Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Whether to wikilink to the article on Katherine Mayo which describes her as promulgating racist and xenophobic views

Katherine Mayo, whose book General Washington's Dilemma is cited and drawn from throughout the article, is described in the Wikipedia article on her as, "advocating American nativism, opposition to non-white and Catholic immigration to the United States, along with promoting racist stereotypes of African Americans."

First and foremost I could report that looking into it I haven't seen any prominent voices saying that General Washington's Dilemma isn't a Wikipedia:Reliable source.

There is a New York Times review, and it looks to be just a normal book review of a normal history book.

The New York Times: A New Washington Story GENERAL WASHINGTON'S DILEMMA. By Catherine Mayo. 323 pp. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co. $2.50., March 6, 1938

Mayo's most controversial work, as some editors including Anne may already be aware of, is called Mother India. The book was burned and banned in India.

Gandhi said, "[t]he book is without doubt untruthful, be the facts stated ever so truthful." Although, according to The New York Times he said that the book is, "one which every Indian may read with profit." And that it can be possible to learn, "more from our critics than from our patrons."

Gandhi's view seems to have been that Mayo aggregated together the worst parts of Indian society, and used that to make conclusions about the whole.

The New York Times: GANDHI GIVES VIEW OF MISS MAYO'S BOOK, October 9, 1927

The New York Times obituary of Mayo mentions that her writings influenced the United States Congress not to grant independence for the Philippines, and that she was also instrumental in stimulating the creation of the New York State Police. The work on Asgill is not mentioned in the obituary.

The New York Times: KATHERINE MAYO, WRITER, IS DEAD, October 10, 1940

Considering the matter and drawing upon Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, MOS:UNDERLINK and MOS:OVERLINK my thoughts are that there is no particular reason why there shouldn't be a wikilink to the article on Katherine Mayo.

However, I also think it's reasonable to have on the Wikipedia article on Katherine Mayo a link to the New York Times review of General Washington's Dilemma, which as I mentioned above just seems to me like a normal book review of a normal history book.

Taking into account what MOS:OVERLINK says about typical reader behavior ("the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time") if there is a wikilink there may only be a fairly small fraction of people who access the article who then also see the information on Mayo.

As I said I don't see any particular justification for withholding that wikilink with that information, but I figured the question could be up for discussion before doing so.

I could add that both Thomas Jefferson and Harry Truman espoused racist views, but that doesn't mean that everything that they said was false or that everything that they did was wrong.

I think there is a good chance, Anne, that you are already aware of Katherine Mayo's works and the controversy, and perhaps have discussed it before with other people so please feel free to share any thoughts on this question. I recall that you mentioned earlier in discussion that, Even Professor [Peter] Henriques told me personally that he thought her [Mayo's] work well researched and accurate. That is, I would take it to mean, the one on the Asgill Affair.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Jjjjjjjjjj Yes, Professor Henriques told me personally, during a telephone conversation, that he was very impressed by her research on Asgill. Since I am much more familiar with her book than he is (I know he has missed or ignored some of her research in some of his publications) all I can say is that I am still blown away by her work on Asgill, given the era she lived in. Mayo relied heavily on Samuel Graham's Memoirs (Graham was one of the 13 officers drawing lots in Lancaster) in her Asgill book, and 83 years after she did so, I now rely on her work. It is the only book dedicated solely to the Asgill Affair. All that said, while I have no statistics to prove it, I should imagine that were Wikipedia editors required to disregard all history written decades or centuries ago, if the authors were deemed racist in their day, then where would editors get their information, especially as, in this case, there are no other 'major works' to turn to? Ambrose Vanderpoel's book has a large section devoted to Asgill, and, in some instances, he gives more detail than Mayo, but he devotes 4 chapters to the matter, rather than a whole book. Mayo has made some mistakes in her book, but in the main they refer to her comments on the genealogy of the Asgill family, which she has seriously messed up! Having two "Charles Asgills" is confusing enough, but she brings in a third by that name!! There is not a racist word in her book on Asgill - how could there be when the subject matter is considered? I have read none of Mayo's other books, so cannot comment about them, although I have long been aware of her reputation. I would, however, draw your attention to the review of her work by the Oxford university Professor of History, Keith Feiling, rather than the paraphrased version on the Asgill Affair page, where you will see that Feiling was a huge fan of Mayo's book. To sum up, I think this is a major storm in a tiny teacup! Anne (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've previously glanced at the Wikipedia article on Mayo and it did raise some concerns. However, I think we'd need some specific evidence that her racism had a material impact on the account of Asgill Affair in General Washington's Dilemma to discount it as a source. Are there any assessments of the book in more recently published sources? I think providing a link to the article about Mayo in the text is probably a good idea, so that readers can read about the context. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any review/assessment of General Washington's Dilemma since the 1938 review by Feiling. Is it likely that there would be a more recent assessment? The subject-matter of GWD gives no opening for racism in that book. I am sure she doesn't touch on Washington's slaves in that book.Anne (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's likely, to be honest. I wasn't so much thinking of a full review but rather just a line or two along the lines of "Mayo's book remains the best account of...", "Mayo's work has now been discredited" or suchlike. Perhaps it's too optimistic of me to hope that something like that exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The closest I can find is this, from 2012: "Katherine Mayo's later interpretation, as reported in a 1938 history entitled, General Washington's Dilemma, remains the single most complete study concerning Asgill's misfortune". Cordless Larry (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

That is unquestionably the case. For that reason, it is my bible! Whenever you challenge me, Cordless Larry, I find the answer within her pages! Anne (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have seen many BA, MA and Doctorate theses, and all cite Mayo. She is unavoidable on the subject of the Asgill Affair. Anne (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I just went and added that particular wikilink. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Could someone explain what has been done? I don't understand, because there was already a wikilink to Mayo, so what has changed?Anne (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There wasn't a link before, so Jjjjjjjjjj added one (perhaps there was a link some time ago, but it must have been removed at some point if that was the case). Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Haha, I see what has happened. Since I remember adding the Mayo link myself, I now realise that that section has been syphoned off to the Asgill Affair article. It is true, I can no longer remember which bits are where! Anne (talk) 08:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Objection to the following deletion

162.221.218.49, I strongly object to your deletion today. You are ignoring the fact that the Asgill Affair has been turned on its head by the victim's own account, which was hidden for 233 years. Why go back to the same old inaccuracies?

In his denigration of Judge Thomas Jones's account of the American Revolution, Henry P. Johnston writes: "it is difficult to find any confirmation of the Judge's version [regarding Asgill]" and he goes on to say "the whole Gibbet and cruelty story must be relegated, with all the errors and libels already noticed, to the stock of myths from which the loyalist historian drew so freely". The reality was, though, that Asgill's own account of the manner in which he was treated (an innocent man being selected to die from a casual lottery; fed on bread and water; beaten and ogled at by paying customers of the tavern) is clear from his letter to the Editor of the New Haven Gazette of 20 December 1786, and also in his letter to Washington of 27 September 1782, writing; "these facts, I hope, will operate with your Excellency, to reflect on my unhappy Case, & to relieve me from a state, which those only can form any Judgment of, who have experienced the Horrors Attending it". Anne (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Dormskirk, please see above. I just tried to revert 162.221.218.49's edit, but couldn't do so since your intervention with the references left me unsure how to do this. I seriously object to this deletion. Thanks in advance! Anne (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi - I have reverted the edit by IP 162.221.218.49. There was no edit summary so we have no idea what their intentions were. More importantly they removed the referencing as well. Dormskirk (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, Dormskirk. I'm seriously confused by what I see in edit summaries and what I see on the article page, but the latter suggests you did, indeed, revert that edit. In which case, thank you very much indeed. Anne (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

While IP/anonymous editors are by policy afforded the same assumption of good faith all editors have, it is never unreasonable to view the contributions ("User contributions" in the tools column) with a jaundiced eye, and do some simple investigation if the edit appears "off".

If they have only one or a few edits, with no edit summaries, they are probably a vandal and can be reverted with prejudice. If they have many edits - but over a very short period of time (with no edit summaries) or with the history showing a large number have already been reverted - same counsel.

If on the other hand, the IP editor has included an edit summary that is rational and clear, and the edit appears productive, then of course give due consideration to that. It's not necessary to plead for a reversal of an edit that removes sourced material and is done without an edit summary. Simply revert it. Nine times out of ten, there will be no pushback. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Anastrophe. My first reaction was to play safe, in case I was jumped on, but my second reaction was to revert, and then, if necessary, discuss. When I went to the edit page, I was confused to see that Dormskirk had, apparently, only restored the references. Then I looked at the main page and saw the edit had been restored. I ended up not really following what exactly had taken place! Anyway, nice to come across you again after a number of years - hope you are doing well? I have not forgotten that you are one of only a very few Wikipedia editors who have a copy of Asgill's letter (for which I am very grateful). Cheers to you, too. Anne (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

One can never argue against playing it safe, that's a certainty! Pleased to see you back, and likewise hope that you are doing well. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits

Family background

Victoriaearle - this is awkward, given our earlier conversation. Whatever the Massachusetts Historical Society may have recorded, this is not right. Asgill's father was a humble outdoor collecting clerk, not an aristocrat [1]. He rose to prominence, and a Baronetcy, through hard work and civil duties. He became a very wealthy man and had influence in Whig political circles, but he was definitely not an aristocrat. His mother was, yes, from a French Huguenot refugee family, but her only connection to the French court was that she took her courage in her hands - and was desperate enough to dare to write to Vergennes. What was there before was neutral on all of this, but is now not right. Anne (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, removed it. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

In what way did his mother have ties to the French court, apart from writing to Vergennes to plead for her son's life? She didn't know him and was brave to write to the court of a country at war with Britain. Anne (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Removed. I'm about to go offline so won't be immediately responsive until I get back. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional comments

You must have done 100 edits, but something is going on with WP notifications. I have this page on my watch list, but only 3 of your edits have been notified to me. This has made my task of finding out what you have done extremely difficult. This is naturally not your fault, but I think I am due notifications on this page and feel very angry that WP has let me down so badly. I have tried to make some sense of what has happened here, but compounded my confusion by starting at the top (your last edit) and working downwards - very difficult to work out what I had looked at and what not. Coupled with the fact that that was definitely not the order I should have taken. I should have started at the bottom and worked up. So, since it is 2am here, I shall have to leave this for now, but tomorrow I will let you know how deeply shocked I am by what has been removed, and even more shocked by what has been added. George Washington has been given the soft brush here, which hardly seems appropriate, given this is the page of his victim. I appear to have misplaced my trust in you. Anne (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I must make it clear that what follows has come from what I have seen in edit summaries, as explained above, unfortunately taken from the top down, rather than the bottom up. Any misunderstandings, on my part (if there are any) will be because the sheer volume of edits (100s of them) cannot be revisited and nor do I have time to double-check in the article itself. I have been massively disadvantaged by the failure of the system in not sending me notifications (at a time when I am actually supposed to be meeting publisher deadlines, so am already under pressure).

• You want to know how to access the Journal. Cordless Larry and Anastrophe are 2 of 3 WP editors who have it. Perhaps they can help you out?
• To suggest books on Hathitrust are difficult to read astonishes me. All quotations have been C&Pd from there by me without the slightest difficulty reading them.
• Roger Lamb and Katherine Mayo told a story, (sourced from two newspaper reports, The Bath Chronicle and the Hibernian Magazine, about Asgill going to the aid of an elderly wounded Patriot militiaman serving in North Carolina. Lamb names him as Colonel Gregory (not to be confused with General Isaac Gregory, in charge of the North Carolina Militia). I found the only likely candidate here:[2]. The Mayo block quote has been removed. I suggest it be reinserted by the Lamb version (p434) which names Colonel Gregory [3]. What has not been included in the article, because I only have the newspaper account here: [4], is that Asgill also saved lives during the terrible attempted escape to Gloucester Point on 16 October 1781. This time he was saving his countrymen, not Patriots. 30 years later, he met Roger Lamb in Dublin and Lamb heard all about his "good deeds" with Asgill commenting that he would "go to Heaven" as a consequence. Very conceited, and Lamb was not impressed. The Editor of the Journal of the American Revolution, Don Hagist, records this event here: [5] That Asgill brought up these heroic deeds, 30 years later, suggests he was proud of his aid to both enemy and British alike. I therefore wish this Lamb block-quote to replace the Mayo quote which has been removed. If this event doesn't belong on his own WP page, I have no idea where it does.
• Colonel Asher Holmes, Huddy's commanding officer, had a petition signed and presented it himself to Washington, stating that the people of Monmouth County wanted blood revenge for Huddy's death. For this reason, and to satisfy the people of Monmouth County, Chatham was chosen as the place of Asgill's execution, to keep the people in good spirits that revenge would be taken for Huddy. It appears that all reference to the reason why Asgill went to Chatham, to place him at the heart of revolutionary-ardour-reveng-seeking-teritory has been removed. Why? It gives the explanation for why he did not remain in Lancaster, to go to the gallows there. This is highly pertinent to this article and should not have been removed.
• Hazen, on 27 May 1782, specifically tells Washington how distressed he has been by the drawing of lots. That letter is on the AA article, so why has this fact been removed? To protect GW perchance? Not good PR for GW to have a General in his army feel compassion for the victim, eh?
• In order to persuade his son not to join the Army (the Lord Mayor was a passionate Whig and hated the war with America) he not only offered him an income of £3,000 p.a. but he provided him with his first home at Old Burlington Street - at the age of 16, upon returning from University in Germany. All this was in the article, but has been removed, including the image of the house itself, which took weeks of my time to source, get copyright approval, and finally get uploaded to the article. Why is Asgill's first home not allowed to be part of this article?
• Under close arrest in Chatham were the orders given to Dayton by GW. Why has this been softened down to "Captivity in Chatham"? Captivity would have been the case had Asgill been sent to the Jersey Lines, but he was not - he was sent to the hotbed of revolutionary ardour, Timothy Day's Tavern, where he was under close arrest 24/7. On return to England, it was reported that his legs were still damaged from his leg irons. All this sounds much more than "Captivity".
• The biggest shock of all is that, after years of effort on my part, the image of Timothy Day's Tavern has been removed. I am gobsmacked that this can happen. What could possibly be more appropriate than that image? To help modern historians, of equal value is the map of the location of the Tavern. That too has been removed. These deletions really anger me.
• The image of Coussmaker is the only freely available image of what the uniform of a 1st Foot Guards officer's uniform looked like in the year 1782. How on earth is that not relevant?
• Large swathes of material, showing just how much Moses Hazen and James Gordon supported Asgill in the hours after the drawing of lots - all removed - because it does not put GW in a good light. By contrast, the GW article itself cannot be sullied by a word relating to his cover-up of his actions. The two-tier-morality on WP is beyond belief, for a site which maintains it is Factual and Neutral in its reporting.
• Somewhere along the line I saw some comment about there were no drummer boys at the drawing of lots. The Lancaster Journal comments: "… one little red-coated drummer boy rat-tat-tatting " and, on p.103 "The two men returned to the group with two hats, an officer of the dragoons, and a drummer boy (or two or three, depending on the reporter)".
• I have no idea how many days and weeks of my time will now be needed to continue to contest the way this article has been edited, with an American and Washington face-saving-slant applied.
• Cordless Larry, you are the Admin/Editor who, over the years, has had the most involvement with this article, both in helping me with referencing, and guiding me as to what could and could not be done. You have also contributed, particularly over the Peace Talks on the AA article. I sincerely hope you will read this post, and assist in actioning the above. After all, you were going to do the editing yourself, but I don't think you would have removed the image and the map of Timothy Day's Tavern. In the touch of a button, years of my work have gone up in smoke, not to mention the cost value attached to my findings. £1,300 is the Wikipedia element, of a total research cost of US$35,000. You don't think I can stand by and see it torched like this, do you? Anne (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Image

public domain status undetermined

Here's the image of Timothy Day's Tavern. Two issues here: the first is the extremely long caption that read:

Timothy Day's Tavern, Chatham, NJ, the location of Asgill's imprisonment in 1782. From "At the crossing of the Fishawack" by John T. Cunningham (p.11) with permission from the Chatham Historical Society. "The Asgill Affair" is featured in "The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society Vol. 120, No. 3 Winter 2019".

The caption promotes an article you wrote complete with link to said article.

Second, clicking on the image shows the file and its licensing information. The public domain claim is apparently per the Chatham Historical society. But because we don't know the date the picture was created or whether it's been published elsewhere, there's a chance it's not free. The historical society itself does not own copyright; copyright is owned by the creator. Hence its removal for now. Victoria (tk) 15:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Is the caption culled enough now? Anne (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

They looked into it thoroughly and were unable to provide any further information of any kind. Whether that is sloppy archiving; a mistake; down to someone no longer available to ask, is not something I, or even they could respond to. So you are saying that this image is permanently banned are you? The image was published in the Journal too, and Cordless Larry can confirm that. It was published there with permission of the Chatham Historical Society too. Since the Journal published it - it seemed sensible to credit the Journal. You know, I am a co-author (You keep on referring to it as Mine) - I did not make executive decisions - that was down to the Editor and his legal advisers. I request that the image and the map be returned to the article. Anne (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The journal reports: "Mary Keim Tietze's sketch of Day's Tavern is reproduced from Chatham, At the Crossing of the Fishawack by John T. Cunningham, with the permission of the publisher, The Chatham Historical Society". Permission being given to the journal publishers to use it doesn't imply that it's been released on a Creative Commons license for upload to Wikimedia Commons (and subsequent use for any purpose). Do we know who Commons:User:Harosenfeld is? They uploaded the image, so might know more. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I will copy your post and email it to Chatham Historical Society - but they are a small outfit with few staff and take a very very long time to respond. Anne (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I just can't believe that this Charles Asgill, 1786 engraving by Juste Chevillet ghastly boring (absolutely everywhere) image has been added, at the expense of the location of his incarceration. Please remove it - it is so tedious to see this yet again, since every single article on Asgill uses it. Is this your way of ensuring the Tavern image cannot go back? You are employing every tactic in the book, aren't you.

In response to Cordless Larry - the Chatham Historial Society uploaded it to Commons themselves. Anne (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

18th cent. engraving of Asgill, in public domain

Regarding copyright, Wikipedia licensing depends of the Hirtle chart. Essentially copyright belongs to the creator/author and certains date apply in terms of when an image becomes public property. There is chance the Chatham Historical Society commissioned the sketch from Mary Keim Tietze and also acquired copyright (perhaps by paying her). But if she has been alive anytime since 1924, the sketch might not be in the public domain. Giving permission is not the same as releasing to the public demain with specific licensing, and I believe that would have be done with the creator relinquishing all rights. But it needs looking into and won't be solved immediately.

Re the Chevillet image: it is nice for a lay audience who has never heard of this person whose biography this article is. Also it's in the public domain. Plus the Wikipedia skin Vector 22 is causing all kinds of layout issues. Written in haste, I'm doing chores at the moment and will get back to the article and the rest of the comments in a mo. Please don't assume insult where none is intended. Victoria (tk) 16:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I will email the Chatham Historical Society, but I am very upset by all of this - particularly since, back at the time, I had other people, like Cordless Larry helping me on all these issues (WP is, after all, supposed to be a collaboration). I am devastated that the 1786 image of Asgill has been included - at the expense of the Tavern. And what is the map's crime? I am heartbroken, but there you go - that's what WP does to me every time. I hope you will address all the other issues I raised too? If you could step into my shoes, just for 30 seconds, you would know that this feels like a witch-hunt.Anne (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The file image cites the source as "Chatham, At the crossing of the Fishawack by John T. Cunningham". Going to John T. Cunningham page we find that he published At the crossing of the Fishawack in 1966; I believe he is author; the illustrator does appear to be Mary Keim Tietze. The publisher is the Chatham Historical Society. I'll need to look at the Hirtle chart, which is confusing. Will get back to it.

Re 18th etching, let's see what others have to say and gain consensus.

P.s - yes, I do understand how it feels to have one's work edited; but that's the nature of Wikipedia. As you say, it's a collaborative project. It will be a better article in the end, but the work is incomplete. Will address each point. Victoria (tk) 18:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Please will Cordless Larry tell me EXACTLY how you wish me to respond to this because, to me, it sounds like there is no problem with copyright. However, please draft a reply for me to send. It is you who has raised this, having been a willing helper to me back in the day when Harosenfeld uploaded it ...

(Redacted) Anne (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

If the CHS owns the copyright (it sounds ambiguous to me), then they need to complete Commons:Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator. I see from an old e-mail that you asked them to do this in 2019, but it seems like they had some technical difficulties. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Lancaster journal

Currently the article cites the following:

• a citation to a url here which brings us to a shopping cart with an article titled "Saving Captain Asgill".
• Abel, Michael (2019). ""A Prison...Was Denied Me" Chatham, New Jersey, May–November, 1782". The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society. 120 (3): 107–110. OCLC 2297909 - the OCLC goes to WorldCat, not a journal article.
• Ammundsen, Anne (2019). "Saving Captain Asgill". The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society. 120 (3): 111–119. OCLC 2297909 - the OCLC goes to WorldCat.

Are these all the same source? If so, who is the author? In a bibliographic entry, which author name is correct? If these are all the same, then the refs should be combined in the article. Finally how can I get a copy of this to read without paying for it? Victoria (tk) 21:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Journal has several chapters. Depending on whether the Editor, Mike Able, his wife, the chief researcher, Martha Able, or I wrote that chapter, then the page number is given. Cordless Larry started the trend of linking to World Cat, and that might be the best for each reference, but is the relevant issue of December 2029 on World Cat? I know the Library of Congress has a copy, but no idea which libraries may have it. If you want to email me, I could send you a pdf. However, it must never be uploaded anywhere on the internet for legal reasons. As stipulated by the Society's legal advisers. Anne (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Mayo

To suggest books on Hathitrust are difficult to read astonishes me. All quotations have been C&Pd from there by me without the slightest difficulty reading them.

It's a poorly digitized edition, complete with typographic errors. These have been imported directly to this article. Because it was published in 1938 it's not in the public domain and material shouldn't be copy/pasted without quotation marks. Furthermore the writing is breathless, and at 80+ years old not the best source to use. Victoria (tk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you find the diff for the removed blockquote re elderly militiaman saved? Victoria (tk) 21:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I really cannot ever do that exercise again - I did not get notifications and nearly went mad working my way through hundreds of links. I don't think the Mayo version is the best one so far as "putting back" is concerned - and I hope you plan on "putting back". I think the link I gave to the Roger Lamb version on Hathitrust, is better, because he mentions Colonel Gregory - I did at least find a Colonel Gregory in the North Carolina Militia. I gave a link to him too. If you want to see the Mayo one again, then you can find that on Hathitrust too. This is the Lamb version which I have copied from a downloaded pdf:

Captain Asgill is only seventeen years of age, a captain

in the first regiment of foot guards, and only son of Sir

Charles Asgill, Bart. Possessed of every virtue that can

endear him to his family or acquaintance, and in the last

campaigns in America, has given sufficient earnest of a

spirit and conduct under the different commands,

(which have devolved on him by the illness or absence

of his senior officers), that would render him an honor

to his profession and country. ... so well known to him

[General George Washington] by his bravery and

humanity in different instances, particularly when the

command devolving on him by the illness of his

colonel, he took a post from the Americans,

commanded by colonel Gregory, who being old and

wounded, he supported him himself, with an awful and

tender respect most filial, evincing the true greatness of

his amiable mind.[

9] Anne (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There's no need to copy/paste directly from books and we really shouln't be doing that, plus in the case of Mayo introduces typos. The diff is here. The edit summary says "this has no context", which is true. It made little sense upon a first read and we don't want the readers confused so early in the article. Now that you've explained, it makes more sense but I still have reservations about Mayo and it's an anecdote that may or may not be accurate. Would welcome input from others. Victoria (tk) 00:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding, for anyone's clarification, the relevant passage in Mayo is here. Victoria (tk) 00:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding, the relevant passage in Lamb is here, at the bottom of the page. Mayo seems to have recounted it. Lamb was published in 1809, so my inclination is no, and Mayo is not a great source. Would like to see if this anecdote surfaces elsewhere in a good modern secondary source. Victoria (tk) 00:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is a substantial section in my book. My feeling is that, anecdotal it may be, but it fits with the upbringing Charles Jnr would have had from Charles Snr. The Lord Mayor was so violently against the War with America that he turned down a peerage offered to him by the King. The Whig ethos, drummed into all his children, was to look after those who are less well off than you - and, given how much Jnr was missing his family, I wouldn't be surprised if the elderly Colonel Gregory had reminded him of his father, so he took compassion on him. As for Mayo, she travelled the world doing her research. I have managed to find the grandchildren of the people she consulted - as far afield as Africa and Scotland. I am in awe of her, no matter how much others wish to rubbish her. Like it or not, hers is the only book on the subject. Everything else is chapters and articles. Anne (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Asher-Holmes

Can you give me a diff for this?

No, I can never do that again, or I will go mad. From my pdf. - this is what has been removed, and if you want to add more about Asher Holmes, then you can go to his Wiki page. As I said, he was sent to Chatham so that he could be in the midst of those wanting him dead:

From Lancaster Asgill was transferred to Chatham, so that he would be in close proximity to those who wished him to suffer death to atone for Huddy and as Mayo says: "If such demand existed, where would be found its storm-centre ? Where but in Jersey ? Where but in Monmouth County"[26]. Initially he was housed in the home of Colonel Elias Dayton, who commanded the Jersey Line. Dayton treated Asgill with kindness, especially when he became too ill to be moved.[27] When Washington heard that Asgill was "under no constraint", he ordered Dayton to place him in a prison hut, under close guard, at the same time ordering that he be treated with kindness.[28] It is not known why he was instead sent to Timothy Day's Tavern, where he suffered beatings; deprivation of edible food;[29] spectators paying to watch him suffering and, what for Asgill was the final straw, deprivation of letters from his family since he was receiving information that his father was very ill and had indeed died.[30][31] The Americans demanded of Carleton that the perpetrator of Huddy's murder, Lippincott, be handed over to them. Instead the British court ... Anne (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Hazen's letter

I removed text that included "Soon afterwards Washington wrote to Hazen (who had been greatly distressed by his orders)" but the citation was to a letter Washington wrote, not to one from Hazen. If he was distressed, we need a source. Also please don't accuse me. Diff is [6]. I should have given a better reason in the edit summary. Basically the distress isn't sourced. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

"I sensibly feel for their disagreeable situation" suggests to me that Hazen did not like performing his duties. Here is his letter - first paragraph is the relevant section: [7]. This letter is quoted in full, regarding the subject-matter, on the AA article. Anne (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Old Burlington street

There's no room between the margins and the infobox for the image. Does the cited source say he actually lived there and that his father provided it to him? I couldn't find it in the cited source, do took it out. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

[8] gives the dates of occupancy by Charles Asgill. He was 16 years old, had just left university, so how could he have purchased this house himself? His father was super-wealthy - owned several prestigious properties in London. Surely one can join the dots on who had actually paid for the house? Just as the Lord Mayor offered a £3,000 p.a. allowance to keep him in London, so must the house have been part of the same bribe. It is worth reading the link. Cornwallis moved in later, and ultimately Florence Nightingale lived there. I shall have to take a break now. I may do more later, but it is already midnight here. Anne (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Captivity

Reworded the table of contents (toc) so that readers who are not logged in can read the words in the small column to the left where it now lives. Flattening the toc is helpful with Vector 22. No insult implied. Victoria (tk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You have replied to this: "Under close arrest in Chatham were the orders given to Dayton by GW. Why has this been softened down to "Captivity in Chatham"? Captivity would have been the case had Asgill been sent to the Jersey Lines, but he was not - he was sent to the hotbed of revolutionary ardour, Timothy Day's Tavern, where he was under close arrest 24/7. On return to England, it was reported that his legs were still damaged from his leg irons. All this sounds much more than "Captivity"." But I do not understand a single word of your replies, so don't know what to say or do. Anne (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Coussmaker

Yes, removed that image, which is a nice image. However it doesn't fit. Happy to see it come back with some rejigging of layout. Victoria (tk) 22:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it is worth having it, simply to show the uniform, but if I am supposed to be the one "rejigging" it (a) I have no idea what that means and (b) I tried to explain, already, that if you want to do this work then please do it. I am well past wanting to spend my entire life on WP, through to 2am each day (in order to reply and deal with the barrage of communications I am getting from far more people than just you Victoria) as I have been forced to do since 20th, when I dared to hope the GW article could reflect his duplicity in the AA. Anne (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Large swathes

Large swathes of material, showing just how much Moses Hazen and James Gordon supported Asgill in the hours after the drawing of lots - all removed - because it does not put GW in a good light. By contrast, the GW article itself cannot be sullied by a word relating to his cover-up of his actions. The two-tier-morality on WP is beyond belief, for a site which maintains it is Factual and Neutral in its reporting.

Again, this was done because of sourcing issues and please provide specific diffs for the accusations. In the meantime, please assume good faith. Victoria (tk) 22:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It is 1 am, and I am too tired to start on this now. I will return to it tomorrow (today) haha. Anne (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I finally got to bed at 2am and was up again at 5am, working through to 10am wading through hundreds more edits you did yesterday. FOR NONE OF WHICH DID WIKIPEDIA NOTIFY ME, IN SPITE OF THIS PAGE BEING ON MY WATCHLIST. This has made the task, for me, little short of a nightmare. Cordless Larry, as an Admin isn't it your responsibility to look into this? Don't even think about shoving a link to a talk page under my nose, where I must do this myself. I did not create this situation, but I am suffering 15 years of work here being demolished, and I am not being notified.

After all this, the last thing I am capable of is wading through (again) hundreds more edits from 27th, to find the one I speak of. But Hazen really helped CA and so did JG and as I recall from yesterday's marathon, reference to all this help has vanished. Anne (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Drummer boy

Yes, the drummer was not mentioned in the cited source so it was trimmed out. The small blue footnote at the end of the sentence must point to a source that contains the cited information; if our article has different information, then there's a problem. It was removed in this diff. Then I found the drummer boy in Henriques and replaced him in these diffs where the ref was swapped out for another. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Fwiiw, I think page 103 of the Journal covers the drummer boy situation well, because it points out how many different variations there are. "The two men returned to the group with two hats, an officer of the dragoons, and a drummer boy (or two or three, depending on the reporter)". Anne (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Additional Comments x 2

I am addressing this to Cordless Larry, who has instructed me to assume good faith. Unless you are prepared to see what has been done here, please don't expect me to assume good faith ever again.

• 20:51 28th. External Links - all deleted, including my interview, for which the closer, on 19.5.22 gave specific permission on the CA article, the AA article and also the Lord Mayor article. What right do you have to do this unilaterally, Victoriaearle? An excellent video by Jason Mandresh - gone. Link to Derbyshire records office, where so much personal Asgill family archives are held - gone. An excellent review by Michael Knox Beran, pointing out Washington's failings - gone. Plus whatever else was there - ALL relevant.
• Further reading - which still includes the worst account I have ever read - quite an appalling account (in History Today 1957) and Jayne Smith's rather pathetic thesis, in which she simply parots Washington's account from 2.5 centuries ago. What has happened to Lady Shelley's Diary, detailing Sophia's (passionate) encounter with Lord Lynedoch at Woburn Abbey? I cannot remember what was listed there, but it doesn't appear to be as complete as it once was.
• Georgiana Cavendish image has lost the notation of why her image is there - because the Asgill's were part of her Whig 'set'.
• Totally devastated that Sophia Asgill's image has been removed. It took me 3 whole years to track down the whereabout of the original Hoppner portrait, in the privately held collection of a Saudi prince, where I photographed the original artwork at his palace. One of the most stressful pieces of research I ever did. Now we have a scan of a magazine print, in which Sophia is hardly visible. Oh, how much better that is (not).
• Image of Dublin Castle - gone - even though Asgill spent 15 years of his military career based there.
• 00:37 28th Equally devastating - the hot water urn presented to Asgill by the loyal subjects at the end of the 1801 uprising, in appreciation for all that he had done for them. Gone. Having found this item after it had been auctioned, I eventually tracked down the (now late) owner who provided a freely available photograph. This clearly showed the detailed inscription at the base of the urn. It nearly got deleted once before, because the user was unable to enlarge the image and read the inscription. Cordless Larry could read it - so saved the deletion from happening, only for it to now be gone. This was a personal honour bestowed on CA by the loyalists of Clonmel and so belongs on his page. It should be returned immediately.
• "Images" section all gone. Asgill's oil on canvas portrait has gone missing, so all the more reason to give as much information about it as possible, in case some art expert comes along, sees the information, and can then find it - no chance now. A link to an amusing cartoon, held at the Dublin Library, has also gone - it's all gone.
• For the final six months of Asgill's life, as he lay on his deathbed, he was fraudulently swindled by a man known as The Swindler Asgill. All available online with a newspaper report (one of many). All gone.
• Asgill and his wife are both buried at St James's, Piccadilly, but all the information surrounding that has gone. I am currently trying to get a plaque installed at St. James's, and gave them a link so they could see all the details. Now they will think I was lying. It was stated in Asgill's will that he was to be buried there "with my beloved wife". All this is something else Cordless Larry became involved in, when an editor was trying to give Asgill's wife an incorrect name.
• I saw a comment about "why don't we mention children he had with his mistress". Well, for a start, he only had one son, but the story is extremely complicated and would need to involve General Robert Manners too - it would be a long and convoluted edit and is far better to wait until it is printed in my book.
• Lord Lynedoch fell in love with Sophia Asgill and they had a secret correspondence for 20 or more years. All reference to Lynedoch and his description of Sophia's deathbed scene has been removed. Oh, what a shame.
• Asgill lived at 6 York Street, which was renamed 7 Duke of York Street - the significance of that will probably only register with a British reader, familiar with how addresses were all changed, all over the country. But maybe there are never any British readers on this page? So, never mind all that information has gone.
• 03:48 28th - here was a description of the type of army officer Asgill was. I would have thought this information relevant to his page? I must be wrong since it has all gone.
• 03:28 28th - tells the story of Asgill's compassion to a soldier being flogged, and so he court-martial's the officer responsible. This also tells the sort of man Asgill was - how silly of me to think that relevant here. Nobody will know now, since it has all gone.
• 03:41 28th gave some details of why a loyalist Irishman, Ellis, was being persecuted, even after death. I think part of this story is still there, but the treatment of the loyalists by the Croppies has been removed. Is it too redolent of the American situation for it to remain here? "Shades of" and all that?
• 03:36 28th Saving William Farrell's life; Asgill saved him from the gallows - I think that has all gone, but my notes are incomplete. In any event, the several ways in which Asgill showed compassion, to many people, in many different ways has been removed from this article. Nobody reading it now will have a clue what kind of man he was.
• Because of all the above deletions, I would like the Roger Lamb quote about saving a Patriot Colonel Gregory to be returned to the article.
• 03:27 everything relating to the Flanders Campaign (Subsequent Career) has gone. Some of it probably quite rightly, but it has all gone. Why? He was there.
• 03:25 and 03:21 28th "Patriot/Loyalis Persective" I find these removals objectionable in the extreme. It shows evidence of how Washington covered his tracks and failed to publish all his correspondence. I am being told to assume good faith - this edit is deplorable in its POV to "save GW from anything which might besmirch his character" - while at the same time deleting everything here which demonstrates that Asgill was a decent and compassionate man. The Judge Jones citation is still here, I think, but there is no inline reference to why it is here.
• 03:18 28th. All evidence that the false rumours were circulating before Asgill left America, and therefore could not be held responsible for them himself, (Baron von Grimm report) has been removed. This edit was instigated by Cordless Larry, on the AA article, so it may well be he who did this edit here too - I am not sure - but I know he had close involvement with this when the "Vicar's Sermon" evidence (to suggest the same thing about Asgill's innocence regarding the rumours) turned out to be a lie.
• 03:17. All evidence of the Asgill family's visit to Paris to thank their Majesty's for saving his life has gone. Why? They knew full well it was not Washington who saved his life, and thanks were due in France. Asgill even speaks about this in his Service Records, and there was a French newspaper report quoted. All this has gone, along with an image of his sister, Amelia, who was in the family group who went to Paris.
• 03:08 and 03:06 28th Congress wanted Asgill to die - bar only 2 congressmen. It took those 2 a full week to persuade the others to vote to save him from the gallows. This has now been whitewashed. Furthermore, Vergennes wrote on 29 July 1782 - Washington presented that letter "immediately" to Congress on 30 October - 3 months later. A month to get there would be normal, but 3 months is not. The letter may have been delayed, yes, (except Lady Asgill sent a copy by courier which it is known reached GW before Vergenne's original) but delayed by 3 months? No, that is unbelievable. Whatever Peter Henriques may say on the matter. I think Henriques has written well on this subject in general, but even Mayo wonders what on earth took GW so long to put the matter to Congress. Mayo knew about Lady Asgill's copy - but Henriques apparently did not - so to delete the Mayo reference in favour of Henriques seems very dodgy to me.
• 00:51 It would seem that it was BubbaJoe123456 who removed "Only One Hero" about James Gordon's role in the Asgill Affair. Gordon went through the entire 6 month ordeal with CA. Asgill was treated so appallingly during his time at Timothy Day's Tavern that he nearly died, and would have died in captivity without Gordon's presence. Asgill wrote to tell GW that he would be dead soon, so this is incontenstable. I seriously object to its exclusion.
• People who probably never heard the name Asgill until a week ago are damaging this article. They are taking away anything good about CA and removing anything bad about GW.
• I began this exercise at 5am, and it is now nearly 1pm. The time it takes me to wade through hundreds of edits - without the benefit of notifications - make a manual list and then type it up here is absolutely insane. I cannot live my life like this. Nor can I possibly cope with much much much more of the same on the AA article during what, for me, will be critical timing for publishing deadlines. I officially request Cordless Larry to fulfil a promise he made to me 3 years ago and do the editing required on the AA article - sometime - but not until late February at the earliest. Anne (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne you have a very deep conflict of interest regarding this subject. A couple of replies:

1., Wikipedia isn't a host to collections of external links and most have to do the Asgill Affair and should be on that page, not here. Genealogy sites etc are routinely deleted and there's no need to host collections of letters here.

2., The blurry image File:02 - Sophia 1 on 17.11.11 cropped.jpg has been replaced with this higher resolution image File:Frederica of Prussia duchess of York.jpg. That you took the cropped one relevant vis-a-vis COI, but otherwise it's best to show the clearer one to readers.

3.,Hot water urn is not relevant. You admit to not having taking the photo but having received it from someone else. Please see Wikipedia:Image use policy which states, "images can include photographs which you yourself took".

4.,Swindler is cited to an early 19th c. source and a blog, the title of the piece begins with the words "This story was submitted to us by Anne Ammundsen ...". Again, self cite and coi.

5., Burial - where is coffin lies is unnecessary trivial detail;

6.,If the person whose biography this is had children - even with a mistress - it should probably be mentioned;

7.,Sophia's love affair is mostly off-topic and the sourcing is dodgy;

8.,Anything cited to 18th and 19th century sources and inserted with lengthy quotations has been trimmed out;

9., the perspective section is self-cited (COI);

10., if at the Asgill Affair and this article are compared, there were few differences. Was text copied directly from here to there? If so were the rules vis-a-vis Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia followed?

11.,That article, too, is bloated and needs to be trimmed.

Finally, do not post other people's emails/names/etc. on Wikipedia. That the word "lawyer" even shows up is worrying. In the meantime that post has been deleted. I'm hoping it will disappear completely. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The copying within Wikipedia rules were followed when Asgill Affair was created - I instructed Anne how to do that correctly. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I requested oversight of the private e-mail content, which has now been suppressed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks CL! On both points. Victoria (tk) 16:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The email address for the CHS is on their website - for all to see. If it had been a private email address I would not have given it.

2. Let's take a look at a blurry image, as opposed to hardly being able to see her:

02 - Sophia 1 on 17.11.11 cropped

3. The late owner gave it to me to do with as I pleased.

4. This [9] has my name nowhere near it. Bear in mind I did hardly any referencing here. Pathetic, I know, but other people always did the referencing for me. We cannot all be good at the same things.

6. There is no way I am going into that story here. End of.

7. Lady Shelley, Anthony Brett-James and Cecil Aspinall-Oglander - dodgy - pull the other one.

9. I did not do the citations - others know I am incapable - so other editors knew full well what was going on.

10. Can't remember - so don't know.

11. Agree - I have asked Cordless Larry many, many times to please do what needs to be done. Anne (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It was more the content of the e-mail than the address that was the issue. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. She just wants to help. I have emailed her a link to the permissions page for her to email to Commons. Anne (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It contained private information about individuals who hadn't consented to that being made public. It's good that she wants to help though and has the permissions link. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now received further information from CHS, attaching a pdf. document, which makes it absolutely clear that they own the copyright of a privately printed book. They will be sending approval to Commons. Anne (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Article length

I've just checked, and when material was moved out of this article to the new Asgill Affair article and replaced with a briefer summary, the article stood at around 80,000 bytes. By the time Victoria started to trim the article a few days ago, it had reached almost 100,000 bytes. It was almost 131,000 bytes before the creation of the Asgill Affair spin-off, so we weren't back there, but it's worth keeping in mind that WP:SIZERULE suggests that anything over 60,000 should probably be divided and anything over 100,000 almost certainly should be. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I doubt there'll be much left by the time Victoria has finished her cull. I haven't had time to look at new edits since 2am this morning (since somehow my notifications have been turned off by someone - although the black star is showing). My work is being culled all over the place - I have several editors hounding me, not to mention endless Notifications from other articles - just not this one - I have to come searching here. Oh, great, that's helping me so much.Anne (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to e-mail notifications of changes to articles on your watchlist? I've never used those myself but I'm certain no one can turn them off for you. It's probably easier to browse the article history to see what's been changed. See Help:Page history if you need guidance on that. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I may be wrong, but it occurs to me that the system could not cope with the sheer volume of edits, all being done nanoseconds apart from each other - hundreds of them at astonishing speed. Your notifications are usually arriving in my in-box. Anne (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a limit on the number of notifications it sends, yes. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was, if edits are being done at such a speed, seconds apart, how can the system cope with sending out an email each time. I didn't mean anything to do with the volume. I'm pretty sure this is the answer. It was dire, for me, though, when my work was being demolished. Anne (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)