Talk:Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet/Archive 5

The last throw of the dice

 * Cordless Larry, I’m keeping your edit intact but have inserted some comments like this […….]. We have both had enough of this now, so I don’t want any more conflicts, but at the same time I am torn since what follows doesn’t entirely do justice to what I was trying to achieve.  If my comments prove too much I will simply have to accept what you propose, as-is.

According to historian Peter Henriques, Washington made a serious error of judgement in deciding to revenge the murder of Joshua Huddy by sending a Conditional British officer to the gallows.[1] Following Asgill's release [the point I had hoped to make was that, in fact, the rumours circulated before Asgill’s release, but this is from the sermon, unless you could perhaps bring your comments about the sermon up to the top of this paragraph, since you do mention 1782?], a number of rumours about him circulated, including that he had been taken to the gallows three times but led away on each occasion. According to Anne Ammundsen, "Asgill became increasingly aware that his reputation was being besmirched by Washington, who felt aggrieved that Asgill had never replied to his courteous letter allowing him his freedom". Ammundsen notes that Asgill was "labelled a cad and a liar" for his refusal to deny the rumours about his experience as a prisoner,[''since this is so well borne out by Mayo herself, is it possible to link to the relevant pages in her book where she uses that same terminology? This is clearly where I, myself, got the notion that this was Asgill’s reputation''] and that the rumours were believed in the United States, although Captain Joshua Huddy's commanding officer, Colonel Asher Holmes, did give a sermon in 1782 in which he disagreed with Washington's "eye for an eye" decision to hang Asgill. Ammundsen speculates that Asgill's silence was "perhaps [his] way of retaliating against the man who had threatened to take his life".[2] For two and a half centuries, accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and deficient in good manners.[2] Henriques argues: "George Washington was notoriously thin-skinned, especially on matters involving personal honor. The general angrily responded that Asgill's statements [while this is a direct quote, this gives the wrong impression, because Asgill made no ‘statements’ at all, until 1786, but even then, his letter wasn’t published, so nothing has ever been ‘stated’ by Asgill until 2019. Is there any way of conveying that this information from Henriques is very misleading? I do wish I could find it again, but cannot, but Mayo ponders to herself, in her book, ‘why did Asgill never speak up – that would be perfect proof that Asgill never did make any statements. Would some sort of footnote here be acceptable? Nobody will ever find a ‘statement’ because there aren’t any – except one entirely made-up by an Edward E. Hale who falsified Asgill’s own ‘signature’ – this ‘statement’, supposedly from Asgill, is printed in the Vanderpoel book] were baseless calumnies. He described in considerable detail a generous parole he had extended Asgill and Gordon, forgetting that earlier he had tightly limited Asgill's movements. Calling his former captive 'defecting in politeness,' he observed that Asgill, upon being repatriated, had lacked the grace to write and thank him".[3] These allegations regarding Asgill's character were addressed in his letter to the New Haven Gazette and Connecticut Magazine, of 20 December 1786, which was published in The Journal of Lancaster County's Historical Society in December 2019, 233 years after it was written.[4] In the letter, Asgill wrote: I shall try again to find the reference in the Mayo book about Asgill never speaking up, unless you think your superior skills might do better than me? But the important factor here is that Asgill has been deprived a voice, to counter the allegations, for 2.5 centuries. Anne (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A new search of Mayo's book has brought this up. It isn't the quote I wanted to find, but it does suffice: On page 265 she says: Such tales as this last, filtering through the chit - chat of London , echoed once and again in the chit - chat of the press , sometimes with Asgill ' s name thrown in as authority . But Asgill himself , be it because the story escaped his notice , be it because the facts had been such that additions of embroidery could scarcely make them worse , or be it because he knew thus early the eternal folly of story - fighting , seems to have published no statement at all concerning his American experience . Anne (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Miles back I mentioned that Henriques has made an error in recording GW’s words, which were “I was not without suspicions after the final liberation and return of Captn Asgill to New York, that his mind had been improperly impressed; or that he was defective in politeness. The treatment he had met with, in my conception, merited an acknowledgement. None however was offered, and I never sought for the cause.” https://founders.archives.gov/?q=From%20George%20Washington%20To%20James%20Tilghman%205%20June%201786&s=2111311111&r=6&sr= Henriques quotes GW as saying "defecting in politeness". Anne (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You keep returning to the Mayo example, but the statement "For two and a half centuries, accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and deficient in good manners" needs a secondary source, not a single example of such an account. That's what we currently have, so I suggest leaving it as it is. Stating that the rumours started before his release would need a source that establishes that. If you the article to say that Henriques is wrong, we need a source that says Henriques is wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it is about Mayo that you find so objectionable, when she is the first and foremost author regarding the Asgill Affair, and she supports my claims in this edit. With regard to Henriques saying that Asgill made "statements", I have also cited Mayo once more where she says that he made no statements, because he didn't make any statements.  So I have given sources for both of these. Both you reject. However, you are a senior Admin on Wikipedia and I can no longer go on like this, so please would you do the edit as you have it?
 * Secondly, I have requested that you slightly alter your previous edit to read "him suffering" as opposed to "his suffering" since I cannot find that particular wording anywhere as it currently stands.
 * Thirdly, in reply to your point regarding the rumours starting when he was still at Chatham as a prisoner, I have found, on page 30 of "Revolutionary Anecdotes", right after Asgill's letter to GW while a prisoner (the date of letter being 17 May 1782 is wrong - the lots had not been drawn until 10 days later) talk of the scurrilous press reports, on both sides of the Atlantic, writing that Asgill had been "thrice to the gallows" but you do not seem to accept sources when sources are found and I am, honestly, really confused by this. Google Books: Anne (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

One other small point - I wrote that rubbish: "as dishonest and deficient in good manners" just on this thread, somewhere above (See my 18:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)) I wasn't quoting myself, I was paraphrasing if you like! I thoroughly dislike what I wrote! Am I allowed to change my mind and change it to "as dishonest and deficient in politeness"? This shows how bizarre all this has become! I've just done a word search in the Journal and the closest is on page 126 when GW says: "he was deficient in politeness."Anne (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's been a misunderstanding about Mayo? I find your multiple, long posts very hard to follow, I'm afraid. The sentence is "For two and a half centuries, accounts of the Asgill Affair have painted Asgill's character, during these events, as dishonest and deficient in good manners". Does Mayo support that, or is her book an example of such an account? I thought it was the latter because she called Asgill a liar and a cad. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do see, though, how Mayo's comment about statements contrasts with Henriques. It's probably best to quote both of them and leave it at that, unless there's a third source that comments on who is correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Morning Cordless Lsrry. Yes, this thread has been a nightmare, but it has been a terribly uphill struggle to get you on the same page as me! Mercifully you have had 2.5 lightbulb moments when you have! Just a thing about Henriques. Because he does not slate Asgill in his recent book, I made the gigantic error of thinking that he had done some research about Asgill and concluded that he wasn't a csd. I now know that while he acknowledges that GW made some errors in his life, the Asgill Affair being the worst, he has done no research on Asgill at all.  This has become increasingly obvious to me over the months of phone calls and emails with him. His videoed talk, which I think needs to go back once the edit has been done, makes it abundantly clear that he is simply following GW's lead in his opinion of Asgill. I was shocked to the core that in 15 seconds he has undone 20 years of my research. Henriques has done no research to establish that that opinion is wrong.  It is, in my most urgent opinion, vital that the Maayo book is quoted as often as possible, especially in the "statements" context, and, if you will, in the cad and the liar context. Mayo was an astonishing researcher - even Henriques acknowledges that. Please also remember that Henriques censored my question, on the night, by removing it from the YouTube video so there is no record of me raising the cad the the liar issue. How biased is that coming from an historian?
 * Please will you change "his suffering" to "him suffering"?
 * You have been determined to quote my words on a WP thread! I changed my mind! "as dishonest and deficient in good manners" is so clumsy, so please make it "as dishonest and deficient in politeness" Anne (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so where I am placing this section in the article? Because I've just looked and the article already says that "Following Asgill's return to England, lurid accounts of his experiences whilst a prisoner began to emerge in the coffee houses and press, and French plays were written about the affair", which seems to cover the rumours point. Are we replacing that? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Asgill's letter changed everything. Henriques told me that he does not believe Asgill was telling the truth in his 20.12.1786 letter. Wow and wow again! Anne (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit is entitled "Aftermath" and approaches the matter from a different angle and includes stuff which isn't on the article. It has been seriously watered down now and does not have the impact I had hoped for, but I believe it still belongs at the end, just before the bit about Asgill's letter being for sale. The loss of Asher Holmes here is a dreadful loss. I have already, in March, tried to rectify that, to no avail. Anne (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've had an idea. I have a booked telephone call tonight with Trinity Church, NYC, about the James Gordon memorial event. I am going to ask my contact there to be in touch with the people here:https://holmdelucc.org/ministers-staff/ to see if she might succeed with the sermon, where I failed. Do I just need the Title of the Sermon and the date it was delivered? Anne (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be sufficient, I think. Do you want me to wait to add the text to the article, or should I add it now and leave any revisions until later? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's get the edit done, but I am going to hope Trinity succeed in getting the basic details needed so the edit can be changed back to what I had in mind.

Please make those few word changes I have requested though, both on this and the previous edit. And, when done, please add the YouTube video, as you had it before. I don't want to bring special attention to it by linking it to this edit though - so please don't link it.Anne (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Cordless Larry. I've just checked it all and I am grateful that this much is now on the article.  I've emailed you a copy of my message to Trinity in the hope that something will eventually come through to enable us to include the Asher Holmes sermon i.d.c. Thank you, also, for not walking away from me as you suggested you would a couple of miles ago on this 27-A4-page marathon! Anne (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose, if one is a professor of history, coming across misdirection is part and parcel of looking at the past. For me, though, there have now been only two such occassions in 20 years.  Firstly in a book by Edward E. Hale in which he gives a so called "quote" by Asgill, which turned out to be total fiction, and today I find that the sermon I have believed in, since I found it in 2003, is another such occasion. I have quoted the sermon, above, but now I give the email in which I find that I was misdirected. I am in deep shock, especially since I am now part of that misdirection in two articles I have had published.
 * The email I have received reads: "I wish I had been more clear with you about the sermon I sent you. I wrote it for my church’s Colonial Thanksgiving service - and delivered it dressed as Colonel Asher Holmes.   I wrote it base[d] on research I had done on Col. Holmes and the issues he was involved in during the war.     I know of no actual sermon that Col. Holmes ever delivered.  This was my own imagination at work tying together the research in his words.  Sorry about the confusion.  Wishing you well."
 * I have requested Cordless Larry to make a small amendment to the edit. I shall be working on trying to find some works by Baron von/de Grimm in which, I believe, he speaks of the rumours surrounding Asgill. Anne (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done - with a heavy heart. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to thank you for all the support you have offered me today. You have been understanding, empathetic, supportive, kind, and above all helpful. I deeply appreciate this because when the rug is pulled from under you it is hard to cope! I regard you and  as the two editors who have supported me through what has not always been a happy experience in the past eighteen months. I have often benefitted from much help from  too and would also like to thank them as well. I do believe thanks go a long way and believe in giving thanks when they are due. Anne (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's the least I could have done, Anne; I could feel your pain. At least it was easy to correct the mistake here on Wikipedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new article "The Asgill Affair"
I am very conscious that the Asgill article is too long now. So please may I ask to remove "The Asgill Affair" in total and create a new article with the same content, leaving an appropriate comment and link as may be required? I know it is 's intention to look through what is there now, when he has time, but I am concerned that this article may be carved up prior to that. I would mention, also, that there is more to add to "The Asgill Affair" waiting for Cordless Larry's attention in the Sandbox. Because of this, both articles will still be long. Many thanks.Anne (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Anne - I think your idea has considerable merit. However, as previously mentioned, it now appears that such requests have to go through the proper process to allow other editors to comment. It seems to me that there are fewer and fewer editors who are prepared to respond to edit requests: hence the very high backlog. And having been put in my place already on this, when I just added four sentences which I considered to be "were well presented and factual", I really do not want to be criticised again. All very sad, as I have spent many happy years helping other editors not least yourself. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Dormskirk. I am not in any great hurry, but I did want to have my thoughts on the matter registered, so this discussion can be referred to in the event of precipitate action. I am sure Cordless Larry will have some view on the matter, as he has already told me he will look at all this when he can. We have already discussed hiving off The Asgill Affair if it became necessary to do so. Thanks for all your help with the references! Anne (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Random! I've just purchased a 1782 British newspaper! From the USA - making it stupidly expensive :-( It doesn't do to search the internet for Asgill links! Anne (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Something definitely needs splitting off to reduce the length of the article, and the Asgill Affair section is a very good candidate for that. However, it would need to be replaced with a short summary so that the basics of the Asgill Affair are still covered in the main Asgill article. Someone will need to draft that before the current section is split off, I think. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cordless Larry. Yes, the article is far too long now, and I am glad you agree that the Asgill Affair should be moved. I will draft something, for approval, and put it in the Sandbox. I think it would be good if you could then deal with all the various aspects, of course - when you are ready to do so. Anne (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Writing a replacement section for the CA article was a huge pleasure, unencumbered and unhampered by the way it is set out currently (too many cooks and all that - and done in fits and starts over several years)! However, there are a few points to make. First, I have reduced it to 1,105 words, compared with the present 7,447 words, written without reference to any other document (other than the introductory sentence, copied from what is there now).  I hope people will agree that is a short-version! I would be unable, myself, to make it shorter and still retain the most compelling points. However, one person's idea of "short" is not necessarily the same as another's. That took me an hour.  What will take me several weeks is referencing every line (the edit pages and referencing formats are my worst nightmare and mostly beyond me). Everything I have written is in Mayo's book, so can I reference her on every line?!  Just a little at the end requires reference to the Journal. So, that's where it stands from my perspective. I will place it in the Sandbox but, if you don't mind, I really do not want to start the awful part (referencing) until I know whether what I have written is acceptable.  There really is no point in my doing so. I await further news and, Dormskirk, while I understand you are standing back, I would nevertheless appreciate your thoughts on the Sandbox submission. I will leave it to Cordless Larry to make amendments as he sees fit, when he is free to do so. Anne (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not good at leaving a job half done, so I am trying to reference my Sandbox submission. I decided to do a C&Ping job from the CA article and the JG article. However, I found to my surprise that some of the links took me either to the wrong page of a document or, in some cases, not at all what I was expecting to see. It will be a huge job to find and rectify the CA article's 135 references, which is not what I am doing right now. For now, I am starting all over again and putting new references in the Sandbox - there is more still to do. I could be entirely wrong, of course, but possibly the errors have arisen because the Hathitrust links have one page number as seen from the original book (which is what I always use as my source) and another page number for scrolling through (if that explains what I mean)? Anyway, I hope I am not wasting my time on a submission which isn't what is required, but I have a feeling I'm on a roller-coaster ride to nowhere.Anne (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

''I am rather concerned to find that the link to the Journal no longer works. It is quoted and sourced throughout the article. I have only got as far as “Youth, Innocence, and Honour” in terms of checking sources (it is a long and tedious task which will take some time) so I didn’t want to wait until finishing before bringing this to people's attention.'' So far the following links also need attention.

Anne (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * [6] When I did this calculation for £3,000 in 1778 the link went to that calculation, but now the link goes to my second calculation of £1, relating to the Sarah Paris theft in 1791 (£1 being the lowest denomination possible - her fine was 1 shilling). This makes me look like an idiot! Here is the recalculated link
 * [10] please also add: The Economist, Perfidious America, 17 December 2014
 * [14] Link to the journal is no longer working – what can be done because the only one I know of relates to purchasing the item. The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019. This journal is extensively sourced throughout the article. I can only find it here: 
 * [15] I can find no evidence in this source that Gordon wrote many letters, but the following source does mention this Vanderpoel p 420
 * I've fixed the link in reference 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I went to add the Economist reference where reference 10 is, but that supports a quote that doesn't seem to be in the Economist article. Should I place it earlier in the paragraph, before the quote? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Initially The Economist article was online, for a few months, and when it was I copied and pasted it into a Word document. Now that hardly any of it is available, other than by purchase, I can still refer to it. I can assure you that the words "the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood." are there - as testified by White's brother, Aaron.  I also have a hard copy, which would give the page number, but it involves virtually emptying the cupboard of a lot of heavy files to access it.  Must I do that? Do you have access to that edition yourself? Anne (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can access the full text and can see those words, but the quote before reference 10 is different: "Philip White Taken lately at Shrewsburry in Action was marched under a guard for near 16 Miles and at Private part of the road about three Miles from Freehold Goal (as is asserted by creditable persons in the country) he was by three Dragoons kept back, while Capt. Tilton and the other Prisoners were sent forward & after being stripped of his Buckles, Buttons & other Articles, The Dragoons told him they would give him a chance for his Life, and ordered him to Run—which he attempted but had not gone thirty yards from them before they Shot him". That doesn't appear in the Economist article. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You leave me no option but to dig out the hard copy. One or other of us is looking at something else. I won't sleep until I've looked, so starting to remove files now.Anne (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My husband says you've done his inguinal hernia a power of good! I'm emailing the page to you now. Please try to believe me next time! Anne (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am trying to prove, via two sources, that White was murdered (shot in the back) in cold blood. As will be understood, the Americans keep this fact very quiet (in fact there is a total blackout on this incident's real story) and focus on the atrocious crime of hanging Huddy.  His name comes first in all the stories - absolutely without fail. The whole Huddy/Asgill saga began with the cold-blooded murder of Philip White, which is what is addressed in the paragraph which ends with [10] and is addressed in The Economist article.  I think there must be another [10] so we are looking at different paragraphs? Later. No, there is only one [10], but the paragraph ends with [12] - but I don't think that can have caused this confusion? Anne (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are saying that the story of White, as written to Washington - source [10] - doesn't use the exact same words as in The Edonomist? Well no it doesn't use the exact same words, but it does tell the story of White being murdered in cold blood.  Surely, as such, it is a supporting reference? If the original line I quoted is included, would that make a difference to adding it after [10] "the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood."? I wasn't thinking of going that far, but now I am, and would like it included.Anne (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry - you've got me pretty worked up about this because I don't understand what your objection is? As we all know, history is written by the victors and I've never come across an incident in history where so much - just so much - has been hidden about the true events. "Hidden letters" - "Withheld letters" - "Cold-blooded murders" - "Breaking of a solemn Treaty" - "Blame cast on innocent generals" - Men kept in jail, even longer than Asgill, having no clue why (Schaak, who was 'spare to the heir') in case the heir escaped - just so much of this story has been misreported, and it makes me very angry. The thing is - nobody in the UK, well, almost nobody, has ever heard of Asgill - so 99% of all the accounts have been written by the victors - who have hidden the murkiest parts by not reporting them.  This is Asgill's page and he has every right to bring the murky to the surface. Anne] ([[User talk:Arbil44|talk) 09:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just think that the reference that comes after a direct quote should be to the source that the quote is from. The Economist source can be cited, but it would be better to do so elsewhere in the paragraph to avoid confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the way out of this bottleneck might be to add, after [10] (since it is confirming [10]) As reported in The Economist, Perfidious America,(no author is given) "the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood." - or as much from The Economist as you wish to include. All it does is confirm the cited letter, written anonymously, to Washington.  Please can this be done now, or soon, since my main task now is trying to check 135 sources, and some have been lost, above, already. Anne (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, plus I've added an attribution of where the original quote comes from to make that clearer. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fabulous. Thank you so much Cordless Larry. Checking links to The Economist, some say 20 December and others 17 December (some IT issue I think, with the difference between the print and internet version possibly). Do these discrepancies matter? - they all link to the right place.Anne (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The only date I see given in the reference here is 20 December 2014, which comes from the edition date specified here. Judging by the URL, the article was posted online on 17 December, but I don't see that date here in the Wikipedia article. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how reference formatting works, but all I know is that I saw one with the date 17 December. Perhaps when you added another Economist link to the article today it automaticaally aligned the other link? (Perhaps that is what has happened with the CPI link too?) This is all that appears in the reference section - just one entry with an 'a' and a 'b' [3]: "Perfidious America". The Economist. 20 December 2014. pp. 64–66. Retrieved 3 September 2019." 20 December is correct, but I guess the page number doesn't refer to both though? Sorry, I'm done with this task for now - my brain has gone fuzzy. Anne (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at the Loyalist's page on WP and even that page only tells part of White's story - "a Loyalist who had been captured by Patriots and shot while trying to escape." What a biased twist that puts on a man who was ordered to escape by his captors. "Because he was told to escape, by his patriot captors, so they could shoot him in the back" needs to be added.Anne (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you - that's great. I am now up to ref [40] (I have to stop for a bit, going cross-eyed) and so am adding just a few more which need slight amendments:


 * OMG, Cordless Larry, I am so excited! Checking the sources has brought the very words I have always lacked to prove Washington knew very well what was going on with the publication of his letters in 1786. Everyone has constantly told me, including you, that there is no proof Washington knew that his letter of 18 May 1782 had been withheld.  Well, this doesn't say that (nobody, other than those involved with the publication back then, knew that letter was "withheld" until the Editor in Lancaster discovered it was missing from the batch) but it says that Humphreys (the ADC) deliberately withheld information that Washington (not his ADC, nor his secretary, Lear) was behind the publication of his letters. (I am astonished there is no wp article on Humphreys - he was GW's right-hand-man during and after the Revolution). It is one more 'deception' by "Perfidious America" that I intend to include in the new Asgill Affair (in the sandbox) and it can go into the main article too, if you want it to:

"Colonel Humphreys arranged and published them himself, not referring, of course, to Washington's agency in the matter..." Anne (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"The American Commissioners objected to the form of Oswald's commission, and refused to treat unless it was altered. Oswald, upon this, desired Jay to draw such a one as would come up to his own wishes, which was done and sent to England, and so bent were the new Ministry upon a peace, that Jay's commission went through all the different forms, and was transmitted to Paris in a very few days, so that the British Commissioners absolutely acted under a commission dictated by the American Commissioners." The 5th Article of the treaty had been intended to protect Loyalists, but after the peace treaty had been ratified they suffered various humiliations; their properties and lands were confiscated and they were disenfranchised: "But no sooner had America obtained her Independency, and the Colonies recognized by Great Britain as Independent States, than they pursued the very steps of the British House of Commons, the claims of which they had been opposing for more than eight years, and passed an act depriving a large body of people [the Loyalists] of the rights of election, declaring them forever disqualified from ever being either electors or elected, and then laying a tax upon then (sic) of £150,000, to be paid in the course of a year, and that in hard money. …  They [were] imprisoned, whipped, cut off ears, cut out tongues, and banished all, never to return on pain of death. Some were foolish enough to return and suffered accordingly. … By the 6th Article it was agreed, ‘that no future confiscations should be made, nor prosecutions commenced, against any person, or persons, for, or by reason of, the part which, he, or they, might have taken during the war, and that no person should on that account suffer any future loss or damage, in his person, liberty, or property’ …This Article was to be, at all events, evaded. It was too much in favour of the Loyalists." Anne (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Asgill article is already so long, and will have the "Asgill Affair" moved to a separate article, is there any reason why the following should not be added to the "Peace Talks" section? It tells the story, briefily, of 'what happened next':

Today's edit by Jjjjjjjjjj
I would like to take issue with a few points since the full extent of the editing will forever evade me. Some things stand out and appear to me to be biased towards an American slant and particularly "Washingtonised". These are simply the things which stood out for me. I will never know what other changes took place since they were hidden in a mass of changes which I was told were too many to be shown up when I received my notification email. I'm sure this is a controversial post, and I am likely to get a lot of flak. I stand by for that.Anne (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is self-evident that Asgill was an Englishman and some of the edits would make him cringe. For instance "Sir General Guy Carleton" which should read "General Sir Guy Carleton" and, being half French himself, he would shudder at "Count OF Vergennes". Vergennes page has him as "comte", with a small "c". Easily rectified of course, if you know how to.
 * As to the banner now stating that the article is too long (wow, I have seen WP articles vastly longer - what about Washington's for instance!) - this banner comes right after approximately 10,000 words, and 18 A4 pages have already been removed. In the American "Letter" size this would be even more pages removed.
 * Why has Philip White's story been buried in the reference sections? Two sources provided the evidence that he was shot in the back having been ordered to escape by his Patriot captors. This has sources to support it. The edit of burying this in reference sections smacks to me of trying to hide these unsavoury facts, which amounts to biased editing. How many readers look at all the reference sections? White's murder kicked off the Asgill Affair, and it is rightfully told at the beginning. I am most unhappy about this edit.
 * The absolute authority on The Asgill Affair is Katherine Mayo - I ensured that everything on this page was in accordance with her findings - even if other sources were used - but the fact is that really no other source is required - until 2019 that is. Even Professor Henriques told me personally that he thought her work well researched and accurate. She describes several Americans as "wayside Samaritans" - Hazen and Dayton being just two. I totally agree.
 * If you look at Hazen's WP page you will see it stated that "a misstep by Hazen resulted in an international crisis" - or words to that effect. Hazen has, indeed, been besmirched by history - Washington's history - which made it very convenient to pass the buck when, in fact, Hazen was only carrying out Washington's orders of 18 May 1782. There were no unconditional officers available at the time of the drawing of lots. Hazen couldn't conjure them up out of thin air. He had also been told to get the matter dealt with urgently. I think that the section on Hazen has been 'watered down' to protect Washington and I am not happy about this. It is time to recognise that Hazen was himself a victim too. I would like the quote from Washington, telling him he (Hazen) had made a "mistake" returned to the main article.
 * It is extremely rare to find anything on The Asgill Affair written by anyone with a view of events other than Washington's himself. After all, the other side of the story was hidden away for 233 years. I was, therefore, delighted to find the author Thomas Jones. Jones was a Loyalist - a Judge - and his tome on events is well over 700 pages long.  His account of events is as valid as anyone else's and to have alongside his name "who had to flee to England" makes him sound like a criminal.  He had to flee to England to save himself from being murdered by the Patriots. Not because his crime was criminal, other than supporting his king. As thousands of other Americans did back then. The Revolution was, in fact, a Civil War. It is really vital that it is understood that this is Asgill's page, and he was a Loyalist. Asgill is not here to protect Washington's reputation - the Washington page itself does that.
 * I think it would be really helpful if the article could be changed back to how it was 24 hours ago and then the changes (and in particular any proposed deletions) discussed in accordance with WP:BRD. The article is just under 90,000 bytes. There are plenty of much longer articles (e.g. Donald Trump at over 430,000 bytes) which are not tagged. The suggestion that it is too long is a matter of opinion and not policy and therefore, in my opinion, the tags should be removed. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 12:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dormskirk. I agree. I was extremely careful with all that I have done, for a long time now, to make the Asgill article "bulletproof" and in particular I want to do whatever I can to un-besmirch Hazen. Yes, a quote has been bockquote(ed) (Hazen was a man of honour), but Washington's remark about him making a "mistake" has been removed. I would definitely like the article reverted please. Anne (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please would an editor deal with my first two points? I am in the middle of some important negotiations and the first two items are offensive and not helpful to me at this time. If the other issues require 'consultation', so be it, but why is one editor permitted to make these changes without consultation, and yet I am left powerless to rectify anything without running the risk of being banned? People outside of Wikipedia have been asking me that question today, but I am unable to give an answer. This article is no longer too long.  It was previously, but that job is not yet finished - as is abundantly clear in the threads above. Anne (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As there have been no further comments I have reverted in accordance with WP:BRD so discussion can take place. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dormskirk. We are back to where we were previously, so, if discussion is required, I would simply say that I liked the paragraphing which was incorporated, and I liked the block quote about Hazen. I would be happy to see both reintroduced. My other points are made clear in the OP. I also think the idea of sub-sections in other sections, like Subsequent Career, for instance, is also a good idea. I will make a start with these matters, and perhaps the discussion can centre on them? Anne (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to impart a pro-Patriot slant to the content. I was just trying to improve the article.
 * Thank you for your long post and many points. I will try to reply as best I can. I'm sorry to say, your earlier edit did come across, to me anyway, as attempting to put a "Washington-friendly" brush across some areas. I would say, again, that Asgill was a "Loyalist" dedicated to serve his king and country, and I think his personality, and, as far as one can tell, his views, should come through in the article. There are plenty of other ways and other places for the "Washington-friendly" brush to paint!

I can understand how it could be difficult to readily see the changes, because I would just keep working, and hitting the preview button so a variety of different changes then get lumped into one edit.
 * I found it impossible to know what you had done. I only picked up some things by reading the article, which is time-consuming and unnecessary.

Moving forward I can break changes up into smaller more frequent edits, and provide edit summaries discussing what my thoughts are.
 * Fair enough, but with some background advice from Cordless Larry to guide me, I personally think the article is oven-ready now and do not, myself, think there is more to do. I have been working off-line and on-line very hard to make it so.

Flat out total neglect and non-response are so common nowadays that getting some feedback even if it's not entirely positive is actually kind of very refreshing. Obviously feedback and honest polite forthright assessment can be helpful.
 * You must surely have noticed that I adopted some of your ideas and actioned accordingly?

For this article on Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet I wasn't trying to hide anything. It's true that I added the words, "who had been compelled to flee to England", in the paragraph quoting Thomas Jones. I considered just using the words "Loyalist historian" (which is what it has on the disambiguation page) but I actually thought that Anne and other editors might prefer "who had been compelled to flee to England", because, well, maybe it could be said that the Patriots were more the aggressors while he remained essentially peaceable. The Wikipedia article says that his estate was confiscated.
 * The Loyalists were treated abominably by the Patriots to the point of murder, or having their tongues cut out etc. etc. but, again, to me, the words you used made him sound like a criminal and I really don't think they add anything to the Charles Asgill story for those words to be reintroduced.

In the case of the death of Philip White, to be honest, looking at both the wording in the revision after my edit on 08:37, 19 February 2021, and also the current version I'm seeing as of 17:54, 26 February 2021:

08:37, 19 February 2021: "Patriots murdered Loyalist Philip White."

17:54, 26 February 2021: "The Patriots had murdered Philip White, one of the Loyalists fighting in the American Revolution, “the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood”."

both seem to me to have a bit of a pro-Loyalist slant. The article in The Economist says that "Accounts of his death differ".

"Accounts of his death differ: his brother Aaron, captured with him, signed an affidavit attesting that he was killed while trying to escape. Aaron later recanted, claiming that his captors had threatened to kill him unless he signed; the truth, he now maintained, was that the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood."


 * I have included this block quote. I would simply say that since the previous "Asgill Affair" was removed, in order to create a new article, I have been very conscious that if I put too much back in, it would be threatened yet again. Indeed, previously you said that yourself.

In the version after my edit on 08:37, 19 February 2021 it is set up so that if you hover with the mouse over reference [12] you can see that full quote from The Economist article. I thought this would be a nice way that people could see the full quote.

Now, I should like to say that it may very well be the case that back in April 1782 Patriots did outright murder Philip White in cold blood. The document on Founders.archives.gov says as much. And, as Anne has been saying maybe people in the United States in the late 1700s including George Washington wanted to do their best to portray themselves well even if they had acted badly.

But as an observer here, a kind of member of the jury, I'm not seeing a kind of broad historical consensus, based on what I've seen and The Economist article in particular, that Philip White was outright murdered by Patriots. Perhaps a jury is an apt even if imperfect metaphor for Wikipedia because I think in both cases there is a kind of egalitarian construct and in both cases those who serve are not necessarily subject matter experts.
 * Unless I am mistaken, the Philip White story told here on the Asgill page is a story which has been well covered up. I am only aware of the two sources telling it as it is here. Again, I firmly believe that the Asgill page should, rightly, be told as Asgill himself would tell it. There are plenty of other places and other ways in which to tell a different story.  And, again, I am sick and tired of reading hundreds and hundreds of accounts of the Asgill Affair where Huddy's murder comes first, and White barely gets a brief mention. So far as I am concerned it is more than high time to have a different slant to this whole story and would, personally, much prefer that it stays the way it is.

But I could also say with complete earnestness, that at the current time, in the current conditions, it doesn't seem to me like the circumstances of the death of Philip White is necessarily a question that historians, or students, or the public would assign a very high priority to.
 * I appreciate that we have a different point of view on this and while in today's world this is not relevant, we are not talking about today's world here. We are firmly in the 18th century and that is the only relevant factor. As I've already said, I believe this should be a story as told by Asgill himself.

Loyalist/Patriot social tension was a condition that existed in the late 1700s but which doesn't exist in the modern United States of America.
 * Sorry, I think that is a totally irrelevant point! Those Loyalists who did not flee the country were murdered, and although some did return, later, they were brave to do so. They went to Canada and England, in the main.

Perhaps if people were to begin to look at that very carefully and find documents and sources and piece things together there would be a broad consensus that Philip White was in fact murdered in cold blood by Patriots.
 * I think the fact that the person who informed Washington of these facts, on 1 May 1782, and had to do so anonymously, in fear of his life if his/her name came out, strongly suggests that it is true.

In any case I think many people including myself have found the story of the Asgill Affair dramatic. I've shared the events that transpired all those years ago with my immediate family, and have also shared some of the anecdotes contained in the article with my mum. Asgill seems to have been a gentle, compassionate, and forgiving soul; though a soldier and a man of war he spoke in the court for leniency when his servant Sara Paris stole linen and other property from him. She could have been sentenced to have her hand burned by fire, but instead was only fined the equivalent of £7.58.
 * I agree. I found that story way back in 2002 but it has only recently been added to the Asgill page. I was personally interested in the Tarleton connection - he has a very brutal reputation in terms of his actions in the fighting during the war. I do not believe he would have gone to Colonel Gregory's aid in the way Asgill himself did.

When a soldier by the name of Private Patrick Reardon was to receive the corporal punishment of two hundred lashes along with required weight lifting it appears to me that Asgill was not readily inclined to go along with this plan, and was considering the case when it was implemented anyway. This resulted in the Court Martial of Lieutenant Colonel Charles Philip Belson, and it appears to me looking at the source document and in particular the letter from Charles Morgan that King George III doubted Belson wasn't aware that Asgill was undecided on the matter.
 * I would go further still and say that Asgill must have been livid that Belson was found not guilty of gross insubordination. It can only have been Asgill himself instigating the court martial and I'm sure the outcome was not what he was expecting.

In Asgill's service during the Irish Rebellion of 1798 he helped to save the life of William Farrell from the gallows, and gave the necessary authority to save the lives of William and James Mahrer though they both died from disease whilst prisoners.
 * I think he was putty in his wife's hands!

I think Anne can be rightly recognized for her many contributions to the article over the years going back to its creation in 2007.
 * Thank you, that means a great deal, and you are the first Wikipedian to have thanked me for my work, which has been a 20 year event!

I should also like to say, Anne, that you seem to me like an informed and discerning person, and so would surely be aware of the military alliances between the United Kingdom and the United States that now go back over a century along with the trade, economic, cultural, legal, and linguistic ties that go back yet further than that. In The Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson included the words, "...hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."
 * Perhaps you are not aware that I am one quarter American! My paternal Granny was from Georgia and I grew up with all the Civil War stories, and even some artifacts too. She was a member of DAR, so, you will see, I had ancestors fighting for the Patriot cause too (and an amazing story about a buried pot of gold)! Hicks Street in Brooklyn is named after my family (they were farmers there in the 17th century) and when things changed, and Manhatten grew, they sold their farm off in pieces, and eventually started up a ferry company taking people over to Manhattan once the farm had gone. I am a massive fan of the Special Relationship as a consequence, but I still want to see Asgill tell his own story here.  You possibly don't know that Asgill's father was a Whig and totally against the war and did not want his son to join the army at all.  His daughter managed to persuade him to let Asgill go to war, and went to pieces, completely, when he was selected to hang.

At the Peace Arch, at the border between the United States and Canada, the words are engraved, "Children Of A Common Mother", and of course that mum was the land that came to be known as England, what Shakespeare called in Richard II, "this precious stone set in the silver sea".
 * I hope I have by now convinced you that I am coming at all this with some inner conflict, given my American heritage. I still want to tell Asgill's story as he most probably saw it.

I have here in my apartment a copy of Jon Meacham's book Franklin and Winston on the friendship between Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill during the Second World War. I did not know till I read this book that Churchill talked of joint citizenship for both the United Kingdom and the United States as so closely did he see the two countries and the two peoples as linked (p. 238). In an address at Harvard University in September of 1943 he said: "Throughout all this ordeal and struggle which is characteristic of our age, you will find in the British Commonwealth and Empire good comrades to whom you are united by other ties besides those of State policy and public need. To a large extent, they are the ties of blood and history. Naturally, I, a child of both worlds, am conscious of these." And so Prime Minister Winston Churchill was very well received when he addressed the United States Congress on December 26, 1941 after the attack on Pearl Harbor and US entry into the Second World War. Meacham writes that, "they loved it; he had them from the first" (p. 153). Churchill recalled of this moment in time (p. 154): "The occasion was important for what I was sure was the all-conquering alliance of the English-speaking peoples. I had never addressed a foreign Parliament before. Yet to me, who could trace unbroken male descent on my mother's side through five generations from a lieutenant who served in George Washington's army, it was possible to feel a blood-right to speak to representatives of the great Republic in our common cause." Churchill's mother, Jennie Jerome, was born in Brooklyn, New York, and her father was the financier Leonard Jerome. In fact, according to The American Ancestry of Winston Churchill by Churchill Centre Member Gregory Bell Smith, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt were 7th cousins.
 * On this we are on the same page!

So, anyway, I think this Wikipedia volunteer work can be fun. This issue isn't one of the many burning fires happening in the world right now which are causing so much suffering, death, and destruction, so I don't see any reason to be excessively stressed about it.
 * It may not be the burning story of the day, for sure, but if you look at external links you will see that since 2004 there are links through to January this year. I have two articles coming out this month and another one later in the year, so Asgill has not been forgotten, more particularly in America. I hope my third article this year will bring him some attention in the UK where he is a totally forgotten man.

I hope that like Churchill and Roosevelt we can work together to improve the article. Slow and steady may do better here than fast and frantic.
 * The Asgill article was too long and has now been cut in half. The Asgill Affair is waiting in the sandbox for Cordless Larry to attend to. What is left of The Asgill Affair on the main article is, I believe, as it needs to be. Adding more will only threaten the article and more will have to be sliced off - something I seriously hope will not happen. However, if you strongly disagree, then will you put your proposals on this talk page before changing the article itself?  I believe that is the normal way, according to Dormskirk.

Please feel free to share any thoughts, and as I said I can break changes up into smaller more frequent edits, and provide edit summaries discussing my thinking.
 * That would certainly be helpful, but I am 100% unconvinced that changes need to be made, especially since some of your ideas have already been adopted. I think we would need concensus and for other editors to want to do whatever it is you want to do too. For now it seems to be deadlock between you and me! I'm talking about changing the meaning of the text, not about technical changes which fall into the "beyond me" IT issues. I will sign this below your signature since my edits are sprinkled throughout.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Anne (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It was nearly 2 am in the UK when I posted my comments above, and, on reading through this again, it seems to me that while we certainly ought to be able to work together like Churchill and Roosevelt - the truest simile is the Peace Talks in Paris. It is on the sandbox article, not the main article - I think you are Adams and I am Oswald, and I don't want history repeating itself!
 * Thomas Jones writes: "The American Commissioners objected to the form of Oswald's commission, and refused to treat unless it was altered. Oswald, upon this, desired Jay to draw such a one as would come up to his own wishes, which was done and sent to England, and so bent were the new Ministry upon a peace, that Jay's commission went through all the different forms, and was transmitted to Paris in a very few days, so that the British Commissioners absolutely acted under a commission dictated by the American Commissioners." Anne (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sections removed from the article
"Only one hero – Major James Gordon In his review of General Washington's Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, Keith Feiling writes: "If in any sense a novel, because it is a human story, it is right that it should have a hero. It is not Washington, alas, not young Asgill; not the murdered Huddy. But Major James Gordon of the 80th Foot, whose plain courage and humanity shines in this ugly, tangled business, who spent himself till death for the imprisoned British soldiers, steeled Asgill to his fate, and shared all his prisons and trials, spurred Frenchmen and British and Americans to action, and shamed them back to a semblance of civilised man. There have been, as readers of Sir John Fortescue know, or of Mr. Churchill, other such men in British armies, of all tempers from Cameronian saints under Marlborough down to sinners with a part in the great game of Asia. To find another such a one is to get a reward in history, and a rich compensation for meanness or timidity in high places. It is for this that most of us will be specially grateful to Miss Mayo, as the curtain falls on her intensely-wrought, moving, brief, and rounded tragedy".[54]"
 * For two and a half centuries Philip White has hardly even been a footnote in history. I believe he deserves his rightful place at the start of the Asgill Affair since his murder was the reason for Huddy's death "Up goes Huddy for White" was pinned to his coat. The fact that White has been so overlooked seems obvious to me - it is an ugly story - so easy to cover up the ugly part of history. So, please could the following be returned as a block quote? “Accounts of his death differ: his brother Aaron, captured with him, signed an affidavit attesting that he was killed while trying to escape. Aaron later recanted, claiming that his captors had threatened to kill him unless he signed; the truth, he now maintained, was that the American militiamen had executed Philip White in cold blood.”
 * In the letter of 1786 (hidden for 233 years) Asgill specifically wanted to acknowledge the sacrifices made by Gordon, who offered to lay down his own life to save Asgill, so I am saddened that the item “Only one hero” has vanished. I may even be responsible for deleting this accidentally myself when I attempted to change it from a sub-section of the Peace Talks (where it was entirely misplaced).  But since I am not sure who deleted it, I request here that it is returned to the article.  Asgill wrote:  “I am delighted at having the opportunity of proclaiming to the World his [Gordon’s] generous & benevolent attentions ”.  So, can the following be returned to the article?
 * Why are the Duke of York and Duchess of Devonshire images irrelevant? Asgill had a close relationship and was Equerry to the former (his wife was Lady of the Bedchamber to the Duchess) and so far as the latter is concerned he was politically and socially aligned to Devonshire. I'd like the images returned to the article.
 * Having spent a lot of money and a lot of time acquiring this information I would like it returned. It may be of interest to readers to know that Asgill's portrait has vanished in spite of being bequeathed in perpetuity. "   By 1821 Asgill had sold his London home, so he is writing from his Pall Mall club, to his tailor (name and location omitted). He says that he is "writing in haste" to confirm an appointment to attend the tailor's premises "next Wednesday at Eleven". While all that he gives by way of a date is that the letter was written on Saturday 9 February, with no year included, the 9th fell on a Saturday in 1822, the year he had his portrait painted by Thomas Phillips. He writes: "Pall Mall, Saturday 9 Feb, Dear Sir - I beg leave to enclose a Draft for the advance you requested --- I will be much obliged to you if you will have the goodness to return to me my Uniform as soon as you possibly can, as it has become very much tarnished, & will be spoilt unless it is carefully wrapped up, & excluded from the Air ---".
 * The current whereabouts of this portrait is unknown. Asgill bequeathed it to his brother-in-law, Admiral Sir Charles Ogle, for his family, in perpetuity. After Asgill's death Ogle wrote to the artist to ask if he could take possession and whether he was still due payment.
 * Sir Charles Ogle requests Mr Philips will have the goodness to deliver the picture of the late Sir Charles Asgill to the bearer Mr Goslett - If Mr Philips has any demand on Sir Charles Asgill, he is requested to send it to Mr Domville, [at] No. 6 Lincolns Inn. ↵ ↵42 Berkeley Sq, Oct 23 1823.
 * At the time of his death Ogle disinherited his eldest son, Chaloner, 1803–1859 (who died less than a year after his father), so it is not known whether the portrait did remain in the Ogle family as Asgill had requested."


 * It seems really petty to have made this following change. Anyone who knows anything about Asgill's personal life will know that Lynedoch, in particular, played a huge role in Asgill's (and his wife's) life. Can the following be restored? "personal friends like Erskine and Lynedoch, the Dukes of York, Sussex and Argyll followed the coffin." - or whatever the original wording was.

I thought big changes of this nature had to be done by consensus rather than swathes of information (properly sourced information at that) being arbitrarily removed. When purchasing the information from the Morgan Library in NYC I was specifically requested to mention the source. Huge costs were incurred in order to get the information across the Atlantic Ocean. Anne (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * White is mentioned clearly and it states unequivocally that he "had been murdered by the Patriots" with cites. The block quote is copyright text from the source, and paraphrasing is preferred, as is keeping quotes short and in running text rather than set out separate.
 * If your purpose is to do what every other historian has done - to minimise White's significant role in the Asgill Affair - so be it - but this is an opportunity to correct the fact that he has been totally sidelined by history until The Economist put this right in 2014 I think.Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Overlong quotes from in-copyright sources are completely against policy WP:QUOTE, so the whole paragraph from Fieling falls afoul of that.
 * An Admin found the article in Jstor, so I rather think there can be no problem with this. Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Anyone who knows anything about Asgill's personal life will know that Lynedoch, in particular, played a huge role in Asgill's (and his wife's) life." - if so that should be in the article, what we do get is an allusion that Sophia might have been writing some intimate stuff to Lynedoch, and vice versa but nothing about Lynedoche relationship with Asgill himself. The text in question was about Sheridan's funeral, and I trimmed what I understood to be references to Sheridan's friends to get to the point that Asgill (the subject of the article) was there.
 * If I included everything I know about Asgill this article would be the size of a book. Lynedoch was a friend of the entire Ogle family. Loved Sophia.  Went on Grand Tours of Europe with the Asgills - and was at Sophia's bedside when she died.  I have spent nearly two years trying to re-find sources for this article and I have no intention of doing so for another two years.  Anybody looking into Asgill's life will find those too and Lynedoch is mentioned as Sophia's "secret" correspondent.09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * A blow by blow account of the disappearance of a portrait goes against the conciseness principle; that there was a portrait, it was bequeathed, that no one knows publically what happened to it is in the article. It would be better to know more about the painting composition or importance than pondering where it was lost.
 * Finding what I did find was all part of my research into the portrait. I engaged a specialist firm in Washington DC (Lost Art Specialists) to do the research you speak of.  It was massively expensive, as was my acquisitions from the Morgan Library and Museum.  All of it was relevant, if not as exciting as it might have been had the specialist firm found more. Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * regarding images, the opening of says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context...They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. ... not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting". Standard potraits of (very) famous people do not of themselves tell us anything about Asgill and his connections to them, the one that does is the one with Sophia in it (though it would be better if the full version was used which shows Sophia in relationship to the Duchess; for all the reader knows, it's a clip of huge painting with Sophia tucked off in one corner). I'll also add that to the untrained eye, it looks like someone changed the aspect ration creating that cropped version, in the original she has a normal shaped head - another reason to use the original.
 * If this image goes I leave Wikipedia for good. I tracked the original down to the palace of a Saudi prince and had the greatest difficulty finding the original Hoppner portrait in any event. It was one of the most difficult features of my 20 year research.  The portrait of the Duchess is vast and Sophia is life-sized in the portrait when I stood in front of her and took the photograph.  Dormskirk, initially, cropped her from the image on Wikipedia and it was so dark it was next to useless.  My own photograph shows what she looked like. Who do you think you are to negate so much work on my part?Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An urn, the house he lived in, his sister - these are all relevant to illustrating Asgill and his life, and more of those things are desirable, a picture of the Duke of York, or Duchess of Devonshire does not add to our understanding that he operated in that circle above knowing by the titles of the names alone that this is the nobility.
 * If his boss is of no interest - well, I'm stumped. The Duchess of Devonshire's own story tells us a huge amount about the Georgian era and the fact that the Asgill family were Whigs tells us more. They were politically and socially in her company. I have an entre folder of Times articles about the Asgills but have no intention of putting each and every one of them on this article.Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking on these matters.
 * It would seem to me that you know nothing of this era of history and I do not appreciate your deletion of such vast swathes of my 20 year research. Edited to add. My sincere apologies for somehow deleting part of your signature. That was an error on my part and definitely not intentional. Anne (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * | (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 9 March 2021‎ (UTC)
 * Regarding Feiling, I managed to track down the source in ProQuest and I am indeed an admin, but those two things shouldn't be taken as having any bearing on what copyright law allows in terms of the length of quote used. Perhaps the two of you can agree on a shorter, more selective quote from that article? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am close to asking to be banned from Wikipedia for life. I have no "oomph" left to do anything, much less allow Wikipedia to benefit from the four articles which will be published by the summer (three on Asgill and one on the American Hostage Crisis in Tehran). I've given my life to the projects I have worked on here, only to see them slaughtered, and always me being the one who gets the slap on the wrist. I am devastated by the "Philip White" deletion (history has so conveniently already deleted him) and also the "James Gordon" one (because Asgill wanted THE WORLD to know about him) but for my health's sake I have got to tell myself now that I just don't care any more, since Wikipedia does not appreciate my work, nor my by now acquired expertise on all things Asgill.Anne (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments are not intended to be a slap on the wrist and I unreservedly apologise for any slights. I try to (imperfectly) look to improve how articles fit with the overall encyclopaedic style of Wikipedia and like all I have human fallibilities both in technique and delivery. I have said my piece here, and on Asgill Affair, about policy/stylistic matters and I think if I continue to engage or edit on either article, I am more likely to cause you more distress. Distress that is certainly not warranted. I hope it will ease your mind a bit on this matter. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly embrace your apology, thank you. So, will you reinstate the Philip White quote? Trust me, it has been "very convenient" for him to be overlooked by those writing about this subject over the past 2.5 centuries. His story is too ugly for most. Will you please also reinstate the piece about James Gordon. Mayo's book is out of copyright now, so the article, also written in 1938, must  be out of copyright too - I am pinging  for confirmation on this please. Gordon deserved every word of the Oxford Professor's praise. He was an astonishing man. I put it here again for Nthep's benefit.  Will you also reinstate the piece about Sheridan's funeral, as it was? I'm pretty sure I got the whole Lynedoch connection from "Freshly Remembered". If you felt able to put the images back too I would be most grateful.  If I do any of this myself I am likely to have yet another admonishment, as I have already had today. Those were the main things, weren't they? The next is for Nthep:            ==Only one hero - Major James Gordon== In his review of General Washington's Dilemma by Katherine Mayo, Keith Feiling writes: "If in any sense a novel, because it is a human story, it is right that it should have a hero. It is not Washington, alas, not young Asgill; not the murdered Huddy.  But Major James Gordon of the 80th Foot, whose plain courage and humanity shines in this ugly, tangled business, who spent himself till death for the imprisoned British soldiers, steeled Asgill to his fate, and shared all his prisons and trials, spurred Frenchmen and British and Americans to action, and shamed them back to a semblance of civilised man." Feiling ends by saying that readers should be grateful to Mayo for "her moving, brief, and rounded traged". There have been, as readers of Sir John Fortescue know, or of Mr. Churchill, other such men in British armies, of all tempers from Cameronian saints under Marlborough down to sinners with a part in the great game of Asia. To find another such a one is to get a reward in history, and a rich compensation for meanness or timidity in high places. It is for this that most of us will be specially grateful to Miss Mayo, as the curtain falls on her intensely-wrought, moving, brief, and rounded tragedy". Anne (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Google tells me that copyright has not expired for a UK publication. It seems it is 12 years short of expiry. I rather suspect the late professor would really love to have this piece on Wikipedia, but it seems it cannot be done (unless Nthep advises there is a way). Therefore, do you have any objection to replacing half of it, which I have emboldened? I have accepted your apology, with pleasure, so please don't leave me in limbo not knowing in which direction all this will now go. Edited to add: Since this review was published in a newspaper, the entire review would only cover a miniscule part of the whole. Another aspect that Nthep would know. Further edited to add: With regard to the White quote, on the Asgill Affair the letter of 1 May 1782 is quoted, which is in the public domain already. I had wanted to make the two pages slightly different, but if the CA page follows the AA article, at least then the copyright issue is not an issue.Anne (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Inclusion of Images of Duke of York and Duchess of Devonshire
does point out that in Manual of Style/Images in the section on Pertinence and encyclopedic nature it does say, Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context...They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. ... not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting

It also says, Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.

Nevertheless, I think images of their employers, and people in their social circle are not unreasonable to include in the article at this point in time. As a reader I didn't find them particularly distracting though I would admit that I didn't readily knew who they were exactly until looking into it in more detail.

So I can add information saying that the Duke of York employed Asgill as an equerry, and that the Duchess of Devonshire employed Asgill's wife Sophia as Lady of the Bedchamber.

Could be discussed further.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. While I would like the two images returned, the situation is this: While I said the Duke of York was Asgill's boss, while correct, is not the best terminology. Asgill was appointed Equerry to the Duke of York is already in the narrative. More than that, though, the DoY was Commander in Chief of the Army, so he was twice over Asgill's boss if you like.  Lady Asgill was Lady of the Bedchamber to the Duchess of York - and that is in the caption of her image. She definitely wasn't a lady in waiting of any kind to the Duchess of Devonshire! The DoD was an extraordinary woman of her time, also an ancestor of Diana, Princess of Wales.  She was very political and held rallies promoting her causes. The Asgills were her friends because they, too, were Whigs. They met socially as well. The Duchess had an affair with Earl Grey (a future Prime Minister) and bore him an illegitimate child.  Sophia was flirtatious with him too! I think the Duchess' image is appropriate for return to the article because the Asgills were in her social circle. While talking about accuracy, I notice you have removed (Royal Edinburgh Volunteers) from James Gordon's regiment. I do wonder if that shouldn't go back - because within the British Army there was another 80th Regiment of Foot, entirely separate from the Scottish Volunteers, and I think it is important that readers know which 80th Gordon was in, since he was a proud Scot. Anne (talk) 09:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the error in confusing the Duchess of York with the Duchess of Devonshire as I suppose I saw "Duchess" and didn't see the difference between them. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on how the Philip White events should be presented
Looking to go with a reasonable presentation here. I could say that if one hovers over reference [12] in this version of the article it's possible to see that quote from The Economist article.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 09:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that is a pretty good compromise solution - for the Charles Asgill page that is. The Asgill  Affair can devote more coverage to this, with block quotes.  But is "shot to death" the best way to express what happened?  Perhaps "shot in the back, having been told to escape"? Anne (talk) 09:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, can see what others say about that. I think many different wordings could be reasonable here. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Let's see if anyone else contributes. I much appreciate the efforts you are making on this article. Anne (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My Heritage 'Deep Nostalgia' animated image of Asgill
,, Would I be permitted to put this animated, moving, blinking, smiling image https://www.myheritage.com/photo-1500005_557630801_557630801/colour-version-5-hi-res?itemSource=album&itemId=2 on the Asgill page under external links? It is a taken from the mezzotint already on the page. If it is permitted, with acknowledgement to My Heritage, it is quite spectacular really. It is like 'meeting Asgill' in person. But does it work for others to view? It works for me, but does it work here? There is no point putting it on the article if other people cannot activate it. Anne (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's only visible to people with a My Heritage account, Anne. Clicking the link takes me to a login page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

, basic access membership of My Heritage is free - I don't have a paid account there. This animated image is so amazing I am reluctant to chuck it in. Is there any chance of taking this a step further? Is it possible to put a note to that effect with the link? Actually, I've just remembered, I think you only get basic free membership if you upload your DNA to My Heritage! Oh, what a shame! Anne (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Incremental Edits By Jjjjjjjjjj
I admit that I was somewhat hesitant to return here because I wasn't sure how my message would be received. But after reading your responses I feel better. One can try to be reasonable and to take into account the underlying context and the overall situation.

I did not know till I read your responses and also the relevant Wikipedia article that it was Winston Churchill who specifically used the phrase Special Relationship when he delivered what came to be known as the Iron Curtain Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

The system is set up so that multiple people can contribute to articles. The accumulation of work over time will hopefully produce a better article than could be produced by just one person working alone.

What I've been doing is going through articles that have links to founders.archives.gov which ought to repaired, fixing them, and also doing other work which seems to me to be helpful and beneficial. I haven't generally returned to articles afterwards.

This one though is somewhat different because of your great interest in the subject, and so I can seek to take a different approach. I'll consider this one an ongoing endeavor, and can return to it periodically. Can play it by ear in terms of how much work I seek to contribute to it as time goes by.

For this session then I'll just seek to do some incremental editing to the article which I hope you and others will feel are reasonable things to do.

I hope that breaking up the edits and providing edit summaries will be enough so that what I'm doing will be readily seen; however, if there's something that seems to me to require further discussion I can come back here to the talk page to provide further comments on it.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message Let me be clear that I appreciate your interest in the article and your desire to improve it.  Here there are things I must acknowledge. Firstly my IT skills are pretty abysmal, but I missed that boat already. The simplest thing takes me sometimes hours to achieve and even then I likely get it wrong. I also acknowledge that others can make the article more Wikipedia-compliant.
 * However, the other side of the coin is that I know nobody who knows and cares about this story more than I do. My research tells me where injustice has arisen, and I'm not talking about Asgill here. "Saving Captain Asgill" was achieved two years ago.
 * I am talking about Philip White, who has been relegated to less than a footnote in history. This is wrong. His murder directly resulted in Huddy's murder. The White story (in all its ugliness) rightly belongs before Huddy's, not a P.S. to Huddy. I am very disappointed that the block quote at the start of the Asgill Affair has been totally removed.
 * Then there is Moses Hazen. Without making a separate article entitled "Saving General Hazen" there is a limit to what can be achieved here. But I also want the injustices to General Moses Hazen set straight (sorry, but Washington treated him shabbily).  He was a very good man, and I am very disappointed that the words written by Major James Gordon have been incorporated into the paragraph, rather than being a blockquote - that's a different story - I imagine you are aware of my latest skirmishes?! I’ve gone down a rabbit hole because it states here  that Hazen left the choice of captain to chance – “Washington wrote back on May 18 directing Hazen to select a conditional captain, who was protected by Article XIV of the Yorktown Capitulation which prevented violation of other articles ‘on pretence of reprisals’.  With the new order in hand, Hazen left the decision up to chance. Captain Charles Asgill, a nineteen-year-old heir to a sizeable fortune in England was selected by fate: he and the other twelve captains drew papers from a hat, and his read ‘unfortunate’ ”.  This is totally inaccurate since no unconditional prisoners were amongst the 13, so there was no ‘chance’ involved.  This gets Washington off the hook, and Hazen too.  This is what upsets me so much about recorded history; almost exclusively written with an ‘agenda’ in mind.
 * Then there is Major James Gordon. The "Only one hero" sub-heading has gone altogether. When I first saw Asgill's letter, back in 2007 - his words about Gordon changed everything. They seared my brain. They propelled me to work, non-stop, for 12 years to get Asgill's letter published. Asgill's suffering, and his denial of having anything to do with the rumours circulating were secondary to what propelled me. Asgill had been silenced for over two centuries in the cruellest way. Someone had to do something about this and Gordon was integral to why I did what I did.
 * Then there is poor Captain John Shaack! The poor man sat in jail for considerably longer than Asgill and was bankrupted by the event. He was the "insurance policy" which was never cashed in, and, crucially, never explained to him. As a consequence, there is little to be found, but what there is must stay.
 * Asgill's wife, Sophia (Ogle) Asgill's portrait is being threatened with deletion and to be substituted for the full Hoppner portrait of the Duchess of York. You can read elsewhere my journey which eventually brought me to standing in front of the original portrait in the palace of a Saudi prince. But there is more to that story. I had to first find an image of Sophia as a child to ascertain that it was Sophia at the feet of the Duchess. From start to finish her image took about three years to finally get up on Wikipedia. It must never come down.
 * I also spent a fortune and a couple of years trying to find Asgill's portrait. A firm of specialists in Washington DC tried to find a paper trail of where it ended up, without success, and the end result was only to be found at the Morgan Library in NYC. My findings there have been removed. I think those findings show Asgill's vanity in being presented "at his best" for the portrait to be painted. I am also sad about this deletion, if only because the whole thing cost me so much money.
 * Lynedoch was crucial to the Ogle/Asgill story, and I am bitterly disappointed that the very short section relating to Sheridan's funeral has also been changed. Sophia and her sister designed Lynedoch's coat of arms, and he was (possibly) her lover. There's a wonderful story of them with adjoining bedrooms (shock, horror, with interconnecting doors!) at Woburn Abbey! Anyway, he was at her bedside when she died. The Asgills were always in the company of Sheridan too. All of them Whigs.
 * Regarding this: "on 12 April, he was taken from there to Sandy Hook by Loyalist forces where he was hanged, by Richard Lippincott, on the orders of William Franklin." Could this statement reintroduce the fact that Benjamin Franklin was a high profile Patriot and his son William was a high profile Loyalist? This must have been the most notable example of how families were divided during the Revolution. Many people reading this story will not understand the "civil war" element of the Revolution. I know I didn't, until I began my research.Anne (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The story I present here, and on the new Asgill Affair article, are thoroughly sourced and cited and whatever changes and improvements you plan on making, I hope they will not involve painting a different picture over the old canvas.
 * Having said all this I hope you will understand better where I am coming from and where my fears lie with other editors (who have not travelled the journey I have been on) changing this article, and not for the better. In my view the majority of the latest deletions is a case in point.
 * I think we will both be in trouble for the length of our posts now. I am more than happy to answer anything you might wish to pose, by email. Anne (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to just say that I see that you raised a lot of separate points, and so I won't try to go through them all now; however, as time goes by more work can be done on this article.

I think I can understand, at least to a certain extent, how having put in so much time, money, energy, effort you are distressed when parts are removed. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeking help to find some documentation
I have a 'pending folder' of documents which I would dearly love to find, but when I have seen brief references elsewhere I have failed to copy links correctly, and now cannot find what I am looking for. If anyone could help me, that would be most appreciated. ? ? (if you ever have a spare moment)?


 * The New York Packet reported on Asgill’s letter to his father, telling him he was to die and apologising for having gone against his wishes by going to fight in the Revolutionary war. He either wrote on 10 October 1782 or the newspaper was published on that day giving details of the letter. It would be fascinating to see that letter, if at all possible. Found this  The New York Packet, and the American Advertiser (New York [N.Y.]) 1776-1784, but I don't know if it is searchable?


 * His sister, Amelia Asgill, is mentioned in Political Magazine, 1782 Vol III p. 386-7 and p. 776 Cordless Larry found this this, but v3 is missing


 * United Service Journal p. 164, Graham p. 318 and p.322 - This must be something to do with Captain Samuel Graham (a close friend of James Gordon). Could anyone find that for me please, my attempts have got me nowhere? Found this,  but 1829 is too late to be of interest to me.

Anne (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Royal Correspondence: Prince of Wales:  Mentions of Asgill.  I know that Asgill wrote to the Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales to seek employment after he was retired from his Dublin duties. It would be interesting to see if there was ever any response to his plea for employment, but this link does not work (and my word search on hathitrust brings up thousands of irrelevant papers).  Something may be on hathitrust, but the following link doesn't look hopeful of there being a follow up letter: 
 * I presume the publication in your second bullet point is this, though it's missing volume III there. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've just checked v4 (1782) but there is no mention of Asgill. Goodness knows why v3 is missing or why I've seen mention of it elsewhere. Will have to consider that a dead end! Anne (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

The Swindler Asgill
To say that I am excited today would be the understatement of the century! We do not know who this chap actually was - he was never caught. Today I had an email from Professor Turi King, Professor of Public Engagement and Genetics, Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester, to say she is interested in my case and will get back to me in a few days time. She discovered King Richard lll in a Leicester car park a few years ago. I am over the moon. Way beyond excited! I just had to share this news. Anne (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, every time I have an ongoing project underway, outside of Wikipedia, such as trying to get articles published, and now The Swindler, I know that the people I am dealing with will be looking at the Asgill article (146 and 141 in the past couple of days).  Every time this happens, the page has always just had deletions made. Do you all think that you could please address some of those deletions before other matters? It stands to reason that people at Leicester University will be looking at this article right now, and it is hardly likely they would have taken on this case without the inclusion of some 'notable people' (Washington, King Louis XVI, Queen Marie Antoinette etc.) involved in Asgill's story. I know that part of my delight is that Asgill will be getting a wider audience - here in the UK - and I only wish the article was as it was a week ago.Anne (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anne - In my view, much of the material which has been deleted was harmless and I would support its restoration; however, as previously explained, responding to edit requests now seems to be problematic area and I have no desire to be further criticised. It is a great shame as giving help to really knowledgeable editors who contribute so much - including yourself in particular - has given me great pleasure in the past. Sorry! Dormskirk (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia operates according to its own rules and can't really be held to externally determined timelines or deadlines. If that's inconvenient for your research, Anne, that's unfortunate but it can't really be helped. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , as an Admin on Wikipedia are you able to assist in any way? It seems to me that the pleasure he used to derive from all the invaluable help he has given me (and undoubtedly countless others) in the past, has been taken away from him. It is distressing for me too that he now feels as he does. Has Wikipedia really really benefitted from what has happened?  I'm up the creek without a paddle!  appears to pop in only now and then! And  has not responded to my request to reconsider. Anne (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not everyone has as much time to contribute here as you do, Anne. Please see WP:DEADLINE. On the edit request point, I don't think there's anything stopping Dormskirk from continuing to respond to them, although the present situation can't really be resolved with an edit request - it requires discussion to reach consensus. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm on a mission and not getting any younger! My frustration lies with the fact that often hundreds of people look, yet absolutely none ever respond. I hope you can understand my point of view? Anne (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said a couple of days ago, I have chosen to disengage from editing on Asgill and Asgill affair. You have a clear field so far as I am concerned. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate GraemeLeggett's comment, and thank him for it. I'd also like to apologise to him for having fought rather like an alley cat - I am sorry! On the basis of this I am going to put half the "Only one hero" passage back. If Nthep responds on this, and says either it must come off, or, possibly, the whole passage can be restored (given how small a part it was within the newspaper), then changes can be made once more. For now, I will also restore the very short piece about Sheridan's funeral. If it is thought that more information should be on the CA article regarding Lynedoch, then we can talk about that i.d.c. I have the book, "Freshly Remembered" which is the source of my knowledge of him and his love of the Ogle family, Sophia in particular. The Woburn Abbey 'shocking' story is in Lady Shelley's Diaries if I remember correctly. Edited to add that I found the quote which was something else that seared my mind! https://books.google.je/books?output=html_text&id=-cMEAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=disgusting+familiarity Shame the whole story isn't viewable. It was a good one. Anne (talk) 13:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Today I had a second article published in 'Metropolitan' The Journal of the London Westminster & Middlesex Family History Society, Vol 7. No.2 March 2021-ISSN 1359-8961(print) ISSN 2056-3698(online) entitled 'A Needle in the Haystack' pp 92-93. But I do not think it should be referenced to "The Swindler Asgill" section of the CA  article at this time. I have also heard back again, today, from Professor Turi King at Leicester University and so, with luck, I hope to have far more interesting things to add in the fullness of time. Anne (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Miss Asgill's Minuet
Some months ago you advised me to get an article putblished,. Today I received my copy. Perhaps you would include it in the CA article, since I cannot do this myself as a conflicted editor. May I suggest that it could either go after: "Asgill, his mother and two of his sisters went to Paris to thank the king and queen for saving his life.[45]" or alternatively, after "The same terms apply to them all.[100]"


 * When writing about Asgill’s eldest sister, Amelia, in relation to the events of 1782, in her article “Miss Asgill’s Minuet”, Anne Ammundsen comments that: “when the family became aware that Charles was under threat of execution, Amelia went to pieces and suffered what today would be termed a “nervous breakdown” and was quite inconsolable. She believed herself to be responsible for her brother’s plight and couldn’t forgive herself. [She had persuaded their father to allow Charles to join the army] An unknown (possibly Spanish) composer took pity on Amelia and wrote a piece of music for her, entitled ‘Miss Asgill’s Minuet’, no doubt intended to lift her spirits.” This music is on YouTube here: The sheet music is here:  and a reference to her beauty is here:  and an additional reference to her state of mind is here:

The online version of this journal is only accessible to members, but the link goes to the main LW&MFHS webpage. Anne (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can do, but could you provide the article title so that I can reference it fully? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ignore me. I see that you included the article title, just in the text rather than in the reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that . I am very disappointed indeed that the Spanish website doesn't (for me anyway) show the sheet music any more. I downloaded it years ago and had it digitised in order to put it on YouTube. Might your superior skills find that sheet music once more? Anne (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You just need to click through using the link to the National Library of Spain link on the catalogue entry. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, the whole point of writing the article was to be able to link to the YouTube music, but you have not made that link! It is here:  And what about Mayo's link to Amelia's state of mind?  Would that not also be appropriate? Anne (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really appropriate for the text of an article to point to resources in Wikipedia's voice; that's why I included the link to the text in the footnote. Perhaps a link to the video could be included there too, but I'm not sure what the relevance of Mayo is here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to see a link to the YouTube music please - I wouldn't have bothered writing the article otherwise. That's fine about Mayo - I just thought it confirmed that Amelia broke down. Anne (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I just check what the copyright status of the recording is? We can't link to something on YouTube (or any other external site) if it's a copyright violation. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK. Don't know if this helps, but the man who digitised it was paid for his work and he told me I could do whatever I liked with it, so I uploaded it to YouTube. Anne (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I interpret that to mean that the copyright was signed over to you. I'll add a link now. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, the "digitiser" rang me today, to confirm that he has no problems with the music being linked anywhere I might choose. As he said, I provided the sheet music, and all he did was 'feed' it into his electronic hardware.Anne (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Lady Asgill's Christian names
Some sources call her Jemima Sophia and some call her Sophia Jemima. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography goes with Sophia Jemima, so I've amended the article accordingly. Opera hat (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * and I cannot believe that I am being forced to fight this old battle again, having been brought to tears over this back in 2019, when I was also threated to be permanently banned by  because I disagreed with  then, as now, and tried to revert his edit, making an error while doing so. Can Jemima Sophia's name be permanently protected as Jemima Sophia so that I don't have to revisit this ever again? She was known as Sophia "This is the Last Will and testament of me Sir Charles Asgill of York Street, St James’s Square, in the City of Westminster, Baronet. I desire to be buried in the same vault in St James’s Church where the corpse of my beloved wife Sophia is deposited" - Her burial entry in the parish records of St. James's church, Piccadilly, refers to her as Jemima Sophia and I would think that by the time of her death her husband had nutted out her name. Please would one of you revert the edit, together with the two sources I already provided?
 * With regard to the information about St. James's Church, I would like that reverted too, because this is another old argument, which resulted in the edit being as it was until deleted by Opera hat. Back in my old fight on this matter, I explained that the bombing of the church means that nobody can be sure whether the Asgill coffins survived the bombing. The courtyard (and graves there) were demolished by the bomb and the vault had to be emptied out to install under floor heating, when the restoration took place. I explained, back in 2019, that I had been in touch with two construction workers from Rattee and Kett who remembered, from all those years ago, personally removing the coffins in order to install under floor heating. Since all that was by email I was not permitted to use this information, and a compromise was reached which has just been removed by Opera hat.  I am extremely upset about both edits and would like both protected - since both battles have already been fought and won by me in 2019. Anne (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Anne - As you know, I voluntarily decided to withdraw from working on edit requests some 6 months ago but I know of no way to protect a small part of an article like this. - are you able to help resolve this? Dormskirk (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dormskirk, I know you will not help with edits now (sorry, old habits die hard and I do forget you will no longer help), but I was hoping you might recall the battles I have already had to fight, so many times, and I would have hoped and thought that by now editors would realise that I know my subject, and would have the courtesy of running edits like this past me before doing them. Anne (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are sources that we'd usually consider reliable that give her name as Jemima Sophia and others that give it as Sophia Jemima. I'd usually go with the DNB over other sources, but bearing in mind this and this, perhaps we should note both variations? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sophia died in 1819 - her burial record must be out of copyright by now. Could someone tell me if I may upload it as final proof so this does not occur again? Anne (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I am permitted to upload her burial record from St. James's church would that put this argument to bed? I am about to email it to you now  so that this does not happen again. It sends shivers up my spine seeing her name so wrong.  My name is Anne Christine and I cannot imagine how I would feel were I to be addressed as Christine Anne. Anne (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the previous correspondence on these two subjects count for nothing because they have been archived? I have no idea how to retrieve archived posts. People, when living, do not have two different versions of their name, so it would be entirely inappropriate to allocate two versions to Sophia. The Burial Record proves that she was "Jemima Sophia" since Asgill, or his solicitor, would have entered those details in the parish records back in 1819. Anne (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Herewith JEMIMA SOPHIA's Burial Entry at St. James's Church, Piccadilly, London, following her death on 30 May 1819. I hope nobody will suggest that the burial entry is wrong and that she has two different versions of her name? I also request that the previous correspondence on the matter of the bombing of St. James is brought out of the archives, as I do not want to have to constantly go over old ground. I am trying to move on to other things and this is a complete waste of my time. Anne (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Lady Asgill's name to "Jemima Sophia" as per the burial record I have provided. Is there any way to put a link to this document in one of the references, or indeed somehow put a link to the document in a place where it will not be visible on the page itself?  Or is it possible to add a notation within one of the references that the burial record has been witnessed here? I do not want to be penalised on Wikipedia for not having the IT skills needed to action this, so hope the help needed will be offered.
 * I have also reverted the entry regarding the bomb damage to St. James's church, and expanded it in a way which I hope will mean it doesn't get removed again. The edit was agreed, I think (but am not certain) by you in 2019. It might have been Spintendo. Anne (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the burial register is pretty convincing evidence for Jemima Sophia (I had forgotten there had been any previous discussion on the subject). But thepeerage.com and that other source you provided, which cites thepeerage.com, should not be used as references. See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I'm replacing them with the marriage notice from the New Annual Register that Cordless Larry found. Opera hat (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * By removing the Byron reference you have deprived readers of all of the following - all you have to do is click on "references" which is a great deal easier than the ref. you give, found by Cordless Larry, the page scrolls so slowly that it took for ever to find page 52. Cordless Larry's source is useful, and can stay, but the Byron one is going back so people can see this:

Anne (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (I hope you don't mind my contracting all that wedge of text.) When I followed the link to Google Books, it took me directly to the correct page... but then I realised I was using the old Google Books and it doesn't work with the new version of the site. That's really annoying. However, it's still a valid reference for the date of the marriage, as one isn't obliged to include a page link; see WP:GBOOKS. The Byron reference would be better as an additional reference for her date of death, which it actually mentions, than for the exact date of her marriage, which it does not. I'll move it further down the page. Opera hat (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * With other serious things occurring in my private life today I have hardly been able to keep up with the vast number of edit notifications. I have not had a chance to see if the Byron link has been retained, if moved lower down the page. It is a valuable resource so far as Sophia Asgill is concerned. As for the length of time it took me to reach page 52, well, will anyone bother I ask myself?  Can nothing be done to improve that situation? Anne (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd stress that references are there primarily to verify article content, not to act as links to valuable resources. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that all those links to what (mainly women) thought of Sophia is deemed of little or zero value. I cannot believe this.  What if someone wanted to write an article (on or off Wikipedia) about Sophia?  Where else (but the Byron site) will they find those links? Anne (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone researches and writes an article about her, I suspect they'll use a search engine to find appropriate sources that they can use. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, good luck to them with that. She is impossible to find, except in dusty old books which, I believe, have not been digitised. But you would know more about access to impossible to find books than I do. Anne (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Byron site is on the first page of results on a Google search for her name. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * just done a google search and Wikitree comes up first for me. A site totally unacceptable to Wikipedia, as, also, are the rest on the first page here:  but all this is ridiculous. I can see no good reason not to have one link on this Asgill page which gives some further links relating to his wife. Incidentally, a very cursory glance, tells me that I am in some way or another the reason she comes up.Anne (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a very good reason, which explains above: as a source, it doesn't support the material it appeared next to, so it fails at the core task of a reference. Opera hat therefore moved it to a place where it does support article content (her date of death). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that Opera hat has moved the reference down to her death, which it doees support. I put it there initially to support her name as "Jemima Sophia Ogle" since I was unable to find any other online source to support that name.  Luckily you found something which is being used in place of the burial record which I provided, but at least that was undeniable. Don't forget, you have special access to sites, denied the likes of me. Anne (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I found is on Google Books - no special access required - but this is beside the point, which is that Opera hat was correct to remove a non-verifying reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the source you found was inaccessible to me or anyone else. I mentioned that it took me about half an hour to find page 52 and perhaps that could be improved. I also acknowledged that moving the Byron source down the page had put it where it is a source for her death, so I'm not sure I understand your point. As to a non-verifying souce, I already explained that it had been the only source I could find with the name "Jemima Sophia", so that was the reason I put it there - to prove her name. Only now am I hearing that it is a rubbish source.  I asked (back in 2019) if I could use the website which has an image of Sophia as a child (which also refers to her as "Jemima Sophia"),  but was told that was also a rubbish website. Obtaining the child image (from the Gage family, one of whom married Sophia's brother) enabled me to identify Sophia in the Duchess of York image, (the original of which I also found). By the way, Neil Jaffares is an extremely knowledgeable and accomplished art historian. Anyway, while I'm here I would like to thank  for the good stuff done, and it is just a shame all this started so badly by giving Sophia the wrong name for a second time. Don't spoil it by taking down the hot water urn (something else I have not forgotten)!Anne (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Size of the article
This article is 98.5 kilobytes in size, which is far too large; see WP:Article size. Compare the size of the articles on Sir Henry Clinton (52.2 kb), Sir William Howe (57.8 kb) and Lord Cornwallis (69.3 kb). I suggest that the section on the Asgill affair be summarised in a couple of paragraphs. The link to the Asgill Affair main article is already there, and what is the point of having a whole separate article on the subject if its contents are just going to be duplicated in this one? Opera hat (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As pointed out only recently, there are other articles on Wikipedia which are much longer.  This one is long because a great deal is known about Asgill, who has been written about regularly for the past 2.5 centuries. Perhaps the other subjects you mention have not retained the same fascination with their story over the same period of time? Because of the peculiarity of Asgill's situation the Americans, in particular, have never lost their fascination with him. The tone of the Asgill Affair on the CA page is different to that found on the AA page, which is much more formal. I keep having to make it longer on the CA page because of the need to give constant proof and citations on every other line.  This only goes towards making it longer still. I do see your point, but some of the more personal tragedy side of this story will be lost if only the AA article is there. How many men, in history, have had to pull their name out of a hat to die?  Be reasonable.  His story is unique and should be acknowledged as such. Anne (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's exactly because so much is known that there's a need for more than one article. Moving detail into the main Asgill Affair article and summarising at Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet is what WP:SUMMARY calls for, but doesn't mean anything will be lost. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've only just completed that task with the creation of the AA article. Now we are back to square one again. Would Opera hat like to sift the wheat from the chaff and transfer over from CA to AA so that nothing is lost?  Then I will be told that the AA article is too long. Are two Asgill Affair articles allowed? Cordless Larry, you are aware that I have now received 184 pages of manuscripts from the Library of Congress. Assuming I ever have time to transcribe them, what happens then?  Will I be told I cannot use that information because of the length of both articles? Anne (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - as long as the level of detail isn't judged to be too much, we can probably find places to accommodate the material without any one article becoming too long. You should bear in mind WP:PRIMARY though; we shouldn't be basing too much on primary sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry. I really don't know what to do with my life right now? I have the Swindler Asgill potential investigation on one hob; I have been trying to find Asgill's letter to his parents in October 1782, and I am being bombarded with emails from people trying to help me in that quest, so that is on another hob;  I have months of transcribing to do on another hob; and I have a book about the Duke of York I never get a chance to read languishing unread. Not to mention trying to get Appendix 2 onto Wikisource. I've run out of hobs. That is quite aside from several personal dramas going on right now. I keep being dragged back here, either on talk pages, or to keep an eye on changes being made to the articles.  There is only one of me, but several others here. I cannot do it all. If people want to make more changes, what can I do about that? If I am being asked to put yet more years of work in on Wikipedia, I do not have the impetus needed to do something I personally see no need for. Nobody works well doing something they do not want to do. Anne (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no compulsion for you to do anything, Anne. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and there are plenty of editors who will no doubt contribute to the article as it continues to develop. There's also no deadline. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Opera hat like to sift the wheat from the chaff and transfer over from CA to AA so that nothing is lost? Yes, I’ll do it – maybe not this evening, but probably tomorrow. Opera hat (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

There is only one thing I will never give up here, and that is to keep an eye on what is happening. To wit, a wrong name for Sophia. To wit your need for more citations etc. both of which took me off all my other hobs. There is one thing I would ask - most sincerely - if people do the sort of bulk editing done by Jjjjjjjj lately, I then have no idea what has been done. Please will people make it clear in the editing just exactly what they have done, in smaller bites than done by Jjjjjjjj? I don't want to miss another wrong name change etc. Anne (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can’t dictate to other editors how to make their edits. But if you click the “History” tab at the top of the article, it will show you each edit that has been made since you last viewed it. You can then change which row is highlighted in the “compare selected revisions” column to view all the changes since then in one go, if you find that easier. Opera hat (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought that (a) it was a Wp requirement that editors made their edits clear, rather than in huge bites which then result in notifications stating "too much to show" - which Jjjjjjjj understood and definitely rectified in subsequent edits, which were done most considerately. And (b) I was not dictating - I was requesting, and I thought in a pleasant fashion. You may be able to see the wood from the trees on large edits Opera hat, but they defeat me - OK? If you want to transfer information over from CA to AA, well, I can only hope that the different information on both pages will merge so that nuances are not lost. This is a human story, whichever way you look at it, and cannot be turned into a cold military manoeuvre. Anne (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been swamped with information regarding Asgill's letter to his parents today (all intended to be helpful). However, I can see I have a real task on my hands to find this in America, since the British Library does not have the right edition. I am therefore wondering (since I believe that this letter is part of the human story) whether an edit on one page or the other could be sorted out from the following information?
 * According to Mayo, Asgill’s letter to his family was published in the New York Packet on 10 October 1782 (see page 303) And on page 165 Mayo gives a brief summary of its contents:
 * “It was no long tale that young Charles wrote. Those four in England knew how he loved them. To try to say it now would only cast loose his wildly struggling nerves. So, in the fewest words, without self-pity, with out lament, he told them his fate, and took farewell. Then, turning to his father, he made his only plea. Long before this letter could reach England the end would have come. But would that dear father pardon him, dead, for having set duty to King and country above filial obedience? Could he hold the child that was gone in forgiveness and even in blessing?”
 * I don't feel up for the search to find the right edition in America.Anne (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have just included the above passage in the AA article, along with a citation for Hazen being a "wayside Samaritan". Anne (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

General Washington's Dilemma by Katherine Mayo
On going through old emails from the co-author of the Lancaster Journal I have come across this, which I hope is self-explanatory. In essence, the many references to Mayo's book in the article are referenced to an edition of the book which does not have an Appendix 2. Appendix 2 in the London edition has the only first hand account of the drawing of lots (Henry Greville, one of the 13 officers, writing to his mother). If something needs to be done about this, I am sure I am not the one to be doing it.


 * "Anne, I am working on the endnotes and have hit a snag. You kindly sent us Greville’s letter from appendix 2 of the Mayo book. Thank goodness you did, because there is no appendix 2 in our copy of the book! (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1938).It is also not included in the version that is available on line. Maybe the British and American editions are different? Would you please send the publication information for your version of the book? Could it be: (London: Jonathan Cape, 1938)?"

Yes, Appendix 2 is included in the Jonathan Cape version.

So, now the Asgill Affair has:
 * A Withheld Letter - Washington
 * A Hidden Letter - Asgill
 * An Absent Letter - Greville

All conspiring, for over 2 centuries, to interfere with the truth.

Page 122 of the HathiTrust edition has only one reference to F-G, when giving a list of the 13 officers.

"R. Fulke-Greville". Mayo was wrong, his name was Henry. Anne (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Mayo also confused Henry's name by introducing "Fulke". The following should enable this man to finally be named correctly:
 * Hi Anne, I am re-reading Elias Dayton’s papers the I found in the Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society and found this letter:
 * CAPT. GREVILLE TO COLONEL DAYTON, Chatham, Jersey.
 * York-Town, Pennsylvania, July the 27th, 1782.
 * SIR: I take the liberty of enclosing a letter for my particular friend, Capt. Asgill, the conveying of it to him will be the addition of one favour to the many I understand he has received from you.I have the honor to be, with respect and esteem, Your most obedient servant,
 * HENRY GREVILLE
 * Lt: & Cap’t. Guards.#
 * That settles it for me, Martha.

Anne (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Still going through old emails, and now I have found this too:
 * Lt. & Capt. Henry Greville, Coldstream Guards (transferred as Lt. Col. To 4th Dragoon Guards in 1790)
 * Born Henry Francis GREVILLE in 1760, at Wilton House, Newton Ton(e)y, Wiltshire, son of Fulke Greville and Frances McCartney.
 * Left the army 1793; became an impresario (dilletante).
 * Died 1816, Port Louis, Mauritius

Anne (talk) 11:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of all doubt I will now quote from the Lancaster Journal of December 2019:
 * Page 103 reads:
 * ''The drummer boy drew a named slip from the hat being held by the commissary of prisoners, who read it out. Then the fate of that man was decided by drawing a slip from the hat held by the aide-de-camp. Everyone put on a brave face as they waited to hear their fate. Greville wrote to his mother:
 * I can assure you my mind was in a very uneasy state for above half an hour while they were calling out the Lots, during which time we sat in a Circle, where there was almost a dead silence observed...'' [Ref. 27, which reads: "27 Mayo, UK edition, 265-266."]
 * So the London edition of Mayo's book is the only source which has an appendix 2, which quotes the only first-hand account of the drawing of lots.
 * So, the Lancaster Journal is the only source giving the correct name of the only man who wrote a first-hand account of the drawing of lots.
 * I hope I have provided sufficient proof now for the necessary changes to be made? This will be needed on the CA article and the AA article.

Anne (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Just in case even more proof is required, page 171 of the Journal states:
 * Henry Greville, letter to his mother, May 29, 1782, reprinted in Katherine Mayo, General Washington’s Dilemma, UK edition, (London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938), Appendix 2, 264.

Anne (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Now, this is worrying me, because while I would be able to give new page numbers for the London edition, to cover quotes, it would not be beneficial to remove links to the HathiTrust online version. But for readers to be unable to source the only first-hand account of the drawing of lots makes no sense whatsoever. Are "Notices" permitted as sections? i.e. == Notice == followed by:- It should be noted that the New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1938 edition of General Washington’s Dilemma'' by Katherine Mayo, does not have an Appendix 2. For anyone wishing to access this appendix, which has a first-hand account of the drawing of lots, it would be necessary to access the London, Jonathan Cape, Thirty Bedford Square, 1938 edition. Here will be found Lieutenant and Captain Henry Greville’s {2nd Foot Guards) letter to his mother, dated 29 May 1782, in which he writes: "I can assure you my mind was in a very uneasy state for above half an hour while they were calling out the Lots, during which time we sat in a Circle, where there was almost a dead silence observed..." Mayo's book was republished in 1970 by Kennikat Press and Annex 2 devotes 5 pages to the entire letter, along with a short letter from Asgill to Greville, which follows on.''

Would this be the simplest solution? If a “Notice” section is permitted (which I can do), then my choice would be to place it under the “Only one hero” section, since that is a review of the book under discussion.

I find it very suspicious that the New York publishers chose to exclude this letter, which in reality, has now become another “Withheld Letter” - until 1970 when Kennikat printed the entire manuscript. I know this because my son has just rung me and sent me photographs from his copy of the Kennikat edition. I must read it, because I've never seen the entire letter before. It is very revealing, from a cursory glance.

Anne (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this would be overkill. The article is about Asgill, not the book, after all. A better approach would be to cite the UK edition when referring to the appendix and the US, online edition when referring to other parts of the book. The footnote for the UK edition could maybe contain a note to the effect that the appendix concerned only exists in this edition, following the bibliographic details. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it isn't as simple as that since the Appendix is not cited at all and the Appendix is the only source of what happened on the day itself. I had not realised that the New York and online editions did not have the appendix, until today. I had always assumed that anyone proposing to write an article or book (like Henriques recently, who definitely consulted Mayo) would very likely not know a thing about what happened on the day itself. After all, it is the London edition which has Greville's letter, and 99.9% of writers are American, so will have no clue how it all panned out on the day. This is actually not overkill at all, and really needs a solution. I may not have found one, but I am sure with your experience you can come up with something. Anne (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In that case, my question would be, if the appendix is so important, why isn't it cited here? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What happened on the day is not covered at all - I never considered that the details were necessary for Wikipedia since anyone taking it seriously would do their own research, via Mayo, and would see it. Lancaster asked me to send them Appendix 2 so they could cover it, because they were taking it seriously (as mentioned in my first post here).  Now that I have only just realised that hardly any writer, since 1938, has ever seen the details, what about I include the Greville letter, as given in the Journal? It could then be a separate subsection on the AA article?  Mayo is out of copyright in the US but not, I think, in the UK. But without Nthep's guidance, I don't know for sure. Lancaster did not quote the entire letter, but I must ascertain just how much of it they gave. I've been too busy to clarify the fine detail of that point. Anne (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My thought processes may have been in slo-mo all day, but I have now reached the point of needing to know whether I can type up Greville's entire letter and make a separate sub-section of it - "What happened on the day" or something more appropriate. Under these newly realised considerations, it has become extremely important.  I've only ever read the London version and didn't know I was supposed to compare it with other editions (although I remember thinking how odd it was that Lancaster needed me to send them Appendix 2). But I need copyright guidance before doing anything else. Please could you give me a link to the right place to ask since Nthep hasn't responded to my earlier request. And I need to know,if I get copyright clearance, whether a sub-section on the AA article would be acceptable since there is an awful lot of typing involved.Anne (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can ask at Copyright problems. In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to post the entire letter on Wikipedia, but it may be appropriate for Wikisource. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  23:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I have asked the copyright question and await a response. Tbh I am finding it very difficult discussing this in so many different places. While I appreciate your advice, why cannot we talk about it here? Firstly, (a) depending on the copyright position, which is not yet known, then (b) will be what I can do with the information since I had no idea the Appendix 2 was only available in the London edition. If I get the go-ahead on the copyright I like the idea of being able to put the entire letter on Wikisource. Presumably the 2 articles could then be linked to it? Anne (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope I am not breaking any rules by bringing the following post here, but I am sinking fast by having this subject talked about on so many pages - I just cannot do it any more.Anne (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

← The references section in that article is something to behold! I could see several citations for different pages of "Mayo (1938) ... New York: Harcourt Brace" but none only one for "London: Jonathan Cape" (currently ref # 43, citing page 223). That one's mismatched, it should have the link to the HathiTrust digitisation of the Harcourt edition removed, or its publisher should be changed from Cape to Harcourt. Which edition does page 223 refer to? Or is the pagination the same up to that point? (Side question: the URLs are deep-linking to the actual pages, why not hyperlink from the page numbers instead of the book title?) Anyway, Anne, if you’re adding a statement sourced to the Cape or Kennikat editions, just cite those without a link, but maybe include  in addition to. You could then add some text after the {cite book} template along the lines of "Note: Annex 2 is present in this edition but not in the Harcourt Brace edition," so that the reader understands there's a particular reason one footnote cites that specific edition in contrast to the citations, and doesn’t waste their time looking in the online book. If you’re not actually using the Annex to support a statement, then perhaps leave a note on the talk page as Roger suggested. (It’s uncommon for Wikipedia articles to have in-depth bibliographies, and that one already has a massive "further reading" section.) Cheers, Pelagic ( messages ) – (21:59 Sun 14, AEDT) 10:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the cite book template allows for the page numbers to be linked, ; it has to be the book's title or a chapter title. See the examples at WP:GBOOKS. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting too much advice, now, from too many different wikihelp pages. I want to leave this whole subject alone until I have copyright advice. Anne (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If people could please go here: to see whether or not what I have done is (a) ready to go onto Wikisource and (b) whether the Appendix 2 can, indeed, go onto Wikisource?  I am pinging  again requesting his invaluable copyright advice with regard to Mayo's Book (1938) and the review of Mayo's book also (1938), published on p.8 of The Observer.  Anne (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As Mayo died in 1940 the entire book (and appendicies) are out of copyright in the UK. US copyright of the book (leaving aside appendix 2 for the moment) depends on whether copyright was renewed. It would have been renewed after 25 years. A quick check and I can find the original copyright registration in 1938 but a not a renewal in 1963.  If that is the case then the book is also out of copyright in the US but a more thorough check of the Catalog of Copyright Entries is needed to confirm this.  Appendix 2 if it was only published in the UK raises a different copyright and if my reading of c:Commons:Hirtle_chart is right then appendix 2 will still be in copyright in the US until 1 Jan 2034 (95 years after first publication).  This is because of the revival of some UK copyrights due to the  The Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performances Regulations 1995 (see Copyright law of the United Kingdom  However are talking about reproducing Mayo's words or the text of letters dating from the 1780s?  I am struggling to find a valid copyright on the original letters even if Mayo's book was the first publication as I think the common law protection expired long before 1938 . Nthep (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nthep. Mayo's Appendix 2 only has two letters in it. Both written in May 1782. Cape, UK, 1938 has Appendix 2, as does Kennikat Press, London & New York, 1970, but Harcourt, Brace, New York, 1938 has no appendix 2. Do you mean that since Earl Spencer (Diana's grandfather I think, or great-grandfather) transcribed these two letters for Mayo in 1938, then they may be OK to use on Wikisource? The only words by Mayo in the appendix are: "LETTER OF CAPTAIN THE HON. R. FULKE GREVILLE, OF THE FIRST FOOT GUARDS, TO HIS MOTHER TRANSCRIBED, BY COURTESY OF THE EARL SPENCER, FROM THE ARCHIVES OF ALTHORP, NORTHAMPTON" and also "Copy of Captn Asgylle's letter to Captn the Hon. R. Fulke Greville of the First Foot Guards, enclosed in Captain Greville's letter of May 29th". What is the situation for the review of the book, in The Observer, 1938? Is that out of copyright now? Many thanks. Anne (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nthep has very kindly looked into the copyright situation and has said here: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problemsthat he can see no reason for Appendix 2 not to be uploaded to Wikisource. It is ready here: User:Arbil44/New_sandbox4. Please would someone upload it to Wikisource for me since I have no clue how to do this? Then it needs to be linked to the CA and AA pages please. Thank you in advance.Anne (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Henry Francis Greville
Hi, Anne, the Henry Greville (1760–1816, officer and impresario) you dug up from your email appears to be the same as = Henry Francis Greville. Do you have the source that says he was in the Coldstream Guards before transferring to the Irish Dragoon Guards? (The same Lancaster Journal article maybe?) If so, Henry's article could be updated. Pelagic ( messages ) – (13:44 Tue 06, AEDT) 02:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello I'm intrigued, I couldn't find an article for Henry and your link took me to a weird page!  This Robert Fulke Greville is definitely not him (he wasn't in Lancaster to draw lots in 1782, although initially I did think this was him)! But, yes, the Lancaster Journal, page 100, states:

The Thirteen Officers and Their Regiments Officers being held near York From the 1st Regiment of Foot [unfortunately this is wrong, it should have read 1st Foot Guards] Lt. & Captain Charles Asgill Lt. & Captain Hon. George Ludlow Lt. & Captain James Perrin From the Coldstream Guards Lt. & Captain George Eld Lt. & Captain Henry Greville From the 23rd Regiment of Foot (Royal Welsh Fusiliers) Captain Thomas Saumarez From the 76th Regiment of Foot Captain David Barclay Captain Samuel Graham Officers being held in Lancaster From the 17th Regiment of Foot Captain Lawford Miles From the 26th Regiment of Foot Captain Bulstrode Whitlocke From the 33rd Regiment of Foot Captain James Ingram From the 80th Regiment of Foot Captain Alexander Arbuthnot Captain William Hawthorn (also known as John Hathorn)
 * Sorry, clicked on the wrong link - yes, this Henry Francis Greville is him! His most important letter, of 29 May 1782, is in my User:Arbil44/New sandbox4 if you want to take a look at it. This letter is now accessible as a pdf. document but I don't know how to give you a link to a pdf. I'm afraid. Anne (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone reading along, the Mayo appendix with Greville's letter is now on Wikisource thanks to the efforts of Arbil44, Languageseeker, and Inductiveload a, b. (I did the second round of proofreading to bring the pages' status from yellow to green.) @Anne: Regarding "The Thirteen Officers and Their Regiments", is that a separate article in the Lancaster journal (if so, who is the author?), or is it a chapter or section within "Saving Captain Asgill"? Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:14 Mon 19, AEDT) 21:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, - to answer your question, the "The Thirteen Officers and Their Regiments" is within Chapter III, “Unfortunate”, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, May 26–28, 1782 by Martha Abel.  However, Martha was not the person who worked tirelessly on establishing the correct names and regiments. That person would not allow me to mention their name here.  Depending on your purpose for knowing this information, perhaps you might want to email me and I can seek their permission? Martha worked tirelessly (we all did) but just not on the British officers! Anne (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)