Talk:Samuel Graham (British Army officer)

Latest revision as of 16:14, 27 January 2023
, I see that almost all mention of Samuel Graham's part in the Drawing of Lots has been removed. There is a huge amount of information about this in Graham's own Memoirs (his is one of only two eyewitness accounts), which forms part of the official records of this event. Furthermore, Graham was with James Gordon in Manhattan in 1783, where they were both officials of a court martial. They spent their off-duty time together and Graham elicited information from Gordon about the Asgill Affair which appears nowhere else. Graham was with Gordon when he died. For these reasons, I challenge this edit. It has been most inappropriate to remove the section which was there. The image also belongs, since Graham is in it. Anne (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The edit looks entirely reasonable to me. Including that much info and an image about that one event in his life and career was WP:UNDUE. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:51am


 * The mystery of appearing and disappearing edits - so I am moving my edit below the one now appearing above.


 * I do not know why this edit (16:51, 27 January 2023‎ BubbaJoe123456), is not showing up here. I am firm in my belief that when the subject of this article's own Memoir is the second most important account of the Asgill Affair, there remains only the basic fact that he was present for the drawing of lots. This is beyond my belief. Anne (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Old version: "A close friend of Major James Gordon, he was one of the 13 officers drawing lots for the gallows, in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, during the Asgill Affair of 1782."
 * New version: "In May 1782, he was one of 13 POWs forced to draw lots to determine which one should be executed in retaliation for the execution of a patriot captain by Loyalists, in what became known as the Asgill Affair."
 * The new version provides more relevant context (why they were drawing lots) and explains it much more clearly. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The key part of the sentence regarding Samuel Graham's part in the drawing of lots remains in the article, though minus the the opening clause about him being a close friend of Major James Gordon, who is mentioned nowhere else in the article, rendering its mention in this context irrelevant. I also added a sentence noting that he was a POW at the time and stating why these men were made to draw lots. Drdpw (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I grant you BubbaJoe123456, all that appears to be missing is his very close friendship with James Gordon. Had you read the book, you would know just how close. When looking at the edit summary, those few words appear to take up so much space (I suppose with references) - that I thought swathes must have been deleted (but I could no longer see what it had looked like before). I must still request two things. A return of "A close friend of Major James Gordon" (because these 2 Scots had been fighting together for the duration of the Revolution, and both ended up being Headquartered at the Morris House in Manhattan).  Their friendship was very special indeed. I also think the link to Mayo's Appendix II, and Cordless Larry's drop-down information, should be returned. Readers may be interested to know that Appendix II is missing from the American edition, and therefore the online edition, which is the quickest and easiest access for everyone. Anne (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no reason to doubt that he was a close friend of Major James Gordon, but why is that an important thing to note about him? As to the Mayo reference, it's not necessary to support the statement about him, so no reason to include it. Why readers of an article about Samuel Graham would be interested in the existence or not of an appendix in one edition of a book which isn't even about him, is honestly beyond me. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Appendix is about what happened on the day - 27 May 1782. Since that Appendix is missing, and only accessible to people who link to it on Wikisource (and Graham was there on the day - 27 May 1782) how can it possibly not be relevant? Were there any mention in the article about Graham's involvement as a court official for a court-martial court in Manhattan, then it would bring together the fact that James Gordon was a very important person in his life - whether you like it or not. Samuel Graham talks about Gordon extensively in his Memoirs. Anne (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are also many documents about other events in which Graham took part. I'm sure there are fascinating first-person accounts of the Battle of Callantsoog, which was clearly a very important event in Graham's life, but we don't link those here, either - they'd be sources for the article on the battle.  BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikisource
, the months of my life spent getting Appendix II of the Mayo book (conveniently left out of the American edition, which is the Hathitrust online version) on to Wikisource, would be hard to explain. The Wikipedia Admin (whose speciality is copyright issues) was also involved. As was also the Admin who created the "drop down" information. For all that effort to now be disallowed by one editor, who has never been involved in any of this, is quite extraordinary. All without giving those involved the opportunity to talk about it before it is deleted. My work is being deleted right left and centre, when I was never alone in what I did, for the very simple reason that my IT abilities are lacking when things like uploading to Wikisource is involved. Anne (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Given that there are clear issues with the reference (hence the lengthy commentary on it within the ref itself), if the Lancaster article supports the claim that he was one of those drawing lots, then there's no need for an additional reference. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While Samuel Graham's own account of the Asgill Affair is detailed, Katherine Mayo's Appendix II is an important eyewitness account, and having been omitted from the American edition, is pertinent - since hers is a book and the Memoir is not devoted to that alone. Two Administrators assisted me - you are saying that their work, and mine, can be deleted in the blink of an eye.  But the matter is bigger than that, because Graham himself wrote extensively about the Drawing of Lots - Asgill - and James Gordon.  As I explain in another section, everything that was there should be returned. Anne (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Graham's own account has not been deleted. In fact, it is cited (p. 82) as a reference. Drdpw (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that the Mayo book is the main authority on the Asgill Affair (which was something Samuel Graham was involved in, and wrote about himself) - btw, his book is on Hathitrust, which makes it easier for people to click on links and see the references for themselves. Samuel Graham's account comes a close second - well, there are only two eyewitness accounts. The Mayo appendix is missing from the American version and therefore the online version. Two Admins were involved in getting this Wikisource link arranged, and if they had believed there was anything irregular about it, I am sure they would not have got involved. I continue to request that Graham's friendship with Gordon and the Wikisource link be returned. My reasons have already been explained. Anne (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that there's anything necessarily "irregular" about having the Mayo appendix be on Wikisource - it's that there's no need for it to be cited as a reference in this article - as far as I can tell, Graham isn't even mentioned in the appendix.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do secondary sources exist that talk in depth about the friendship between Graham and Gordon? If not, then it shouldn't be included. Also, while I am now more fully understand and appreciate how much effort went into making an acceptable and reliable wikisource citation for this article, I am still troubled by the errors in Mayo's book relative to the names and regiments of the officers drawing lots and that I did not find Graham's mentioned in the extracted pages. Absent another secondary source establishing that Graham was one of the 13, the list from his memoirs and the cited journal are the most reliable references to that as being factual. Drdpw (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, to try to answer your question - Samuel Graham, in his Memoirs, talks about James Gordon a lot. It is clear that he has enormous respect for Gordon, but being a man of that era, the reader is left to deduce that respect means great friendship. Graham was much younger than Gordon. Gordon 'looked after Graham' when they were in Manhattan, both on the court-martial thing together. When Gordon became ill, and then died, it was Graham who was with him, taking and dealing with all his 'last requests' and putting Gordon's mind at rest on his deathbed.  Surely Graham's Memoir is a secondary source, with all this information in it,  isn't it?  I think the very fact that Mayo had errors (and it was LancasterHistory which discovered those errors, and I was able to help them sort it all out through my own contacts) which is worth highlighting. It was the Earl Spencer (Princess Diana's g-g- grandfather - not certain how many greats) who mistranscribed the letter in the first place. These errors have travelled down history without previously being corrected. I remember Martha Abel's Eureka moment very well! Surely, when a lot of people have been involved in correcting the major authority on the Asgill Affair, it is worth letting people know, isn't it?  I witnessed people, on both sides of the Atlantic, bust their guts to get a corrected version of history into print. I will always have huge respect for everyone at LancasterHistory.Anne (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The list of officers has either major or minor errors - everywhere - people were writing about it all too long after the event, or their memories lapsed. Except the Journal - which finally got it right.  Their findings are listed on the Asgill Affair page. Anne (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)