docs/pickett.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110414171010/http://www.cob.org/services/neighborhoods/historic/tour/026.aspx to http://www.cob.org/services/neighborhoods/historic/tour/026.aspx

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply