Talk:Asgill Affair/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Too much quoting of original letters back and forth

There ought to be some serious trimming of the amount of X wrote to Y saying "......" GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this, because my own view is that the original writers express themselves far better than any paraphrasing ever could. Original meaning will be lost.Anne (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Original meaning is couched in 18th century spelling, formalities and idiom which is not readily accessible for a modern day reader. I would also say that WP:LONGQUOTE is relevant too "Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text". To that end constructions such as "[X] was appalled by [Y]s actions, calling him a 'rogueish knave' to his face." are more effective. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither the strength nor the will to do as you suggest, so, since this is what you want, why don't you do the paraphrasing? I am greatly saddened, because I personally love the way the Georgians expressed themselves and modern type sorts the problem of the "f" denoting what we know as "s". I just don't have the will to give any more of my life to Wikipedia and its demands (and in some cases "attitude"). I've just spent two years of my life, working round the clock on the Asgill business, as a result of vast swathes being arbitrarily removed, without any warning, to build it all back up again, and I cannot do more now. Sorry, but I have been bled dry by my experiences here. Anne (talk) 10:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A long-overdue revised version of the Asgill Affair

(uninvolved non-admin closure)

Consensus is in favour of using the video interview with Anne as an external link (or possibly as WP:ELMAYBE #4) and to put it in the link section for the following articles:

Consensus agreed that Vimeo is an acceptable alternative to YouTube.

For the second list, consensus currently goes against its placement as an external link in the following articles (because editors have not been convinced that it would currently satisfy policies such as WP:weight and WP:Linkfarm) in relation to them:

For the second list, I think editor consensus says that it would be better to consider citing the body of work (including the interview) that talks about the long-withheld letter in the articles’ discussion on this affair, wherein these works (and the Asgill affair that they refer to) can be reasonably made relevant to the articles in question. [ Discuss-Dubious ] - ( Discuss- Contributions ) 17:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cordless Larry, Nthep, Dormskirk, Cinderella157 and ‪Jjjjjjjjjj, I was interviewed by Helen Tovey, the Editor of Family Tree[1], on 7 March [2]. The entire interview was about the Asgill Affair In its New Point of Light. While The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019 set the scene for a revised history of this event, I have taken the next step on that road. I have shown, and sourced, how history has failed to be recorded In its True Point of Light, as presented by the George Washington papers, in the Newhaven Gazette of November 1786. I would request this video be an external link on the following pages, since it is exclusively about – the Asgill Affair – Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet – Sir Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet - James Gordon – Sir Henry Clinton - Sir Guy Carleton – William Franklin - Richard Lippincott - Moses Hazen – Elias Dayton - Queen Marie Antoinette - Charles Gravier, comte de Vergennes – Joshua Huddy –– Asher Holmes – Katherine Mayo - Josiah Meigs – David Humphreys and, of course, George Washington, all of whom played a critical role in the Asgill Affair. Naturally, I cannot create this link myself, so I look to editors to decide what happens next. To those who read this post, please have the courtesy to pass an opinion (once you have listened to the interview). This page is on my watch list, so please don’t ping me, or I will be notified twice. Kindly remember that I have chosen to be called Anne. Do please also remember that in 1786 Charles Asgill wrote the words: I am delighted at having the opportunity of proclaiming to the World … – he expected his words to be published, but he was silenced for two and a half centuries. It is high time his point of view was expressed. This has now happened, and been published in an oral medium.

Two quotes, from John Adams, the second president of the United States of America, read:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. He also said: Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.

Helen wanted to do more editing, to minimise my “stumbles”, but, as Winston Churchill said, in 1897: “unaccustomed as I am to public speaking” – so, since her software was unable to deal with these tight-time-frame issues, without a lengthy wait, it was me who persuaded her to go ahead, as is. My stumbles – my apologies – my fault that they are still there. This video will, eventually, be on YouTube, but there may be a lengthy wait. Viewers in some countries might need a VPN to listen to this interview? Anne (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The video is already hosted on Vimeo, which is a perfectly acceptable alternative to YouTube - which also requires VPN access from some countries (as does Wikipedia itself). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK with me to include an external link at the bottom of the Asgill Affair article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dormskirk. Does that mean you disapprove of a link on the other 17 requested pages? Anne (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general wikipedia does not encourage a proliferation of external links (see WP:ELNO) but I would not have any objection if others were keen. Dormskirk (talk) 11:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case is obviously strongest for adding a link to the articles about Asgill. Whether it should be added to articles such as that on Washington needs further input, not least because there are likely many videos and other external sites that could be listed there, and it's not clear why this video in particular should be prioritised above others when it's not so central to the topic at hand in those articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the landscape Cordless Larry. However, I don't know if you or Dormskirk have viewed the video? From start to finish, it is about a cast of actors who played a role in events of 1782 & 1786. It is as much about Washington/Hazen/Dayton etc. as it is about Asgill. It is revised history (the ball being kicked off by the Lancaster Journal of 2019) and I certainly wouldn't expect a link to replace any other link on any other article - just to be there for anyone interested in revised history. It is, after all, an attempt to get away from the same old, same old, and it is sourced throughout. Does Wikipedia only accept the word of one side of a conflict, just because it has been heard loudest, and longest? Anne (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are far more videos out there about Washington than Asgill, so it's harder to make the case for including it on Washington's article. In any case, I think that if you want to propose its inclusion on such a prominent article, you'll need to propose it on its own talk page. On your question about what word Wikipedia accepts, the answer is basically yes: Wikipedia isn't the place to "change history" as articles should be written based largely on what secondary sources say about a topic. If your video and research leads to a change in scholarly consensus about Washington, then the article about him can be changed to reflect that consensus, but until that happens it will continue to reflect the biases of existing accounts. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything said can be found in the Lancaster Journal, and, at least to a degree, in Peter Henriques' book about Washington. Since new evidence was hidden for two and a half centuries, does that not explain why it is a small voice trying to be heard over a loud one? You are always telling me to "get published". Now I have, it is still not acceptable! For most of the interview, I am literally quoting my sources and drawing attention to the very sources which were withheld at the time the record was set in stone. Anne (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On publishing, that helps but peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles and a video interview are quite different beasts, at least as far as Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources are concerned. You publishing your research on Asgill also has a bigger impact on understanding of Asgill than it does on understanding of Washington, in part because so much more has already been published on Washington. On the small voice/loud voice point, yes, that does explain but it doesn't really help, because Wikipedia gives prominence to the loudest voices - see WP:WEIGHT. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry, I sent you a blind copy of an email which went out to 65 recipients (including some other wp editors). One went to the Editor of History Today. This morning, on opening up that email, he replied, and at the end wrote: "Do let me know if and how we can be of further help". I've had some lovely feedback from my email, so at least I know the interview has been well received. Anne (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry, is there any need to wait for more comments, which are unlikely to materialise? Can a link be made on 17 of the pages/people which/who were heavily involved in the Asgill Affair, leaving out my last-named? Anne (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17? That's going to look a like like spamming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why spamming? They were all involved and all are mentioned vis-à-vis their roles. Anne (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine that there's another video that's included as an external link on 17 Wikipedia articles. I might be wrong on that, but including one video on so many articles strikes me as being against the principles of WP:LINKFARM. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the story applies to all of them, could you specify which of the total can have a link? Then will it be possible to bring this to a close? Anne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As with everything else, that's up to the consensus amongst editors, not a decision for me. One of the problems with the proposal is that people who are interested in the other articles but don't have this article on their watchlist likely won't have seen the discussion. Perhaps an RfC is in order? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the question that Anne is putting out for comment is which of the following articles is it appropriate to add an external link to this video to?

Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the video would qualify as a reliable source, I would prefer to see it used, and cited, as such. I generally do not like to see external links to videos in articles; we would just drown in them if that were allowed. And 17 would be way too many; if it is used anywhere, it should be only in this article, not in any of the others listed, but I would not favor it in this one either. If it wouldn't be reliable as a reference, we shouldn't be directing readers to it, and if it would we should use it accordingly. For something like this, I would generally prefer to see peer-reviewed publications rather than videos. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since my credibility is now being challenged (by someone I can only presume hasn't bothered to view the video, which is cited throughout), let me point Seraphimblade to these two links: [3] and [4]. Let me also point out that History Today is extremely interested in this development (approaching me for content for their magazine), as is the Association of Royal Navy Officers, who gave a link to it only yesterday. Anne (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you think I am "challenging your credibility". I did, however, say that I would generally prefer to see peer-reviewed journal material rather than videos, and I will quite entirely stand by that. I also stated that an external link (let alone seventeen external links) would be inappropriate, and I would stand by that as well. If you're suggesting using those other two papers as sources, I think that should be discussed in a separate section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the links. I am quoted in both publications. Where did I suggest they should be sources? However, Professor Henriques wrote the best account of the Asgill Affair I have read, and I source him in my video. And don't judge the video without watching it. Anne (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is not to "judge the video". It is to ask if it would be appropriate to have an external link to it in seventeen articles. My answer to that remains "no". Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has already been established that it will not be on 18 pages, but you maintain it is not even suitable to be on the Asgill Affair page. How can anyone establish merit, or otherwise, without knowing what "it" is? Anne (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Arriving from article alerts, not familiar with the article topic in general) Oppose inclusion The relevant guideline appears to be WP:EXT. Notably, it states that 1) we should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article, and 2) should not link factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting. Potentially related is WP:UNDUE. I will admit straight away that I have not watched the full 1+ hour interview.
With all that background, it's unclear to me what the argument for including the video is. If the video is in alignment with the majority positions on the topic, surely that position already is in the article, cited to reliable sources, and the video falls into exception #1 above. If it's proposing a novel position, we should either include the position in the prose (presumably cited to the Lancaster Journal article mentioned above, which I have not read) or exclude as WP:UNDUE, which also applies to external links. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (WP:LINKFARM) and just because it's related to the article, doesn't mean it should be included.
In totality, I'm not seeing a good argument for why this specific video should be included. Cheers, Ljleppan (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ljleppan said: "should not link factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". So, my credibility is challenged once more. Material in the video is not only the result of twenty years research, but every statement made is cited. It is not just me rambling on, on a subject I know nothing about. My challenge to anyone making this kind of allegation would be - find someone who knows more about Asgill than I do. If peer review is required - Professor Henriques has quoted me twice over in his 2020 book on this subject, and Claire Duke, in her academic dissertation states: "Even scholarly work that does pertain to the affair is often limited in its scope. Anne Ammundsen’s “Saving Captain Asgill,” for instance, is a thoroughly researched and examined journal article". I know one hell of a lot more about the whole Affair now, than I did in 2011, (which Duke was referring to). Why is Jason Mandresh's video acceptable (with some errors contained therein) but my video is not? Could the answer be - because he is American, and I am not? Anne (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "So, my credibility is challenged once more", I do not believe I said so nor was it my intention to claim you are non-credible. Please do not attribute such statements to me. As for Jason Mandresh's video, I do not know what that is. If it suffers from a similar problem, it too should presumably be removed. Finally, I'm not American nor do I have any other personal attachment to the topic. Ljleppan (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was quoting you, directly. The Lancaster Journal kicked the ball off by highlighting evidence missing (hidden) for 233 years. I have simply kicked the ball into goal. I didn't say you were American - only that were I to be American it might have helped. For the record, I also have an American Revolutionary officer in my family tree, since I am 1/4 American. As to Jason Mandresh, he comes as close to the truth as do other accounts, but every single account, over 2.5 centuries is wrong, because half the evidence was withheld. So the entire body of work should be removed from every book, article and journal ever written, were accuracy to be the criteria. Half the evidence in the Asgill Affair has been hidden, until I got the other side of the story published in 2019. Not everything in the Lancaster Journal has been reproduced in this WP article - I simply highlight all the ways in which history has been misreported. Anne (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted my quote of a Wikipedia guideline relevant to the discussion. It is relevant because my comment addresses both the possibilities that the video be considered a reliable source and the possibility that it not be considered one. I offered no judgement of which of those possibilities is true in this case. I came to this discussion as a complete outsider to offer the perspective of an observer with no pre-existing opinion on the topic. Given the hostile response, I'll disengage at this point. All the best, Ljleppan (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I was hostile. Of course I am going to defend my position when the "suggestion" of unreliability and inaccuracy has been raised, and not for the first time, since this seems to be the general theme. My work is being challenged, and nobody will enjoy that experience. I would like to add that this video opportunity is something I have longed for, for two decades. All the criticism I have had on this page, and the default position being that it is inaccurate, unsourced and unverifiable (without even listening to it) is very hard to stomach. No credence is being given to the fact that History Today is approaching me for this video information to be printed in their magazine, not the other way round. Anne (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are, again, attributing to me a position (the default position being that it is inaccurate, unsourced and unverifiable) which I do not hold. If you have anything to add that addresses my original concerns, i.e.

If the video is in alignment with the majority positions on the topic, surely that position already is in the article, cited to reliable sources, and the video falls into exception #1 above. If it's proposing a novel position, we should either include the position in the prose (presumably cited to the Lancaster Journal article mentioned above, which I have not read) or exclude as WP:UNDUE, which also applies to external links. Remember also that Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (WP:LINKFARM) and just because it's related to the article, doesn't mean it should be included. In totality, I'm not seeing a good argument for why this specific video should be included.

then please ping me. Otherwise, I see no reason to continue this discussion. Ljleppan (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply not reading what I write Ljleppan - I said "All the criticism I have had on this page". When a major hurdle has been overcome, and a voice finally heard after being silenced for 233 years, the messenger feels elated. Until engaging with Wikipedia editors as a breed. Not one single pleasant remark has been made by one single editor. This is in such stark contrast to the messages I am receiving personally. Yes, I am hurt. I should be leaving the message where it is being appreciated, and I should not have imagined WP would be that place. I am just intrigued as to why Jason Mandresh's video did not bring forth such objections, nor that of Peter Henriques. Just me, as is always the case when I dare to tread these boards. Anne (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your replies, I'm simply choosing not to engage with the parts that are immaterial for the topic of this comment thread, i.e. my underlying concern quoted above. If you have further comments that are unrelated to my concerns w/r/t this RfC, you can leave them on my talk page so as to not clutter this page. - Ljleppan (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For further clarity, Ljleppan. After the Lancaster Journal published Asgill's letter of 1786, in 2019, changes were made to the Charles Asgill page. This eventually led to the creation of the Asgill Affair page. A number of main issues were addressed. However, the Journal principally highlighted a number of missing letters from the official account (which has been repeated over the centuries) - these letters falling into the "withheld" or simply "unpublished" category. They did not give reasons or explanations for these missing letters, which have resulted in history being misrepresented for 2.5 centuries. The evidence is all there, though. In 2019 there were additional concerns on the part of the Editor, who was aware of certain legal aspects to be taken into account. With the death of the owner of the original, after publication, these concerns have now disappeared. All that being the case, all I have done is to clarify, and give full chronological explanations regarding just which letters were not included in Washington's "True Point of Light" account. When all this is so deeply embedded in my mind, the thought that all this is not immediately obvious to the uninitiated hadn't occurred to me. Anne (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting here that the reliability of sources isn't judged solely by who the author is, Anne. The format of publication matters too. For example, an article written by Mary Beard, published in a peer-reviewed journal, is likely to be considered more reliable than a video of an interview with her on the same topic, because the former is subject to stricter editorial control and fact-checking. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding it difficult to discuss all this with people who have not viewed the video. Everything I say is sourced - exactly which letter - exactly who wrote it - exactly who received it. Probably the most sourced video ever created. I was conscious of the criticism likely to arise had I not done so. You are casting aspersions, not only on me, but the Editor of Family Tree, who is a qualified Family Historian. She is speaking as the Devil's Advocate. I state which letters were published, and which were not. I have given two links to evidence that my work is regarded as scholarly. Why am I being put through all this when the two videos I have already mentioned (Mandresh and Henriques) have drawn no criticism whatsoever? Anne (talk) 16:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether what you say is sourced, Anne. The point is that an interview isn't considered as reliable by Wikipedia as peer-reviewed scholarship. Even a video interview with the most highly-regarded historian in the world wouldn't be considered as good a source as their peer-reviewed articles. That's not to say the video can't be used - just that it's not on a par with published research. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to keep your last statement in mind when I go to bed tonight. My steps up the ladder of disbelief have been slow in the extreme. Nobody on earth wants to know about "withheld correspondence" by one of the most famous men to walk planet earth. But still, this video is yet one more small step on that journey. Henriques was the first, to my knowledge, to express that famous man's failings. But Asgill's voice will always be the smallest and quietest, until one day, 2.5 centuries from now, someone will do an article based on my findings, which I voice in the video. An edit clash prevented me saying, earlier, that Helen Tovey was provided with a full script for the video, weeks beforehand, and she did her own research before recording. She is a qualified Family Historian and is the Devil's Advocate during the interview. Quite disconcerting at the time! Anne (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt that I am qualified to speak about Asgill, I have been published five times on this subject. All I am asking for is an external link, preferably on the main Asgill articles, Asgill's father (since his mother played a pivotal role in saving her son's life), and James Gordon too, since he went every step of the way, for six months' imprisonment with Asgill. Publications are:

  • December 2011: Saving Captain Asgill in History Today
  • December 2019: The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019
  • Miss Asgill's Minuet (about Charles Asgill's sister, Amelia (Asgill) Colvile) - Metropolitan: The Journal of the London Westminster & Middlesex Family History Society Vol 7 No. 2 (169) March 2021 pp.88-89
  • A Needle in a Haystack (about The Swindler Asgill) [1] Metropolitan: the Journal of the London Westminster & Middlesex Family History Society Vol.7 No.2 (169) March 2021 pp.92-93
  • Truth will Ultimately Prevail (about George Washington) Metropolitan: the Journal of the London Westminster & Middlesex Family History Society Vol.7 No.3 (170) June 2021 pp.124-130

I'd appreciate some closure on this. Anne (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cordless Larry. I have no idea why this turned into such an ordeal, when, in my original post I wrote: "I would request this video be an external link". I never asked for it to be used as a source. Anne (talk) 08:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't, Anne, but others are free to suggest and consider alternatives. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't understand why so much antagonism was expressed against me, and, it appeared to me, my credentials called into question, regarding something I never asked for. Anne (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see antagonism but rather scrutiny of a source/external link, which is naturally personal for you given your involvement. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are we waiting for, when Cordless Larry and Dormskirk have approved an external link and all the other two editors did was to get totally off the point of my request (did they even read it?), and upset me greatly in doing so, by suggesting my 20-year research, which has been cited in academic works, may be unreliable and unverified? How can they know, having not bothered to listen to what I have said, yet are free to insult me over something I did not even request. Cordless Larry calls this "scrutiny" - scrutiny of what? They have not listened to the clear evidence I present. Seriously, in the real world, History Today is wanting further content from me ("Do let me know if and how we can be of further help"), and one who did listen wrote: "Your grace, articulate nature and exceptional knowledge of Asgill have shone through in the interview". Another wrote: "You were amazing, I watched the whole video and thought the lady from the family history group was also very engaging! Loved it, it was so interesting, even though I had never heard of Charles Asgill". 13:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RFC for an overview of how, when and by whom the RfC is closed. -Ljleppan (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no comments for two days is looks like this applies: "someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course".Anne (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, two days is far too early for that. Ljleppan (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone judge the veracity of something they have not listened to? It would be like judging the winner of a dog show without looking at the dogs. Anne (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. This is also the subject of an RfC. An RfC does not require a formal close if there is a clear consensus but at the moment, this is not clear. The question is whether the other "dissenting" editors might agree to the limited addition to two and possibly three articles. Ljleppan and Seraphimblade, have you viewed the video? Would you strongly oppose its limited addition to two and possibly a thrird article as I have indicated? Cinderella157 (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do continue to oppose, based on the policy reasons identified above: If the video is in alignment with the majority positions on the topic, surely that position already is in the article, cited to reliable sources, and the video falls into point #1 of WP:ELNO: not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. If it's proposing a novel position, we should either include the position in the prose (presumably cited to the Lancaster Journal article mentioned above, which I have not read) or exclude the position as WP:UNDUE, which also applies to external links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files (WP:LINKFARM) and just because it's related to the article, doesn't mean it should be included. In totality, I'm not seeing a good argument for why this specific video should be included. If other external links currently in the article also are in violation of this analysis, I propose those to be removed as well. Ljleppan (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The other links are directly relevant. The only exception is the link to a talk by Professor Gregory J. W. Urwin (who I know personally, since my research is thorough, and the image on his page is one taken with me sitting beside him). This is about the American Revolution, in which Asgill took part, but is not about him personally. I would be happy to remove this one if it is causing so much offence to an editor who comments on things he has neither seen nor read. The video under discussion, here, is reflected in the Lancaster Journal and, as Cinderella157 says (he has read the journal and listened to the video) I have simply expanded on what is in the journal and is verifiable by anyone reading and viewing both. The word "expanded" is the key. The Journal highlights missing correspondence, and I "expand" on that missing correspondence. Anne (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this video meets WP:RS has not been addressed, so point #1 of WP:ELNO is not resolved. Even then, it is not intrinsically excluded as a unique resource. WP:UNDUE does not intrinsically exclude - it is about balance. Given that WP:RS is not resolved, it certainly falls to WP:ELMAYBE at point #4: Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. The video is either a WP:RS and should be cited and possibly linked as a unique resource or it falls to WP:ELMAYBE. IMHO, an informed opinion on either point cannot be made without full knowledge of the specifics in question (having read/listened to the material referred to) and of the subject more fully. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and believe my analysis covers both WP:RS possibilities. Even if it was WP:ELMAYBE#4, I disagree that the video should be included. First, there are already 6 external links, including four different videos, and as the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. If something should be included, it's the Lancaster Journal article, which should be is used as a proper reference and not as an external link. Given that there seems to be a genuine disagreement over how to interpret the relevant guidelines and policies, I suggest we wait for a closure from an uninvolved party. Ljleppan (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever do you mean? The Lancaster Journal is cited throughout all three articles mentioned by Cinderella157. It references many many parts in the text of all articles. How can you possibly argue so vehemently against something you have not listened to and articles you appear not to have familiarised yourself with? Anne (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the Gregory Urwin video right now. It is the only one which does not directly involve Asgill. Great shame, but these articles are not specifically about the American Revolution - simply about officers who fought in it. Anne (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Urwin video from Charles Asgill's page and the Asgill Affair page. I have added it to the Gregory Urwin page. I have not removed it from the James Gordon page, since the American Revolution is not only the sole external link, but it is the only military conflict Gordon fought in. Anne (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{edit conflict} The Lancaster Journal link is cited and, to my knowledge, can no longer be accessed. To prefer the addition of one over the other without an intimate knowledge of either (as I see has been stated) is not a sound argument. To the quoted: as the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter - this does not intrinsically limit the number of links. Rather, any proposed link should be weighed in respect to those that already exist. But this is not the argument being made to oppose the addition - neither on the merits of the existing links nor the merit of the proposed. No, I haven't viewed all of the existing links but ... And hasn't Anne already suggested the removal of one [now removed]? It is not just a matter of interpreting the relevant guidelines and policies but assessing the evidence in respect to same - which cannot be done without a knowledge of what the evidence actually is? So be it though if it requires a closure from an uninvolved party. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to To prefer the addition of one over the other without an intimate knowledge of either (as I see has been stated) is not a sound argument., I refer to WP:ELNO#1 and Anne's statement (rather far) above that Everything said can be found in the Lancaster Journal. Ljleppan (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't possible to put everything stated in the Lancaster Journal in any WP article. Asgill's hidden (for 233 years) letter is 18 pages long, for a start, never mind all the other sources used by that journal. If I did not make myself clear, let me try again. Absolutely everything stated in the video can be verified in the Lancaster Journal. I quote from it, and other sources, throughout the entire video. It is rock solid on proof. I am beginning to feel under attack when I went to great pains to ensure my words could not be pulled apart as being unverified. There would have been no point in leaving myself open to that kind of criticism. Anne (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This thread would not be so long and tedious if people had only listened to what I am requesting be an external link. I've never requested it be a "source". In specific reply to this: Firstly, I am not ever expecting FA status, and "In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article" - as I've said, it would be impossible to include everything in the articles that is in the Lancaster Journal, but I rely heavily on that, and other work, like Katherine Mayo, in my video. I am not requesting that unsourced information be linked on WP. I am serious about my work, and it would be nice if it were recognised in the way Cinderella157 has acknowledged it. Having listened to it, he can speak with authority. Anne (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artist’s impression of the drawing of lots, based on archive material

Cordless Larry, Nthep, Cinderella157 and Dormskirk, Alan Birch [5] and I have been working on this image for the past month. So have people in America, regarding uniforms worn, with details going as far as the placement of buttons for the different regiments. Also the colour of the facings (most old images make it look black, when in fact it was dark blue). The only person in the image to have been the sitter in a portrait, is Asgill himself, so for that reason a “cartoon” style was settled upon. However, it is known that Henry Greville had very curly brown hair. It is known the room was small, and upstairs. The name of the tavern is known. It is known that two drummer boys picked the pieces of paper out of two hats. It is known that a Dragoon officer arrested Asgill once he was declared the one to die. It is known that Asgill’s was the 11th name drawn, leaving two untouched. The only omission is General Hazen’s ADC, but he was sent out of the room on an errand at one point, and the image is already too crowded for him to be included. Quite apart from all this, it has cost me £600, in order for it to be shown on this article. By now, I am astonished that anyone interacting with me on Wikipedia has any doubts about my knowledge of all things Asgill. To delete this image, without the courtesy of passing this by me first, is to me totally unacceptable and I am angry at the manner with which I have been treated, for the umpteenth time. Most of the 131 references on the Asgill Affair page give some details about the drawing of lots. More detailed references follow (all of which are already cited in the article):

Katherine Mayo’s book: (pages 129, 149, 148) [6] Samuel Graham’s book where there are 13 pages referencing the occasion (he was there on the day) [7] And Henry Francis Greville (also there on the day) wrote to his mother about it, giving more detail than most: [8]

I no longer contribute to Wikipedia because every single encounter I have is thoroughly unpleasant and unwarranted. I have done yet another service to history by commissioning this image, which, of course, should have been recorded as a sketch or drawing on the day. Already I have spent £200 having Asgill’s mezzotint colourised to aid and enhance the rather boring mezzotint (also done by Alan Birch, along with other work he has done for me). His patience and understanding on these occasions has been extraordinary, because he, like me, wanted as perfect a recording of this event as I did.

I have no idea how to go about citing so much within an image, so would someone be kind enough to do this referencing for me please, and return it to this article? Anne (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are no copyright issues, I do not see any harm in the image being included in the article on the basis that it illustrates the section in the article entitled "27 May 1782 - the drawing of lots" which is itself well referenced. Dormskirk (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dormskirk. Alan Birch registered as a member, uploaded the image himself, and has made it available with no restrictions whatsoever. Anne (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, I have laid out my stall, so what are you selling? Perhaps my 17 citations are not enough? But in reality it is 131, but I don't know how to include them all in an image file. Anne (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Dormskirk. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's article lede image material. Specifically that I don't think it meets the Manual of Style in that the lede image "should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see.." The drawing of lots is one element of the Affair but , and does the recreated image represent the topic as a whole?
As elements of the composition that make me think so, there are jarring elements in the image - the drummer boys having their drums with them, the inn's name on a plaque on the inside of the building. Imitative of a 18th century sketch but lacking the contemporanous nature of one.
Further, that you paid for it does not give it any special quality.
Further to that, I see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR#Statements in the subject and this article with "I have done yet another service to history by commissioning this image", "has any doubts about my knowledge of all things Asgill", "without the courtesy of passing this by me first, is to me totally unacceptable" GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett. Had you paid £600 for something, and ten minutes later someone came along and threw a bomb at it, how would you feel? Of course, I am hugely invested in this, and hugely offended by the manner of your actions. I commissioned the image for this article. You came, you saw, you demolished - without the courtesy of offering a counterargument from me. If you had simply moved it, I would have been sad, but not angry. When Alan uploaded the image yesterday, I was so excited and happy to have reached that point, after talking him through it all for a month, but then you came along and deleted it. You didn't move it. You deleted it. I could have asked Alan to do a painting, which would have enabled him to attempt something you call contemporaneous, but that would have run into the thousands of pounds. You can only regard the wood panelling as offensive, and not contemporaneous, (if that is so offensive, I dare say Alan would change it to a blank space). But do you, or I, know that in 1782 rooms were not wood panelled? As to the "inn's sign" surely you realise that that was deliberate, to ensure the location was entirely clear. As for the drummer boys, how do you convey them as such, without drums? On such a serious occasion, I think it is entirely possible they drummed their drums. Why else has history recorded their presence as drummer boys? Alan did his best, and so did I. As for the positioning (which was not given as your reason for deletion), let me say this. The "Affair" is called the "Asgill Affair" for the simple reason that Asgill was handed the "unfortunate" lot. That was the moment in history when this "Affair" became known as the "Asgill Affair". Had his friend, Henry Greville, been handed the "unfortunate" lot, the "Affair" would have become the "Greville Affair". Without that specific moment in time, nobody would ever have heard of Charles Asgill. I also feel strongly about the other officers put through that ordeal (hence the names given). They have only ever been mentioned by Samuel Graham and Katherine Mayo - otherwise entirely forgotten. I maintain that the image should be at the top of the article, because 27 May 1782 kicked the "Asgill Affair" off. The article covers "what happened next". Anne (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, are you opposed to the inclusion of the image in the article or just to its inclusion in the lede? I wasn't clear from your answer above. Thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against inclusion in the lede. Inclusion in the appropriate section is not [so] problematic for me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, one of my correspondents has just sent this to me: "As for the drummer boys, you may be right about the slow beats. Certainly drummer boys have historically played a part in military discipline/punishment and that, I believe, is why they were involved in the drawing of lots. Moreover, where, I wonder, does your Wikipedia critic think the expression “drummed out” originated? It was with the army first, and later adopted into modern parlance to denote any dismissal in disgrace. It speaks for itself!" With reference to the position of the image on the page, the same person said: "The drawing of lots was the genesis of the international diplomatic incident that developed". Anne (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 October 1781 America and France won the war, and Cornwallis capitulated. During the next six months the civil war, which had been running concurrently, became more pronounced. Washington wanted to end the tit-for-tat murders, so ordered Hazen to select a British officer to die. That has to be explained here, and in the article, because otherwise why would Washington violate a solemn treaty? Washington’s orders were obeyed on 27 May 1782 – thus was born the Asgill Affair. Cordless Larry, could you please explain why this image does not belong at the top of this article? MOS states that the image should be an “appropriate representation of the topic”. One image cannot tell a story which ended up as a diplomatic crisis, which nearly derailed the peace talks. GraemeLeggett doesn’t think it is “contemporaneous”, mentioning the drummer boys having their drums for instance. How else would the viewer understand they were drummer boys, as history tells us they were? He doesn’t like the pub sign inside. Nor do I, but how else can one fix the location? As I have explained, not one of the 19 people had their portrait painted (that is known about, other than Asgill) so the “cartoon” style had to be chosen. That is very contemporaneous, and the royals, in particular, were lampooned in cartoons. Had I spent several thousands of pounds, then the object might have been achieved more satisfactorily, but a digital image is the only way to do this in 2022. Furthermore, the detail of the image fits every particular to be found in archive records. I defy anyone to tell me that it is wrong. As to the wood panelling – well, who knows what that pub room looked like? All we know is that it was a small upstairs room, in a pub. That has been achieved by everyone being cramped, and the top of the tree shows that it is upstairs. The event happened at 9am, or 9.30am (accounts vary). So, can the image be in the lede? Anne (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne, you're asking me to explain another editor's objection, when you would be much better off asking them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry, I did ping GraemeLeggett in my post, above, but his objections do not seem valid to me. I hoped you might be able to clarify why an image depicting the birth of the Asgill Affair is unacceptable, and especially unacceptable for the lede? Artwork is a very subjective thing. But does that mean that just because he doesn't like it, it cannot be used for the purpose it was created? Anne (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had given my opinion in response to the first ping. It did not change following your reaction to my opinion. I don't see a valid argument that this image must be at the top of the page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to respond, GraemeLeggett, because I have given all the reasons why it should. Is this a situation for a closer to become involved, and, if so, could you arrange it since I am not sure how to do this? Anne (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is an informal discussion; there is nothing to 'close' per se. If I see any consensus in the discussion above it's for the image to go in the section on the drawing of lots. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, at some point Cinderella157 might confirm that, when talking to him, he immediately agreed that it should be in the lede. He also warned me that editors might consider that the image be published elsewhere, first. My reply was that I hope the Grenadier Guards might use it for one of their Grenadier Gazette issues [9], but my attempts to contact the Adjutant have, for now, been unsuccessful. I've also spoken to the Lord Lieutenant of Fife (a descendant of James Gordon) and he too is looking for possible published outlets. And Cordless Larry has not yet passed an opinion. Not liking the image seems a pretty poor reason to disallow it in the lede. Anne (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure whether a commissioned image might violate the prohibition on original research and synthesis, though I don't know how that policy relates to images very well. I suppose lots of articles are illustrated by maps, technical diagrams and the like that are user-generated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparisons seem logical, Cordless Larry; they are all images of one sort or another. You might recall I created a map for the location of Timothy Day's Tavern. Getting that up on the site involved a similar long, drawn out discussion, but it ended up being placed on a couple of articles. However, do you have an opinion on the positioning? That appears to be the final stumbling block. Anne (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any interpretation of sources to create an image is a form of synthesis if the description used to create the image is not from a single source. And obviously the more sources needed to create the image, the greater the extent of the synthesis required to reach the whole. The prohibition on Original Research applies to text. It seems there is an exemption for images to compensate for the dearth of free images. The contention would be if the image misrepresented the sources, or otherwise led (or enabled) the viewer to reach a conclusion contrary to what the sources say (eg the many fine examples at Misleading graph). If you wanted to ask specifically, you could raise the issue at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GraemeLeggett, I suspect you are talking to Cordless Larry, but if you are talking to me, then I would suggest you read Appendix II of Mayo's book, which gives a first-hand account by Henry Greville. Earl Spencer mistranscribed the name of the letter-writer, but the Journal of the LancasterHistorical Society's publication, in December 2019, gives a full list of who was present (newly researched, to correct several earlier archive errors). The image is principally drawn from the records given by Henry Greville and Samuel Graham, both of whom were there on the day. I know it is quite pointless to say, "trust me", but there is nobody who would want a more faithful depiction than me. My whole rationale, for so long, has been about correcting historical errors. I should add, ironically, a "gremlin" got into the works with the Lancaster Journal, and they have Asgill in the wrong regiment. I know; unbelievable. Anne (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to bring this to an end, I shall, later today, return the image to the article, positioned as has been suggested, above.
If I succeed in getting the image published, I shall return here, with a request that it be positioned in the lede. As I have repeatedly said, it represents the birth of the Asgill Affair.
I think referencing the image is overkill, but if anyone wants to reference it, the most relevant, of so many accounts, would be:Samuel Graham's Memoirs: [10] pp. vi, xi, 80-87. Katherine Mayo: [11] pp.129, 117-131. And Henry Francis Greville (also there on the day) wrote to his mother about it, giving more detail than most: [12]. And also Abel, Martha (2019). "'Unfortunate': Lancaster, Pennsylvania, May 26–28, 1782". The Journal ofLancasterCounty's Historical Society. 120 (3): 97–105. OCLC 2297909. Anne (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not wanting to be 'funny' about the image at this stage, but the online sources there only mention a single drum-boy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Martha Abel commented in the Lancaster Journal. page 103: "a drummer boy (or two or three, depending on the reporter)". Since I was paying per item, I left out Hazen's ADC and decided to go with the middle option on drummer boys. Anne (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if you search for "Asgill" here:[13], this was the "style" I asked Alan Birch to go for. He did his best, given the restrictions of what digital images can recreate. Anne (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, why has the name of the artist been removed? Images created by someone in particular should surely credit them? Anne (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Ammundsen - I gave the policy/guideline that applies in the edit summary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, I'm curious to know why Charles Turner is credited with this mezzotint [14] of James Gillray? I'm sure I've struck this many times in other articles too. Anne (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Ammundsen. It's in the policy I gave reference to: " If the artist or photographer is independently notable, though, then a wikilink to the artist's biography may be appropriate" Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Captions#Credits. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Well, I hope we are done here, for the time being? Anne (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, in the course of further research, it might be worth pointing out that even reliable sources can get it badly wrong. This link [15] (p.341) gives a list of officers drawing lots, including two (Morgan and Coote) who were not present and omitting three who were (Miles, Whitlocke and Ingram). Furthermore, the artist has now updated the image to include Captain White, Hazen's ADC. I wonder if you will like it any more than before? It cannot be argued with now - it is exactly as described by the most reliable eyewitnesses. Anne (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing on the part of the Washington Warriors

Cordless Larry How is it possible to make this article TRUTHFUL when the only editors taking part in the editing are those who guard George Washington's reputation on his own article? These Warriors do not like the revised version of history which has emerged as a result of Asgill's letter being published. They think they can continue to guard Washington on the page which deals with the fallout which resulted in condemning a protected prisoner to the gallows. This was carefully left to the aftermath (way down the page) - when it belongs in the background section, right at the beginning of the article. They successfully achieved their aim on the GW article, but to do so here is utterly despicable. Wording is being tweaked to help their aim. Whole passages and whole sections are being deleted for the same reason. How the section on the Asgill Family Visit to France is deemed worthy of only a small footnote, and a removal of an image of one of those who accompanied Asgill (and had a nervous breakdown on account of what happened to her brother), is beyond belief. Do they not like the fact that the Asgill family knew just who they should be thanking, and it wasn't Washington? I cannot see any other reason. As for not permitting Asgill to EXPLAIN JUST WHY HE DID NOT WRITE A THANK-YOU LETTER TO GW - when he has been condemned as a CAD for not doing so for 2.5 centuries, is nothing more than meanspirited. He should be permitted to explain his thoughts on the matter. Edits on the Asgill related articles are NOT democratic, NOR neutral, NOR accurate when I am the ONLY one speaking up for the truth to be told - and there is an army defending Washington, and fighting me at every turn. This battle cannot be fought by one editor alone. You always talk about "consensus" - how is that to be achieved when I am totally outnumbered and entirely alone in wanting the NEW version of history to be told, as it was in the Lancaster Journal. Everything I have done today has been undone, even though everything was sourced and true. Anne (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The background section covers events leading up to the Asgill Affair. Other elements of the story coming later doesn't mean they're being treated as less important. As for bias, I don't see any evidence of that; rather, I see editors insisting that the article not rely excessively on primary sources. If the secondary sources are biased, then so will the article be, because Wikipedia reflects what secondary sources say about topics. The place to correct any errors in the record is in your book, which hopefully Wikipedia can later reflect. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bias is not mentioning GW's letter of 18 May until the end of the article. Not permitting Asgill to explain why he did not write a thank-you letter to GW, and why he also did not seek vengeance on GW. Bias is an article based on accounts written by people who did not know Asgill wanted to speak up 4 years after his American experience, but was denied the opportunity. The only sources of any interest to me are ones which also reflect his point of view - because, after 233 years, there IS another published point of view. The Journal covers everything needed, and as you well know I did NOT write that publication, so where is the COI in quoting it? Mayo and Henriques cover everything else, particularly Mayo. How she managed such a balanced book, without hearing Asgill's side of the argument, is the surprise. She has been rubbished, elsewhere, today, by someone who has undoubtedly NOT read her book. It is really excellent and there is no racism in it either. It is clear I am to be banned or permanently blocked, and it is also clear that anything published in my book will also be regarded as COI, so what point is left in me taking any interest in Wikipedia? Anne (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm losing count of the number of times I've tried to explain that you can't tell a new version of history on Wikipedia using primary sources, but in case it helps, please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is true - I do forget - I just cannot get my head around the fact that black and white words on a page, proving someone said something - is totally unacceptable to Wikipedia. Anne (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wonder whether you have the same expectations when it comes to the Encyclopædia Britannica. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asgill_Affair/Archive_1&oldid=1164980423"