Wikipedia

Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 4

< Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Dormskirk in topic Tidy up of my edit today
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Miss Asgill’s Minuet

Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Cordless Larry It is frankly humiliating to have this COI hanging over me still, like a petty criminal, so I am sorry to be popping up again so soon. I am hoping you will agree that the following might be a charming addition to the Asgill page? I think, in all probability, it might need its own short sub-section, somewhere at the end, entitled “Miss Asgill’s Minuet”?

The background to this request is this: Asgill’s father, a former Lord Mayor of London (a Whig, and so pro-American) forbade his son to join the army to fight in the Revolution. Asgill’s eldest sister, Amelia Asgill (Colvile), twisted him round her little finger and got him to relent. The rest is history. However, when Asgill was under threat of execution she had what today would be termed a “nervous breakdown”, believing herself to be entirely responsible for this turn of events. So, an unknown composer created a charming Minuet in her name, the sheet music for which can be found here, no doubt intended to cheer her up: [1]

The YouTube music can be found here: [2] It is ready-to-go-theme-music for the film Professor Henriques is determined to bring about!

This is what is in Henriques’ chapter 4 about the circumstances, and could be used as a reference perhaps? “His parent’s only son, Asgill enlisted in the British army at age sixteen but went to America against his father’s wishes. His pro-American father, also Charles, had been Lord Mayor of London”. [3]

This is what Katherine Mayo says on page 218 of “General Washington’s Dilemma”: “the extreme grief of his mother, the sort of delirium which clouded the mind of his sister, at hearing the dreadful fate which menaced the life of her brother, interested every feeling mind in the fate of that unfortunate family”. [4]

If you agree, would you be prepared to write the short text to accompany the links? Apart from drawing on the information I give above, I don’t know exactly how to provide the necessary text for the music, which would be acceptable to Wikipedia. Anne (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I have two immediate questions, Arbil44: do Henriques and/or Mayo mention the minuet; and are the words of the minuet published anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I think I misunderstood "necessary text for the music", thinking that you meant it had words. You mean the article text about it, I now presume? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
No, the Minuet is only music, no song with it! I have not seen any mention of the Minuet elsewhere - it was a random, one-off find - that the Music is in the Spanish archives. Perhaps it was a Spanish composer, living in London? The Asgills were very cosmopolitan, probably because of the French connection. As for who it was written for - Asgill is a very unusual name and there was only one society family of that name in London (where the music was published) at that time. Her father was a very wealthy banker and had been Lord Mayor, so it makes sense that some composer thought to cheer her up with some music. Amelia had younger sisters, but she was the society belle at that time. Given her distress at the turn of events, Miss Asgill can only be Amelia... Yes, I was asking if you could put some Wikipedia-style text together to accompany the music! Anne (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I have just had a thought. The sheet music is page 2 and 3 - page 1 is there in the Spanish archive listing, but I cannot read it. If you were able to read pages 1 and 4 lots might be revealed that is currently unknown. They are pdf. pages which need codex to decypher, but I don't even understand what that means. Anne (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought that pages 1 and 4 were just blank covers. Where did you see the information about a codex? Maybe I could investigate that further. I think the general issue here is going to be that there's not much we can say based on the music alone (unless any hidden information on those pages is revealed), and would need a secondary source making the link with your Asgill to avoid the WP:OR problem. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Link [4], above, goes directly to the Spanish archive listing and pages 1 and 4 are, like the sheet music, pdf. documents which download instantly. There is some information about codex needed to read the pages - and this is something I do not have a clue about I'm afraid. If you felt able to look at those two pages, and, if you get somewhere, might you be prepared to email them to me (unless they really are blank pages of course)? Anne (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I clicked through from that page to this one, where I see all four pages. Page 1 has a national library seal in the centre, and page 4 seems blank. Is that not what you see? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
To me they both appear totally blank, but I just wondered whether there was some secret 'unlocking code' in the word "codex" and that a raft of text might be mysteriously revealed, but clearly not. So, does that mean that the music cannot be uploaded then? Such a shame. I love it! Anne (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll e-mail it to you just in case. I think we'd need a secondary source to be able to write about this in the article, unfortunately. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the emailed document Cordless Larry. I think you can close this thread for now - until I write the article and provide the secondary source! Anne (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of several images uploaded by me

Latest comment: 3 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion

Cordless Larry and Dormskirk I am in need of assistance, please. So much of what I have contributed, image-wise, is about to disappear and there were 23 emails awaiting my attention this morning. I feel overwhelmed and need help! I have emailed Cordless Larry with a screenshot of my email inbox this morning. Even a photograph of me, taken with my camera, by my husband is about to be ditched. I am going to be in hospital this weekend and today was intended to be my last day to get my affairs in order before surgery. I will need one month before I am back to normal, by which time it will all be over. Anne (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've replied to your e-mail but need to get to work now. For anyone else reading this, it relates to the deletion nominations noted from Commons:User talk:Arbil44#File:To mark the occasion of the introduction of the Solomon Islands currency on 24 October 1977.jpg downwards. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Note that most of the images are not being used in Wikipedia articles, but on your user page. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
My userpage chronicles the journey taken to change history. This is so much bigger than me, and so much beyond me to deal with, that I have no way to fight this. James Gordon is now under attack too. Such amazing timing. Anne (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have asked User:Ellin Beltz to revert the deletion nominations. Let's see what happens. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
This I appreciate greatly Dormskirk. Thank you. As you say, let's see what happens. Anne (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have also requested keep and the reason (i.e. that the images belong to you) on each one of the individual nomination pages. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me in my darkest hour. Anne (talk) 09:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries, I hope it is just a misunderstanding. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No Drama is required here and none will change the outcome of Deletion Nominations. Nothing has been destroyed. The images which are taken "of a person by another person" require COM:OTRS from the actual photographer. I could own 100 copies of a single book, and still never own the copyright. It is possible your images could be hosted on en:wiki which has different copyright rules than does Wikimedia Commons. The subject of the images who claims ownership needs to work through the reality of ownership. If the person who is depicted in the images did not take these photos and they are not in some other way without copyright, they can't be free hosted at Wikimedia Commons which requires certain licenses, which don't include "non-commercial," "fair use" or claims of "own work" when it's obviously not the case. "Belonging" is not the same thing as "own work." Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • 1) Dormskirk has requested that the files should not be deleted. Dormkirk has also requested that the files be kept.
  • 2) Cordless Larry suggested I go to: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_OTRS_release_generator> which I just tried to do, only to find I have to list all the files individually, which I have no idea how to do.
  • 3) I am going into hospital this weekend and I have no idea when I will be well enough, postoperatively, to deal with all of this and I have no idea if it will be entirely too late by then.
  • 4) I have always struggled with the IT demands of wp, so is there any way of making this easier for me so that I do not have to search my hard drive for the images all over again.
  • 5) I think there was a Solomon Islands coin or similar listed. Since that was gifted to me on the occasion of the Solomon Islands Independence, what am I supposed to do about that?
  • 6) I fully expect that these demands will be beyond my ability to deal with, technically speaking, so no doubt my image contributions to WikiCommons will simply go to waste and be deleted. Anne (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Please don't worry about this. Ellin - I hear your comment "none will change the outcome of Deletion Nominations" but my understanding is that Wikimedia Commons like wikipedia operates by consensus. In practice I suspect that it would be extremely challenging for Anne to find the individual photographers who took these pictures after all this time. Surely if the photographers gave copies of the photographs to Anne, that in itself is evidence that the photographs were meant for her to have and to own. In the meantime please do not delete the images until this can be considered properly. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Following surgery, I have only now been able to deal with this matter, as far as I am able to that is. I do know, for sure, when the time comes the IT aspects will be entirely beyond my abilities to deal with. Please would Dormskirk and Cordless Larry tell me if there is anything further I should be doing, other than waiting for responses to my requests for copyright permissions? Each image is dealt with as follows: My first car in Aden. My camera was used. I was working for the Foreign Office at the British High Commission in Aden at the time and the image was taken by one of my colleagues. All I remember was that her name was, I think, Emily, but we lost touch once we both left Aden at the time of Independence in November 1967. I have no idea how to track her down after more than 50 years. Pregnant in Tehran. My camera was used. My husband was Chargé d'Affaires at the New Zealand Embassy in Tehran when this image was taken. We had been invited to the British Embassy Summer Compound, which is the location of the image. One of the British Embassy staff took the photograph, but their name is long forgotten from 40 years ago. There is no way I would be able to establish the name of the photographer. Arnold Schwartzman in Gibraltar – This was an official visit to Gibraltar by a Hollywood film producer/director who had served in that country, with the Royal Sussex Regiment, back in 1958. I was his host for this visit. When viewing the regimental colours at King’s Chapel [5] I asked someone standing nearby to use my camera to take an image of the people most closely involved in this visit. People often do this on a regular basis. I have no idea who took this image so could not track them down. The Hague, Opening of Parliament. My husband was the New Zealand Ambassador in The Hague when this image was taken “By the Butler – In the Hallway – With the Camera” (as they say in Cluedo!) The butler’s duties included taking pictures of us, with my camera, prior to official engagements. My album is full of similar images throughout our four-year tour of duty in The Hague. Surely I own the copyright? This happened 30 years ago and the butler would have retired back to Portugal long ago. I would have no idea how to track him down. My new haircut, July 2020. This was taken by my husband so surely this is a simple matter to rectify?

Saudi Arabia, with my daughter. I was on official ambassadress duty and the image was taken by the New Zealand Ambassador, my husband, so surely this is a simple matter to rectify?

With Kristin Miles at Trinity Church, NYC. This was taken by my husband so surely this is a simple matter to rectify? Image 1 - City and Guilds official image of Cyril Lloyd – this was given to me by his niece after his death. I suggest we revert to the National Portrait Gallery image (which has been deleted by Wikimedia Commons) since no other image will be available once the current ones are deleted. This cannot be shared, but I already got permission for it to be used last year. May I email this to Cordless Larry for him to re-upload? Cyril Lloyd talk page refers. Image 2 - City and Guilds official image of Cyril Lloyd – this was given to me by his niece after his death. I suggest we revert to the National Portrait Gallery image (which has been deleted by Wikimedia Commons) since no other image will be available once the current ones are deleted. This cannot be shared, but I already got permission for it to be used last year. May I email this to Cordless Larry for him to re-upload? Cyril Lloyd talk page refers. Cover image of the LancasterHistory Journal, December 2019. I have written to the CEO of LancasterHistory requesting copyright permission. As co-author, I trust this will be granted. Solomon Islands invitation to me. This was scanned with my scanner. I have written to the British High Commission in Honiara (Solomon Islands) asking them to put me in touch with the right SI Government department where I can request copyright permission. Solomon Islands Hao You Yusim Kloset Poster. This is a photograph of the poster, taken by me. I have written to the British High Commission in Honiara (Solomon Islands) asking them to put me in touch with the right SI Government department where I can request copyright permission. WRNS image of me taken by the Official RN photographer at the Fleet Headquarters, Northwood. I have written to the Photographic Department at Northwood and they are working on finding a way to give me permission.

Later. Northwood-man could not possibly have been more helpful and was very much in favour of me using this image, but it has reached the point where I have to contact the MOD to take this further. The options open to me, without going to the MOD, would appear to be these:
1) The Crown Copyright expires at the end of April 2022, at which time there are no copyright restrictions on this image. This will mean I can use it then, but in the meantime...
2) Would Wikipedia host it, where it is, along the lines of the NPG image of Cyril Lloyd - i.e. under a different licence (not free to use), until less than two years from now? Who looks at my userpage - nobody really - so not being on a main page might mean this would be acceptable? I truly hope so.
3) The Mary Ann Mansel letters are hosted externally on the Robert Manners page, via a pdf. link. Northwood-man suggested I do something along these lines by creating a pdf. document - and that's the thing - it would no longer be a photograph, but rather a document. Although Northwood-man thinks this would be fine, copyright-wise, I would still have to double-check with MOD. I am not keen on this idea at all. It defeats the purpose of what I have created on my userpage - my life-achievements (although mainly Asgill related). Others have masses of wiki-qualifications - degrees - impressive jobs - and other things to be proud of. For me, my service to Queen and country means a lot to me. Thoughts, anyone?

Family portrait, Wellington, New Zealand. This was done by a professional photographer, for my mother (who was on the other side of the world). As a ‘paid for’ image surely the copyright would have been transferred to me? I do not know who the photographer was. I have looked at the back of the image and there is no information there. Some of the copyright requests are likely to take a considerable time - particularly the ones I will need to address to the Solomon Islands Government, when I know to whom to write. Anne (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Anne - It sounds to me that you have done an excellent job of requesting those permissions that you are actually likely to secure after all this time. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 10:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
On the WRNS one, as I've noted at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:One I made earlier.jpg, I think it might be covered by the OGL. If it is, the licence details just need to be edited. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
PS: This discussion should really be taking place on the individual deletion nomination pages on Commons rather than here. Commons administrators are unlikely to see it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Unless someone is able to C&P the information here onto the correct pages (which I cannot even find, apart from the one CL has linked to), it is all just too much for me I'm afraid. I'm trying hard to do what little I can. I don't understand anything about copyright, much less OGL. If I did, I'd know whether Northwood-man covered it, but I don't think he did. Having this huge swathe of deletions coming at me, all at once, at a time when I was/am least best able to deal with it all, hasn't helped either. I shall have to hope that Ellin Beltz will look in here again. Anne (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Links to the deletion discussions are in each of the notifications from Commons:User talk:Arbil44#File:To mark the occasion of the introduction of the Solomon Islands currency on 24 October 1977.jpg down (the relevant link is the text "its entry", in bold). Cordless Larry (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try sometime, when I feel well enough. I found that the jpeg document you link to doesn't download, so yet another IT nightmare. Those of you who find all this so easy do not understand the hours it takes me to do something most can do in mere seconds. This was thrown at me when I was least expecting, or needing, it. Anne (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Please try not to let this cause you stress, Anne. There's no urgency here. Even if the images are deleted before these issues can be resolved, they can be restored once proof of permission is provided. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
It was massively helpful that you gave me a link Cordless Larry, which I thought should be a downloadable pdf. doc., but wasn't - it meant I was able to C&P my replies from above, onto the right pages. It is almost 2 am now, but I will go to bed feeling more relaxed, now that this is done, (until Ellin Beltz returns that is). Anne (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry to break this to you, Arbil44, but you've commented beneath each of the notices telling you about the deletion nominations on your Commons talk page. That's not what I was suggesting you do. Each of those notices includes the text "We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry" and if you click on the "its entry" part, it will take you to the relevant discussion page for that particular image. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

As I say - this is all beyond me. I shall have to cut and paste now, if I can find the right place this time. Anne (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Copy-paste is all that is required, Arbil44, but give me 10 minutes and I'll find you all the direct links just to make sure you paste to the right place this time. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion pages are as follows:
Hopefully I got all of them! Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I missed your post - and your links - because as soon as I saw your earlier post I went straight to the task of cutting and pasting. I do not make these mistakes to annoy you Cordless Larry, or anyone else, but simply because I am a bag of nerves the minute I am in an edit page. I hope I am done now, apart from notifying if I get responses from Lancaster, and, eventually the Solomon Islands. Anne (talk) 08:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I understand, Arbil44, and was not annoyed! Sorry if I gave the impression that I was. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Dormskirk I'm not usually defeated, but I am now. I have been made aware that the fight is no longer worth it. I have deleted most of my userpage and may delete the rest soon too. Unfortunately, the spacing is now up the shoot, so if you would kindly reformat, I'd be most grateful. I hope you will be able to reinstate the NPG portrait of Cyril Lloyd, since that was permitted before, until other images were available, which they will not now be. I have no idea how I will reupload it though. Thanks for all your support. It was very much appreciated, but I just want to go away now since this has been a seriously toxic experience for me, since 21 August last year. Anne (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for dealing with the above Dormskirk. I thought I had deleted the humourous userboxes, but evidently not, so would you please delete all of them except English Speaker: Lives in the UK: American Revolution: Waiting for userbox to be deleted: and former member of the RN - 5 in all. Thank you. Anne (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I have reformatted the userboxes. My view is that we should do nothing on the NPG portrait of Cyril Lloyd for now. My understanding is that, once there are no images of Cyril Lloyd (which will happen once the other images have been deleted, then this one can be uploaded to wikipedia (not commons) in due course. It is important to get the licensing right but I think I can research which one to use when the time comes. Hope that works. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with my userpage Dormskirk. I have been searching for the "permission" from the NPG, and here it is. The email address is a work email, not a private one: Lisa Olrichs <lolrichs@npg.org.uk> To: Me Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 10:49 Dear Anne, Thank you for your message. We have no objection to low-resolution images being used on Wikipedia for non-commercial purposes. You can obtain a free Creative Commons Licence via our website, after filling out your email address you will be able to download the low-res file to use online. Please make sure you credit the image correct © National Portrait Gallery, London. [6] If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Kind regards, Lisa

Lisa Olrichs Rights & Images Officer National Portrait Gallery St Martin's Place London WC2H 0HE

I hope this will be useful to have on record. I must have obtained the Licence from their website since I uploaded the image and gave the details when uploading. Anne (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Great. That may help in due course. But my understanding is that we cannot upload it yet (under wikipedia's own rules) because other images of Cyril Lloyd still exist. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Yup, I know that Dormskirk! I just wanted to post a record of what I did, back in January, so that you have a record of it here to refer back to, should you need to. I am leaving my godfather in your good hands now. I have also deleted Hao Yu Yusim Kloset from the SI page. After this attack on all that I have tried to do, I am simply not prepared to pay out money for Wikipedia's benefit. It's Wikipedia's loss since it is still hanging on my bathroom wall! I have reached my limit now - Wikipedia has most definitely not appreciated what I have tried to do here, on several pages. It's always me being in the firing line and I've had enough now. Anne (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Ellin Beltz 12 of the 14 images, and many many more besides, have now been removed from all the pages on which they appeared, with the exception of Major General Cyril Lloyd (my late godfather), who's page I leave in the capable care of Dormskirk. I trust this brings the matter to a full and final close. Anne (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Query relating to the deletion of the Cyril Lloyd images

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
The Cyril Lloyd images have gone now Dormskirk so I'd be grateful if you would please action, as above? Many thanks. Anne (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi - Apologies for this but I am struggling to know which licence to apply to the Cyril Lloyd image and am keen to get it right. I see from Category:Walter Stoneman that all the other images by Walter Stoneman (who died in 1958) that have been uploaded to wikipedia are dated prior to 1929. Perhaps User:Cordless Larry is able to point us in the right direction having regard to the email from Lisa Olrichs at the National Portrait Gallery above? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry may be able to advise us Dormskirk, but it is my understanding that I followed the NPG's directions back in January, and all that is necessary is to put their image on the CL page, ensuring it is credited to the NPG in a visible way. As you know, the only reason it came off the page was because others were available (it was there for a little while and the discussion about it was, I think, on the Mary Ann Mansell talk page). Anne (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on copyright, but the NPG's terms and conditions link given here goes to this, which according to the table at Commons:Licensing#Well-known licenses isn't a license compatible with Commons. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, the discussion was on the CL page. Nthep was perfectly happy for the image to be on CL's page, until he realised that there were (but not now) other images available. This is what he said: I'm afraid the NPG image does have to go as there are fully free images of Cyril available. The NPG non-commercial and no-derivatives terms are incompatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy. It's very annoying when it is such a good photo but that's the policy, images have to reuseable. Nthep (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm totally out of my depth, but please would Nthep say if the image may go back now that other images are no longer available and bearing in mind the email from Lisa Olrichs at the National Portrait Gallery above? Many thanks. Anne (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I can only say what I said before - if there are no public domain images of Lloyd then a non free image is acceptable as long as the relevant information required by the WP:NFCC are recorded. Nthep (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nthep. Anne (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain but we can no longer say that there is "no free equivalent" (which is a requirement of WP:NFCC) now that File:Major General Cyril Lloyd, Royal Military College Memorial Chapel, Sandhurst 3 February 1945.jpg has been uploaded. Dormskirk (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
My complete and utter lunacy knows no bounds and shows how un-tuned-in to Wikipedia I am. I was thrashing round wondering where to find an image and thought of the christening one. It is quite appalling in quality but clearly that is what we are stuck with now. I had a terrible fall this morning and my brain is addled with pain. Anne (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I personally think the new image with Cyril Lloyd smiling is a good one...so don't worry about it! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Two Girls of Old New Jersey: A School-Girl Story of '76

Latest comment: 3 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

Today Cordless Larry kindly uploaded this image [7] on to the Asgill page, at my request. He has used the formatting for the caption as it is printed in the book’s list of illustrations which states: "'Clemency! For the British prisoner, your Excellency!'" In the book, “Two Girls of Old New Jersey: A School-Girl Story of '76”, the image itself is captioned thus: “’CLEMENCY! FOR THE BRITISH PRISONER, YOUR EXCELLENCY!”’. My problem with this is that we both agree full capitalisation would be inappropriate and clumsy on such a small image, but, in my case, I am very unhappy indeed with the printed book’s version of “your Excellency” when it should very obviously be “Your Excellency”. Cordless Larry has patiently explained to me that Wikipedia cannot correct mistakes when quoting from source material. But this is giving me Grammatical OCD! I find it very strange that something so obviously wrong cannot be put right. This particular “Excellency” is America’s first Commander-in-Chief, George Washington. On the Wikipedia page on Excellency the correct format is listed as being “in direct address, Your Excellency”. So, would either Dormskirk or Cinderella157 be prepared to make the small change from “your” to “Your” on the basis of knowing that the latter is right and this would simply be correcting a printed error? What is a “Y” between friends?! Anne (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Anne - My immediate reaction was yes, of course, but if Cordless Larry, as an experienced admin, has already ruled that it should remain as stated in the source, then I think we must respect that. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply Dormskirk. Not what I wanted to hear of course, so my OCD well-being is now in the hands of Cinderella157! Unless anyone else looking in wishes to come to my rescue?! Anne (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't really ruled it out, Dormskirk. My preference is usually to preserve the wording and style of a source, mistakes included, but it's a personal preference and I would accept being overruled. MOS:SIC is the relevant guideline. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I have just had a thought, but don't know if it is viable. If the caption were to be capitalised throughout, as it is in the book under the image, is it possible to make the capital letters much smaller, so they don't dominate the entire image? That might be the route to "compromise"? Anne (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I have a had a look at MOS:SIC and have to agree with Cordless Larry. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, so it is looking as though grammatical integrity will be thrown to the wind (because it was thrown to the wind 108 years ago by a careless printer)! What about my idea of using capitalisation throughout, but with the letters themselves reduced in size? I just don't know if that is technically possible? I was trying to find a compromise where we could all be happy! Anne (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Using all capitals would be faithful to the caption as it actually appears beneath the image in the source (as opposed to how it appears in the list of illustrations). Another argument could be that we ignore the latter and de-capitalise the caption from the image ourselves (MOS:ALLCAPS addresses this), using Y. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are trying to find a solution, so thank you Cordless Larry. I am not sure I understand your last sentence though? Besides, can capital letters be reduced in size? Furthermore, there is this which would put the matter to bed very nicely! "However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected" - nothing could be more insignificant than a capital "Y"! Anne (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, they're called small caps, but MOS:ALLCAPS discourages their use. It also states "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article", so having thought about it some more I reckon that and the fact that it's a very minor change to what appears in the list of illustrations means it's OK to use lower case with a capital Y. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Cordless Larry - I appreciate that more than the caption, in itself, warrants! I wasn't joking about Grammatical OCD! I imagine you will make the necessary change then? This reminds me very much of when Cinderella157 sanctioned "Colonel of the Regiment" - these things matter to me! Anne (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. It's not about me "sanctioning" anything though, as I don't have any power over article content that you don't - content is determined by consensus, not by what admins think. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Whatever the situation may be Cordless Larry, I very much appreciate the outcome here, thank you so much. Now the caption looks as it should and that is what matters to me. Anne (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, Dormskirk, Cinderella157 and any other editors caring to contribute. I have already explained the significance of finding an English language novel featuring Asgill. I am only aware of one other, in French. I have written a synopsis of this novel and would appreciate it if this could be linked externally - to the current entry which now exists. It can be read here of Two Girls of Old New Jersey - A School-Girl Story of 76.pdf and is only one and a half pages long. WP has this to say on the matter: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” I hope it will be self-evident that I summarised this novel in an unbiased and unpartizan manner.

With regard to the “Asgill Affair in Literature” entry please could bullet points be added and Charles-Joseph be hyphenated? Anne (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Anne - I am unable to access the thanetlife.org.uk link. It may be something to do with access permissions. It comes up "Not found" for me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
HaHa - it's my Firefox connection failing to put the whole link in blue - here it is now: of Two Girls of Old New Jersey - A School-Girl Story of 76.pdf. Anne (talk) 11:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Any better? http://thanetlife.org.uk/files/Synopsis of Two Girls of Old New Jersey - A School-Girl Story of 76.pdf Anne (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - will ring webmaster Anne (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want the link to work you need to deal with the spaces in the URL and replace them by the relevant code: http://thanetlife.org.uk/files/Synopsis%20of%20Two%20Girls%20of%20Old%20New%20Jersey%20-%20A%20School-Girl%20Story%20of%2076.pdf --David Biddulph (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

http://thanetlife.org.uk/files/Synopsis.pdfJohnpaddy (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Now inserted. Thanks to David Biddulph and Johnpaddy. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dormskirk, but the link needs to go in after ref.73 in the literature section please - and bullet points need to be added and Charles-Joseph needs to be hyphenated. I rang Johnpaddy, the webmaster who is kindly hosting this document. Many thanks. Anne (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Now moved after ref.73. Sorry, but I am not sure what you mean by "bullet points need to be added". And I thought that I had already hyphenated Charles-Joseph. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Dormskirk, I see you have now done the hyphenation but please could the link go in here: "A historical novel written by Agnes Carr Sage, Two Girls of Old New Jersey: A School-Girl Story of '76, was published in 1912. It follows the events of 1782, and Asgill's impending execution. This fictionalised account introduces Asgill as a romantic hero who becomes engaged to be married to a Loyalist schoolteacher, Madeline Burnham, in Trenton, New Jersey.[73][new link]" and bullet points be added, as is in the Drama section? Anne (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the reference. Where do I find the bullet points and where do you want me to place them? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been a marathon since i have a broken ankle and am confined to bed 4 3 weeks so can only type with one finger while holding laptop!! Bullet points need to be added, as is in the Drama section below, then all's done thank you. Anne (talk) 15:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Now done, I think. Sorry, it took me a bit of time to understand. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
dear dormskirk - it was worth the struggle to see how nice that section looks now! Anne (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Professor Peter Henriques Ford Evening Book Talk on 18 November 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Dormskirk Last night Peter delivered the following one-hour talk about George Washington [8]. It takes a unique look at GW, warts and all. It should definitely be linked to the GW page please. The question is, should it also be linked to the Asgill page, since this is mentioned between 40-42 minutes? Thanks. Anne (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I have added it to the Asgill page. Sorry, but I am not touching the GW page again! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you Dormskirk. I rather thought you might say that! However, Wikipedia as a project, has a duty to be non-partisan and non-biased, so, is there an editor out there who WILL do the right thing and link this video to the George Washington page - where it absolutely belongs? Do I leave this message languishing here Cordless Larry, unattended to, or should I do something else? Anne (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Dormskirk, I've just looked at your edit and wonder whether it should read as follows, since the entire talk is about the book but only less than a couple of minutes relate to Asgill? "Peter Henriques and C-SPAN founder Brian Lamb talk about Henriques's book, First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington vis-a-vis his chapter on the Asgill Affair on 18 November 2020". Just a thought.Anne (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Tweaked accordingly. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • One of the challenges with an article such as George Washington is that there are likely hundreds, if not thousands, of external resources we could link to, and we need to bear in mind what's said at Wikipedia:External links and WP:NOTREPOSITORY. But if we accept that Henriques is a particular authority and should be linked even if we're selective, the issue for me is that the book isn't even used as a source for the article or listed as further reading. Presumably that should be our first priority, not a video about it? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Cordless Larry Peter Henriques is an authority on Washington - GW has been his 'speciality', for a very long time, and he has written 4 books and dozens of articles about him. What is new, and might be regarded as 'controversial', is that Peter's latest book takes a more critical look at the first president and brings to light things which have not been widely aired previously. His book really ought to be mentioned on the Washington page and, if so, then possibly a link to the video too? Since I cannot do this myself, and don't really want this to be brushed under the carpet, do you think there is a way forward? Anne (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Yes, I'm not questioning that he's an authority. The best thing to do would be to make an edit request on the article's talk page, explaining that he is an authority and that his book should be added to the further reading at the very least. You could also suggest addition of the video in the same request. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
            • Cordless Larry - last time you sent me to the GW talk page I was eaten alive and spat out. Please see Dormskirk's remarks about going back there. If there is nobody brave enough to do this, then this will be unattended to. I honestly don't think that would be an outcome which showed Wikipedia's neutrality. I should add that Peter is a huge admirer of GW (and repeatedly says so in the book and the video, which takes less time to watch then the book to read), but has himself been brave enough to show a much more realistic portrait of the man. Anne (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
              • Well, given that previous incident, I'm not willing to unilaterally add the link, I'm afraid, so it's either an edit request or nothing. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
                • I am sure that there will be several editors looking in here, so I would appeal to ALL of them to ask themselves what is Wikipedia supposed to be? Should new ideas - new research from an acknowledged expert - be rejected because that new approach might upset the apple cart? It already happened, earlier this year, when the GW talk page refused to acknowledge the source (Lancaster History's December 2019 journal), as the only source for a letter previously hidden for 233 years - and deliberately removed it as a link for the Washington page. Am I the only editor, of all editors, who is capable of making an edit request? Of course I am not. Once bitten twice shy though. I can only conclude that something is rotten in the state of Denmark that I find myself in this ludicrous position - far too scared to do the right thing for the Wikipedia project. There must be someone out there braver than me? Anne (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
                  • I've added a reference to the book to the article. You asking someone else to post an edit request on your behalf isn't functionally different to you posting the edit request yourself - other than it might annoy the editor who deals with the request. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have annoyed you Cordless Larry. However, I have several obstacles in my way that do not affect you. Firstly an ongoing COI (as a direct result of the 'earlier episode') and secondly having already had a terrible experience 'over there' - one I am not prepared to repeat. I'm not the only one who did not want to go into the fray a second time. However, I do thank you for making that edit and adding the book to the GW page. I will take a look now. Perhaps the video could go there too, since it is a great summary of what is in the book. Many thanks indeed. Anne (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

  • You've not annoyed me. What I'm saying is that an edit request reviewer might look down on your edit request being made by proxy. The whole point of the edit request system is to deal with situations where there's a COI. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
    • I had no idea that there were 'edit request reviewers' :-) Anne (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
      • That's perhaps not the official term, but I mean the editor who either accepts or rejects your request. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
        • Don't forget my useless IT skills. I very much doubt I would have got either of the edits done correctly, so I am always grateful for the help I am given by 'edit request reviewers' like you and Dormskirk! Frankly, even if I had not had my 'other reasons' I would never ever have the courage to edit the GW page itself. Anne (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A YouTube video of an event on 8 December 2020 has damned Asgill’s reputation all over again

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKChmpuHDRQ&feature=youtu.be I have just had the pleasure of listening to the above YouTube link to Henriques' talk about the Asgill Affair, which took place on Tuesday 8 December 2020. It was a zoom-style event happening, UK-time, between midnight and one am on 9 December. Listening to it a second time, in spite of the audio still being somewhat fractured, was an interesting experience. In honesty and fairness I must admit it is an honest and fair account. Regrettably Henriques does not appear on the video, which he did on the night.

However, at the event, and being a by-standing witness as it were, when the floor was opened up to questions afterwards, I took the opportunity to raise the issue of Asgill (according to Henriques) being held responsible for the rumours which, four years after the Asgill Affair had ended, finally reached Washington’s ears. I had not been happy that this claim was laid firmly at Asgill’s feet once more. My contention being that, in his letter to the New Haven Gazette of 20 December 1786, Asgill makes it his very first task to deny the truth of the rumours. In particular, he states that he was never led to the gallows once, much less three times; and no gallows were erected outside his window to taunt him on a daily basis. This had been at the core of the rumours which had so outraged Europe. Rumours which were circulating before Asgill even returned home. This is proved by a sermon given by Joshua Huddy’s commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, in which Holmes disagreed with Washington’s “eye for an eye” decision (mentioning, in particular the gallows story) – a sermon delivered while Asgill was still held captive in Chatham, New Jersey. The sermon can be read under the heading “Public reaction to the Asgill affair” here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cinderella157/sandbox_5, beginning “I come to you this day to report upon a grievous injustice”. This sermon was once on the internet, but is no longer there.

So, why would Asgill place top-priority on his denial of the rumours in what, as Henriques pointed out, was an 18-page letter? Had he been responsible for these lies in the first place, how were those lies being told before he had been released from custody; and why deny them so hotly four years later?

In asking my question, after the Henriques talk, I declared myself to be a fan for giving such an honest, factual and so well-balanced account (an expanded version of the excellent chapter in his latest book having used a lot of extra information sent to him by me) – except for this one issue, as outlined above. In the YouTube video my question, and those which followed, have been wiped from the recording. So, it is my wish that the video, accompanied by my above comments, find their way on to the Asgill Wikipedia page. I hope WP editors-at-large will look at this in a balanced and fair way, because, if not, then there is a real danger that Asgill will continue to be regarded as the cad and the liar which has followed him for 233 years, until his letter was finally published in 2019. Indeed, this one aspect could threaten to undermine the excellent work done by so many people in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, when they published Asgill’s letter (and so much more besides) last year.

Cordless Larry has been emailed a copy of the relevant sections in Asgill’s letter in which he addresses the rumours and lies accredited to him. Asgill hotly denies them all. I am working on a way of being able to quote these parts of his letter on Wikipedia because this video, my comments above and Asgill’s own words, need to be in a dedicated section on the Asgill page. So much harm has been done in just moments of time. I have worked for nearly 20 years to clear Asgill’s reputation as a cad and a liar. This video has the potential to wipe those years of work in one fell swoop. Asgill has been accused, once more, of being a cad and a liar. I hope you will all understand my concerns and I will be very interested in as many fair-minded editor’s comments as possible. Please don't let it be yet another occasion when scores of editors view this post but walk away saying nothing. Dormskirk would you be kind enough to kick off the discussion please? Anne (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi - If reliable secondary sources were to mention the relevant parts of the letter, it seems to me that would be of interest. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The Lancaster Journal of December 2019 gives Asgill's letter in full, but it is not online. I am trying to find a way of being allowed to quote the relevant sections though. The 'proof' is Asher Holmes sermon which is no longer online. When it was online it emanated from Holmdel United Church of Christ where Asher Holmes delivered his sermon in 1782 http://holmdelucc.org/ Anne (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please could the following addition be made to the main article, as follows: After: “In the event, however, Asgill was sent, under close arrest, to Timothy Day's Tavern.[8]“ Add: “While he was under close arrest at the tavern he suffered from beatings (a privilege the landlord charged his customers to undertake); deprivation of edible food and withholding of his family’s letters. [9] (which is the same source as [8] above). As a consequence he wrote to Washington, on 27 September 1782 saying: “those only can form any Judgment of, who have experienced the Horrors Attending it.” Asgill even tells Washington that he is close to death as a result of his situation.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09600 Thank you. Anne (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This makes sense to me but we should let the process take its course and see if other editors want to comment. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please reconsider Dormskirk. This is something which should have been there a year ago and is not particularly related (well, sort of) to my main request on this thread. Anne (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, Anne. I have recently taken some flak from an an admin for implementing an edit request pinged at me which was also well presented and factual (I have been helping other editors for years which is how I came across you). It now appears that such requests have to go through the proper process to allow other editors to comment. All very unfortunate and not how things used to be. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to hear of this experience Dormskirk. I didn't know there were new rules in place. Apart from being devastated by these recent events, my experience has always been that many many people look in, but say nothing. This is massively frustrating and leads me to experience stress every time I find myself in a position of having to make more edit requests. Anne (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Anne, thanks for that. I don't think the rules have changed, it is just the way that they are being interpreted. I agree that it is very frustrating especially for editors who have a very long history of helping others. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It is ludicrous that an experienced editor like you cannot make decisions to help when, in this case, I have provided two sources to support my text. I've said it before, but I repeat that there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. This is how I view it all now, especially because of what has happened. I just want all this to be over.Anne (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dormskirk. 43 people have looked at this thread, none of whom have anything to say on the matter. Would you now be able to do the specific sourced edit, above, as requested? How long is a piece of string in terms of how long to wait for comments? Anne (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
On procedures, and reverting to my original request for a new section to be created (like you, I would prefer Cordless Larry to become involved), but my question is this ... if permission is given for a new section to deal with the calumnies cast once more at Asgill, would Wikipedia allow a quote of 209 words covering Asgill's own defence of his character? His letter must not be online, but his letter was 18 pages long, so this would only be a small quote. Besides, there is far more quoted from his letter already online, from the Lancaster newspaper which reported on the publication of the Journal. Anne (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Offline sources are fine. Ideally article material should be based on or supported by secondary rather than primary sources as much as possible. No one can "give permission" - article content is determined by consensus, so if there's agreement to add it, it can be added (well, proving copyright rules, etc. are respected). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
In terms of secondary sources the only one to specifically talk about the Journal, and its contents, is the Lancaster newspaper article I mentioned, but the specific quotes I want to use from Asgill's letter are not mentioned there (I will double check that in a moment). However, the video linked above covers the aspects I want to deal with. Shall I write a proposed 'new section', including the quotes, so there is a more tangible edit to consider? Asgill's letter is quoted both on his article and the James Gordon article too, and no specific copyright permission had to be obtained for those - other than crediting the Journal as the source.Anne (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't so much thinking about secondary sources about the journal as about the letter. A journal article about the letter would be a good secondary source. I think more specific suggested additions would be good. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cordless Larry. I had forgotten specifically what had been printed under "Excerpts from Asgill's Letter" here [10] which expands on what I also want to quote and touches very much on how I want to create something to counter the new calumnies cast at Asgill. So, for citations, we have the Lancaster Journal, the Lancaster newspaper and the new video. So, I shall work on a proposed new section! Anne (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Anne - On the question of "how long is a piece of string in terms of how long to wait for comments", as you can imagine I have absolutely no idea but I am pretty exasperated myself that trying to help others (when I probably have more knowledge of the matter in hand than many other editors) leads to me getting flak. But I have been firmly put in my place. Wikipedia is not what it used to be where everyone helps each other. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't get me started Dormskirk! You have had a bad experience, which is sad, but my experience on the GW talk page resulted in me being banned from editing the Asgill page, which I had been happily doing (well mostly) since 2007! The difference is that I want all this to be over, but you will continue doing what you have always done, helping people. I'm just about to post my proposed edit. Anne (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As I think has been explained before, you're not banned from editing any pages. If you were, it would be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. You were advised to use the talk page to make edit requests, but not banned. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Link now added. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Video of remotely hosted talk held on 8 December 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago85 comments4 people in discussion

On 8 December 2020 Peter Henriques gave a zoom-style talk on the Asgill Affair, hosted by Kirk Johnson, RELIC Supervisor, Central Library, Manassas, Virginia, USA [11]. The focus of this event was to highlight what a serious error of judgement had been made by George Washington in deciding to revenge the murder of Joshua Huddy by sending a Conditional British officer to the gallows – referring to it as “George Washington’s Self-Created Dilemma”. The talk focussed on his book chapter: Henriques, Peter R. (2020). ""Unfortunate": The Asgill Affair and George Washington's Self-Created Dilemma". First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press., with various additional items of material provided by Anne Ammundsen, to whom he gives credit. Towards the end of this talk he raises the question of Asgill never denying the rumours which surfaced regarding bad treatment suffered by Asgill during his six-month imprisonment in Chatham, New Jersey. He credits Asgill himself as the instigator of the rumours. This is the issue which has plagued Asgill’s reputation for 233 years, causing him to be regarded as a cad and a liar, until his letter denying the truth of this was published in The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019 What Asgill himself has to say, regarding this matter, follows. Additional excerpts from his letter to the New Haven Gazette and Chronicle of 20 December 1786 may be found in the following newspaper report: [12]

Huddy’s Commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, gave a sermon in which he disagreed with Washington’s “eye for an eye“ decision to hang Asgill. Holmes refers to the rumours which were circulating, long before Asgill’s eventual release, so could not have been instigated by Asgill in London, from where they emanated. This sermon was previously on the internet, but could be obtained from the church were the sermon was given http://holmdelucc.org Holmes states: "General Washington, has vowed vengeance, and has taken Captain Charles Asgill, of the British Foot Guard, to be hanged in the place of Captain Lippincott, the hated soldier who hanged Huddy so unjustly. Three times Captain Asgill has been brought to the gallows, and three times led away. It is not young Asgill who is to blame, but Lippincott."

The following should be indented:

— the extreme regret with which I find myself oblgd to call the attention of the publick to a subject which so peculiary if not exclusively concerns my own Character & private feelings will induce me to confine what I have to say within as narrow a Compass as possible —

very little is necessary to the anonymous letter of the American Correspondent, who boasts his introduction to Coffee house Sages & making his assertions on coffee house authority so confidently affirms that Charges were exhibited against General Washington, by Young Asgill of illiberal treatment and cruelty towards himself …

It is sufficient to say that this Gentleman whoever he is never took the pains of ascertaining the truth of the intelligence he received from his Coffee house sages, by an application to me, tho I almost resided Constantly in London & that by neglecting so to do he has exposd himself to the degrading circumstance of having positively asserted a groundless falsehood for I never did either suggest or countenance the report of a Gibbet having been erected before my prison Window — a Prison was indeed a Comfort that was denied me nor had the fact been so would it among the many indignities & unnecessary hardships I endurd …

— in Truth no Gibbet was erected in sight of my window Tho during my Confinement I was informd at different times & by various persons that in Monmouth County a Gallows was Erected with this inscription “up goes Asgill for Huddy” for the truth of this I cannot vouch as I never saw it myself END OF NEW SECTION

I never wanted my name on the main article, but on this occasion it is unavoidable. Now, the following is important, Asher Holmes' sermon (the part of it relating to Asgill that is) is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cinderella157/sandbox_5 - is it possible to link to that on the main article? I expect not, but I must ask just in case. Anne (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Anne - This looks fine to me in principle. In such circumstances, in the past I would probably have tidied the references and added the material. But it appears that this is no longer possible. And I do not wish to be sanctioned for my second offence of responding to edit requests when other editors may wish to comment / edit the text. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand. Let me hope that Cordless Larry will be prepared to make this edit to the article. I do need help with regard to the title of the edit and confirmation, or otherwise, as to whether the sermon itself can be linked from a sandbox to an article? I also need that second edit regarding Asgill's letter to GW of 27 September 1782 included too please. Anne (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Anne - I would suggest you title it "Peter Henriques' talk of 8 December 2020". And I very much doubt that a link to a user's sandbox would be acceptable. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to publicly state why I don't want that title Dormskirk! I've changed it, above, so hope that will suffice? Anne (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, "video of remotely hosted talk held on 8 December 2020" looks fine. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)'
I've added a quote from Holmes' sermon, alongside my comments that it was once on the internet and that the church hold the sermon (the original of the sermon I imagine).Anne (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Is the whole of the text above, starting with "On 8 December 2020 Peter Henriques gave...", what you're proposing to add? If so, I'm afraid I don't think it's suitable. It seems to me that Wikipedia articles shouldn't engage in source analysis. The video might be used as a source about Asgill, but I don't think we should make a section of the article about it as a source, which is how this comes across (if there was a secondary source analysing the video, maybe it would be slightly different). Statements such as "It is worth noting..." also don't belong, per WP:NOTESSAY. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information has been given in the video as being factual, and I have linked endless source material which disproves the new slurs against Asgill. Dormskirk does not seem to think this new section is a problem, so why cannot this be done? I very much doubt any other editors will engage with this discussion, since they never do, so would the consensus at the moment be 2 in favour and 1 against? Anne (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have removed "It is worth noting". All of the above suggested edit is sourced already and, of course, since it only happened on Tuesday there is no source analysis. Can the above simply be worked into the main article, without being a separate section? Anne (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what to make of your edit, above, at 14:26 Cordless Larry because I am not allowed to edit without bringing an edit request, which means I cannot edit without reams and reams of talk page typing! If you are suggesting I go ahead with my proposed edit, I would be much too scared of banning to do so. Surely there must be a way forward, even if it takes a slightly different approach? None of my proposals are currently in the article, but need to be in any event - as does the currently small edit which has been lost, but involves Asgill's letter to GW dated 27 September 1782. That is straightforward and should have been added to the article last year. Anne (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry - at no time did I ask for a link to be made without the accompanying narrative. You have put a link to a slanderous comment about Asgill. I have spent 20 years trying to expunge that slur which has attached to him for 233 years. In moments, you have obliterated all my work. What is in my proposed edit needs to go on the page, in another guise perhaps. Have you not read what Asgill himself has to say about those accusations, and they are printed in the Journal, which is already liberally linked to his page. Indeed, I provided you with a copy of the Journal. [User:Arbil44|Anne]] (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought I was resolving the edit request in the section above by adding the link, pending further discussion about the addition of text in this section, but apparently that wasn't the right approach. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I only wanted a link with accompanying text - to explain about sending the Asgill drama right back to where it has stood for 233 years. Surely you can understand that I would not wish that to be a stand-alone source, without explanations from Asgill's perspective, that he has been called a liar for quite long enough. He has explained, in his own words, refuting those allegation. So, yes, you have misunderstood or not read the thrust of what has been said. Why must we allow Henriques words (he's simply been brainwashed by the general thrust of recorded history) without taking into account thst there is, with the publication of the Journal, a whole lot more information than was previously available. I'm exceedingly distressed about the way this is going. Anne (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, I ask again: Please could the following addition be made to the main article, as follows: After: “In the event, however, Asgill was sent, under close arrest, to Timothy Day's Tavern.[8]“ Add: “While he was under close arrest at the tavern he suffered from beatings (a privilege the landlord charged his customers for); deprivation of edible food and withholding of his family’s letters. [13] (which is the same source as [8] above). As a consequence he wrote to Washington, on 27 September 1782 saying: “those only can form any Judgment of, who have experienced the Horrors Attending it.” Asgill even tells Washington that he is close to death as a result of his situation.” https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-09600 Thank you. Anne (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at the journal now. On p. 112, it states "Succumbing to illness, being deprived of edible food, and subjected to beatings and abuse, Asgill was eventually granted permission to ride his horse for exercise in an attempt to return him to health; Washington did not wish him to die while his fate was the subject of diplomatic deliberations". That seems to support some of the material you want to be added here, but could you point me to where the journal states that customers were charged for the beatings and that letters from family were withheld? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Page 139, towards the end "long series of hardships" - Page 140 "did not the General detain" and top of Page 140 "View me who paid for". Anne (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit you have done which is longer and better than my suggestion, but you have left out the letters being withheld (it was a very very close family and his father was dying - this caused Asgill huge stress because he was deprived information as to whether his father had actually died or not, and not mentioned that the landlord charged customers for the privilege of beating Asgill up. Anne (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was waiting for you to provide me with details of where I could find this in the source. I've now added the extra details, but have used Abel's article rather than the letter itself (a secondary source being preferred). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
You have always said that Wikipedia works on consensus, yet you ignore my wishes and discount Dormskirk's opinions. There cannot be many people left who do not acknowledge that I know more about Asgill than anyone else (even Henriques says so in his previous video at 40 minutes) so why are you shunning me in this way? Anne (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This is clearly going nowhere so may I call upon Peacemaker to take a look at this? I do not know if this editor is a peacemaker, or even interested in military history, but we have reached stalemate now. If Dormskirk knows of anyone interested in military history who might help out here, please will you ping them? Cordless Larry, we need more people taking part here don't we? A perfectly uncontentious edit, now emboldened above, is being ignored all the time. Couldn't we at least get thzt out of the way? Anne (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
In case I haven't said it - I asked a question about Henriques' slurs towards Asgill not denying the rumours about ill treatment (his ill treatment was so bad it almost caused his death and he wrote to tell GW just that), and about Asgill being the instigator of those rumours, at the meeting itself. He did not reply to my question and my question (and other questions) were wiped from the tape uploaded to YouTube. So, I was silenced then, and silenced again here. All I'm trying to do is what I have tried to do for so long - get the truth out. I thought I had achieved that in December 2019 - now my efforts are as but nothing - Henriques as spouted out the same old same old all over again. Anne (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A thought - please consider this Cordless Larry- what about I take out (you've already removed) all reference to Henriques' talk and I re-word the edit as though the talk never happened. Everything I have said is true - everything is sourced - everything is factual. The problem seems to be the link to what Henriques has said. Have I found the way forward? Anne (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem isn't his talk so much as your opinions about his talk, which aren't published and therefore can't go in the article. However, if there's a way to achieve want you want without that, and it's supported by the sources, then that sounds like it might be OK. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Here goes - I won't know what it looks like until I publish here since I find edit pages confuse me so much. I would suggest that what follows could be inserted after your most recent edit on the main article:

A sub-heading of "Aftermath"

According to historian, Peter Henriques, Washington made a serious error of judgement in deciding to revenge the murder of Joshua Huddy by sending a Conditional British officer to the gallows – he refers to this in his book: Henriques, Peter R. (2020). ""Unfortunate": The Asgill Affair and George Washington's Self-Created Dilemma". First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

Captain Joshua Huddy’s commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, gave a sermon in 1782 in which he disagreed with Washington’s “eye for an eye“ decision to hang Asgill. Holmes refers to the rumours which were circulating, long before Asgill’s eventual release from his captivity in Chatham. The Colonel's sermon was delivered at the United Church of Christ, Holmdel, when he was pleading for mercy for the chosen victim of a young British officer, stating: "General Washington, has vowed vengeance, and has taken Captain Charles Asgill, of the British Foot Guard, to be hanged in the place of Captain Lippincott, the hated soldier who hanged Huddy so unjustly. Three times Captain Asgill has been brought to the gallows, and three times led away. It is not young Asgill who is to blame, but Lippincott." http://holmdelucc.org

Asgill never denied the rumours which surfaced and he adamantly refuted the suggestion that he, himself, was the instigator of those rumours. Over the past two and a half centuries accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and defficient in good manners. Henriques refers to this in his article Washington Came This Close to Executing An Innocent Man https://www.historynet.com/washington-came-thisclose-to-executing-an-innocent-man.htm where he says: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill’s statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill’s movements [Henriques is referring to a postscript in Washington's letter to Colonel Elias Dayton of 11 June 1782] https://founders.archives.gov/?q=From%20George%20Washington%20to%20Elias%20Dayton%2C%2011%20June%201782&s=1111311111&sa=&r=4&sr= Calling his former captive “defecting in politeness,” he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him." These allegations regarding Asgill's character were addressed when his letter, to the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, of 20 December 1786, was published in The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society in December 2019 (the letter itself having previously been hidden for 233 years)The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019 In reports of The Journal's publication additional excerpts from his letter were also printed. [14] What Asgill himself has to say, regarding these matters, follows.

— the extreme regret with which I find myself oblgd to call the attention of the publick to a subject which so peculiary if not exclusively concerns my own Character & private feelings will induce me to confine what I have to say within as narrow a Compass as possible — very little is necessary to the anonymous letter of the American Correspondent, who boasts his introduction to Coffee house Sages & making his assertions on coffee house authority so confidently affirms that Charges were exhibited against General Washington, by Young Asgill of illiberal treatment and cruelty towards himself …

It is sufficient to say that this Gentleman whoever he is never took the pains of ascertaining the truth of the intelligence he received from his Coffee house sages, by an application to me, tho I almost resided Constantly in London & that by neglecting so to do he has exposd himself to the degrading circumstance of having positively asserted a groundless falsehood for I never did either suggest or countenance the report of a Gibbet having been erected before my prison Window — a Prison was indeed a Comfort that was denied me nor had the fact been so would it among the many indignities & unnecessary hardships I endurd …

— in Truth no Gibbet was erected in sight of my window Tho during my Confinement I was informd at different times & by various persons that in Monmouth County a Gallows was Erected with this inscription “up goes Asgill for Huddy” for the truth of this I cannot vouch as I never saw it myself.

END OF NEW SECTION

The source for the "cad and a liar" is page 116 of the Journal: "During the years following his release from captivity in America Asgill became increasingly aware that his reputation was being besmirched by Washington, who felt aggrieved that Asgill had never replied to his courteous letter allowing him his freedom. He was labelled a cad and a liar for refusing to deny the rumours that began to circulate in the London coffee houses and the English press regarding his time as a prisoner."

Regarding links etc. to the sermon, this is copied from the sandbox discussion: That particular document is not reachable, there's no archive of it on archive.org. You would probably need to contact them directly. The actual meaningful portion of the link is https://www.holmdelucc.org/sermon/nov232003.doc - the other stuff is ephemera from Google's caches. This was the closest hit I could find, but the actual document for the date of Nov 23, 2003 was never archived - https://web.archive.org/web/20090131221144/http://www.holmdelucc.org:80/sermon_archive.html Anastrophe (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The The source for the above quotes by Asgill is his letter which is published on page 135 in the Journal.

I hope this will prove to be acceptable? Anne (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh my goodness CL. The landlord of the pub charged his customers to beat Asgill up - the pub was a hotbed of revolutionary ardour! Please amend your edit because the charge made was NOT "to see his suffering". Anne (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Asgill writes that "persons were admitted to View me who paid for the gratification of their Curiosity", and then later notes that on one occasion "I was beat violently & cruelly for refusing to answer the impertinent questions put to me by a visitor who thought himself entitled to be satisfied on every particular having paid for his admission". I don't think that supports the claim that the landlord was charging customers to beat Asgill. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, Timothy Day's Tavern was a hotbed of revollutionary ardour (yes, I have read that but have not asked for it to be included in any edit as I simply cannot be bothered to find that quote again) - all this is proving utterly exhausting. I think that the landlord, who refused to feed Asgill properly, was happy to take money from anyone who wanted to jeer him or beat him or ask impertinent questions of him, tells you all you need to know. At the end of the day Asgill nearly lost his life as a consequence of the treatment dished out. On this occasion I would simply ask to you amend your edit to include the fact that Asgill was beaten to within an inch of his life. The way you have it it looks like he was simply "viewed". Nobody nearly dies from being looked at - although you should see my face right now! Asgill was an army officer, not a wimp, yet he tells Washington "experienced the Horrors Attending it" - so please don't underplay this, even if only to match up with the letter to GW. [User:Arbil44|Anne]] (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A compromise would be to change "to see his suffering" (which seriously sounds pathetic) to "see him suffering" would ameliorate the difference between what you want to do and what I woud like. What do you think? Anne (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Apart from the small one word adjustment, mentioned above Cordless Larry, having taken a few hours away from this, and looking at the main page once more, I am wondering whether the edit, which has been revised, above, might fit in well Just Before:"Asgill's unpublished letter was offered for sale" Could we agree on this and put the matter to bed? It is conceivable that the video is drawing people to the Asgill article and so I do feel time is of the essence. I am trying to meet you half-way too, by suggesting compromises.Anne (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry - given your assurance that I am not banned from editing, I think I will do the above extra edit. I will hope that you will change that one word from "his" to "him" though. However, I absolutely know that I will get the links wrong, so would Dormskirk please tidy up any links for me? I will wait for that confirmation because otherwise it will not look as it should on the article. I also don't know how to do a sub-heading in terms of IT. There are 11 A4 pages of discussion on this subject and I am keen to bring it all to an end, especially since nobody else has joined in. Anne (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Anne - Against my better judgement, I have tidied one reference for you without waiting for other editors to comment first. Following approaches from several other editors, I have explained on my talk page the circumstances that have meant that I am now reluctant to respond to any edit requests. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for what you did Dormskirk. I don't know what it was, but I know it would have been an improvement. I also know that what I have done leaves several links needing to be tidied up - it doesn't look right, but I have no idea who will come to my aid now that your hands have been tied. Anne (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Anne, I'm going to revert your addition of this text, which just isn't ready for inclusion in an article. "A serious error of judgement had been made by George Washington" is an opinion expressed in Wikipedia's voice, which isn't allowed - see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If Henriques is of this view, it could be phrased as "According to historian Peter Henriques, a serious error of judgement had been made by George Washington". "This sermon was previously on the internet" is commentary on sources, which doesn't belong in an article. Articles should use sources to discuss their subjects, not comment on the availability of the sources in Wikipedia's voice. The same goes for "may be found in the following newspaper report" - just use the newspaper report as a source, don't talk about it in Wikipedia's voice. "This is the issue which has plagued Asgill's reputation for 233 years, causing him to be regarded as a cad and a liar" also reads like an opinion, so needs attribution to someone who holds it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Please will you re-edit the edit, which is above, and you will find that I have put extra source information below the end of the edit. I hope you understasnd how upset I am that all my efforts to clear Asgill's name have been wiped by the latest video, so naturally I am keen for this edit to go on the page as soon as possible. Anne (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
"This is the issue which has plagued Asgill's reputation for 233 years, causing him to be regarded as a cad and a liar" also reads like an opinion, so needs attribution to someone who holds it." I give you the page reference from the Journal, above. Over the past 20 years I have read all the accounts and every one of them slates Aagill. My favourite account is Vanderpoel, which is excellent, but he slates Asgill more than anyone else. Henriques cannot get his head around the fact that Asgill has now "spoken" and refuted all these lies, and he is persuaded that Asgill's letter of 20 December 1786 is simply more lies. He has now obliterated everything I have tried to do to put the record straight, so how to say all this on a Wikipedia article? 18:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
There was a fantastic account in The Economist in December 2014 - absolutely brilliant - ruined in the final few lines where the author, too, takes on Washington's verdict that the man (Asgill) was a bsstard. Curiously, there was some sort of link between the author and Josiah Meigs, the man who prevented Asgill's letter being published in 1786. This has been hard for me, truly it has, because nobody is interested in the story of Asgill going to the aid of a wounded enemy officer, Colonel Gregory, or that his men, of the 11th Regiment of Foot, loved him so much that none went AWOL on him. Anne (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
We can of course set out disagreements between different published sources, but please do bear in mind what it says at WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
What I am trying to say in this edit is sourced already Cordless Larry - I'm not trying to make up history - there is no account anywhere (until the Journal set the record straight) which had a good word to say about Asgill. The "cad and a liar" may be modern terminology, but in essence Washington thought Asgill deficient in manners and had no hesitation in saying so. The Economist isn't as bad as I though it was and ends up with Washington's complaint that no "thank you" letter was written, when GW thought huge thanks were due to him: https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2014/12/17/perfidious-america Anne (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that's good, but when presenting an opinion or interpretation rather than an objective fact, we need in-text attribution as well as a reference - hence my suggestion of "According to historian Peter Henriques..." above. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Quote Henriques, by all means! Here is more from him: https://www.historynet.com/washington-came-thisclose-to-executing-an-innocent-man.htm "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill’s statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill’s movements. Calling his former captive “defecting in politeness,” he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him." Baseless calumnies and defective in politeness is the equivalent of modern parlance "a cad and a liar". I can do no more now, to support my claims, and I must now go to have dinner. Anne (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Cordless Larry - please will you edit the edit, here, so that it is the way Wikipedia needs it to be?Anne (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know the sources well enough to know who is arguing what, Anne. I don't have a copy of the Henriques book, for a start. I'm sure you're capable of rewriting it following the format I suggested for the opinions. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I completely redit it, and posted a comment, and the whole thing has been lost in an edit clash.Anne (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I have done it again. The thread on these two edits has now totalled 13 pages, 12 of them typed by me, so please God you approve of my latest efforts? I have tried my best. Anne (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I copied and pasted from Henriques online article and the following is what is there - it is not a typing error on my part. “defecting in politeness,” I think the references in the article are all already linked, except for the Holmdel Church link. Anne (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
What is going on here is generating more interest in the Asgill page than it has ever generated before. Your edit regarding the letter of 27 September 1782 garnered 1,015 views yesterday, and about 280 on this talk page. Good in a way I suppose, but it would be so much better if people commented. Anne (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know why there was a spike in page views yesterday, but I very much doubt it was my edit! I'll take a look at the revised text when I get a chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it was my edit then! So long as banning is not just round the corner! I have looked at your talk page Dormskirk. From my perspective I very much hope you will take courage from Cordless Larry's remarks and will once more put on your "extremely helpful editor hat"! Wikipedians like me need you! Anne (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The page is only on 23 editors' watchlists, so very few people will be notified of edits to the article. I suspect the cause is external to Wikipedia - perhaps Asgill was mentioned on television or radio somewhere in the world? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
HeHem, this thread is about a YouTube video on 8 December!! That has only had 35 views, but word of mouth might have stemmed from what was, to me, a very controversial videoed talk. If it's something else then, dammit, I've missed it! Anne (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
While I naturally hope that you will agree to my re-re-re-re-revised edit Cordless Larry (!) may I just say that while I really don't particularly want the video linked to it, I think it should probably be back where you had it before, but only if you do do the edit. In case you don't have the link any more, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKChmpuHDRQ&feature=youtu.be Anne (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to re-edit this a bit more to make it more compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines:
According to historian Peter Henriques, Washington made a serious error of judgement in deciding to revenge the murder of Joshua Huddy by sending a Conditional British officer to the gallows.[1]
Captain Joshua Huddy's commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, gave a sermon in 1782 in which he disagreed with Washington's "eye for an eye" decision to hang Asgill.[2] Holmes refers to the rumours which were circulating, long before Asgill's eventual release from his captivity in Chatham. The Colonel's sermon was delivered at the United Church of Christ, Holmdel, when he was pleading for mercy for the chosen victim of a young British officer, stating: "General Washington, has vowed vengeance, and has taken Captain Charles Asgill, of the British Foot Guard, to be hanged in the place of Captain Lippincott, the hated soldier who hanged Huddy so unjustly. Three times Captain Asgill has been brought to the gallows, and three times led away. It is not young Asgill who is to blame, but Lippincott".[3]
Asgill never denied the rumours which surfaced and he adamantly refuted the suggestion that he, himself, was the instigator of those rumours. For two and a half centuries, accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and deficient in good manners.[2] Henriques argues: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill's statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill's movements. Calling his former captive 'defecting in politeness,' he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him".[4] These allegations regarding Asgill's character were addressed in his letter to the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, of 20 December 1786, which was published in The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society in December 2019, 233 years after it was written.[5] In the letter, Asgill wrote:
I won't include the long quote here, but will add that to the article when we're ready to go. As you can see below, there are some reference details that I think we need to add. Any other comments welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henriques, Peter R. (2020). ""Unfortunate": The Asgill Affair and George Washington's Self-Created Dilemma". First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
  2. ^ a b Ammundsen, Anne (2019). "Saving Captain Asgill". The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society. 120 (3): 111–119.
  3. ^ Details of source.
  4. ^ Henriques, Peter R. (February 2020). "Washington Came This Close to Executing an Innocent Man". American History. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  5. ^ Wright, Mary Ellen (26 January 2020). "Lancaster history journal publishes 233-year-old letter about mistreatment of British officer". Lancaster Online. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.
Cordless Larry, the sermon was online, and that is how I have a copy of it. Anastrophe could not find it on the wayback machine, but gave a link to where it had once been. "The actual meaningful portion of the link is https://www.holmdelucc.org/sermon/nov232003.doc" As I understand it that is acceptable. The relevant parts of the sermon follow (now deleted):
So far as your regerence [3] is concerned, Henriques goes on to say exactly what GW thought of Asgill. He is quoting, but I don't think I know his source, other than I have never read an account of the Asgill Affair where he is not portrayed as (my words) a cad and a liar. It goes with the teritory. To my knowledge there is only one account where this does not apply, and that is Henriques book, First and Always. However, in his talk of 8 December he makes it clear that Asgill was (my words again) a cad and a liar. This comes close to the end of the vide recording. I was astonished - blown away - because I have praised him so highly for his unique chapter in the book where he does NOT cast Asgill in this light. But the fact of the matter is that GW couldn't stand Asgill and all historians have followed his lead. Henriques Asgill Affair chapter is on Google books, but there is no point looking there because he does NOT slate Asgill in that chapter. Unless we quote everything ever written I don't know how to give you the reference you are asking for. I know Vanderpoel is very very critical of Asgill (although his account is otherwise one of the best) so I will try to search the Vanderpoel book, but that is silly really, because he is only one of hundreds.Anne (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I've just searched Henriques' "Washington Came This Close to etc." https://www.historynet.com/washington-came-thisclose-to-executing-an-innocent-man.htm and here is what he says, but he gives no source: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill’s statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill’s movements. Calling his former captive “defecting in politeness,” he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him." But I have quoted him in the edit under discussion. I have said all this several times and don't really know what more I can do tbh. Anne (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've got it now and have deleted my post, above, about Vanderpoel. The Katherine Mayo book https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009310916&view=plaintext&seq=280&q1=Asgill is the bible so far as the Asgill story is concerned. The entire book is about the before, during, and sfter of the Asgill Affair. On page 268 she states: Captain Asgill , ingrate , liar , and cad , had shown himself unworthy of that consistent amazing tenderness with which he had been treated — of those humane procrastinations that alone had saved his life.So the American record closed with a unanimity of damnation that compels its reopening here. page 268 Given this is the only book written I do sincerely hope you will accept this for reference [3]. I have poured my heart and soul in trying to find the answers to all your queries and have worked long and hard on all this for the past 3 days. Anne (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You've got me started! Here's more from Mayo on page 274. "Asgill, had he been a man of honour and right feeling, had surely been penetrated with gratitude for the continual tendernesses lavished upon him by the American Commander-in-Chief; for those many and notable procrastinations that spared his life . But Asgill, so now he recalls, never even indited the letter of thanks that politeness demands of one quitting the scene of late hospitality. A fault of omission, perhaps venial, possibly pardonable. But now, ingrate, liar, traducing the generosity of his American host, this young man goes further. So doing, he blasts himself." You can't want more than this, surely, because Mayo is quoted in so much of what has been written about this case. I knew the answers were out there, but it has been a question of finding them.Anne (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Afer reading these quotes from Mayo I do hope you will understand what I mean when I say that Asgill's character has been traduced ever since 1782. He was a victim twice over - firstly to have pulled the "unfortunate" lot and secondly to have been blamed for rumours which were even being circulated before his release by Huddy's commanding officer in his sermon. Anne (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
For the sermon, a URL isn't very helpful as it's no longer online and doesn't seem to be archived. What's needed is the basic bibliographic details such as the title and date. For the "For two and a half centuries..." point, I'm not looking for examples of those accounts or to cite all of them - what I want is a secondary source that comes to that assessment about the accounts. Is there something in the journal that would be useful here? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Page 116 of the Journal: During the years following his release from captivity in America Asgill became increasingly aware that his reputation was being besmirched by Washington, who felt aggrieved that Asgill had never replied to his courteous letter allowing him his freedom. He was labelled a cad and a liar for refusing to deny the rumours that began to circulate in the London coffee houses and the English press regarding his time as a prisoner. The stories became more and more lurid: one claimed, quite erroneously, that he had been taken three times to the gallows, only to be led away on each occasion. These claims were believed in America, too, though Joshua Huddy’s commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, delivered a sermon at the United Church of Christ in Holmdel, New Jersey, declaring that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was wrong and that Asgill’s life should never have hung in the balance.
With regard to the sermon, it is mentioned in the Journal, above. Other than that I can only say that when I found it I was only interested in the section of a very long sermon regarding Asgill and hadn’t even created the Asgill WP article back then. I didn’t know when I found it I would have to respond to your query regarding this. My file notes read: Curiously, the day before I received the copy of Asgill’s own account of what actually happened to him, whilst a prisoner in America, I found the text of a sermon, delivered by Captain Huddy’s commanding office (Colonel Asher Holmes), soon after Huddy was hanged by the Loyalists (Asher Holmes had escorted a letter to General George Washington in 1782 about the Huddy incident). On finding his sermon, delivered some time whilst Asgill was a prisoner, I was delighted to have discovered contemporary evidence of the ‘thrice to the gallows’ story. Colonel Holmes’ ancestor had founded the Holmdel Community United Church of Christ in Holmdel, New Jersey, where he preached the following sermon: (the quoted section of his sermon is confined to the relevant aspects concerning Asgill’s peculiar situation). The information here must have been part of what I discovered when the sermon was online.
So, I hope you will accept the first paragraph here as covering both your outstanding queries? Please remember that all accounts regarding Asgill (with the exception of the Journal and Henriques book) state that he was a cad and a liar, and only the Journal sets this straight. Nobody else has tried to set the record straight.Anne (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the references in my proposed text above. It's a shame that the quote from the sermon doesn't appear in the journal, otherwise we could have cited that. To confirm, do your notes not include the title and precise date of the sermon? I'm trying to work out how to cite it without those details. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure there was never a title and I'm sure there was no date, because that would have interested me very much. However, it is clearly post-Huddy's murder and prior to any decision about Asgill's final fate, in other words Asgill was sill alive and still a prisoner. Anastrophe seemed to think that the sermon had been online and I think she mentioned it had been online in November 2003, and it was still online in 2007 when I received a copy of Asgill's letter. But I'm sure the online information was sketchy and my notes cover what I gleaned. I found it fascinating that it had been Holmes who led the petition to GW to demand a revenge killing and yet, when Asgill was chosen, changed his tune completely and wanted him to be saved. Anne (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Have you ever contacted the church to see if they still have the text and could restore it to their website? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and they never replied to me. They did not like my suggestion that Asher Holmes was wrong about the three times to the gallows and once I said that refused to communicae with me again. I am now copying the discussion which took place on Cinderella's sandbox 5.

Well, I've found the 2008 correspondence I had with the church, and there is a link here to the sermon [15]. I wonder if it is on the Wayback Machine? I have no idea how to find it there. Would anyone help me on this please? Anne (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
That particular document is not reachable, there's no archive of it on archive.org. You would probably need to contact them directly. The actual meaningful portion of the link is https://www.holmdelucc.org/sermon/nov232003.doc - the other stuff is ephemera from Google's caches. This was the closest hit I could find, but the actual document for the date of Nov 23, 2003 was never archived - https://web.archive.org/web/20090131221144/http://www.holmdelucc.org:80/sermon_archive.html Anastrophe (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Anne (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that link is just to Google's cache of the same page on the church's website. Archive.org doesn't have it. Can I suggest contacting the church again? Otherwise I don't think there's a way to include the quote as we don't have enough details about the source to meet WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What about parphrasing the sermon quote? I am currently trying to search my email to the church in March this year because I took up Anastrophe's suggestion of contacting them. It was on the back of my 2008 correspondence, which was probably a bad idea, and once again they did not respond to me. My email search fascility is currently churning round very slowly. Everything I have done over these massive threads will be as nothing if Asher Holmes' sermon cannot be used. There are hundreds of dead links which no longer work on Wikipedia, so why not this one? Anne (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"Rusty" (with whom I communicated in 2008), never responded to the following correspondence: RE: Colonel Asher Holmes's Sermon regarding the execution of Charles Asgill Holmdel UCC <administrator@holmdelucc.org> To:'Anne Ammundsen' Thu, 12 Mar at 18:07

Joel, Received the below email this morning. Should I forward this onto Rusty? Thank you, Carol Salvadore Administrator Holmdel Community United Church of Christ 40 Main Street Holmdel, NJ 07733 732-946-8821 www.holmdelucc.org PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: administrator@holmdelucc.org

From: Anne Ammundsen Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 12:12 PM To: holmdelchurch@verizon.net Subject: Colonel Asher Holmes's Sermon regarding the execution of Charles Asgill

Good afternoon I am aware that you have a copy of the sermon delivered by Colonel Asher Holmes in which he maintains that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is wrong, and that Captain Asgill should not be sent to the gallows. You kindly sent this to me some years ago, but I cannot find it now.

Would you be kind enough to send it to me again? If you do, do you have any objection to it being used on Wikipedia on the Asgill page there? Since the sermon was delivered in 1782 I imagine that the copyright is now expired, but would you give your permission nonetheless? Anne (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have been permitted to do paraphrasing before now (Mansel family letters) so how about this as a paraphrase of Holmes' sermon?
Referring to Washington’s desire for vengeance Holmes says that Lippincott (who hanged Huddy) should be the one to die since Asgill is innocent of this crime. He states that Asgill has been taken to the gallows three times, though spared execution on each occasion.

Anne (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If paraphrasing is unacceptable, and the reference to the sermon in the Journal is insufficient (although it mentions the sermon), could you select something from newspapers.com which also mentions three times to the gibbet in the final paragraph. I am wilting fast here, and don't have the IT skills to do all this quickly. [16] Anne (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"This is the issue which has plagued Asgill's reputation for 233 years, causing him to be regarded as a cad and a liar" also reads like an opinion, so needs attribution to someone who holds it. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC) I have now given you no less than two pages in the Mayo book where she uses this exact wording of a "cad" and a "liar". Are you putting me through the mill, big time, Cordless Larry and have I seriously not done enough to convince you of my claims by now? Please help to find a solution to this, because I am 100% right. Anne (talk) 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
You don't need to mention copyright to them, Anne. We're not going to upload the document to Wikipedia. All we need is basic bibliographic details of the sermon, such as a title (if it has one) and date, to put in the reference. Your comments about the Mayo book are academic now - that sentence now has a reference. To repeat: all we now need is the bibliographic details of the sermon, if the article is to quote or paraphrase it. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Rusty stopped emailing me in 2008 and when I approached the church in March this year I got nowhere with my enquiry. The copyright question was simply trying to get ahead of any wp fallout and wasn't the purpose of my March email. So, since the sermon didn't have a title or a date (because I would have noted it if it had) it was simply a sermon given by Holmes and the subject matter came out in the document. Shall I redraft something else which will use Mayo's book about cad and liar, supported by the newspaper.com article which mentions the thrice to the gibbet and, very very regrettably, leave out the exact quote from the sermon? They are not going to oblige me in Holmdel and there is no point in me writing to them again. Got to go to an optician's appointment now. I will hope there's a reply from you on my return later this afternoon.Anne (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the need to redraft something from Mayo - unless that will somehow replace the quote from the sermon. The fact that the sermon was given is already sourced and so is the material about Asgill's character, it's just that we lack a reference for the sermon quote. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is a new, re-drafted, suggested second paragraph:

{{tpq|Captain Joshua Huddy's commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, gave a sermon in 1782 in which he disagreed with Washington's "eye for an eye" decision to hang Asgill.[1] Holmes refers to the rumours which were circulating, long before Asgill's eventual release from his captivity in Chatham. The Colonel's sermon was delivered at the United Church of Christ, Holmdel, when he was pleading for mercy for the chosen victim of a young British officer. The particular rumour, which eventually angered Washington so, was the claim Asgill had been led to the gallows three times and three times led away again. This claim, always attributed to Asgill himself, is referred to in the final paragraph of the newspaper report entitled 'Monmouth in the Making: Hanging of Capt. Huddy in Revolution Brought World-Wide Repercussion’ (newspapers.com linked second down here: [17] This is the issue which has plagued Asgill's reputation for 233 years, causing him to be regarded as a cad and a liar, as is evidenced in Katharine Mayo’s book, General Washington’s Dilemma [18], where, on page 268 she states: “Captain Asgill , ingrate, liar, and cad, had shown himself unworthy of that consistent amazing tenderness with which he had been treated” and on page 274. "Asgill, had he been a man of honour and right feeling, had surely been penetrated with gratitude for the continual tendernesses lavished upon him by the American Commander-in-Chief … But Asgill, so now he recalls, never even indited the letter of thanks that politeness demands of one quitting the scene of late hospitality. A fault of omission, perhaps venial, possibly pardonable. But now, ingrate, liar, traducing the generosity of his American host, …

Anne (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This risks opening up another can of worms. What's the source for the view that "This claim [was] always attributed to Asgill himself", for instance? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, "as is evidenced..." would be original research. As I've explained several times, we already have a secondary source for the reputation point - that's not the problem here. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going crazy with edit clashes and losing text. But I must get the final paragraph logged in because I think I've cut and pasted rather than copy and pasted. If you remove "This claim [was] always attributed to Asgill himself" will it sufice? I think I have erroneously cut and pasted from the final paragraph, when I intended to copy and paste, so I must now post a proposed final paragraph, which I have adjusted to avoid duplication. Sorry, that was a mistake, not intended. I struck and edit clash, but fortunately copied it before losing it.

Final Paragraph:

The start of the third paragraph needs to be adjusted, as follows, to avoid being repetitive:


Asgill never denied the rumours which surfaced and he adamantly refuted the suggestion that he, himself, was the instigator of those rumours. [1] Henriques argues: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill's statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill's movements. Calling his former captive 'defecting in politeness,' he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him".[2] These allegations regarding Asgill's character were addressed in his letter to the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, of 20 December 1786, which was published in The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society in December 2019, 233 years after it was written.[3] In the letter, Asgill wrote:

Anne (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Ammundsen, Anne (2019). "Saving Captain Asgill". The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society. 120 (3): 111–119.
  2. ^ Henriques, Peter R. (February 2020). "Washington Came This Close to Executing an Innocent Man". American History. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  3. ^ Wright, Mary Ellen (26 January 2020). "Lancaster history journal publishes 233-year-old letter about mistreatment of British officer". Lancaster Online. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.

Personaly I think what is drafted now should be acceptable (apart from removing those few offending words). I cannot remember exactly what you said, but something long the lines of the article must have in text quotes as well as links. This I have done with the Mayo quotes and I don't understand why, when she used the terms cad and a liar, this is not acceptable? Anne (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Anne, I think I've helped all I can here. I keep repeating what the issue is (lack of bibliographic details for the sermon) and each time, you reply with a non sequitur about Mayo and "cad and a liar". I can either add the proposed text to the article without the sermon quote or leave this request for another editor to try to deal with. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cordless Larry. My writing style is obviously not wp-friendly, but if you remove the 'attributed to Asgill' and 'as is evidenced' isn't what is left OK? The thrice to the gallows is the core of GW's complaints about Asgill - since I can no longer quote Asher Holmes I am using another source which is on google. Couldn't we wrap this up with you deleting offending words? I cannot help the fact that the sermon is no longer online, but found another source for the same thing. Anne (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No, that still wouldn't be acceptable. "The particular rumour, which eventually angered Washington so, was the claim Asgill had been led to the gallows three times and three times led away again" would need a source. And to repeat again, the issue isn't that the sermon isn't online - it's that you're unable to provide details of it for the reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hang on: the journal covers the "three times" claim. I think we can use that. I'll post an updated suggestion shortly. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing your revision Cordless Larry. Anne (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's a revised suggestion:

According to historian Peter Henriques, Washington made a serious error of judgement in deciding to revenge the murder of Joshua Huddy by sending a Conditional British officer to the gallows.[1]
Following Asgill's release, a number of rumours about him circulated, including that he had been taken to the gallows three times but led away on each occasion. According to Anne Ammundsen, "Asgill became increasingly aware that his reputation was being besmirched by Washington, who felt aggrieved that Asgill had never replied to his courteous letter allowing him his freedom". Ammundsen notes that Asgill was "labelled a cad and a liar" for his refusal to deny the rumours about his experience as a prisoner, and that the rumours were believed in the United States, although Captain Joshua Huddy's commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, did give a sermon in 1782 in which he disagreed with Washington's "eye for an eye" decision to hang Asgill. Ammundsen speculates that Asgill's silence was "perhaps [his] way of retaliating against the man who had threatened to take his life".[2]
For two and a half centuries, accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and deficient in good manners.[2] Henriques argues: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill's statements were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill's movements. Calling his former captive 'defecting in politeness,' he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him".[3] These allegations regarding Asgill's character were addressed in his letter to the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, of 20 December 1786, which was published in The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society in December 2019, 233 years after it was written.[4] In the letter, Asgill wrote:

How's that? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henriques, Peter R. (2020). ""Unfortunate": The Asgill Affair and George Washington's Self-Created Dilemma". First and Always: A New Portrait of George Washington. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.
  2. ^ a b Ammundsen, Anne (2019). "Saving Captain Asgill". The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society. 120 (3): 111–119.
  3. ^ Henriques, Peter R. (February 2020). "Washington Came This Close to Executing an Innocent Man". American History. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  4. ^ Wright, Mary Ellen (26 January 2020). "Lancaster history journal publishes 233-year-old letter about mistreatment of British officer". Lancaster Online. Archived from the original on 26 January 2020. Retrieved 26 January 2020.

Tidy up of my edit today

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Dormskirk, please would you tidy up my two references and make the links read "Erskine" and "Lynedoch". I'm afraid I do not know how to do this. For your peace of mind Cordless Larry suggested I do this edit. Many thanks. Anne (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I much appreciate your speedy corrections of my mistakes Dormskirk, but if one is to be true to the quotation then the page needs to show only "Erskine" and "Lynedoch" - also, please could you put The Times reference at the beginning of the quote into the references section? Thanks again.Anne (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi - Done. I will probably now be criticized for responding direct to your request rather than insisting you use the "edit request" template. And also for failing to give other editors time to comment. I see that there are currently over 130 edit requests queued. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you will find Cordless Larry will support your actions. I did the edit, but as most people know, my IT skills are very inadequate. There are still a few things which aren't quite right, so I will attempt to do them myself, but the reference to The Times article is definitely beyond me, so that will have to go by the board. Many thanks. Anne (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Dormskirk, but you have included The Times quote in the final reference which is now No. 74 I think. That part is definitely not quoted in the final reference and comes directly from The Times. Please could you attend to this as I do not know how to do so? Anne (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I have moved it now. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Dormskirk. Between us, we got there in the end! It now looks perfect, with the proviso that I have not yet checked that the WP links go to the right person! I will do that now and if you don't hear from me again you can take it that they are right. Happy Christmas and I hope you soon recover from the hurt you are clearly still feeling. WP needs you, and I know that I most certainly do, so remember that! Anne (talk) 13:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

That's very kind. Happy Christmas to you too. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the reasons I find the WP links so hard to do is that when I find the right person, but the end result on the page means the link has to be shaved down to conform to a specific quote, then the link ends up going somewhere entirely different. This has happened with 6 of the WP links unfortunately. Is there a way you can rectify this and yet end up with the main article looking the same as it does now because all the following people are being used in direct quotes, but they go to random others now. The following are the correct people!

Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire (1757–1806), first wife of the fifth duke
Gregory William Eardley-Twisleton-Fiennes, 14th Baron Saye and Sele (1769–1844)
Elizabeth Montagu, Duchess of Manchester (c. 1740–1832)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Frederick,_Duke_of_York_and_Albany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Augustus_Frederick,_Duke_of_Sussex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Campbell,_6th_Duke_of_Argyll

Anne (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

All now properly linked (there is no article on Gregory William Eardley-Twisleton-Fiennes, 14th Baron Saye and Sele yet). Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Phew - what a marathon! Lord Say and Sele (as spelt in The Times) can be linkless if you don't mind. There are others of his family on WP so perhaps he was not a very interesting man! Unfortunately the Duchess of Manchester doesn't go to the right woman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Montagu,_Duchess_of_Manchester, so if you would kindly change that, then the paragraph can be left as is! Nearly there!Anne (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The link to Elizabeth Montagu, Duchess of Manchester seems OK to me. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm going stir crazy is the only explanation! Finally, all is perfect, and I am so sorry for putting you through such a difficult time with this. Much appreciated though. Anne (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sir_Charles_Asgill,_2nd_Baronet/Archive_4&oldid=1164976923"